I actually love this kinda stuff. I've got the Skyrim collector's edition with the Alduin statue, artwork book, and making of DVD. AAA titles like these don't come that often so I enjoy paying a bit more for the "Super Awesome Elite" edition. October is a big month I'm saving up for anyway with Assassin's Creed III, AC3: Liberation, and Resident Evil 6.

@MetalDarkAge No doubt on a remake. I would buy it in a heartbeat. Especially after I seen the technical demo they did on the PS3, which is where my banner picture on my profile came from.

I may do it. I don't really need the big hard drive since I'm unlikely to be playing much more than 360 exclusives like Gears and I'd get a Live account anyway. There are too many things going on in my life to drop $300 or even $200 on a console, but $100 and the Live subscription is something that might actually work for me. Plus, with Gamestop I could trade older games towards the cost of the system and spend next to nothing up front.

@MetalDarkAge I found Final Fantasy X to have a great story and XII was pretty decent. While I love Final Fantasy VII's story, it honestly doesn't top VI's story. I will admit I thought IX sucked though and XI and XIV aren't games you play for the story.

The games aren't too violent, they're too lifelike. I distinctly remember Custer's Last Stand on Atari where you rape Indians. Of course, no one brings that up anymore because Custer was a blob of ugly pixels. If they made the same game now, people would raise hell. There's nothing wrong with Warren's opinion, but to think that the entire industry should change is just stupid.

As long as there are games like Epic Mickey, Kinectimals, or Little Big Planet OR companies like Disney and Nintendo, there will still be family friendly games. Just as there aren't that many R-rated movies each year, taking a back seat to PG-13, PG, and G, you will still see family friendly games. I'll take both my Gears of War and my Little Big Planet.

Yes, cannibalism, like Capcom releasing the majority of the fighting games during last year. There are three different versions of Street Fighter IV out there. Most companies release everything they want on disc with a little DLC then offer a "Game of the Year" edition later on with everything. Capcom is one of the few companies (perhaps the only one?) that doesn't follow this method.

You want to see a good fighting game release? Mortal Kombat. Released, did good, constantly updated to prevent cheating or abuse with certain fighters, fairly low level of DLC, then followed up with a Komplete Edition that has everything for those who didn't get to play it or waited for it drop in price. Plus the Vita version as an added bonus with even more content since portable versions tend to get passed up on in favor of the console one.

@Gamer_4_Fun As far as XMB goes, I've owned an Xbox 360 as well as my current PS3 and I always loved the dashboard. Especially the avatars for 360. Such a fun idea along with gamertags.

@RealFabioSooner @mav_destroyer I have to disagree here. Backwards compatibility is a very desired feature by most gamers for a reason. It doesn't invalidate their collection. It allows them to retain their current collection without having four or five consoles connected to a TV.

Sony wasn't hurt by backwards compatibility, but the cost of the system. You can say they reduced the cost to become profitable but the emotion engine chip was only $30 if I recall. Plus, the architecture for the PS3 reduced from 90nm to 65nm to 45 nm. As the technology got better, it got cheaper. Sony didn't have to remove, they wanted to because PS2 consoles were still selling.

However, removing backwards compatibility can be bad too. If I want to get some good old games like say, Bloodrayne 2, that aren't on the PSN I either have to get a PS2 from a retailer (which is becoming harder to do now) or go to a secondhand shop where it will be cheaper. Which do you think I'll choose?

I got the 8 GB card with the 3G version, but I still plan to get a 32 GB card in the future. For me, the choice to get the card was not for PS Vita games, but PSP/PS One/Minis. This way I can carry a large assortment of games on the card(s). I'll always buy hard copies of the Vita games because I prefer it and in the future I can buy pre-owned and clearance titles on the cheap. The memory cards are only a barrier to entry if you let them be. As it stands at the moment, only two Vita games are download only: Plants Vs. Zombies and Super Stardust. Both those games take up less than 500 MB. So I really don't see the big deal. If you're going to pay $250-$300 for a portable system, you're obviously not going to be too disturbed by investing a little more.

I think a lot of people (including the Gamespot people) were missing the point entirely. Gamespot claims these load times based on the simple fact that everyone powers their PSP down to full (meaning to hold the power button). They compare the times based on from the absolute start-up (which involves seeing the cute little SCEA screen with the spiffy music, to loading the game, suffering through the advertisements, loading your data, and then loading the level to playing). This seems terribly wrong to me. For one, I never completely power down. I always hit sleep. If I need to change a game I go to home and then load the game. I use sleep mode in instances where I'm going to leave thereby booting up anything that I need and then playing when I'm ready. No what Gamespot should be comparing is the load times for each level or area or cut scene. They also needed to take into consideration the load times that involve the advertisements (X-Men Legends is notorious for vicious amounts of pre-game advertisement). They even give in the additional notes that booting out of standby was extremely fast. So if you're only going to play one game at a time (just giving an example, I change games a bit, but I assume most players stick to one game if they have limited time), then why not pre-boot your setup? Also, consider how long it takes to load up your standard desktop computer. Aren't we having nearly the exact same discussion? Depending on the user, computer, preferences, programs, and etc. each computer would load at a different time. Yet we don't complain about that now do we? Of course in this case the user has some control over the speed at which it loads and we do with the PSP, choosing to skip ads, sleep mode, booting from home screen. So what does this article really prove? In the end, we live in a society of instant gratification that has to have things NOW, rather than being patient. The PSP is easily the most powerful handheld on the market right and with Sony not giving developers access the other 111 Mhz, at least until they have better batteries on the market, load times will exist. Keep in mind also, that load times can be reduced in part by the developers as well. If you check out some of the files (not advocating piracy or anything, just browse for the games wherever homebrew programs keep the main files) you'll find that the developers have yet to even come close to using all of the 1.8 GB that the disc holds. Games could be faster by having less compression and using the memory stick as a cache. We shouldn't always throw the blame at the PSP directly as its system capabilities obviously allow it to have quick loads (Tekken, Lumines, etc.). We also need to start being patient and planning ahead. If you want to play whatever, load it before you leave thereby allowing you the full playtime you want. Sleep it when you're done. And seriously, it's a minute and a half for most games, can't you just learn to wait?