PS3 sold 119 000 units in September. That's REALLY bad.

It will probably pick up a quite a bit for Christmas, but not so much as to have a huge impact on the installed base. At this rate, everyone who owns a PS3 would have to buy those games for them to compete with Halo 3. That just isn't going to happen. Not everyone who owns a PS3 will buy GT5, for example. In fact, many people are just using their PS3s as cheap Blu-ray players, whereas all 360 owners are using their consoles for gaming. So that hurts the numbers even more.

The PS3 had better sell well this Christmas or we might just have another dead console on our hands.

I think it was the premise of the game was so cool to people. An mmo based in the Conan universe with real time battling. I guess its just another case of the product not living up to the hype of the premise.sa10kun

This is a different Conan game -- you're confusing it with Conan: Age of Hyboria. The MMO Conan won't be out for a while yet. This Conan is just your basic action hack n slash game.

[QUOTE="zidura"][QUOTE="TheCrazed420"][QUOTE="SoFreeSoNew12"][QUOTE="dracolich666"]

Gears doesnt need a HDD cept for online. TCHBO. 2048x2048 normal maps are low res? :lol:

O yeah bioshock looks the best out of any game and it can be played on the core. TCHBO x2

TheCrazed420

It's sad that you own a PC yet you support the 360, when they both have basically the same game, and the PC version being superior all the time. That's close minded fanboys for you.

Smart hermits know better than to support the stripped down PC known as the 360.

Wow. Im a closeminded fanboy because I own a 360 and a PC now?

Sorry if I want to play Chromehounds, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Dead Rising, Lost Odyssey, Too Human, Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata. Jeez, what was I thinking???

I have both a PC and a 360 and I play my 360 far more often for the simple reason that there are way more games in a much wider variety available. How many good games are released for the PC on a yearly basis? Maybe 10 or so, and at least 5 of them are RTS, which just isn't my favorite type of game. Plus, I never have to upgrade my 360 in order to get games to run well on it. I love sports, action, shooter, and other kinds of games that come to consoles first and often never come to the PC at all.

I suppose if you love RTS and FPS games and that's it, then the PC might be the way to go, and that's if you want to spend as much on your video card as I did on my 360. Otherwise, the 360 is the perfect (and much cheaper) solution.

Hmm, I disagree with you too. The PC has the most games I want on a consistent basis every year.

Good for you -- but you're missing the point. For the types of games I like, the 360 has more and a greater variety. If you like RTS games and other PC-centric games, then you're right, PC is a better choice. So there's nothing to disagree with here. You like PC games, I prefer 360 games. Of course you should get a PC and I should get a 360 then (although I have both, I just use my PC for web stuff now basically).

[QUOTE="SoFreeSoNew12"][QUOTE="dracolich666"]

Gears doesnt need a HDD cept for online. TCHBO. 2048x2048 normal maps are low res? :lol:

O yeah bioshock looks the best out of any game and it can be played on the core. TCHBO x2

TheCrazed420

It's sad that you own a PC yet you support the 360, when they both have basically the same game, and the PC version being superior all the time. That's close minded fanboys for you.

Smart hermits know better than to support the stripped down PC known as the 360.

Wow. Im a closeminded fanboy because I own a 360 and a PC now?

Sorry if I want to play Chromehounds, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Dead Rising, Lost Odyssey, Too Human, Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata. Jeez, what was I thinking???

I have both a PC and a 360 and I play my 360 far more often for the simple reason that there are way more games in a much wider variety available. How many good games are released for the PC on a yearly basis? Maybe 10 or so, and at least 5 of them are RTS, which just isn't my favorite type of game. Plus, I never have to upgrade my 360 in order to get games to run well on it. I love sports, action, shooter, and other kinds of games that come to consoles first and often never come to the PC at all.

I suppose if you love RTS and FPS games and that's it, then the PC might be the way to go, and that's if you want to spend as much on your video card as I did on my 360. Otherwise, the 360 is the perfect (and much cheaper) solution.

You're taking this out of context. The point of the article is that Microsoft is approving that MMO's CAN REQUIRE THE HARD DRIVE to be played. The article goes on to say that without a hard drive, MMO's would not work well on the 360. That is why Microsoft is allowing MMO producers to require users to own the hard drive in order to play. Here are the paragraphs prior to the statement you quoted:

"In an unsurprising move (and already a precedent set by Final Fantasy XI, but ignored since), Microsoft confirmed at its Gamefest 2007 that studios working on server-based titles for Xbox 360 are allowed to require the hard drive for their games to run. Games allowed to participate in server-based's "bent rules" is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Microsoft will be asking developers to come up with a set amount of hard drive space to set aside for each game. For example, if World of Warcraft came to Xbox 360, Blizzard would have to tell Microsoft "the game's going to need 4GB of space," even if the game won't necessary install 4GB of content at the start.

"We can't guess how much space you're going to need for your updates, and, if anything's going to keep you from expanding indefinitely, it won't be us, as much as market forces," said Ian Lewis, software design engineer at Microsoft. "Feel free to require 30GB for your game; that's just going to make your potential audience a lot smaller.""

As more and more users buy 360's with hard drives this really won't be much of an issue (it looks more and more like Cores are being phased out of the market). In fact, I think ina year or two there will be a bunch of games that require a hard drive and this will just propel sales of hard drive bundles. Imagine if World of Warcraft, for example, came to the 360 and was bundled with a 120 GIG hard drive as an option (of course the game could be sold separately as well). A lot of non-hard drive owners would gladly pay for such a peripheral.

[QUOTE="myke2010"][QUOTE="jliebel"]

[QUOTE="en_V"]i would love to know. teh smooth'ness?jliebel

It doesn't make to much of a difference as the average person can only seen 21 - 24 FPS, anything more then that isn't noticable and things less are noticable.

Actually no I am not, reason? 1.) Personally anything above 24 FPS I can't tell the difference. 2.) Most people I know besides a few(They aren't in the average) Can.

Also did you know that alot of films you see in the theature is done at 24 FPS ;)

Film is quite a different medium and for some pretty complicated reasons does not necessitate more than 24 FPS while games do. It has to do with the way images are rendered differently between film and graphics. But there are other reasons too. First of all: control. When you are controlling the movement of an object and it is only responding 24 or 30 times per second, it feels much less smooth and responsive than if it is checked 60 times per second. This is why it feels much better at 60 FPS than 30 FPS. Secondly, animation. The animation feels stuttered and jumpy with less frames per second. It is a clear and perceptible difference both visually and in the way it feels.