Entertainment Weekly: PS3 v.s Wii v.s 360

it's a fad... you tell people that something is in demand and they will buy into it... you can do it with pretty much anything, if you made a story up and just showed a line of people camping out and showed some retards flashing the heavy metal sign wearing snow jackets and said they were all out there to buy ziplock bags full of dog **** people would buy into it and go join the line, must be something good about that dog **** if everyone wants some right?

at the end of the day it's just a bag of dogshit...or a PS3...whichever you bought.

people never sit there and ask themselves "ok wait a minute, what is the item? what does it do? where did it come from, is it even worth it, do I need it, will I use it?

they just buy it because so and so is gonna get one and if he has one then they need one too just cause someone else has it.... these same folks are the ones that are pissed that a farreri costs $250k... they just can't frivilously buy one of those just cause someone else has one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

and you won't.

sony also knows nintendo's inner workings, they know exactly what games the wii will support and how backward compatible it is - before it was released... sony is so full of **** it's stupid.

---

It's not just Sony as the developers said similar things about the Cell processor. I don't understand even with the PS2, it was difficult to work with and so is the PS3. I remember when the Saturn came out it was difficult to work with as well and the only developer, who take advantage of it was Sega. I think Sony should take a look at Microsoft in terms of making a powerful an developer friendly console instead of "I'm better than you or who cares attitude."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongsc

It's not just Sony as the developers said similar things about the Cell processor. I don't understand even with the PS2, it was difficult to work with and so is the PS3. I remember when the Saturn came out it was difficult to work with as well and the only developer, who take advantage of it was Sega. I think Sony should take a look at Microsoft in terms of making a powerful an developer friendly console instead of "I'm better than you or who cares attitude."

---

The one thing that MS has going for them with ease of development is a history of design IDE's. Being a software company first, it's what they understand. In the same manor that their first system was really a pc without much real innovation. Sony on the other hand is a hardware company. They come up with a really complex piece of equipment, but lack the IDE. Luckily with the original Xbox taking off, MS was able to combine the two in a fairly complete package. I just MS would innovate a little like motion sensors in the controller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksuohio

The one thing that MS has going for them with ease of development is a history of design IDE's. Being a software company first, it's what they understand. In the same manor that their first system was really a pc without much real innovation. Sony on the other hand is a hardware company. They come up with a really complex piece of equipment, but lack the IDE. Luckily with the original Xbox taking off, MS was able to combine the two in a fairly complete package. I just MS would innovate a little like motion sensors in the controller.

---

I hope MS stays away from the motion sensors unless they can keep rumble. I don't want to use that hand waving in all my games. I will buy a Wii for that.

You don't think Xbox Live was innovative? MS pushed the entire industry to go online and we are much better off now. Ms was the first to make a good dashboard that can be used for many functions. There are a ton of small little things MS made a standard in this generation. I love the achievements also!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timman_24

I hope MS stays away from the motion sensors unless they can keep rumble. I don't want to use that hand waving in all my games. I will buy a Wii for that.

You don't think Xbox Live was innovative? MS pushed the entire industry to go online and we are much better off now. Ms was the first to make a good dashboard that can be used for many functions. There are a ton of small little things MS made a standard in this generation. I love the achievements also!

---

Yeah, Xbox Live was innovative for an online experience. Good point. I just find it funny how they nickle and dime you to death for content that should already be in the games you buy. For example, in Madden you have to pay for some of the stadiums where it's probably free in the PS3 version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksuohio

Yeah, Xbox Live was innovative for an online experience. Good point. I just find it funny how they nickle and dime you to death for content that should already be in the games you buy. For example, in Madden you have to pay for some of the stadiums where it's probably free in the PS3 version.

---

Yeah, that is more up to the developers though. When Dead Rising came out Capcom put up a lot of extra that they couldn't get into the final game for free. If the game was made by EA you can expect it to have all kinds of material for a fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksuohio

Yeah, Xbox Live was innovative for an online experience. Good point. I just find it funny how they nickle and dime you to death for content that should already be in the games you buy. For example, in Madden you have to pay for some of the stadiums where it's probably free in the PS3 version.

---

Keep in mind though, the PS3 is also home to GTHD where you buy the game and it comes with (apparently) no cars and no tracks and you have to buy each thing you want.

dude paying to complete a game is beyond lame.... thats uncalled for, you buy a game sleeve and thats your ticket to buy the rest of the game? pffftttt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksuohio

The one thing that MS has going for them with ease of development is a history of design IDE's. Being a software company first, it's what they understand. In the same manor that their first system was really a pc without much real innovation. Sony on the other hand is a hardware company. They come up with a really complex piece of equipment, but lack the IDE. Luckily with the original Xbox taking off, MS was able to combine the two in a fairly complete package. I just MS would innovate a little like motion sensors in the controller.

---

I understand Sony is a hardware company but as a company the hardware may be complex [actually the design is inefficient] but developing on one shouldn't be especially since this is their 3rd console. Developers aren't hedging their bets on Sony anymore and developing for the Wii and 360 leveling the playing field something Sony had as an advantage before. Speaking of Microsoft what's up with the product activation in Vista? You can install it on your main PC and one more time there after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongsc

Speaking of Microsoft what's up with the product activation in Vista? You can install it on your main PC and one more time there after.

---

That clause in the ELUA was redone and it now states that if you have a retail copy, it can be installed on only one computer at a time. There was a couple threads about a month ago in the OS forum about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksuohio

That clause in the ELUA was redone and it now states that if you have a retail copy, it can be installed on only one computer at a time. There was a couple threads about a month ago in the OS forum about this.

---

but doesn't the OS lockup and go trial if it's not activated? so in essence if you keep your pc offline for work use only with no net need it will go trial for not being activated, true or false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

but doesn't the OS lockup and go trial if it's not activated? so in essence if you keep your pc offline for work use only with no net need it will go trial for not being activated, true or false.

---

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if it needs activated? Yes. There are other ways to active besides over the internet.

My point was the MS changed the EULA to state that the retail version of Vista can be moved from one computer to another, but can only be installed on one machine at a time. This is how the current licensing works for Windows XP, but MS changed the wording for Vista originally. After a couple blog sites drew attention to the change, MS changed it back.