I woudn't pay 500$ to play PS2 games that's for sure :S, instead, buy a ps2, then play ps2 games till the ps3 cost less, than buy the ps3 and you just saved money!



Anyway, it's good the know that the 60g will FINALLY stop being into retailers! lol

like i told you in the other artical f**k off.all you you do is post dumb stuff about ps3 in all the articles, now f**k off and get a life and move out of your mums basement

Even more for us in the UK. Our cheapest one converts to about $600, and thats the new, 40 gig version.



For that amount of money it should definetly be offering a least what its competitors are offering, and a lot more. Backwards compatibility is something everyone has come to expect, and whatever you think, for now at least, it definetly needs it because so far it doesn't have ANY ground breaking games out.



Call me a fanboy, or whatever you want for saying that, but I've always had every console, because I don't want to miss any game. They've all had roughly the same play time, I've never been more inclined to any certain one. I'm not a fanboy. But the PS3 is the first console I havent even thought about getting within the year of launch so far, because it's not got anything coming up that I really want. Sure it can change, but you get the point. It's not amazing people yet with PS3 games, so it at least needs the huge back catalogue of PS2 games to fall back on. Every time I see something about the PS3 on this site, it always makes me think I'm just never going to get around to getting one, because they always seem to be shooting themselves in the foot as much as Nintendo did with friend codes. Sony seem to have some sort of fetish though because they keep doing it.



Hopefully all that extra tech should start to show soon though, but through more than graphics. As nice as the pretty stuff is, I want thousands of enemies on screen at once. Unnecessarily complicated physics systems. Everything to be completely interactive, nothing just being a part of the terrain, and the terrain itself not just being static. This is the sort of stuff the PS3 should be doing. Pushing gaming forward with,, like the article says, it's just not happening though which is why people get annoyed when stuff like BC is taken away.

then metal gear, final fantasy, GT, Haze, Killzone, tekken are deleyed to five years? I'm gonna cry :(

"As nice as the pretty stuff is, I want thousands of enemies on screen at once. Unnecessarily complicated physics systems. Everything to be completely interactive, nothing just being a part of the terrain, and the terrain itself not just being static."





You obviously have not played LAIR or Heavenly Sword. Those games are fantastic with hundreds if not thousands of enemies attacking you at one time. Lair lets you interact with almost anything, you can fight dragons realistically in the air at thousands of feet above the ground or swoop down and either grab an enemy that is battling it out in a huge war or land on the ground and wreak havoc. Heavenly Sword is similar in a lot of ways. Give it a chance and you will see the potential of Playstation 3.

@walker3243



then stop stalking me, you pervert.

what ever article i choose to read you have some dumb comment there

nllx, you're an idiot. i own all systems but have a dislike for something that broke 4 times. i simply stated facts, i have a wii which the code is 6427 6702 6382 8143 f>kc the wii im hardcore and its inferior to the other console. i have been through 5 xbox 360 and still has 3 at home broken, my xbox live gamer tag is dylantalon. i buy my things and since its mine, i can talk about it and not be a silly fanboy for a console cause i own them all.



xbox live is laggy a lot of times and if you have xbox live you will know that. forza 2, gears of war and lost planet which are the only games i think worth playing on the system is laggy. i pay 50 dollars a year for a laggy service and if i hear 1 more person talk about how live is better than psn, thats one ignorant fool. main thing of having online is for playing with other people and socialize if you want, not watch f@(king family guy or seeing advertisement all the time. its what live is meant to do is playing against other people or with them but live is beaten by ps3 or psn in that department. the online games for ps3 has way more people in a match, wide open environments and no lag while still being pretty. resistance has like 40 people in one map with no lag, never seen on xbox 360 and will never be done on it.



a lot of people love to hate something they done know about at all, thats ignorance, i critique the things i have talking about what i dont like. i hate that evertime i turn on the xbox 360 i dont see the red ring of death. i also still am worried when im playing thinking ill have a disc error and the system freezes like its in a fight with sub-zero. xbox 360 will not win the next gen war cause of hardware failures and system limitation.



as time goes on, games should look better than previous titles on that system but due to hardware limitation in xbox 360, halo 3 looks like halo 2 and none of them are hd. all of what im saying are words from professional developers in the gaming industry. halo 3 native resolution is in 640p, thats been confirmed by even bungie. no game on the xbox 360 runs native at 1080p at 60fps. there are only 2 games on the xbox 360 that runs 1080p natively. most games on the xbox 360 are just upscaled to 1080p. without hdmi you cant get true 1080p hd and some might be quivk to say xbox 360 has hdmi compatible system but im sorry to inform them that its hdmi 1.2 which is still not as good as hdmi on ps3 where the hdmi system is 1.3.



ps3 seems to killzOWN everything about the xbox 360.



cell chip (broadband) >ati

blu ray >dvd 9 and hd dvd

7 spu in ps3 > 3 in xbox 360

psn > xbl

touch sense rumble ps3 > 2 side rumble in xbox 360

gears of war > halo 3

gt 5 demo > forza 2

gt 5 prologue > forza 2, pgr 4

killzone 2 > everything on xbox 360.



in conclusion, i dislike broken systems over working ones. i like superior systems over inferior ones. cause im not a fanboy im able to see pros and cons about all systems. only cons ive seen about ps3 was that it didnt have much games but now, there are a lot, ohh yeah, another con was the system useto cost 600 dollars. have a nice day.

you have unicorns in your dream world dont you fantard

"but live is beaten by ps3 or psn in that department. the online games for ps3 has way more people in a match, wide open environments and no lag while still being pretty. resistance has like 40 people in one map with no lag, never seen on xbox 360 and will never be done on it. "



With my 1 mth free subscriptn experience with Halo 3 (16 player max only?) it DOES lag more EVEN with wired ethanet connectn....?



RFoM WiFi beats that even with 30 - 40 plyers



period

A year after the Xbox360 was released it too sucked but 2 years on it has produced some damn good looking games, give the PS3 another year and it too should produce equally damn good looking games...roll on, this time 2008 and we'll see what's good about the ps3 in comparison to all other platforms!

Why do topics like this always seem to attract the fanboy Neanderthals of all sides? With their biased l-o-n-g posts full of false information, exaggerations, deluded beliefs and opinionated nonsense.



Ho hum. :)

"agreed xbox live IS laggy"



That's not a fact.



There's a difference between Resistance online and Halo 3 online. Look at what both games are offering beyond simply the number of players online and lag... such as dedicated servers, user-hosted games, region restrictions, game modes etc.



From my understanding, Resistance online is region restricted to reduce lag, hence you connect to the closest server to your location. That together with dedicated servers means you can have up to 40 players with little or any lag, but you pay for this by being restrictioned to gamers within a certain region (hence gamers in the US can't play against gamers in the UK, Japan etc).



Without region restrictions (i.e. open to gamers worldwide), you are likely to experience more lag depending on the distance from the host server, either yourself, or a few other players within the game. In addition, if you connect to someone hosting a game on their console, then you're also going to be effected by their location and their bandwidth.



Therefore you gain in some areas at the expense of others, and so you shouldn't assume online performance in games like Resistance and Halo 3 is representative of the performance of PSN and XBL as a whole, because it's actually a reflection of the choices made by the developers for the game.

Like I said, there's a difference.



It's good Resistance has been updated to remove the region restrictions, however lag will be present if you connect to a server in another continent compared to connecting to a local server. The distance is greater, resulting in the signal taking longer to get to the server and longer to get back to you. This is unavoidable, whether you're playing on a PC or on a console.



Fortunately, most online games give you an indicator which shows you how good your ping time is to the server, allowing you to choose the servers with the better ping times and avoiding those with the worse (which WILL lag regardless of the game). Is this true for Resistance now that the restrictions have been lifted? (I'm asking because I don't have a PS3 or the game).



That's the point I'm making. Effects of distance on the internet on ping time exists regardless of the game, PC or console, and a game being hosted by a gamer at home will be effected by that user's bandwidth (BTW, can you host a game of Resistance on your PS3 and control who connects to your console?).