Another summer has gone and yet again the film industry sees steady losses. Why? Has the internet and video games industry taken more of the summer blockbuster pie? Are the movies that are being released less appealing than the previous years? While some of this is true its not the true underlining cause. The reason for these losses is simple. Movies are coming out on DVD way too soon.

When I was a kid I remember that if you didn't see a film while it was in the theater. You had to wait a long time for it to be shown on regularTV. Sometimes it took 4 whole years or more. So there was a more need to rush and see a film before it was gone. Newspaper ads used to announce a films final weeks in the theater. There was more of an urgency to see a film before it was too late. Seeing a film on TV paled in comparison. With censorship, commercial and a small screen using standard mono sound.

Flash forward to now and you have only to wait 6 to 4 months (or less if the film didn't fare well in theaters) for movies. I'm sure we have all heard the phrase "I'll wait for the video" And why not, its cheaper and with HDTV and 7.1 surond sound its actually better. The coming of the Cell Phone has made the occasional chatter into a constant stream and those cell phone lights pull you away from the movie. I remember discount theater that would show a film 6 months later at a $2 rate for a double feature. Now if you wait that amount of time you can rent or buy the film. So the question comes to mind is: Why pay full price if I can wait and see it at home on my HDTV with 7.1 True HD Sound. Why pay for overpriced candy and popcorn when I can see it at home to a full cooked meal? Hollywood has yet to address this cause they still make money in the end. Many films that make subpar box office in theaters can make a killing on DVD/Blu Ray Disc release.

No, its the Theaters that suffer. The old projection screen is lacking next to HDTV. While THX is a great sound system. Many 7.1 system can provide superior sound at home. Seeing a film one time for $10 to $14 doesn't compare to renting it for $3.99 or buying it for 14.99 to $29.99 and getting special features. Many movies I would have seen years ago in the theater, I have elected to see at home via netflix or cable tv. The urgency is gone and with it the need to see a movie anytime soon. With video on demand I can wait months before seeing a film. Video game consoles like Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 offer movie rentals now. Ipod, PSP, Zune and many mp3 players makes it possible to watch a major release films only months later during my lunch hour.

Seeing a film in the theater for full price to only see it being watched by someone on the bus can be a humbling experience. So much that the next must see film might get a "I'll wait for the video"

I've been very disappointed with smallville of late. With the same pothole that made the Adv of Lois and Clark a joke,the on again off again relationships. Chloe and Jimmy, Lois and Oliver, Clark and Lana, Lex and Lana its just unimaginitive!

When they started introducing other DC heroes I was excited. but they gave us the lame patrol Not the Justice league. No Batman, even a young pre costume bruce wayne during his wandering years. He's investigating misuse of waynetech. It leads to Lex and together they foil his plans. Yet Lionel is sure the stranger looked familiar. Clark finds out little about Bruce, he never gives his real name. Before parting Bruce says to Clark that "All it takes for evil to succeed is for Good Men to stand around and do nothing" Later Lionel looks through a year book and seens a face similiar to Bruce under Thomas Wayne. No we got Flash, Cyborg, Green Arrow and a surf dude version of Aquaman. (Thank God that series is on a shelf where it can do no harm)

Then they made Lois ditzy as a sterotypical dumb blonde.Lois should have been a more serious character. Playing the Scully to Chloe's Mulder. She's should have been learning to be a reporter from the start and a better one than Chloe because Lois wouldn't report on meteor freaks cause its too sensational and won't be believe. Lois would either drop the story or tweak out the unbelievable parts. She wants to be taken serious in the male dominated field and reporting about shape shifting gossip reporters won't do it. Its all preordained that she will be one of the world's greatest reporters. However Lois on smallville wandered about with no true purpose. We all know that she is Clark's true destiny. Adding her should have been an opportunity to show the flaws of Lana and Chloe. Its way too early for Lois and Clark to have an type of realationship. Lois should have become Clark's friend. Not wanting to be saved or loved just someone he could talk to. Without knowing Clark's secret Lois gives advice that will help him become Superman. Lois has always had this belief in truth of the press and the freedom America gives. But those freedoms must be used and fought for otherwise they can disappear without notice. She calls Clark "Smallville" cause he sorta naive and needs to grow to see the world many shades of grey. Something Lois has seen first hand traveling with her father in the Army. I could have been told in flashback that Lois was part of a convoy that was attacked. And that Lois endured the harshships of being a child of war for a time before she was resqued. Series like Smallville before tiresome because the characters don't seem real, they lack dimension or purpose. At this stage Lois sees Clark as an little brother and a friend. She not a threat to Lana but as Lana choices become more regretable. We watch as Clark who thought Lana was everything he wanted loses that glimmer in his eye and starts to wonder if this is what he truly wants. And starts to see Lois with different eyes.

Why does Hollywood feel every girl lead must be filled by a sexy starlet with very little or no talent except a bra size. Lois shouldn't be played by a glamous girl. If anything it says something about Superman. That its not about looks but personality and inner character that attracts him. Lana was a young Clarks idea of beauty. However as the season prgressed Clark matured in his definition of what that beauty was. I feel the part of Lois should have gone to a pretty girl but a subtle type of beauty. The type that doesn't overwhelm you. That the actress should have been someone with actual acting skill and range. TV sucks cause instead of looking for talent in acting schools and off broadway plays casting agents are looking in this month's issue of Maxim.

This Hail Mary with Doomsday and Maxima is just desperate attempt by writers to lure back many fans from Heroes which takes the story of superheroes more seriously. Superheroes were always seen as a less serious type of literiture. But as we have watched batman go from campy to serious to downright poingiant in Dark Knight. So should have the writing of Smallville. Its not bigger special effects but more honest and deeper stories with a suprising amount of action that isn't there for sweeps week but actually makes sense and shows the conflicts that a struggle of good vs evil can bring.

I love GameSpot. Its fair and balance coverage of E3 is one of the many reason for this. Sure i stray and look at other websites for information. But if I want truly good coverage I need only go to GameSpot. Which brings me to TV video game coverage. Everybody knows that G4 is king of TV coverage due to a lack of others to compete for the spot.

I have a Playstation 3 and its been a rough road to travel. Even GameSpot seem to take a negative view of the system. However, as the system started getting more games and better media functions this negative coverage became praise. But not for G4. They continue to praise the Xbox360. They totally ignored the Red ring of death topic and gave the 360 a pass on the whole affair. When Halo 3 was coming out they devouted an entire week to the game. Gave multiple hands on interviews with the developers and basically bulit a hype for the game. (Granted their efforts weren't need the game rocks without it) My point is that when the Playstation 3 comes out with a great game it doesn't get anywhere near the same type of coverage.

This brings us to E3. Microsoft was given a commerical free presentation of their press conference. Followed by each host take on the event. Later Adam Sessler gave a soapbox short commenting on the conference. He praised the Final Fantasy news. Now remember Sessler has said in the past he hates Final Fantasy. That he finds it boring. But with news of Xbox 360 getting it. He says wow that's increbible news. He says Fable looks great and can't wait for Fallout 3, more on that one later. So after sitting through this day dedicated to Xbox 360 I come back the next day looking forward to seeing what Sony has in store for the Playstation 3. but there's nothing here. More coverage of Gears of war and Fallout 3. I'm told if I want to see Sony's conference I have to go to G4's web site. So no after conference commentary? and If I'm one of the millions of American's with no internet access I guess I'm SOL. Sessler does his soapbox but instead of reviewing Nintendo and Sony separate he does a quickie review of both and makes it seem like either was worth seeing. Later G4 does a poll on who had the best news. No shock here! Microsoft wins cause even if I do have internet access. Most viewers were sure to see the Microsoft press conference many didn't see Nintendo's or Sony's. And let's talk about Microsoft's conference. Most of the games were 3rd party multiplatformers that PS3,Wii,DS and PSP will get. So why did Microsoft act like it was their property alone. Why did G4 never mention that Fallout 3 will be for PS3 as well during hands on? Most of the news wasn't that stellar. Lips? your in the movies? a new Banjo game and Pinata game. Please. Yes Gears looks awesome! but Fable 2 looks sorta boring. Sony showed us Resistance 2, Killzone 2, LittlebigPlanet, God of War 3, DC online, New PSP games and PSN games like Rachet and Clank the search for booty and Siren 2 and topped it off with MAG a massive online game. They announced a videos and TV shows now availiable. Sure Xbox Live has more titles but it doesn't have the ability to port the shows and movies with you via PSP. Now I can take a show to school or work. While the Xbox is still stuck at home. The G4 acted like Fallout 3 was a exclusive to the Xbox. The loss of Final Fantasy as an exclusive is sad but not the end of the world. Remember for years Square has been making FF tltles for Playstation systems. I doubt this port will be all that good. So if your a true FF fan the best version will still be on the PS3. Microsoft announced avatars. and while the Miis are cool on the Wii. I've always looked at Microsoft and Sony as the systems to a more mature crowd as opposed to Nintendos little kid system. These Avatars don't fit. They look too cutesy for the Xbox and look like something Sanrio aka Hello Kitty would come up with. Home is making avatars that can actually resemble you or your dream you. Not a reject from a Nick jr. I don't see 13+ getting all excited with their toon version of themselves. With all of these announcments G4 declared Microsoft the winner. It was the only conference they bothered to show so I guess they decided before E3 who had won this show. So thank you GameSpot for being above all the petty console wars and remaining a true journalist and keeping with the fair and balanced tradition of that field.

Microsoft. Its no secret I'm not a fan of the Xbox 360. However I was expecting some really big announcements from them to counter the PS3's gaining on their year lead and bring it within 5 million in the US. Microsoft's Master, Bill Gates, a long time ago showed that he could take someone elses idea and rip it off very well. Microsoft was bragging about titles that the PS3 will get. Big Deal! This isn't a reason to jump ship from Sony and join the Microsoft crowd and the exclusive titles were sequels. If I didn't buy Gears of War or Fable before why would a sequel influence me now. No the evening was pretty much a demonstration of how Microsoft hasn't lost its touch when it comes to skillful art of Cut, Paste and Copy. Avatars! wow that sounds like Home. Lips? don't you mean Singstar? Viva Pinata rips off Eye of Judgements card loading abilities. and getting a francise like FF 13? I hear rumor its not the full version that the PS3 is due to Blu Ray to DVD port won't allow it. But we will see if that's true later.

The answer is very simple. Fantasy. Let me explain. Do you remember the original show? what attracted you to the show. The idea of having that kind of power and doing all sorts of cool and good things with it. Running and Jumping at incredible speeds and heights. Its a daydreamers best love.

Now after 20 years you bring it back. With today's new special effects and more sophisticated audience its bound to be a hit. Its a no brainer. Girls especially will lap it up and Guys will get an action show with a very pretty girl. However you let the writer's (who after this screw up have some nerve to ask for more money) go crazy. They make the bionics less cool by adding flaws. That a highly trained soildier can outwit your bionics and beat you. They are prone to malfuctions and finally, you have about five years to live unless we can fix a flaw with the new bionics. Now why in the world would I want this? Why would I fantasize about less power and a chance to die in five years?

Gone is the OSI a ultra cool spy outfit fighting the good fight. Now we have the burka instititute, an organization that doesn't know exactly whom they are working for from time to time. The original had a very small cast. This was so not to steal from the star of the show. Now you have way too many people with too many agendas. Its a confusing mess.

Jamie is played by a british actress. Now if that's not a slap in the face. Tons of American girls would love this role and they went to english woman. And yes the accent is good but you can tell she's not america Adding a sister to the cast was a stupid idea. we don't have time to babysit or hear about her whiny problems.

I was expecting to see a show about Jamie Summers with a deep theme like the morale implications of Cloning, Sleeper agents and experimentations on human. State of the art special effects. Its a sci fi show. We should have seen fights with Killer robots, Genetically enhanced spys, Mutants and Psychics. Not just regular spys. any average person can beat those. I thought that after the success of Heroes. NBC would pit Jamie against secret organizations give her "24/alias" like adventures with huge killer conspiracies. Not show her having a heart to heart with her teenage sister. Or wondering why that cute CIA agent hasn't called. WTF! I will not be surprised if the rumors of this shows cancellation are true.

No one cared about the originalXbox's demise at microsoft. Many people bought that system to only have it discontinue after a tiny 5 years. Microsoft saw that as a gamble to get a new system out beforeSony and Nintendo. However we still have yet to see the original 30 million Xbox owners upgrade to the Xbox 360. Many were upset with the short life span of the system others were frighten off but stories of thering of death ( R.O.D.) Microsoft hopes that they can use their ties with the American press to smear the name of Playstation 3 and the Wii. They keep saying the Playstation is a failure. and that the Wii only has casual gamers. Where did this term come from? Where the Gamecube's owners casual gamers? No. This is just a term to make you feel that any success that the Wii has isn't to be considered real. That these aren't real gamers. They are posers. Why? And how do they know? When I owned a Supernintendo it was a success. no one called me a casual gamer. So believe me when I tell you that its all hype bought on by the American press. The same press that didn't go after Microsoft when the R.O.D started becoming more and more often. It was the Austrailian press that started doing in depth pieces on the failure of the Xbox 360. And still microsoft ignored the cries of its consumers. When the story started appearing on blogs, chat rooms, forums, internet news before finally the media press couldn't ignore it any longer did microsoft decide to offer this deal. Deal they call it. everyone knows that the Xbox 360 should have been recalled but that the type of thing that would have destroyed the Xbox 360. In an interview with G4's Attack of the Show. Then President Peter Moore refused to say exactly what the problem was. (Trust me its a problem that exist in every Xbox 360. Some will show it sooner than other but the flaw is there.) You would think that they would hit him with the hard questions. but they let it go!! They actually moved on!?! What type of hard hitting journalism is that? If this R.R.D. had hit Sony's Playstation 3. They would have gone for blood. I was so disappointed by their lack of response it seem to me that they were colaborating with him. Later I saw a piece on the Today show about the 3 gaming systems. They were quick to point out that Microsoft was the leader. However, when asked about the Ring of Death story they explained the new return policy. Al Roker asked about a recall. And the supposedly impartial reporter said "No! no recall!" When Al Roker asked what's wrong with it? He said "Well we aren't getting into that. But I can say that its being fixed" What was the reporter afraid of? Or was it his real adgenda to make sure that parents knew which system is the hot seller and not about the fault it had. I know many think this conspricy talk but I've seen recalls over much less and usually the press leads the charge. Deep pockets my friends real deep to keep the press off of this story. But not enough to reach Japan,England, Austraila, or New Zealand. Not enough to stop the blogs or the forum chats.

If the problem been fixed why can't we know what it was? Why hide it? Just seems strange to me is all. But hey that's big business.

I've been thinking about Sony gameplan. What possible reason could they have to keep the Playstation 2 going? Then it came to me. Now would be a terrible time to cancel the PS2. The Playstation 3 need to have more exclusives and more cutting edge titles.Titles like: Final Fantasy 13, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, Little big planet, SOCOM: Confrontation,Time Crisis 4, Eye of Judgement and Playstation Home. Once these and other titles become availiable I see the PS2 ending production. I also see the Playstation 3 getting another price cut. With this many exclusives and 3rd party titles coming out at the same time as the Xbox 360 Playstation 3 should start selling at a much more robust rate. So hang in there and watch cause come 2008 things are going to heat up.

Oooo sounds like a spy thiller. Video game double agents. What are they and where do they come from. My question is why do they do it. What are they? Its a Xbox 360 fan pretending to own a PS3 and say how disatified he is. That he going to give away his PS3 and buy a Xbox 360. I know what your thinking. Doesn't sound impossible. Its not. It happens on both sides of this console feud. However, I've noticed that some that make these comments aren't what they seem. I check their home page and find that all the Xbox 360 titles are their favorites. That they reviewed several 360 titles but no PS3 titles. They post in the 360 forum normally but then they post in the PS3 forum with snide comments. It starts to become obvious that this person is an xbox 360 owner that claims to have a PS3 when he doesn't. He wants to make PS3 owners feel bad about their purchase. If his comments were from a Xbox 360 owner they would be dismissed. Yet if he claims to have a Playstation 3 and to be upset with it. He can convince others not to buy it and make existing Playstation 3 owners doubt their purchase. Some of these double agents seek out every bit of good news about the Playstation 3 to criticize it. If the PS3 has an exclusive they say the demo sucked. They claim that downloads freeze and that their "friend's" games are better and they want to throw away the playstation 3. And while some of these comments might be true. If you check the person making the comments home page and find nothing but Xbox 360 stuff in there. Chances are you've found a double agent.

Why do they feel they need to do this. Cause some Xbox 360 owners are afraid. They have watched a led of 10 million over thePlaystation 3be cut to a led of 6 million in less than a year. They have watched the Nintendo Wii overtake them. They have seen features from the Playstation 3 that they said they didn't need or want come to the Xbox in the form of the Xbox 360 Elite and now a new version of the premier version. They have seen many Xbox 360 fail and have to be returned. The continued failure of the HD-DVD format. A gap so big that Microsoft had to pay a studio over 150 million to give them an exclusive. Yeah the Playstation 3 isn't a selling juggernaut. But it slowing catching up. If they weren't catching up then they should still have a 10 million lead. So they go out of their way to make you feel you've made a mistake. So next time you hear someone tell you that they are destroying,throwing away or giveing away their playstation 3 its okay to doubt they have one.

In all my years of getting video games I have never seen a company torpedo their own title like EA did with Madden NFL 08. I thought the idea was to make a profit with games. However, The Electronic (ripoff) Artist decide to make a the Xbox 360 version run at 60 fps and the PS3 run at 30 fps. What I don't understand is why? Both systems are very powerful and its been said time and time again that the PS3 is the more powerful of the bunch. We all know that the Playstation 3 is capable of 60 fps since the PS2 could do it. So why would EA do that? Does this mean that the E.A. doesn't know how to program games? Are they incompetant when it comes to using PS3's dev kits. Why are other companies producing better quality games? Could it have anything to do with Peter Moore, former president of Xbox 360, moving to E.A.? Cause I'm not a conspiracy nut but it does seem strange.

If I had a product that was coming out on both platforms I would definately make sure both versions were of good quality. I wouldn't produce one and brag about how great it is then make the other inferior. This isn't the way to influence consumers to purchase your product. Doesn't EA know that this reflects badly on them? That many of the fans that purchased their games under the PS1 and PS2 are watching and seeing this shabby treatment. If EA is going to come out with lousy games for the PS3 they might as well go exclusive and not waste our time or money. Cause it will be a long time before I'm looking at any of EA's games for a while. To parphase the movie The American President "You have a lot worser problems that a slower game E.A. Cause you just loss a customer!" And when the PS3 turns around and starts selling don't expect me to see me in line for Madden NFL 09.

Back in the heyday of the PS2, Xbox and Dreamcast online play was touted as the holy grail of gameplay. Playing with someone miles away seemed like the stuff of science fiction. I was young and didn't have the resources to play online. So many of my online capable games didn't get to show me their potential. I figured back then that online games were a fluke anyway. None of my friends had the means to play them either. However today its different I can now afford wireless internet and with my PS3's built in wifi I'm online everytime I turn it on. I'm able to surf the internet from my tv which is pretty cool. and I'm able to play online games. I never seem to be as good as many of the other players but that's due to the lack of time I place on playing the games. I have to admit its fun to play with these complete strangers. I'm still shy about getting a webcam or speaking with a mic.

However now Warhawk is coming out. This is the first console game intended for the online world only. The retail version comes with a bluetooth headset so on the day of release those that opt for that will be chatting away. I think its a great way to push the playstation online community to hands free chatting. Cause chatting with a keyboard is hard with the playstation controller.

Previous online games like Resistance and Splinter Cell have gamers with mics but many times they have no one to chat with as they are among the few. One time I remember a gamer talking out loud to himself that anyone listening should get a mic cause the game is more fun with one. I think getting the retail version is a great deal since you will be able to use the mic with other online games and for voice chats with friends. And when Playstation Home is released it will be even more fun.

When I was a kid playing my Playstation 1 my friends would come over and we would play games like Madden football, EA Lakers vs Celetics, Street Fighter. I was a lot of fun. Nowadays kids don't have to come to their friends homes to play games. I wonder if that's a good thing or bad. There were times that my friends from school lived too far away to come over and play. So in that situation I figure its good. But there still something about going to a friends house and just kicking it. With this new digital age we live in many kids don't have a reason to come out of their rooms. Yet, for an adult like myself whose friends have either grown out of video games or found other hobbies of interest the online console offers a way to make new friends with similiar interest. Oh I'll still head out on most weekends for the movies, clubs or local party but on those lazy or bad weather weekends when I don't feel like stepping out. I can always find someone to play a game football game or play capture the flag on Warhawk or Unreal. And when Playstation Home is launched the friends list will only get larger.

I love games and I remember when games were $70.00 for Street Fighter. But that was back in the Cart age. Now with DVD and Blu Ray games the prices have held steady at $49.99 to $59.99. Unless you happen to get a Collector's Edition. Mainly these come with a few more bells and whistles. DVD Movies do it, Books do it and even the occasion Music artist will do it. But my question is who am I collecting this for? Comic book, toys and baseball cards can be collectable. They can be limited edition and someone who missed out on that item earlier will always want to pay more to get it later.

But does this include video games? Games aren't like comics which can go up in price. Actually its quite the opposite they come down in price. And unlike cars which in time go up Video games become dated not classics. So if you aren't collecting it for a future pay off then what? Maybe its for your own special collection? Is the collector's edition limited? Not unless it says so. Now if your getting extra levels this means increased fun and might be worth the little extra. However, plenty of times I've seen a special edition in the previously own bin for half or less than it was originally. I know that's risky. You might not be able to find a special edition just the regular edition. I have no problem with the more expesive price for additional playable character, as long as he adds a totally different game play. Yet, getting it for artbooks or the silly keychain doesn't seem worth it.

Halo 3 is being offered with a replica of Commander Chief's helmet. That's 100% fanboy fodder. You can't wear the helmet Its just for gathering dust on the shelf. Well, its okay if you really love this game and $129.99 price tag doesn't scare you. The good thing is that this helmut might actually be collectable. Cause 3 years from now on ebay I expect to see it selling for $300. but that's just for the helmut not the game. 3 years from now halo 4 will be out and no one will want 3. 

Spider-man 2 was re released as Spider-man 2.1. except for eight minutes you could own the same exact movie. Or PS3's Spider-man 3 the collector edition offers new green goblin as a playable character. I guess for extra content or a cool piece of memorbial might be okay. But I'm cheap I tend to let super popular games go by cause I know it will be a greatest hit later this year and be selling for $20 bucks. sweet.

So if you have to have a small piece of history or have the more expensive version of the same game with different cover art. More power to you. But if you really want to have fun? How about buying the regular edition and used the money you save to buy a previous used game you missed.

Back on 09-09-99 Sega launched a new system, The Dreamcast. It has a built-in modem and Internet support for online gaming. Very crisp graphics and blew the Playstation out of the water. It had a year jump on the Playstation 2 and sold very well. By November it had hit the 1 million units sold. Sony announced that the PS2 would be launched April of 1999. Actually it wasn't until October of 2000 (any of this sound familiar) At the time of the launch, the PlayStation 2 was plagued by production shortages, with people often paying in excess of $1000 on eBay for Sony's next-generation console. (I know I've heard this all before) Playstation 2's major advantage over the Dreamcast was DVD playback capability. Which the Dreamcast lacked. Plus the PS2 cost less than the average DVD player at the time of its release. Sega cut the price. And yet the more expensive Playstation 2 sold. Eventually Sega gave up and stopped production of the Dreamcast. It has sold 10 million units. (How many Xbox 360s are we at now?)

Later Microsoft announced the Xbox. They explained its superior graphic power, online capabilites and many were very excited about this superior game system. Suddenly PS2 didn't look so cool and many reviewers touted the Xbox the heir apparent. Developers of games like Munch's Oddysee which was originally intended to be exclusive for the PlayStation 2, however this version was cancelled to make the game exclusively for the Xbox, taking advantage of increased graphical capabilities. This was seen as a sign that PS2 was doomed. Some developer said that the PS2 was hard to program for.  Later Dino Crisis 3 was cancelled and went to Xbox only. And there were others like Batman: Dark Tomorrow, Far Cry Instincts, and Pirates of the Caribbean. (Ring any bells) 

 When the Xbox launched it was reported over and over again that the PS2 reign was over. And yet the Playstation 2 kept on selling. It didn't have the online network like Xbox live and it kept on selling. Games looked better on the Xbox and it kept on selling.

Now this little history lesson was to show you how things can easily change. How the Dreamcast  launched a whole year ahead and had a lead but was over taken by the PS2. And how even having superior power didn't help the Xbox. Why? Its simple. Many of the buyers of the Playstation 2 were happy with their purchase of the PS1. So they simple followed over to the PS2. Will it happen again? I believe it will. Microsoft knows this. They hope to use rumor of a price cuts or headlines of PS3 failure to get buyers of the PS2 to come over to their side. But just like back in the late 90s and early millenium people will wait.  Many love their PS2 games and want to keep playing them for they are an investment. You can only do this on the PS3.  I figure that when the PS2 game flow slows and more games come out for the PS3 more of those customers will come over. Remember the PS2's unit sales to date are 115 million and with games still coming out I know why they haven't come over yet. However, the Xbox only sold 24 million units before discontinuing. So its current sales of 12 million isn't all of its previous customers. I mean what are those other 10 million Xbox users playing? The Xbox was discontinued with maybe 4 title left for the year.

Hey, I could be wrong but I don't think so. let's see what Next christmas season brings. Either way its a great time to be a gamer.