sony sucks. nintendo owns.
why does sony suck and nintendo owns mom?
ask your father.
*asks same question to father*
Well son.. Nintendo was the reason to the rebirth of games. Sony is a idea stealer.
*alright done with that*
my reason is that sony sucks is because they made a very good company have a bad name. Sure the sony playstation has good games such as final fantasy VII BUT nintendo originally hosted the console that the final fantasy series was on.
you know, Sony and Nintendo were originally partners. Nintendo probably wouldn't be having any competition from Sony if they hadn't:
1) planned to give Sony a minimul cut of the profits from the SNES-CD
2) secretly teamed up with Phillips instead, producing the disaterous CDI-Phillips
So really, Nintendo's to blame for this one. If only they hadn't been so greedy back in the late 80s-early 90s.
ah i was wrong sony didnt just copy off of nintendo. THEY COPIED OFF OF MICROSOFT TOO! were will this end...
You know, history has shown the Japanese to be a very culturally adaptive people. For millenia they've displayed the remarkable ability to take in good ideas from other cultures and blend them with their own, still remaining culturally unique. This includes ideas such as Confucian idealogies, and more recently the Western system of 3-tiered education. I believe that with the PS3 Sony is almost symbolizing the Japanese people by borrowing good ideas from other consoles and blending them with their own existing technology, thus creating a controller that has the best of all 3 worlds, while still being identifiably theirs. If you have a problem with this, then I guess you have a problem with Japanese cultural trends. And lest we not forget, Nintendo's famicom wasn't the first home console, and therefore they weren't ALWAYS innovative. They, like Sony, emerged amongst fierce competitors with a not-so-different console that came out on top. Sony's just following in Nintendo's footsteps, most recently rising to the top of the console ladder with the PS2.
The only difference between the $500 PS3 and the $600 PS3 is the hardware size; both will have removable media storage as well as Wifi support. Only people who intend to download a severely large amount of content need purchase the $600 PS3. And not to mention, the price of PS3 games is yet to be confirmed as far as I know, so your assumption of "$670 for Metal Gear Solid 4" is completely unfounded. Stop trying to bash Sony and just don't buy it if you don't want to. Can't you guys just learn to like one system and yet NOT hate the other?
If you buy the $500 PS3 you don't get HDMI or SDcard support for your system. You'll also lose out on the 802.11 b/g functionality. So, with no HDMI-out (why bother buying blu-ray movies if you can't display them in HD?), no SDCard support, and no wifi, your $500 system will be missing some significant features, and if you want them you're stuck buying the higher-priced system. This is going to be a joy for parents who don't know what they're looking for, or casual gamers who don't know what they're missing out on until it's too late.
Sony's two-system scheme is confusing, it fractures the user base, and without an upgrade path for the cheaper system it's pretty much locked in place. This is not good for anyone.
would you mind giving a link to your source? Because at the press conference Sony only stated that the difference between the two would be the hard drive size.
EDIT: while I'm at it, I might as well address the whole "there's only one good game for teh PS3!" idea. Is that so? Because last time I checked, there was:
Metal Gear Solid 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Final Fantasy Versus XIII
Resident Evil 5
Devil May Cry 4
Killzone (no title yet)
Eyedentify and Eye of Judgement (wait, what's that? Is that...innovation? Holy crap, it is!)
Resistance: The Fall of Man
Heavenly Sword
Assassin's parkour
Genji 2
need I go on? Because I can if I must.