I ended up getting one, they had about 35 extras. I did the same thing for Xbone release too.

Well I guess I'll just have to stick with the one I bought from Amazon. I was hoping to snag another to cut down the cost of the games, extra controller, and subscription to PSN by a couple hundred. It's not worth all the hassel after all, and it's not selling for $600 on craigslist in my area, though I see people getting $500 and $550 for theirs which isn't really worth it to me, I'd rather sell for $600 and take my chances at the midnight release, but since that doesn't seem like its happening, I'll just have to enjoy the new console. Thanks for the info everyone. Hopefully it will help out others who are planning on going to a midnight release for the next gen consoles.

Which store do you guys think will have the most consoles allocated outside of preorders for the public to buy at midnight? Secondly, how early do you really have to get in line? Lastly, I notice Best Buy mentioned that they will have someone outside to let people know how many consoles they will be giving away, will most stores be doing this, so we don't wait until 10pm or midnight to find out we just wasted 6 hours for nothing?

So PrecedeInsanity you would like to keep the same ugly last gen graphics for 7-10 years and then plop down another 600 bucks to upgrade to the newest, latest and greatest? Or would you prefer to either annually upgrade your graphics or every couple years, so that you can see the newest eye candy available as games mature for the console? I understand there will be some gamers that strictly care about gameplay and nothing else, but graphics can have a big impact on things like physics, animation for a game, as you have more power to render more complex scenes and new instructions/shaders for the graphics card. It can completely change the way the game feels or even plays in some instances, and those gamers that are willing to pick up an upgrade, can unlock those graphics features. If you decide not to, you'll still have a great game to play, you just won't be unlocking its full potential, which may not matter to you. I would assume most people would want to get the latest and greatest though.

Lol yeah Jack I see your point, but at the same time, if done simple enough, the average gamer that loves gorgeous graphics, but doesn't know crap about pc's and wants to save some cash, can still upgrade to the latest and greatest graphics settings without plopping down 600 bucks. You also described that very well from the companies stand point, which I think companies would love that idea, though like you say, its not necessarily great for gamers if its over charged proprietary components, but it would still be cheaper. I guess I thought it'd be an interesting idea to toss around the forums to see what you guys thought. Seems like a bad idea to most, but I still think if someone did it right, it'd allow the average gamer to get more out of their consoles over the life cycle of the console. One thing I agree with most of you on, is that PC gamers may be turned down on it, or at least the hard core pc gamers. I myself am a hardcore pc gamer, then again, I consider myself a hardcore gamer in general for any platform, but would still probably purchase these upgradable components for my consoles for games that are strictly for that console only Also, a quck little background detail about me, I consider myself a well rounded gamer. I don't just stick to one platform, like PC, or PS3, or 360. I have them all because I hate missing out on games that are for one console or another, or PC only etc...

See I love building PC's for gaming and upgrading every few years, but what I'm saying is that this could be a great idea if done right. Think about it once. You have a console, but built end user friendly so that even the most non technical person can upgrade something like the video card. Of course the hard core PC only gamers won't like the proprietary case or being locked out from certain components like the CPU, which yes, you guys are right, the CPU can be the bottle neck at times, but when we are talking about a 10 year life cycle, it's possible to put a powerful enough CPU in there to get the job done, granted towards the end of the life cycle of the system, it would start to show its age. Then again, most benchmarks for PC games are shown to be dependent on GPU not CPU.

Not to mention my personal experience *cheating the system* by avoiding a mobo + ram + CPU upgrade, I've been able to get away with upgrading my GPU recently to a evga geforce 460 2win, even though I'm still on a dual core intel x6850 C2D processor... and this is a SLI card, so it is possible to get nearly perfect performance with a simple GPU upgrade as long as the other components are of decent quality as to not bottle neck. I know some of you will say, DUAL CORE CPU!!! thats your bottleneck!!! Well of course it is, but I still pull 35-50 FPS in all modern games without any hitching of any kind, and yes I have 2x AA and 8x AF on at 1920x1080, though of course I could be pulling more with this card if I upgraded my CPU to match, though I'm still pretty sure that may not increase much given the fact OC'ing the CPU has not yieled any further performance increase, which if the CPU was the bottleneck an OC would give some type of FPS gain.

Of course some games run slightly quicker on quad cores if designed for, but even then, the benchmarks I've seen do not yield much more in terms of FPS, and like you guys said, the average console gamer wouldn't care about that. So my point in all of this, is that this could be an awesome idea for console makers to merge the gap more, though the PC enthusiast's or hardcore PC gamers will only want triple monitors 3d high rez glory, but that market is small due to the cost of such a setup, and the biggest thing for this idea is the cost behind it. After the initial R&D of the console, and finding the right components, you could have a system that is user friendly, proprietary so that the console maker can still have control over their platform (obviously PC enthusiasts or the like will find a way to modify parts as we always do), keep costs down for the gamer so that they don't have to shell out 600 bucks everytime a new console is released, and lastly, Sony, MS, or whomever, would be able to keep the design kits up to date for developers as they release the newest graphics card, and I'm not talking about a new gfx card or component every 2-3 months like in PC land, that would make it impossible to develope for, not to mention, make this idea fail, because no one would upgrade that often. I'm saying, for example, release a new gfx card every year or 2 and people will eat that up. Like I said, it would not be required to play the game, and by upgrading (just like the N64 expansion pack), it will improve performance or unlock higher graphical options! Give the gamer the choice!

OK, so I was deep in thought yesterday, after reading about rumors for the new systems as well as components that will be installed in the systems. Being an avid gamer of both consoles and pc, I had an idea for a next gen console. Why not merge what gamers love about their consoles with what gamers love about their pc's? How you might ask? Well someone like Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo, could develope a next gen console that is similar to a computer case but much more proprietary and make some components upgradeable. Obviously some R&D would be needed by the company, but if they do it right, they could make it a fool proof case and limit where you can plug in the components so that regular Joe doesn't get into parts of the system that can void warranty or accidently damage if you don't know what you are doing, but leave certain things like the video card slot exposed and easily accessible to pop in a new video card or what not. Think of the idea as similar to the Nintendo 64's Expansion Pack (increased system memory), but done right. I'm not saying make every component upgradeable but things like graphics card or memory, so that gamers can choose to upgrade when they want, and slowly instead of spending 500-600 bucks on a brand new system. Also, software/games would not require you to upgrade any of the components, but they could have an option to unlock the highest graphics setting or give a performance boost if people do add a new component. Lastly, this would benefit developers too, as long as Sony/MS/Nintendo are sure to only make upgrades every so often, and not like the PC industry where there are 50 different video cards you can purchase and change every few months. I think this will keep the console adaptable throughout the life cycle and extend the life cycle of the console and allow it to keep up with the ever changing flow of technology and the future! Plus it gives gamers a choice and not a requirement!

So I've done a little research, but have not been able to find the answer to one question. Does "transfarring" your save data from lets say the MGS HD collection to the PS3 require you to purchase 2 copies of the game? I've found a thread where someone theorized that they will probably have a code you can redeem on PSN to be able to get a Vita copy when it's released, but to me while that might make sense at first, really does not, unless they update the current MGS HD collection for PS3 that is already out with a code for the Vita version. I guess if anyone has info on whether you need 2 copies to transfar game saves between Vita and PS3 so that you can play on either platform, let me know. Also, if you could site your source, I'd be curious too.

It means if your ps3/360/wii are on at the time of the flare it will die.

OK, after 4 years of having a gamespot membership, and a total of 6 years viewing gamespot. I finally uploaded an avatar. I am posting here to test it out hehe. Feel free to keep the thread going and show off your avatar. I have to admit my current avatar is temporary, as I need to find something cool to replace it!