nanaki21 - I wont even bother with the rest of your rhetoric, but as far as the 360 not having "True HD" like the PS3, that is a complete farse. FYI - The 360 and PS3 are capable of the SAME resolutions, the 360 simply excels at scaling said content where the PS3 has had a rougher time at doing that. Really, I get a kick out of people who follow Sonys "magical names" sales practice, and think that because Sony tries to call things something strange that they are somehow better than the competition. HD is HD, it is 1280x720 or 1920x1080 both either being progressive or interlaced. Both video cards in both systems support both resolutions (among others), and are both in fact "True HD" or "Full HD" or "Magic HDness", whatever you choose to call it. However, one question... How are those dual HDMI outputs doing for you?... Oh thats right, the PS3 didnt have the power to drive both at once, so they cut one. So much for forward thinking... EDIT - And before the response of "But it didnt have HDMI to start with", I will respond to that too. HDMI doesnt make HD. HDMI is simply another cable to connect your device to a display. People using VGA have had HD and higher resolutions for years and didnt need HDMI to do it, same goes with the consoles. Cables dont make the picture, they just carry it to the display.
nikefreak's forum posts
irongobbo = Not bulky like the 360 one? This is about the same size as the 360 wireless headset, and similar ear attachment. Why bother with that statement when it makes no sense?
hmm... Funny enough, the comments list several reasons as to why you wouldnt want a 360 from the detractors. PS3s Free Online = Would rather pay for Live 360s "expensive" WiFi adaptor = Because after all, Microsoft forces you to get their adaptor like the built in competition.. You couldnt just go and buy a 30.00 WiFi Ethernet Bridge and it work (or even the orig XBOX wifi adaptor if you still have one laying around).... (That was sarcasm, as you can, people just want to point at the most expensive official one and say its too much). Reliability = You must not have owned a PS2. The games make it worth while, not to mention Sony didnt do the job Microsoft did in making sure people who got ahold of a bad console get it repaired or replaced free. I still stand by the 360 as the best value for the current generation of gaming, and havent regretted my purchase since launch.
At this rate, I wonder when the Nintendo and Tiger Electronics merger will take place?
ThisIsntLeonard - Lofty words about a company who thinks DVD media became too cheap, too fast, and wants a higher profit off BluRay for longer, thereby guaranteeing high BluRay pricing for both players and media. Not to mention how they have hurt their image considerably this generation by not paying attention to what got them there in the first place - the gamers they served. You seem to think of Sony as some passive, defenseless, innocent little company trying to make enough to eat. That is hardly the case, nor are they by any means innocent. Root for Sony this generation is like rooting for someone who promises to give you a "potential" 1000$, -someday-, if you just let them kick you in the balls for an undetermined amount of time, while reminding you that based on previous performance, that should be within 10 years. I like the old Sony, the Sony who brought the PS1 and PS2. I dont like the new Sony - relying on the PS1/2 to carry them through their poor handling of the PS3, trying to draw every reference possible to PS2 parallels, to explain their position, and still maintaining the ego that drove them down from a firm #1 to a lingering #2 or #3 spot. Said it before, and will say it again. I have owned ALL consoles since the 80s, except... 3D0, NeoGeo, PS3. There is a reason for those, you can figure the reasoning out on your own.
wow... Lots of Pots calling Kettles... Im really surprised that some didnt see this, as well as many more, coming. As I have said for quite awhile, and even darkride with all of his propaganda (cleverly disguised I should add) admit that the PS3 has become more about BluRay than anything. Problem is, this isnt a media war, this is about the games. Sonys problem is that they spent too much time and attention focusing on a media war, instead of on the games. That is only going to show more and more as this generation rolls on. Not to say there arent any good games on the PS3, of course there are, there were a decent amount on Dreamcast as well. Simply put, Microsoft came into this generation with a bang, and have been smart about plays they have made throughout - and never forgot the gamers who should be the main focus - of which I believe could be a large part of Sonys eventual downfall in gaming, if they dont change course.
The part you guys arent getting (DarqFlare, and others)... The PS3 NEEDS HD installs to keep load times comparable to 360 in most cases. That is because of the access speeds of the BD drive. The 360 on the other hand, without HD installs, has decent load times (Comparable to PS3 WITH installs)... Now, add into that equation the OPTION to install a game to the 360 drive. That takes the already fast 360 loads, and makes them even faster, as data (with most modern drives) loads faster from harddrive than an optical format, and seek times are lower (ie it can find something faster on a HD than it can on a disc). I think its a great idea.