I think motion control is a good idea. It's nice to have options when you play a game but only if the motion control work. Adding a motion controller to the ps3 allows the ps3 to produce simple casual games like nintendo but with better graphics. Sony is in dire need of money. If you gotta copy to make money, than so be it.

At least there are doing well on Japan outselling the wii.

I think Sony and Microsoft need to come up with their own ideas to make consumers find something novel in them, rather than having three of the same thing. Sony cannot live without copying Nintendo and Microsoft is showing that they have no creativity either.

Why would you do such a thing??

Cuz I'm nuts!!! (evil luagh)... No seriously, I wanted to give the game a chance after hearing from a few people it wasn't as bad as the demo made it out to be.

 no, halo 3 is 39.99, mass effect is 19.99, and bioshock is 29.99 (on the 360, still 59.99 on ps3)

sony is a greedy company...is anybody surprised by this??

Euphoria14 said: Last I checked my local retailer had Mass Effect for $20, Halo 3 for $40 and Bioshock for $20-30 (depends on where you look). PS3 titles seem to take way too long to drop in price, which is part of the reason why my 360 library is rapidly catching up with my PS3 library. Seriously, charging full price almost 2 years after release is flat out bullshit. I have the same issue with the Wii. I don't buy games for it because it is bullshit to me that games that released back at the end of 2006 are still at full price and games from early to mid 2007 are full priced as well. These companies (especially Nintendo and Sony) need to stop being so fucking greedy and drop software prices once in a while for their good games and not just the trash titles. Ok, rant done.

Erm...putting Nintendo and Sony in the same category of greed seems a little imbalanced. I think there has been enough pointing out that Sony is selling an over-priced console at a loss, whereas Nintnedo is selling a cheap console at a profit that the tag "greedy" for not dropping game prices sooner could be levelled at Nintendo, whereas for Sony trying to get as much profit out of games is a matter of survival, not greed.

You can pan Sony for making a machine that sells at a loss even when it is the most expensive machine in the game. But the fact that this is the hardware they've chosen does not make them particularly greedy for needing to cross-subsidise through game sales to compensate for hardware losses. It might make them stupid, but not greedy, at least no more greedy than your average company.

Frankly I'm surprised Sony can afford to drop game prices. From where are they meant to eke out a profit while the hardware sells at a loss if not from game sales? Though I think they are probably making a tiny profit on the hardware now, but just don't want to tell the public about it.

Here in New Zealand most high profile games debut at ~$120 (USD$68). After a short while many drop to the $110 mark (I think KZ2 has already dropped to this level) and platinums drop to $60-$80, sometimes special for $50. Cheap, crap games sell for $40 or less. I haven't looked at all the games mentioned in the OP but I know Uncharted is platinum here and so is selling for $80 or less now.

The other thing I'm surprised about is that people are all upset that a company is greedy. Greedy is what corporations are, MS included. If a company can continue to sell large amounts of product at original prices and make pots of cash in the process then why would they drop the price? They drop the price when they see there is some advantage to doing so, and not before. Get used to it. It's one reason competition is good in this industry.