While I will not dispute any of his points (they are are factual points) I still think he exaggerates their significance. Also, as pointed out, he conveniently overlooks a glaring flaw with his favored console. Personally, I would much rather have a console that performs the necessary tasks even if only 90% than one that doesn't do them at all.

If it were an employee you were talking about, would you rather have the outstanding employee that may walk out any moment or the worker you can rely on to stick around even if they occasionally make a mistake?

In some ways I'm disappointed too like that author. I think my concerns are more valid though. For reference: I don't own any other console other than Sony branded ones, and I recently bought a PS Vita. I had a PSP that I broke and threw in the trash. I bought another one that put me at the 2 portable console limit to share my games. Now, when I try to download stuff for my vita, it tells me to deactivate one of the other PSP.

Wait. Before you judge me, I know that I can deactivate all of my PS consoles to give access to my PS Vita, but I ask you. Why limit Skype, Youtube, and other applications that are not games to only two portable handheld consoles. Isn't The Vita a different generation than the PSP? Should it count as a different device that gets two shares by itself?

This is the things that slightly tick me off about Sony. It's their very closed minded way of thinking (trying to protect themselves) that they actually hamper on the experience of some of the people who buy their stuff.

Why didn't he just buy himself a new 360 instead of a PS3? Unless of course he already owned the PS3... In that case... I don't even know what to say anymore...

Seriously, when someone is about to go a rant about one system, while giving the fact his fave console dying on him a complete pass, it's time to stop reading.

@ Kowen

You're right, it would be different if he was talking about the 360.  You'd be in here defending it instead of PS3 fans in here now defending the PS3.

Guys like Skerrit are called presstitudes-results are such stupid articles that even a lazy and bad english speaking guy will try to say his 5 cents.
In the first time I was wondering how badly the ps3 was treated compared to the 360 in the english-speaking press,but than I realised,that this is only happening in the english speaking press(and that's the reason why the 360 has the lead only in english speaking countries).After doing some research about microsoft and how they grew so fast so big to create such a monopol.Well,it was just like the only other big monopolist Rockefellers Standard Oil.
A reckless company using every possible and dirty trick to destroy the opponents,and in this case it is defamation.
When Sony showed the killzone 2 realtime graphics all were extremly upset when they discovered that it was rendered(but only the US,GB and Australian press)Others didn't care because this was nothing new or special in gaming where faked screenshots are usual.
When MS was caught lying about kinect at the E3(the performed real time demo was a fake)the press was pretty silence.(imagine Sony would have done this,they would have been destroyed by the press)
Mr Skerrit is part of this show(the big sales are in november,december)
Though he has not the possibility to compare 360 versions directly with PS3 versions and though he hadn't enough time for really testing the PS 3 he found out :it's all crap.
Well:He didn't care about a greedy company taking 50bucks a year for internet gaming that's free on all other sytems.He ignores getting for the same money dozens of games for free on ps+,he ignores about a blu ray player for free,he doesn't care about massive rrod problems and the extreme noise the 360 is making or the fact that MS turned the hardcoregaming 360 into a casual gaming plattform with almost no exclusivs(i'm missing the 360 times with peter more at the top),but he believes that the 360 achievements are superior to the ps 3 trophies.This is so pathetic,because there is no difference
because they work exactly the same way.It's the same crap on both sytems.
Yes sony copied the trophies just as MS copied the eyetoy and the console as multi media idea.
I hope he was payed well,because it must be hard for a grown to write such crap.

Honestly, I do understand your frustration, de-activating systems just to add new ones is frustrating.  But look at it objectively.  Allowing account sharing between 2 consoles is still 1 more than either of the competition allows.  And when the limit was 5 (which is used to be), it was mayhem with 5 people just pooling their resources into one account and sharing the game between them.  The system in place now may be annoying compared to what it used to be, but it's still objectively fairer than anything else and it makes a lot more sense.

Given the comments thus far. It feels to me like I was the only one that really bothered to read the article. The real issue the author has with the brand and the manufacturer is that his trust has been damaged. Those are his words, and instead of taking issue with every one of his examples as to how. You should have addressed the core of the problem. Namely that Sony hasn't matched the competition, and Sony hasn't lived up to the expectations of many owners, or for that matter their own rhetoric.

Look it doesn't matter if the difference is a mile or two inches. Sony allowed its customers to think that their console in the end would be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, and not only didn't Sony match those expectations which they actively fostered. They managed to come up certifiably short. In just about every meaningful way Microsoft did outperform Sony. Whether he should have known better isn't even a fair question. A lot of posters on these forums didn't know any better either.

If some of you had taken your blinders off you would have gotten a real appreciation for the story he is trying to tell, and it isn't one about being biased, hateful, or looking for attention. He was a early adopter of the PS3, and gave up on the console out of frustration, because he grew tired of the piss poor library, the technical hurdles he had to jump, and the horrible implementation. In other words he did exactly what a lot of members on these forums actually did. What did you forget about all those PS3 loyalists who broke down and bought a 360, or jumped brands outright. His story was a pretty common one, and even after all that he did something that a lot of the obviously unbiased users on these very forums wouldn't do.

He actually gave Sony and the PS3 another chance. Yeah I know what a total fucking dick. How dare he put all of his preconceptions aside, and give the product another chance. Unfortunately it seems he can't allow himself to overlook the glaring shortcomings that are still there. Even all these years later. You know what it isn't unfortunate. Good for him. There is nothing wrong with having high standards, and if a product isn't meeting those standards. He does have every goddamn right to point that out to the world.

If some of you want to settle for second best. Fine that is your choice, but don't lambaste someone for having some actual high standards. The question isn't what is his problem. The question is what is your problem. Why are you making excuses, or blindly defending bad results. You know there is a better alternative, and bitching about someone being actually bothered to point that out just seems petty.

While I am at it there is something else that needs to be said. It isn't just a matter of poor taste. Not attaching the link to the original source it is immoral and wrong. If you don't want people to take notice of this individual that is your right, but the right response in that event isn't to post their intellectual property. What you are doing is stealing, and I am fairly certain that if someone did that to this sites staff they wouldn't be happy about that kind of insult. I am fairly certain that you wouldn't like someone stealing things from you either.

Follow the golden rule, and put up the link.

Lol, the only response that needs to be given to you or the article is: His PS3 still works perfectly fine, while his 360 died 2 1/2 years after he bought it.  Which brand should he really be disappointed with?

All I got out of the article is this:

He dislikes his PS3.
He has many issues with the PS3.
Somethings are done better elsewhere.
Does not like the Exclusive Offerings on the PS3.

But does not actually explain why he does not like them (the games). Why he has issues or what they exactly are (the many issues). Or what and how things are done better elsewhere (trophies, etc).

Not sure Id call this guy biased (I mean, when is an opinion NOT biased in someway), but just grumpy? Maybe?

The reason why so many third party games run worst on the ps3 is because of the lazy devs. The ps3 has a different and more complicated structure to develop games for then the 360.