Well I now consider Sony to be dead in the handheld war. They were already losing it, but by releasing this trash It's time to just give up. Who would pay 250$ for this when a ps3 is 300$ Way better graphics, blue ray, significantly bigger hard drive... there's no contest. Worst part about this thing is having your UMDs go to waste. If I have to keep my old PsP to play my previous games, what's the point of buying a new one? Do they really think ppl will want to rebuy all the games they already own just to make the switch? Ummm... no. If anyone at sony is reading this, you're retards, and that's why you've been third in market on everything since PS2. You over price everything, and never get the features right. Psp is small enough already, paying 50$ to butcher its features just to make it a little smaller is a huge waste and I don't envy anyone that buys this thing. I only wish I went with DS instead of my PsP 3000. Nintendo has like 3-4x the game library on top of it. If I ever bought another handheld it'd be a DS, not this piece of garbage.

Problem I see is that PsP owners have no reason to buy another one, even for these upgrades. I'll save 250$ and just keep my perfectly working PsP 3000, sorry. On top of that, I'd have to rebuy my own games to get them on new console?! No UMD is understandable to save space, but at least allow owners of a game they already have, to download it for free for new console. I ALREADY OWN IT, IM NOT BUYING IT AGAIN. Only alternative is to keep both devices to play both sets of games, but if I wanted 2 handhelds, I'd have gotten a DS in the first part. This things a real waste in my opinion if you already own a handheld, unless you want to cash it in to some poor sap and start over with this.

I wish I'd stop seeing these types of worthless comparassions. All they do is make it harder for people to choose. Raw graphics alone, a superior console it does not make. I care more about performance and would rather have a smooth framerate in the head of combat and explosives than look prettier with lagg or skips. Why aren't they comparing that instead, instead of a 200th graphics comparassion thats flooded on the internet already? They look almost the same, we get it... As for performance, some games run the same, some run better on one console, some run better on the other. More games run better on the 360(Or so I've read in countless game Reviews), but you probably won't notice the difference anyway. If you are choosing between the consoles, I'd recommend looking at the other features, comparing graphics will only confuse you and they look almost the same anyway. I also wish I'd stop hearing about PS3 fanboys saying "360 needs batteries!", er, its called a rechargable battery, which is... the exact same thing you are using for yours. Well, I had to put it in one time(So much extra work!), I guess my controller is slightly bigger, wheres the problem? Stupid people. I don't think of myself as one sided, but I've done all the real comparassions, trust me when I say that, as far as gaming goes, 360 is the way you want to go. PS3 is a better investment for Blue Ray(From a movie player stand point), but if you plan to play any games online or stay in touch with friends at all with games, you need Xbox Live. By the time they start using Blue Ray for games, a new console will be out anyway. Its basically very simple, if you value online gaming more than blue ray, get 360, if you care more about Blue Ray longvity, get PS3. PS3 has more longvity, but a new console will probably render both obselete before that date comes, so I can't recommend a PS3 for that purpose alone. As for the other guy: The reason Wii is taking sales is because its full of kiddy games that what people want most. More kids play games then adults, and they want crappy games like Mario, so parents buy the Wii.