I'm in this age group myself and sometimes, I just don't understand my friends. They make fun of me occasionally for having an older Blackberry phone (without a touch screen) and I know they're not being completely serious, but it just irritates me. I even see some of my friends who have older phones themselves say that their phones suck.

It's not only with phones or other physical objects either. Yesterday, I was listening to some older Eminem songs like Mockingbird and my friend jokingly said "Um, what year are we in again?" WTH? Why does it matter how old a song is? A lot of old music is 10 times better than the crappy pop songs of today anyway.

So why do you think teenagers are so obsessed with having everything new?

My first recommendation is to get a 3 month PS Plus subscription for $18, because then you'll get Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Saints Row 2, Just Cause 2, Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One, the first 2 episodes of the Walking Dead, and more. Because of Sony's summer marketing technique, releasing 12 free games for PS Plus, now is the best time to be subscribed.

If you're not interested in that, some great games you can buy on the PSN Store for $20 are Little Big Planet 2, Dragon Age 1 and 2, Bioshock 2, Crysis 2, Dead Space 1 and 2, and more.

So you guys are saying that for at-home use, the M50s will be better? Is it only because of the easy maintenance or do they actually still have better sound quality than the MTPC even though the MTPC retails for 2x the price?

I'll be using them mostly at home. The portability of the MTPC is nice, but not necessary. Sound quality is the main thing for me, and the problem here is that I can get the M50 for $120 used and the MTPC for $160 used. I know that generally, they are sold brand new at most major retailers for around $200 and $400 respectively (that's the price of the M50s here in Canada; I've heard it's cheaper elsewhere). However, I have also heard that the M50 is really good for its price range while some people have said that the MTPC is not worth the full price of $400, and is more suited to a price tag of around $300. Considering that headphones usually beat IEMs in overall sound quality in the same price range, I'm wondering how different the sound quality of these will be in respect to their identities as headphones and IEMs.

Basically the question is: which has more value and is an overall better deal? The M50 for $120 or the MTPC for $160?

I forgot to mention that I don't own an amp and will be plugging these into my Blackberry phone or PC.

There's a 3-for-2 pack? I didn't actually check the store yet. Thanks.

I think the Grand Theft Auto series is extremely shallow. There's not much to do except running around blowing things up, trying to start a huge shootout with the cops. That may sound fun, but the clunky movement and bad shooting mechanics make it boring. Red Dead Redemption improved this a little, but its cover system and melee fighting are still outdated, and though the shooting mechanics were improved from GTA4, there was such little variety in weapons. They all felt the same because they were semi-auto weapons, and again, the fire bottle/dynamite throwing and melee felt really clunky.

I also got Demon's Souls because of the hype and tried it. The combat mechanics were okay, but I didn't get why people were so obsessed with the idea that it legitimately challenges you. The enemies do a lot of damage and are fairly difficult to beat. That's fine, but the hardest part of the game is that you lose all your souls when you die, and that's not a legitimate challenge. It's a broken game mechanic that was put in place to make it seem tougher than it's supposed to be, and in the higher levels, you have to "farm" souls, which is basically grinding. And that's pretty much the whole game. The plot is almost non-existant, so you're just grinding the whole time. Definitely not my type of game. Needless to say, I didn't purchase Dark Souls.

Oh, also, in my opinion, Infinity Ward makes better campaigns than Treyarch, while Treyarch delivers better multiplayer experiences, which is the opposite of the general consensus. I find the characters in the MW series to be much more appealing and the set pieces are done much better. In multiplayer, I like Treyarch's ideas such as COD points, wager matches, the playercard, and can't understand why these things weren't included in MW3. Also, you have too little health in the MW multiplayer. I think people like MW multiplayer more because it's so much faster paced, but in my opinion, the smooth, fast-kill gameplay of the IW games work better in single player, while the slower pace of Treyarch games make the campaigns a bit boring, but balances the multiplayer better.

If you didn't know already, there is a big sale on all PixelJunk games that starts today and will last for a week. From the list, I noticed that Shooter 1 will be on sale for $1, while the 2nd will be $5. I tried the multiplayer demo for PJS2 and it was pretty fun, but I don't know how many people are still playing it online. Does anyone know? And if not, how much better is the single player part of it than the first game? I have a spare $7 that accumulated as leftovers from past purchases in the store and I didn't really have anything to spend it on. I don't really feel like buying a $20 card to get all the PJ games and I won't use my credit card after that ordeal last year, so $7 is all I got. So is PJS2 worth the extra $4 or should I spend that $4 on other PJ games (Eden, Monsters, and Racers will also go for $1).

Starhawk is coming out soon and the beta was really fun in my opinion. Uncharted 3 has iffy matchmaking, but a strong community at the moment and is pretty fun. Modnation Racers and LittleBigPlanet 1/2 are great online. I got LBP1 for free from the welcome back program, and people still play online on it, so I assume even more are playing the 2nd game. However, I don't have Modnation Racers so I can't speak for its community at the moment. If it doesn't have a strong one, another good car combat game online is Twisted Metal. You could get Dark Souls and try its unique online experience as well, and there are some other shooters in the market - mainly Killzone 3 and Resistance 3.

Well, even if you don't play online, you can for free, so I'd say that's still a plus. Why won't you play online? A lot of good online games are really unique that you can't judge without trying them, and why not, when it's free (e.g., LittleBigPlanet - you can play "online" levels by yourself)? What kind of games do you play? Some good PS3 exclusives for single player are the Infamous games, the Ratchet and Clank games, God of War 3, Valkyria Chronicles, the Uncharted games, and I guess Gran Turismo 5 will last you a long time if you're into racing games and want to collect all the cars. If you don't mind playing last-gen games as collections, there are the Sly Cooper collection, Team Ico collection, and also a lot of great PSN titles like Journey and the PixelJunk games. Honestly, there are a lot more PS3 exclusives that have fun single player modes, but they aren't long enough to justify a $60 purchase. However, when combined with their multiplayer components, they make up a great package (e.g. Resistance 3, which has a pretty strong campaign for an FPS).

I don't think 2 years is enough. It might be the absolute bare minimum, but I don't believe a development team who wants to make a quality game will be able to do it in 2 years without feeling rushed. There are some exceptions - Uncharted 2 came out 2 years after the first and was very well done and polished in all aspects. With Uncharted 3, however, the development time was again 2 years, and this time, it was clear that the game would've benefitted greatly from some more time (but it was still a great game). They were trying out a new engine that had a few glitches that could've been worked out. The single player story also felt weak compared to the previous game, only focusing on the big set pieces like the cruise ship, so I think they could've taken some more time to fix that.