Well written by dumb. Their bitching about what enough hardcore games and lack of PS3 support LOL. The guy who wrote it might want to do a llittle research and learn just how big Sonys dev capability is and that 90% of it is being focused on the PS3 and NOT the PS2 or PSP.

Thats article is just opinion based on a lacks of knowledge.

"Sony's main focus at present remains firmly on the PS2 and the PSP"

This pretty much shows the writer has no clue wtf hes writing about, and its right from the start.

You are right. They didn't know that they would have so much competition from Nintendo and Microsoft and find themselves in a deepening hole from which there is no escape.

I was wondering when Hus would make an appearance to keep supporting the sinking ship that is the PS3. I honestly don't know why the admins on this site don't ban you already...

I have said since well before the PS3 launched that I couldn't see how Sony could be more profitable from Blu-Ray than from theoritical profits from the PS3; they probably make 10 to 20 times as much revenue from the licencing of a third party PS3 game than they would from the licencing off of a Blu-Ray movie. I honestly believe that Sony never saw the risk in selling a console for $600 and believed that people would line-up to pay it in record numbers; essentially they thought they could easily win the HD war because 30 Million gamers would buy the PS3 by the end of 2007 because gamers love the Playstation brand.

Um, Sony would make more money off Blu-ray because all the companies that want to make Blu-ray products, hardware AND software, have to pay royalties to Sony.

Ohh noes someone done not think like all the nintendo people.

ban them, ban then all Hail nintendo Hail fuhrer.

Frankly, I think you'd have to be an idiot to say something like that.  The disc size has absolutely nothing to do with the game length.  I can make a 1,000 hour game on a single floppy disc and not even fill it up.  That doesn't make it a good game.  And, in fact, I'd have to say that HS is probably a better game at 6-7 hours than it would have been at 15-20 and it's somehting I'm more likely to pick up. 

 Some people don't want to, or simply can't, devote dozens of hours to a single game and still hope to play others throughout the year.  The last time I played a game that lasted me over 100 hours it was literally the only game I played for the first 4 months that I owned it, and it was still the focus of most of my playing for another 6 months after that. 

If All I have for gaming is 10 hours a month, I don't want HS to last 20 hours.  Simple as that.  Just because you don't have to work to keep a roof over your head and food in your mouth (let alone the cost of gas, children, school, clothes, etc.) doesn't mean I have the luxury of sitting on my ass and doing nothing productive for 30 hours every week.

This just goes to show how young and childish you are. I never said that I support Nintendo or any of the companies. YOU are the one on here everyday making 100 posts everyday talking about how good the PS3 is and how Sony is the best and gonna win and blah blah blah. I got a big news flash for you Mr. 12-year-old...Sony has ALREADY lost, period.

News flash, you quted me for no reason whining about my post.

Some 9 year olds cant handle other people opinion.