Static..

That's just the truth. Even with Home, and the Blu-Ray player, and lots of great games coming, the cost:value relationship doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Certainly, with all the concern over the price, other concerns become amplified (sometimes beyond reason), and bashers see their chance to spread FUD. I'd agree with that. And certainly, there's still a large PS fanbase out there that will be more easily sold on PS3 than on Wii or 360, but won't buy a system this year or even next. But the end result is that Sony is alienating customers. You can't argue with the sales numbers.

yeah, you're right, i'm a fanboy.....and i don't speak very well english, so everytime i would explain my guesses, i mess up everything....... aniway you are a fanboy just like me (i read many your posts), so...... ps3 is the best! why?? just open your eyes....

The first N64 games were 8 MB, and later titles had to be, I dunno, bigger. :) I think the hard limit for the format was 64 MB, though I doubt any games used carts that big. Still, your point holds, a CD is almost 100x bigger than the first N64 games (but more than 100x slower, mind you). As far as using flash memory for games, I don't think it would be such a bad idea. You can get 1 GB SD cards for $11 right now, and that's retail, meaning they cost even less to produce. Flash memory has really quick random access time, and is writable... anyone remember the 64DD? 5 years from now, 8 or 16 GB ought to be within reason, and I think that would still be plenty for a game if they aren't loading it with FMV. If every game had a few GB of writable storage at its disposal, memory cards and internal hard drives in consoles might become a thing of the past. Then again, given that MS and Sony want their consoles to do more than gaming, maybe not. I don't think the above will actually happen. But it will be interesting to see if Nintendo once again considers a non-optical storage media in 2011.

Resident Evil 2 and Conker's Bad Fur Day were 64MB cartridges. Ogre Battle 64 was on a 40MB cartridge.

To tell you the honest truth.... If I couldn't afford it I would be pretty mad as well but anyone who thinks the $400 price point of the 360 is attainable really should not be offset from getting the $500 version. If price was an issue why do I see most people reaching for the $600 SKU instead of the $500 dollar. For the first 3 months finding a PS3 was rough in south fla but when you did find them the last thing that seemed to go was the 20 gigs. I really have difficulty seeing this alienation of average consumers. I sold phones, clothes, accessories and almost sold cars. Value is really an emotional rationalization for buying an item. I have talked to people who would drop $600 on a phone but then turn around and say that $600 is to much for a PS3. Do I need to go even delve into that? I agree while most who cannot afford it will be upset but those who are unsure of getting one are fence sitters, as I said above. A fence sitter will most likely be open to other systems. People who are not fence sitters do complain about price but do not knock value because they are planning on getting one eventually. Whether Sony attains the bulk of thier sales this year next year or two years down the road. After a price drop or just after so many damn good titles are released sales will come. Only people worried about the future of the PS3 are people who are hedging bets about it failing. Sony seems conceded and arrogant because they do not expect their system to fail and that is a horrible thing? I don't expect it to fail and so do many others who purchased their PS3's (for gaming purposes). Like I said before these customers you describe most likely was not in Sony's camp to begin with. I know a few. They own PS2's enjoy the best titles yet still for some reason for these games to be on their xbox or other system of choice. Maybe they like the controller better, or maybe they are rooting for the other company but I am just pointing out that the people that are complaining probably don't really want the system. And because of the arguements I have heard from fans and haters and casuals all alike seem to support my opinion. I seriously want everyone to do that. Talk to as many gamers as you can find about the PS3 and see whether or not these people complaining about the PS3 (sour grapes) really are interested in getting one or are they just blowing air to justify their stakes in this so called war.

The PS3 is not the N64 in a lot of aspects (mainly in those that changed due to constantly evolving technology), but in a way their scenarios are beginning to look familiar. Why? Because the PS3 has to fight against an already stablished same generation console, but has a powerful weapon: it has a very powerful brand that is gonna be very tough to destroy. That same situation happened to Nintendo at the time. They were the one to beat, so is Sony right now. Its games are more expensive to produce, so is the hardware that is in theory more powerful (CPU-wise). They're using a format (Blu-ray) that is more expensive to produce and less user-friendly at the end. Blu-ray and all this HD definition is a weird thing to talk about for the vast majority of the market... I believe Sony is doomed in that sense. But that is only a feeling, not a fact based on objective reasons. I tend to believe this cause it seems MS has scheduled all its future releases to reduce PS3's impact with his Japanese old school hits. By the way, doomed means for me they're not going to be nº1 this generation. They will learn the lesson though.