@vamplife: The PS3 wasn't $600 because of free online, though. It was $600 because of the hardware.
PS3 could play blu-rays, 360 couldn't.
PS3 had a million media card readers, 360 didn't.
PS3 had the PS2's hardware inside for near-100% hardware-based backwards compatibility. 360 didn't have the same for original Xbox games.
PS3s had built-in wireless networking, a hard drive, and controllers that came with rechargeable batteries; for 360 those were paid extras.
Running Xbox Live doesn't cost Microsoft $60/year. Not even close; it's mostly profit. Especially when you consider Xbox Live was used (actually: is still used) as an advertising cash-cow even for users paying the subscription fee. They charged that because they thought they could get people to pay it. And they were right. Sony followed suit not because they were eating a huge loss providing a network, but because Xbox Live made them realize people are willing to throw money away. And if they're throwing money away, Sony figured it may as well be thrown at Sony, too.
The problem is that their largest user base for the series is still Japan, and there's a much bigger handheld culture over there. They sold 3mil copies of MH3 in Japan, and two-thirds of them were for the 3DS. In the US two-thirds of sales were for non-handhelds, but they only sold about 1mil total. In other words, they sold about twice as many Japanese 3DS copies as they did North American copies total.
Don't get me wrong, Monster Hunter is one of my very favorite game series ever, and I'd love to see a PS4 version (or even just a Wii U version). But, sad though it may be for me to say it, I think it's doubtful that MH would really take off in the US on any platform. There's a pretty steep point of entry, and it's just not for everyone. So I see where Capcom is coming from.
So you do play the Souls games? Well, different strokes for different folks, I guess. To me there's no world better-realized. Besides great design, From Software's coy style of story-telling -- in which they don't spoon-feed you lore, but let you discover on your own -- makes it feel much deeper. KVO made a point on a podcast once that in the real world, you can't just walk up to someone on the street and ask them to spew lore at you about our world. The Souls' series silence in this area lends a great deal to its authenticity.
I do not yet own a next-gen system, but I think it's just about time for me. There have been some games to come out recently like Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age that have made the next-gen software offerings seem less bare. And with Bloodborne, Dying Light, and Evolve set to release Q1 2015, I'm definitely planning on a PS4 purchase within a few months (perhaps a Black Friday/Christmas/New Year's deal?).
Based on the comments below, apparently I'm not allowed to say anything bad about this DLC. People are funny.
But the fact is, there is at least one obvious negative to this DLC that I don't think can really be disputed: two of the boss fights in this DLC are exactly the same, except that for one it's a single big tiger, and in the other it's two big tigers. But they're all the exact same creature. I'm okay with re-using bosses from a previous game, but to copy a boss from the same game (like the Smelter Demon in the Iron King DLC) and now here to literally give us the same boss fight twice in the same DLC... c'mon now, guys. How is that not a negative?
And please don't whine that I'm nit-picking, or not a true Souls fan. I've loved From Software ever since King's Field in 1995, ten years before most people knew about them, and Dark Souls may be my favorite game ever, with the possible exceptions of Resident Evil 4 and King's Field 2. And I did love the DLC, and think that anyone who enjoyed these games should play it. But it also ain't perfect.
AtheistPreacher's comments