Originally Posted by Inui Takumi

Isnt that a good thing? I mean, I dont wanna a console that is going to suck in a few years. I want one that will last, and that is what Sony has done so far with the PS1 and PS2.

For me, I obviously prefer the PS3, otherwise I wouldnt have shelled out the $500 dollars for it. For one thing, why pay $50 for an internet connection I already pay for. And the games that are coming out for it, too good for words. Just needs one word actually: MGS4.

And, with only a portion of the potential being tapped, there are a lot of things in store for PS3 owners that 360 owners will be crying to have later on. 360 is a good machine and all, but with the Ring of Death fiasco it had, its not that reliable IMO.

Originally Posted by ForeverGreen

well i did hear this new batch of consoles is supposed to last longer than the usaul 5-6 years but its like i said before at this point 360 is better

Originally Posted by Gerbil The Sinner

The 360 also came out sooner, so it's not a fair comparison yet.

Originally Posted by ForeverGreen

thats what i said its been out a little longer so we have to wait for asonys heavy hitters this holiday season and it will get closer

Originally Posted by Gerbil The Sinner

I know that. I was just pointing out that the "so far" argument in terms of quality was a bit obvious.

Originally Posted by Mirchiru Nakadai

I don't like that you can't play PS2 games on the PS3