Playstation 3

[MikiRei]

I'm gonna wait and get it 6 months later - when the price have been slashed by half

[Guest DOVAHKIIN]

I'll get it when there's a wider game selection.

[Guest 1SwtDeception]

But is the Nintendo Revolution gonna be goin for the worldwide launch!IMHO I don't think so...

What's so special about worldwide? Wouldn't you rather have it focus on one place than another for one moment? I know if they focus it on Japan first than the US yea it would be harsh. But if they focused on the US and make enough (as if it's possible) for all the people.. wouldn't that be better than a shortage everywhere? Think of the people who buy more crap than they're suppose to and sell it off for a rip off price rather than people who would buy it for the system to play. But then that's my opinion.

For those who don't like to read:

Would you rather have 1 million PS3 put out WORLDWIDE or would you rather have 1 million distrubuted to the US ONLY? (then of course the rest of the world gets it later on a week after or so).

Btw if Sony priced slashed it after 6 months I'll drink the "delicious" potion bottle from FFXI?. I don't think systems do price slashes THAT early knowing that the hype and love of it will be much longer. It's more like 1 year before the next next generation comes out.

[Guest instantnoodlez]

considering all games will be on blu-ray discs. Did sony mention what the average price for games are going to be? (just wondering if its going to be like 100$ a game, though probably not lol)

hmmm..i wouldn't be surprised. next gen games are like 60 bucks for the 360 and like IMAJynXed1 said, that's on regular disk. blu-ray disks are probably going to be more expensive.

ps3, proce slash after 6 months? dude, sony's not going to drop prices for the ps2 for 4-5 more years, even after the release of the ps3.

[Guest DOVAHKIIN]

Yeah it already took like 5-6 years just for the PSone to go from $139.99 CDN to $99.99 when it was still made

[KAME]

hmmm..i wouldn't be surprised. next gen games are like 60 bucks for the 360 and like IMAJynXed1 said, that's on regular disk. blu-ray disks are probably going to be more expensive.

ps3, proce slash after 6 months? dude, sony's not going to drop prices for the ps2 for 4-5 more years, even after the release of the ps3.

actually, sony is planning to drop the PS2 price to 99$ USD soon in competition for the Revolution along with some new controller add-on to try and beat(but most likely will not) the Revolution controller.

are they really planning to only release 1million ps3's on the first week of launch? @@" that's so little.. - -;

[Genuine]

Yay!! In Alberta we get a $400 surplus from the provincial gov't, now i can put that towards the ps3

[Guest kdclk313]

i'm gonna wait a few months before buying one

my friend got the really sucky ps2s when they first came out and it broke after a few years

[Guest Kenshiro]

I'm not sure if some of y'all know this already, but I'll just post this anyways:

PS3 will have hard drive as standard

Submitted By: Lost Alley

3 Hours ago | Playstation 3

A Sony representative has confirmed this morning that PlayStation 3 will come with a 60GB HDD as standard, but that can be upgraded if preferred. Some of the larger US websites have been speculating that PlayStation 3 would be shipping with an optional 60GB hard disc drive. However it was confirmed this morning that all PS3 consoles will be sold with the HDD out of the box. Sony's president of Computer Entertainment, Ken Kutaragi, announced on Wednesday that all PS3 games are being developed to take advantage of the 60GB HDD.

http://www.ps3today.com

[Guest 1SwtDeception]

actually, sony is planning to drop the PS2 price to 99$ USD soon in competition for the Revolution along with some new controller add-on to try and beat(but most likely will not) the Revolution controller.

are they really planning to only release 1million ps3's on the first week of launch? @@" that's so little.. - -;

Well someplace in IGN: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/696/696062p1.html

The price drop is still going to stay strong. So there won't be a price drop for a while. But I can't reread it at the current moment.

I don't think that's the right number... 1 million. I know Sony PLANS to sell like 6 mil after 6 month. Basically 1 mil a month.

Btw I think any information should be in the PS3 discussion but whatever works.

[Guest 1SwtDeception]

Here's the problem w/the GC, as good as their 1st party games were and having exclusives for a good few years until an eventual port, they didn't have enough third party support. Not to mention having a controller that hurt certain ports / genres and the media storage. Sure, they had great games, too bad it wasn't enough.

I'm glad that Nin is still in the game, they offer a variety of games + creativity you don't always get from MS and Sony.

Pretty sure 360 is on standard dvds, no BR formats. And about the dvd player I mentioned earlier; when the ps2 first came out, ppl adopted the dvd format, but there were those that appreciated the fact that they can get a game system + dvd player. A machine that'll do both jobs instead of buying 2 sep pieces of hardware. Then again, that costs them too, w/burnt out lasers haha.

yeah, the pc hardware is a tossup, but you don't necessarily have to get top of the line parts to run a great game. As long as it runs smoothly and glitches get fixed, it's proper. It's like playing Ghost Recon on 360, as good as that game looks, if it had framerate issues, it's gg (King Kong 360 comes to mind) You can't go around tweaking settings and wtvr else to handle the problems. Atleast to me, the options involved w/a pc port will usually outweigh "ease of use" console versions.

haha it's true GC didn't HAVE enough. It was only a few title that stuck out. Also the repetition of Mario games.. which is a bit much. If they had MORE exclusives that would be nice. I know people will actually get a console just for a game (then of course "bonuses of other games").

Nintendo do offer a lot. But what do people care on? Graphics, maturity, blood? I mean that's their choice. As long as they are open minded about OTHER games. If they are not, then it's their loss.

Okay my hardware is a bit rustic on 360 then. Wow if people appreciate getting a game system + dvd .. Revolution can suit that as well. I agree it would be better to get something combined than something separate (possibility of saving money and what not). But you get so many add ons, it will malfunction. haha I swear we're going to get some kind of gaming chair with back massager, toast maker, tanning bed chair. (we probably have that already). I heard about the malfunctions of PS2 haha that sucked, luckily mine wasn't one of them.

PC is just basically what a console is trying to be except "specializing in games". If the technology is about what is the best hardware.. personally any one can do that.. it's just the consumer. I know the GC graphic wasn't THAT bad. It's seriously enough to play. If people are so bent on graphics, play some Atari or NES. I'm sure everyone played it. And the blood wasn't err as graphic as it now, but we still enjoyed it.

I don't think the majority of people are going to buy the PS3 so they can play with Linux.

I don't understand how it's going to take away the main purpose of it which is to play games. Obviously with the technology now, the PS3 is a powerhouse media station. I don't see a problem with it at all because it benefits more than just gamers. Other family members who don't play games can use it to watch movies, play music, etc... which makes it more marketable.

I don't see how there would be any downsides to upgrading/patches... No one wants to buy a brand new console for a firmware upgrade. I think this is a sign for MMO games on the PS3.

And this is what I wonder.. what do people want the PS3 for? Games? Technology? Because it's Sony? What is it? I know we all have "valid reasoning" on what we want and don't want. And we give more credit to those who have reason. If it's games.. did people hear on Revolution's 3rd party support? Is there no HOORAH! because it doesn't have Halo or the FF series (aside from FF:CC). If people want it for technological reasoning then it's not to play with Linux, it's just a piece of inexpensive Blu Ray player with now a 60 gig HD.

The main purpose is to game. Here if people want the PS3 for games, other system have games too. And I emphasize this so many times because people are too ignorant to understand what Nintendo is giving. I know what PS3 is giving and 360 is giving. Do other people know? It's basically just our assumption of previous consoles. Yes technology is enhancing our consoles. But HOW are they enhancing? Just graphical-wise? Yea graphics is apart of game play in a way. Then it's just a battle of "which hardware is the best". Nintendo could have had HD support and all but they took, in what I say, a more innovated approach without the cost to playing games.

Marketable is right. But yea the purpose I want in a console is to play games. Yes it does reach to a wider audience, but the idea isn't to game. It's to use it as a BR player or whatever you want to use it. The idea is game, but yes it does have other purposes like the Rev. Well with the Rev all it has is DVD use, which I'm sure most of the household has nowadays. And I don't think they would think of it as "extra dvd player! even though I have a 5 disc changer or have a dvd player in each room already, but who cares I want the dvd player". Nintendo markets towards other people by this idea of "remote.. we all used a remote so anyone could use it" blah blah.

MMO.. basically will be the future. IMO because online is going more and more up. Yea there won't be any downgrades for PS3. For some reason most definitely the next next generation should be having lots more MMO idea. But that's my own thought. They probably could do it earlier or later, who knows. Yea for our technology today, upgrading and patches etc is possible. Wifi is coming on strong (has been strong). Most houses (I'm not sure) do have wifi. But what I think about people.. either they're way behind or way ahead (of course there are people inbetween). But basically what we're doing with upgrades and what not is just like a computer.

"No one wants to buy a brand new console for a firmware upgrade" -- if an upgrade is good enough.. people will. People buy redesigns and if it's an upgrade people will go for it.

[Guest res0nate]

This really needs to merge w/the other thread. No point having 2 of them

[Guest drance]

iono, this could possibly be the first step sony takes to put playstations "up on the shelves" like more luxrious than the console microsoft and nintendo puts out . . . it could be possible that playstation is gonna be one of those items thats like er .... iono .... whatever electronics that not everyone have at home but wants

[Guest aaandy]

Marketable is right. But yea the purpose I want in a console is to play games.

The PS3 will play games and play them well.

Sure a Honda Civic will get you to point A to point B, but so will a Porsche. The main difference? Luxury. They still serve one purpose.

Nintendo could have had HD support and all but they took, in what I say, a more innovated approach without the cost to playing games.

Explain how it's more innovative.

But HOW are they enhancing?

You do realize that the PS3 is a platform. The rest is up to developers and with the better technology, they can do more. That is the whole point of making a new console. Look at the evolution of consoles. Developers will jump all over the newer technology.

if an upgrade is good enough.. people will. People buy redesigns and if it's an upgrade people will go for it.

Sure people "will" but they won't be too happy about it. Look at the iPod.

[Guest 1SwtDeception]

Sadly I don't know how to do quotes. So I'll do the same ol' copy and paste ;]

"Marketable is right. But yea the purpose I want in a console is to play games."

The PS3 will play games and play them well.

Sure a Honda Civic will get you to point A to point B, but so will a Porsche. The main difference? Luxury. They still serve one purpose.

haha they serve more than one purpose. Heck the PS3 apparently "ISN'T A GAMING MACHINE" for freakin christ they have LINUX ON IT! haha which I think is absolutely their choice. They do get you the "gaming" purpose they you want. Yea it is luxary. But they don't serve one purpose (think TV in cars and sound systems). They still serve more than one. Sure a Porsche and Civic are both cars, they both drive you here and there. And luxary is the main difference. But you get the best out of what you have .. it's not always what's more that you could have. If you could pay like 5k for a Civic compared to like 13k for a Porsche (sorry I'm not a car person so I'm making up numbers) and just because let's say the Porsche has DVD player and sunroof and leather interior compared to just a sound system and nice interior. Would you rather get something that just runs or do you need those extra stuff for it? Sheesh for the Rev it's most definitely going to be under the PS3 and 360.. Why waste that much. People will go into a frenzy when it will first come out (the PS3) and that will be annoying. But yea luxary.. you'll look at the goodness of it.. not like "oh it can drive" when you think of a Honda that drives. It's like the luxary cars are for show and regular cars are to go. Why bother getting something more expensive if they both can do the same things in different ways. Also my knowledge of cars isn't that "great", but still on the PS3 and Rev level.. the ps3 looks nice and all but it's not worth that luxary when you can get the real thing (like the real BR player).

"But HOW are they enhancing?"

You do realize that the PS3 is a platform. The rest is up to developers and with the better technology, they can do more. That is the whole point of making a new console. Look at the evolution of consoles. Developers will jump all over the newer technology

It is a platform.... of a sort. They do have new technology, but there is a limit to how far technology can get at some point. I don't know if you'd want to consider EGM a reliable source (personally their reviews are just blah), but with what we get in TV technology and we have in the systems/games apparently the TV won't be able to handle the frames per second.

Developers do jump over technology. Not always the newer one cause of course they will be updated in some way. But here some of them take an interest on innovation as well. Most 3rd party support are "interested" in what Nintendo is putting out in the gameplay aspect of it. My point of this is.. developers WON'T always jump on the BEST, they will, but they will take in consideration of "ohhh what's this new thing... a remote with sensor that can could fish and hack and slash like in the new Zelda game. It's something better than sitting on your butts.".

You can use technology all that you can, but there's a limit. I mean is it REALLY necessary for the PS3 to have Blu Ray formatting? Is it really necessary for them to come with their cell processer? Is it really necessary for the system to be the most powerful? Apparently to Sony it is. Of course it's true. Look what each system offers and Sony just wants to outdo that. Do we really need it all? Personally if the PS3 without the fancy stuff, but SUFFICIENT so it can play pretty damn good, then yea I'll pay $300 for it or something.

So yes I do realize PS3 is a "kind of" platform. And is a platform suppose to be all about graphics? They should have other features FOR THE GAMES! other than this and that for "non gamers". They do have the technology to make it better in terms of just making it pretty or running smoothly (weeeee good ol' ps1 times), but they should use to do something else. That something else is up to them.

Just because Sony is a great power in the electronic world and capturing most of the gaming world as well through its machinary, but I just hope people realize there's more to having the BR player or Linux or having the best hardware and that it isn't what gaming is alllllllllll about. Yea you can bring in the idea of what all the system are offering (all DVD playable, backwards compatibility etc) but I just hope they have fun just to play the games --- and it's not about the graphics.. and if they played this else where, where it isn't some kind of HD graphic.. that they could still enjoy it you know? Having graphics is great, but it's annoying if that's all it's crack up to be. Also the rabid fanboy/girls... if they open their minds to what else is out there.. that'd be lovely.

"Nintendo could have had HD support and all but they took, in what I say, a more innovated approach without the cost to playing games. "

Explain how it's more innovative.

Ever read the Revolution thread? Ever heard of it's literal remote control? Ever heard of sensors? Basically what Nintendo is doing is changing the controller to a more interactive one. CONTROLLER.. not eyetoy. Not something you use your body to do. It's more using your wrist to move it. What does PS3 have? A boomerang controller? A fishing controller? (I saw their other controller whether real or not, but hey nice job on originality). It's a controller, it is differently shaped, but can it point move slash bash with the sensors that they have. It's innovated in the idea that it brings you more interaction than just simply sitting down and holding a controller. You CAN do that with a normal controller, but why not take it a step by taking THOSE movements and putting it in the game.

"if an upgrade is good enough.. people will. People buy redesigns and if it's an upgrade people will go for it."

Sure people "will" but they won't be too happy about it. Look at the iPod.

Did they buy it? Yes they did. They go for it? Damn straight. People won't be happy. Life isn't fair. So what's new? Look at the DS and its redesign. Freakin $142 for a REDESIGNED item. REDESIGN. People bought it. Are people happy? Who knows. We could think that they're not, but it's their choice of what they spend their money on. I am not a fan of the iPod whatsoever so I won't relate any further on iPods since this is about the PS3 + games. Even though iPods have games.. and Apple might be coming out with a gaming portable.

[Guest res0nate]

Too lazy to make a really big post, I'll just throw in random opinions.

A bigger format is ALWAYS good. That's up to each and every developer to decide whether or not to use all / most of it or feel compelled to do what they can on a cd.

Lets say Square decided to stay w/Nin back in the day and put FF7 on the n64 cartridge/hardware; the audio, visuals and sheer amount of "depth" involved, they wouldn't have been able to cram 4 cds worth of data into one cart, let alone 2. It's a creative roadblock in terms of what you CAN do and what you WANT to do. (do not mistake this for a graphic richard simmons view or ff7 fanboy, the game wasn't that great)

It's like watching LotR in 1080, dvd and vhs all at once. Granted it's the same movie, but the format changes everything.

I would never buy a standalone BR player if I had the option between that and a ps3. Sure, extra money is involved but you look at whats being offered in that. An extra 200-300 difference between a "full" media player and a basic br player, the choice is easy. If I was a person who has no interest in games then obviously, the ps3 is not for me.

Developers will take advantage of the BR capacity discs and the innovation involved w/in the Rev. My only worry is that gimmicky type of trash will end up on the Rev. bc of their "wand" controller.

[Guest xiLLeNtz]

I'm gonna wait and get it 6 months later - when the price have been slashed by half

you're kidding, right? you'll probablly be able to get it 6months later but probablly not for half the price.

[KAME]

Well someplace in IGN: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/696/696062p1.html

The price drop is still going to stay strong. So there won't be a price drop for a while. But I can't reread it at the current moment.

oo. u are right.

I misread http://www.games-digest.com/console_hardware/ that it was a rumor =p (its like halfway down the page, no point in looking since its not true lol)

[Guest aaandy]

Did they buy it? Yes they did. They go for it? Damn straight. People won't be happy. Life isn't fair.

Which is why the PS3 has an advantage. While it can upgrade for free (software), others can't. The relation was that iPod made money off of constant re-releases (upgrades) and the people that got them first got screwed.

Why bother getting something more expensive if they both can do the same things in different ways.

It's the same reason you don't shop at Goodwill for clothes. Quality changes with cost.

Heck the PS3 apparently "ISN'T A GAMING MACHINE" for freakin christ they have LINUX ON IT!

You do realize that all systems have a OS on them? With the PS3 you can access one. Actually two, Linux or Apple's Tiger OS.

So yes I do realize PS3 is a "kind of" platform. And is a platform suppose to be all about graphics? They should have other features FOR THE GAMES!

When we play games we see, hear, and touch. That's it. Visual and Audio. So yes, it's necessary to have the best of both quality wise. As for features, they are introducing the "HUB" which is similar to XBOX Live, for online play, etc... Also, the Blu-Ray format which contrary to popular belief is not only for movies. Space issues are resolved for now.

[Guest 1SwtDeception]

"Did they buy it? Yes they did. They go for it? Damn straight. People won't be happy. Life isn't fair."

Which is why the PS3 has an advantage. While it can upgrade for free (software), others can't. The relation was that iPod made money off of constant re-releases (upgrades) and the people that got them first got screwed.

See PS3 takes too much on a technological standpoint. Hey it's great! Hey it does broaden our games and developements... if it was more so towards games =]. Yea we have BR that enchances better the visual and the processor allows faster runs for the system. It's great, but my deal on PS3 is that, is that all it should be able more so on playing the games. YES with development it's great, it enhances.. but does it need to enhance so much that it should cost extra for us? It's always graphics with Sony.

I think it's lovely, but in comparison to Nintendo for me, Nintendo was able to present an innovatived way to play WITHOUT the extra stuff. Which hey yea they can be bonuses for us. But bonuses are just bonuses, it should be whatever the real purpose is that what we're looking at. Yea people do have different preferences. That's why the discussion on PS3 is on its technology (yea it's Sony.. they're a huge electronic company basically). But what irks me if you don't understand what other systems offer you (this is for all you fanboys/girls).

The first people who got the iPods would have to know yea they will be making upgrades. Personally whatever the iPod has.. people don't look at other mp3 players. People don't care about "thorough" details, they want this this this because it's the first thing they see that is eye catching.

"Heck the PS3 apparently "ISN'T A GAMING MACHINE" for freakin christ they have LINUX ON IT!"

You do realize that all systems have a OS on them? With the PS3 you can access one.

Yea they do have the parts of computer so it basically it a computer. But what the PS3 is taking it up to is a computer that what.. we AIM on, we MYSPACE on, we XANGA, we SOOMPI etc. You might as well get a computer overall.

Gaming systems are made for games right? They have a computer in them.. basically anything electronic does. They specialize in that one thing. I want that computer inside to specialize into the games that Sony will get. Yea they will get that.. with "obviously" the best technology they got. It's great they're doing so, in forth that our experience is better. I love that... Thanks Sony for the consideration~

but hey while you're at it, make us a grill, and cup holders, and the marble kitchen sink. You can access PS3.. we can access our own computers.. I'm sure other people can already access Sony's, Nintendo's, M$'s computering.. but I don't know. I consider the programming to be a bit harsh, although "worth it" if you want that visual effect. But I rather have them develop something along the lines of a new way to play. Rather than wasting time for beautiful artwork. I like myself a pretty picture, but I won't be to the point of superficial -- all looks no play.

I think it's great they're making a nice hard drive and making it APART of the sytem instead of optional. But wow I really want to see how much this thing is going to cost. I know the hard drive won't be like "omg it's an extra $40 for 60 gigs", but just the production of it.. is oh so interesting. I'm sure they could make up the profits easily with game remakes so it has better graphics .

"Why bother getting something more expensive if they both can do the same things in different ways."

It's the same reason you don't shop at Goodwill for clothes. Quality changes with cost.

We're talking Goodwill level? Sorry I'm not thinking that low of quality. I'm talking average necessity. It's like you don't really need to buy Lacoste polo when you could get a polo from Express Men. Yea the Lacoste is excellent quality, but do you really need it? (and geez for that price ...)

My point was that.. they don't always need an upgrade high enough if you can make something that does what it can do for a lesser price (yes yet at the cost of the grand features). This is meaning.. Nintendo (yes again) has capabilites of playing games and reading DVDs. Sony yes.. they can do Blu Ray, 60 gig HD, and their graphics are sure nice to the point it's just plain "woah", but I'm saying it's not what it's all about. Yes it will enhance the games to a high point.. but is it needed TO that high point.. why not to just a sufficent amount? that won't cost us that much money. I know we're using our technology to a huge extent, but wouldn't it be better to have consoles finished faster and without the cost? Yea "it will be worth the wait and cost" and we have our patience sides and our limiting ones.. but just for graphics? I'm tempted to say "superficial", but I think it'll stick with a more appropiate term of "graphic driven".

"So yes I do realize PS3 is a "kind of" platform. And is a platform suppose to be all about graphics? They should have other features FOR THE GAMES!"

When we play games we see, hear, and touch. That's it. Visual and Audio. So yes, it's necessary to have the best of both quality wise. As for features, they are introducing the "HUB" which is similar to XBOX Live, for online play, etc... Also, the Blu-Ray format which contrary to popular belief is not only for movies. Space issues are resolved for now.

We see, hear, and touch. We can add more can't we (not senses). You can add more movements too right? Does it ALWAYS have to be visual and audio? It is the main features, but how about more action? It doesn't necessarily have to be body action, but it would be just a better point and shoot from a sensor rather than tilting your controller acting like you're moving it like that.. .

Yea I heard about the hub on the PS3. I think they already had that kind of internet connection in the PSTwo (built in). Yea they're going to have what is "similar" to Xbox live. Which I think is such an "original move" by them.. but originality is hard to think of. Nintendo is capable to do that as well.. with their backlog of old Nintendo games (as mention in my Revolution thread). I don't know how they will work that out, but they will (I'm talking about their prices on it).

Blu Ray does save space and Sony is utilitizing it brillantly. Although the new technology is just in. Still I think the next next gen would be having all HD/Blu Ray.... POSSIBLY unless games are then turn into downloadables with a fee online (which could happen, not really a choice of my favor). To me it is just an expensive disc with pretty good use to it. Yes it's capacity (depending on layers) up to 50 gigs. It's sweet you can say. But I rather have them save the BR for later. But why do they need BR? HD. Simple as put. HD deals with graphics and all of this to make it "pretty". Nintendo can do that as well.. they can be just as crazy about hardwares as PS3, but they're not. I think they think more on the production of cost and the consumer cost. The M$ is about $500 to make and considering how much they sell for ($400?) they lose money (http://revolution.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=6438). Nintendo's part is making an appeal to the people with a low cost, without all "lowly" features" but rather different features (appealing to the "gamer in them" -- past games, non-gamers, controller use, price).

I swear I'm forgetting somethings, but digest all you want in my mistakes then. To me is that.. if you have good reasoning in wanting a system and you understand all three systems.. I'll respect those choices more than just "OMG I LUV U FF7!". PS3 is going on what more people would want.. the kind of "convinences" of an all in one. But I'm the type if they focus on one thing, that's better than just a lot. The old quality over quanity. For PS3 although the quantities is in the equipment they have.. it's just isn't suppose be that great or high. It doesn't need to have all the best features. Although I know it will be a "thing of the future" annoying as it may be and Sony is introducing it with a bang ( a bang for our money).

The standards for video games shouldn't be at the highest peak of technology.. just a sufficient amount. If you're able to produce something inexpensive.. without fancy hardware that will give something enjoyable (please just because it doesn't have maturity or blood shouldn't be what gaming is ALL about) then I say you're good. If you have the technology, go for it then.. it's just not needed to me. I think mass of people.. will yes.. quickly be preordering their systems and have HD and all that. But how about people who barely got into the component of S-Video or big screens without the HD or just people with regular flat screen TVs..

I don't know how much of the majority of the world is like that, but I like how Nintendo can appeal to a lot of the masses of the lower wage people, who are technology illiterates(I don't know if that's the right word..), and who never played games and those who do have nice Tvs and keep updates on what's the best.. but held what is common.. a TV remote. PS3 appeals more to those who have tha money and the accessories for it. I think it's fine by them-- not needed of course. The only reason I think Sony will introduce BR on it.. is to introduce BR in general. My part on Sony is... what people know about it and what they know about other systems and what they value. It is a choice to what people like -- gameplay, graphics, replay value etc, but I wish people gave more valid reasoning aside from an assumption of one company. I mean the company might be exclusive to one system than another.

Anyways.. PS3 technology .. the gameplay better be as worth as the graphics superiority is suppose to be, as of Nintendo's gameplay should be worth as much as it talks to be. I know Nintendo tend to present what they tell without any kind of overhyped stuff, just whatever they're going to do. I thought the DS .. touch screen was some weird thing, but it turns out to be pretty fun (with the right games). So it shows just because it doesn't have UMD functions or web browsing, it's suppose fun to game on ^^.