Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comparing the PS3 and 360 119

Posted by Zonk
from the apples-and-oranges dept.
Yahoo! Games is running a piece comparing the PS3 and 360. They look at the hardware, software, and HD offerings for Sony and Microsoft's next-gen consoles. From the article: "Unlike the last generation, where Sony clearly held a commanding lead, the next generation of gaming is going to be a much closer race between the behemoths of Microsoft and Sony. Though there were many skeptics last fall, the past eight months have shown the Xbox 360 to be a very capable system and more than powerful enough to challenge the PlayStation 3. Microsoft also believes it will have 10 million units in the global marketplace before Sony even leaves the gate. So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comparing the PS3 and 360

Comments Filter:
  • Simple Answer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jokerz17 (681197)
    I already own a 360.
    • Agreed! This comparison is simple:

      As of right now,
      1) you can purchase and play a 360
      2) you can not purchase or play a P3

      -Rick
    • Re:Simple Answer (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MyDixieWrecked (548719) * on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:12PM (#15543730) Homepage Journal
      In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.

      Personally, I didn't think microsoft had it in them to put out a decent piece of hardware. The first month my friend had his, the most impressive thing I found about it was the controller. It really felt nice. Aside from that, I was disinterested in the console as a whole. It was big. It crashed a bunch (until we put it on a better platform), and it didn't have any decent games.

      Now, they've got an impressive lineup. Fight Night, Burnout, Table Tennis, and Geometry Wars (o, how I am e'er addicted to you, geometry wars) make the system worth it. Although, I still think my friend is an idiot for justifying the 500$ he spent to get the system when it was still sold out everywhere.

      so, being that you already own a 360, are you implying that you wouldn't purchase a ps3, no matter how strong the offering of launch titles?
      • In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.

        Ia gree, but you need to add that the initial supply was miniscule for the first 3 months or so. The shortage wasn't so much that it was popular just that it was in short supply. durring all periods the 36
      • In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.

        You just described the PS2's launch.

        Personally, I didn't think microsoft had it in them to put out a decent piece of hardware. The first month my friend had his, the most impressive thing I found abo

        • So, after the PS2 and PSP (I honestly don't even remember any PS1 launch titles) launches you're actually expecting a good launch for the PS3? When has Sony ever had an impressive launch lineup?

          I never expected something so good out of microsoft, so anything's possible. the 360 has impressed me more than anything microsoft has ever done. Although, it still (even after the dashboard update) feels like a kludgy microsoft product in some ways. namely the strangely placed buttons, and weird behavior of controls
          • Re:Simple Answer (Score:3, Insightful)

            by RoadDoggFL (876257)
            Well silly me for assuming that a gaming machine's launch should be evaluated on its performance as a gaming machine. Also, unintentional uses can't really be credited as successes on Sony's part.

            But I'm quite disappointed with the 360. The Xbox really appealed to me and it just seems that the 360 represents another step in the loss of the charm of console gaming. If the PS3 gains significant popularity, that'll be another few steps but at least Nintendo knows what it's doing.

            But yes, anything is possib
          • The things MS did that impressed me the most were 1) scroll wheel 2) decent optical mouse

            Both of these came to my attention from MS and I think they were at least partially responsible for them.
    • As do I, and I plan on getting a PS3 as well as a Wii
  • No blu-ray (Score:1, Funny)

    by ShaneThePain (929627)
    One has blu-ray, one does not.
    That makes the choice obvious to me.
    Why buy a standalone blu-ray player for a thousand when I can get a PS3 that does the same plus more for 600?

    25GB per layer... yummeh.
    • Re:No blu-ray (Score:5, Insightful)

      by harrkev (623093) <kfmsdNO@SPAMharrelsonfamily.org> on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:11PM (#15543721) Homepage
      This assumes that one WANTS to buy blu-ray. I, for one, do not welcome our HDCP overlords that come riding in on the back of HDMI.

      Thanks, but I'll pass for this lifetime.
    • Re:No blu-ray (Score:5, Insightful)

      by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:14PM (#15543752)
      This makes sense if:

      1. You can afford $600
      2. You have an HD tv
      3. You are in the market for a game console
      4. There is a catalog of available movies for BR
      5. You are in the market for a HD video player

      I think a very small segment of the population fits these criteria. Personally I would only buy a PS3 to use as a video player if I knew for a fact that BR would be the winner. BR could bomb and you would have to go buy a standalone HD-DVD video player anyway.

      • Re:No blu-ray (Score:3, Informative)

        by Trogre (513942)
        That's $500, dude.

        $600 just gets you a flash reader, Wi-Fi, HDMI and a silver logo.

        None of which (not even HDMI) are necessary for HD on the PS3.

    • Why buy a standalone blu-ray player for a thousand when I can get a PS3 that does the same plus more for 600?

      Because integrated devices generally suck. Go back to the PS2 in 2000. Why would you buy a $500 stand-alone DVD player when you can buy a PS2 for $300 that does the same plus more? Because the PS2 was a horrible DVD player. Do you really expect the PS3 to be a great Blu-Ray player?

      Of course, that's assuming you buy into Blu-Ray at all, or that you must be an early adopter of the format. Per

    • Re:No blu-ray (Score:5, Interesting)

      by masklinn (823351) <slashdot,org&masklinn,net> on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:23PM (#15543870)

      Because Blu-Ray will go the way Betamax went and you'll end up with a useless Blu-Ray player that you'll have to replace every 6 months cause it'll be as reliable as the PS2's DVD player?

      (and 25GB per layer? Who cares when the access times and transfer speed don't even reach DVD's. )

    • Or just not buy either since the format is doomed as a platform for anything but games anyway.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15, 2006 @04:57PM (#15543539)
    The PS3 is vaporware until it hits final production status in the ramp up to release. Let's compare today's Honda Civic hyrbrid with the future hyrbrid offerings of GM based on speculation of performance values pulled out of someone's ass! huzzah! Look! Honda wins! But GM catches up well! Full story on Dvorak's blog tomorrow!
  • One word... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by no_opinion (148098) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @04:57PM (#15543542)
    Wii!
  • Multiple Choice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by roguenine19 (901001)
    I'm going with c) None of the above.

    I think it's interesting that the Wii isn't included, especially because the current best guess is that it will be launching before the PS3. I wonder if it's because the writer recognizes that it's truly something unique and different, or if he's just discounting it because of Nintendo's image problems in the previous generation.
    • The writer DID mention the Wii at the end of the article, but while the 360 and Ps3 are direct competitors with similar specifications going after the same audience, Nintendo is targeting a completely different market with the Wii and intends it to be complementary to the other two consoles, and not a direct competitor. Thus, any "360 vs. Ps3 vs. Wii comparisons" wouldnt really be appropriate.
      • Re:Multiple Choice (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rydia (556444)
        That argument is silly. The only market segment Nintendo is actually abandoning is the "hardcore gamer" segment, which is really small anyway. Nintendo can say all they want about how they don't want to compete directly, but at the end of the day, they are, and perhaps even using the non-competition rhetoric to insulate themselves from any putative slugfest.
    • Re:Multiple Choice (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not really.. since the article was "xbox 360 vs ps3" including Wii in there would seem a bit odd. it's nice it got that paragraph at the end as it is.

      if the article was "next gen console war" then NOT including Wii in there would be insulting.
    • I think that it IS because the Wii will be something unique and different. I'm generally a Sony backer, and I will indeed be picking up a PS3 on launch day, but I will most likely also pick up a Wii a.s.a.p. simply because there is nothing else like it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:01PM (#15543578)
    The one with the most impressive "jiggle physics" in Dead Or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 2
  • by jugglerjon (559269) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:01PM (#15543585)
    This means that unless you pre-order, chances are good the only place you'll be able to find the PlayStation 3 in November is on eBay (at an insanely high cost)

    So they'll have them at retail cost?
    • People were paying far more than the PS3 retail for 360's for the whole month of December.

      If you thought $500 was "insane", try more like $800 - or $1k. Not an insignificant number of 360 consoles were going for that much.

  • I can answer that (Score:2, Insightful)

    by skam240 (789197)
    "So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"

    That's easy. You buy the one that isnt ridiculously over priced.
    • If you look at what is in the PS3 vs the 360 then the 360 seems to be a bit expensive for its hardware. At least spec wise the PS3 delivers a lot more.

      A 100.000 dollar mercedes is more expensive then a 20.000 dollar lada but it is still the lada that is overpriced.

      Off course this has nothing to do with gameplay but for now it seems that if you want gameplay you are in luck, the cheapest console will be the one with the better gameplay. Offcourse that is not saying the Wii is not overpriced. Nintendo has t

      • Of course I could have meant the Wii as while the price hasnt officially been officially announced the prevailing word on the street is that it will be priced at 250.

        Furthermore, from what I've seen, the big justification for the PS3 having a substantially higher price to the 360 is the Blu-ray player on the PS3 (of course the PS3 has a few other edges over the 360 but they do not amount to anything too substancial). I would suggest that the few extra hundred dollars for this media player is not worth it fo
      • "If you look at what is in the PS3 vs the 360 then the 360 seems to be a bit expensive for its hardware."

        Care to clarify this statement?
      • Nintendo has the most overpriced consoles of all, the proof? MS and Sony subsidise the early consoles, Nintendo does not and makes a profit on them, if that isn't overpricing them I don't know what is.

        Allow me to disagree! You buy a product to fulfill a certain need. If a product fulfills the expectations and has a low cost, it's not overpriced, almost by definition. You make a product and sell it, the natural expectation is that you make a profit from that sale. If another company is irresponsible and/

  • The one (Score:5, Funny)

    by mgabrys_sf (951552) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:08PM (#15543678) Journal
    That renders GTA4 in the best possible fidelity with the least possible load-times and disk swaps.

    Unless they release it for the Wii with nunchuck controller support for the baseball bat. Then all bets are off.
    But I'm not holding my breath - because - well, I like oxygen...

    Chainsaws and 1080p. Mmmmmmmalllllarghhhhdrool.
    • Re:The one (Score:3, Funny)

      by oahazmatt (868057)
      Unless they release it for the Wii with nunchuck controller support for the baseball bat. Then all bets are off.

      So you're saying that EB was lying to me when I paid $20 to reserve Grand Theft Auto: Animal Crossing?
  • Just buy them all. :)
  • by Hamster Lover (558288) * on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:15PM (#15543763) Journal
    The article is next to useless if you've done any reading about the PS3 or 360 in the last year; you'll know it all anyway. You can basically sum up the advantage of the PS3 over the Xbox is that the Bluray drive is able to store quite a bit more data. The 360 does have the advantage of a mature on-line experience with Xbox Live, besides the price advantage.

    There is a much better article at Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] that goes into a little more detail about the visual differences from the point of a game developer. Visually, what does a game designer say the difference is going to be between a 360 and the PS3? None. Hardware wise, the 360 and PS3 are actually pretty evently matched, and considering that there are still going to be a lot of cross platform games even if one machine had a decided advantage over the other game studios aren't going to push that advantage given the time and cost involved in just getting a game out the door in the first place.

    According to game developers, side by side you aren't going to be able to see a difference between the two systems playing the same game. Pretty much what I expected.
    • That the article gets several points wrong (such as the upgradability of the low end PS3 compared to the upgradability of the 360 (it switches them around). Kinda annoying to see something like that pop up in an article that's trying to compare the two it mixes up.
    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @10:15PM (#15545858) Homepage
      If the hardware is pretty much the same, then how come Sony is putting uber-expensive cell processors that nobody knows how to program for? If MS hardware gets the same power, is cheaper, and is easier to develop for, then doesn't that make the 360 a lot better?
    • The article you mention is reaching too. From the article you mentioned, "It was easy to tell the difference between a 2D side-scrolling game on the SNES and a 3D equivalent on the original Playstation. It was somewhat less easy, but still possible, to pick out the differences (mostly higher poly counts and smoother texture mapping, but also additional special effects) between a PS1 and PS2 game."

      Right... anyone who can't tell the difference between a PS1 and PS2 game should be slapped upside the face... t

  • All of the above (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nightspirit (846159) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @05:19PM (#15543817)
    Well, sort of. I don't live in my parent's basement, so I can afford all of these systems. I will most likely be getting a Wii if it does not turn out to be too gimicky.

    I'm guessing for anyone not obsessed about japanese RPGs that the 360 and PS3 will be very similar with their scope of games, so for most people it will be a Wii plus either the 360 or PS3.

    While I can afford it, $500-600 is still a large chunk of change, so Sony better be putting something up OTHER than blu-ray to get my money. Perhaps something similar to live arcade, but with much more content.

    Most people likely won't care about blu-ray. Most people I've talked to stated that they would buy 1, maybe 2 movies in blu-ray format if they had a player. Plus, I can't be the only one waiting for $50-$100 combo HD-DVD/blu-ray players (after seeing sony's implementation of DVD on the ps2, I think I'll pass on having the ps3 as my sole player).
  • Under the hood? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by miikrr (799637)
    Sony's comanding lead in last generation had nothing to do with the PS2's hardware prowess, it was the software that gave it the comanding lead. The Gamecube and Xbox were far more powerful than the PS2, so why isn't this a comparison of the Wii and the 360 as to fit in with the analogy?
  • So they are comparing a machine that exists, and is on the market, against a machine that "exists" on paper.....

    tell me... what are you more afraid of?
    1- the terrorist threatening you with a gun on your head?
    2- the "terrorist" threatening you by saying he has a gun?

    i think i'm more scared of real objects that can kill you instead of words that can be a load of BS.... so i would put money on the win of the Xbox 360 because it is presently a machine that EXISTS!
    • Damn you, tabbed browsing! I was going to post something insightful and awesome right here in this reply box, but by the time I finished reading the other articles and got back to this tab, all I can think is that I totally agree with you - which I was going to say anyway, but in a much cooler way. How about I... give you some statistics for my comment which will be posted later, and people can judge how good it will be, and rate this comment accordingly :)
    • So you're saying that the PS3 is a terrorist with a gun to my head? Where's George Bush when you need him?
  • You can get the 360 now and you know what you're getting. It is well documented and understood with a robust list of good games coming in the latter part of the year.

    PS3 will be on first gen games when it launches in November and at present no one really knows how the thing will work, seeing as no-one (not even developers) has seen the final production model yet.

    So if you want a new games console now, get the 360. If you can wait 9 months for the dust to settle ask this question again then.

  • by Icepole4 (978286) on Thursday June 15, 2006 @06:52PM (#15544695)
    Saying the 360 wins because the PS3 doesn't "exist" might be the dumbest thing I've heard all year. That's like being a millionaire and saying I'm gonna get that new Honda Civic because the new Porche 911 hasn't come out yet. :-/ Come on, as in every console war the games will decide the winner...PERIOD! Do not pass go, do not collect $10,000, the games will decide. If I had my guess, MS and the 360 is going to get trounced by Sony and Nintendo. Not that it is a bad system, but where are the must have games? I'm not talking about the games we slasdotters/PC gamers/techies enjoy. I am talking about games that the general public will buy a system to play. There are none, and the 360 sales figures reflect that. Beyond release day and a month after the 360 became an afterthought. Love 'em or hate 'em Sony is right in their assumption that no matter what the price the first 5 million are going to sell just because it's a playstation. MS had a chance to cut into that market with the 360 and they haven't even dented it. Myself and most everybody else will plop down their 500-600 and get the playstation. Let's be honest guys, the only reason people are complaining the price is because they know they are getting the PS3 and didn't count on parting with that much money to have one. The Wii will pick up the Nintendo fanboys and the 13 and under crowd, leaving MS with.... Their only hope IMO is to get Halo 3 out on PS3 release day or at the very least before MGS4 and make sure that it is one of the best FPS of all time. If not I don't see how they can compete in the long run. Which is sad because competition is great for us consumers.
    • >Come on, as in every console war the games will decide the winner...PERIOD!
      >Do not pass go, do not collect $10,000, the games will decide.

      Okay...

      >Love 'em or hate 'em Sony is right in their assumption that no matter what the
      >price the first 5 million are going to sell just because it's a playstation. [...]
      >Myself and most everybody else will plop down their 500-600 and get the playstation.
      >Let's be honest guys, the only reason people are complaining the price is because
      >they know they
      • You make valid points let's break it down

        >Quote:
        So are they buyin it because they like the games (which, oh yeah, like the system, don't even exist yet) or because they're one of Sony's fanboys?

        They are buying based on past history. The PS2 was and is a great system. Many people are going to buy based on their experience with the PS2, and with their domination of the last generation a lot of consoles sold at launch will be sold on that and that alone.

        >Quote:
        If MS follows through with their predictio
      • as of e3, MS only had 3 million x360s in the market... total. 3 million "shipped" in the first seven months; shipped, not sold...

        north america is their biggest sales region, but sales are only ~1.7 million here. [these were MS' own numbers from e3] the x360 "shortage" is over, but the consoles still arent flying off the shelves. it is still being outsold by a "weak" six year old console. x360 sales are far below sales of the original xbox. to put things in perspective; in its first couple of weeks, the ps2
  • Wii is 100% for sure. If SSBB came out on launch day, I'll get it on launch day no questions asked. Since it is not, I am 75% likely to get it due to Zelda:TP, Wario Ware (very fun games for the gf and her sibs) and other blockbuster franchises.

    As for the PS3, it's mainly to feed my JRPG cravings. If the PS3 bombs and rpg developers move to Wii, then that'll be 1 less system to buy. If the rpg developers move to the 360 (shudders), I'll be forced to buy a 360. I'm hoping MistWalker pulls a Capcom (RE4)
    • >i> If the rpg developers move to the 360 (shudders)... ...and the developers making the same exact game on the 360 instead of the ps3 is bad how? Nobody even has a ps3 yet so it's not like you'd have to switch.
  • The 360 is selling slower than the original Xbox even now that the supply issues have been resolved. Don't forget Microsoft got their 23% marketshare with a blank check [to the tune of $8 billion in expenses and $4 billion in sales] and nowadays MS management has promised that the 360 will be consistently profitable after the middle of next year.

    The PS2 looks like it's going to be the dominant console of 2006 [yes, I said 2] and the 360 is increasingly looking like yet another Dreamcast.
    • I think if you took the time to look at all the things the 360 offers now and is going to continue to offer, you would be a little more hesitent to call it the next Dreamcast. It offers the best online experience out of any console so far, with over 2 million current members. The arcade feature in itself offers hours of fun. And then when you consider the games on the list for coming out this year.. Gears of War, Mass Effect, FEAR... I think the Xbox 360 offers a very strong opponent for the PS3 to face off
  • Does it really matter anymore? My theory is that due to the massive budgets that modern game development requires, publishers want to maximize their audience by going cross-platform. Sure, each console has its one or two "mascot" exclusives, but most of the game last generation ended up being either cross-platform, or ported to the PC.

    Note: I am not counting Nintendo in this, as the Wii control scheme probably makes porting games to other systems counter-productive.
  • I buy every major console release in every generation. I am not an overt fan on any one system or company.

    First off, I don't think the Wii should be in the same discussion as the PS3 or XBox 360. I may happen to buy one if there are games I want to play on the console. However, the cold hard facts are that graphics sell games. A game that looks good will be talked about, and purchased. If Nintendo is smart, they will use style over polygons with the Wii so that their titles will look good. But at the
    • But at the moment, the Wii does not strike me as being next-generation when it is only now approaching the pixel-power of the Xbox, a current-generation console.

      Are you serious? The Wii's controller is going to revolutionize gaming. It is going to open new markets and change the way we think about video games. In my opinion, the Wii is, in a way, the only console that should be considered "next-gen". Polygon counts and massive storage do not make games any more fun. The thing that makes a game consol

      • UForce.

        Virtual Boy.

        Super Scope Six.

        R.O.B.

        PowerPad.

        PowerGlove.

        I can go on.

        I've enjoyed many a Nintendo game over the years, though my N64 and GameCube largely gathered dust over the years. I love the concept of force feedback and an analog control. Both were very poorly executed by Nintendo with the N64.

        I have a special flight-stick I bought 10 years ago at a computer show. It has floating ball bearings that can sense how you move it through the air. You move the flight stick to the left in air, and your
        • Nintendo's Wii controller requires you to setup two sensors on the side of your TV which I don't care for.

          I believe it's actually just a single sensor bar, long and flat, which you lay on top of your TV, or somewhere near there. It contains the two sensors in the ends of the bar so they always stay in the proper relation to each other. A picture can be seen here (bottom picture): http://wii.nintendo.com/hardware.html [nintendo.com]

          ...a normal controller that I already enjoy as opposed to a remote shape that I'm con

  • Well, let's see here...

    On the one hand, we have a console from a corporation whose products I would never purchase (new). On the other hand, we have a console from another corporation whose products I would never purchase (new).

    So, if I were to ever get around to buying a new console (even though I still have so much on older consoles to catch up on...Saturn, Dreamcast, etc), I would have to go with Nintendo, despite the idiotic name they gave their new console.

    Or, I'll pick up a used PS2 and/or XBox once
    • Why are you not willing to buy the products of MS or Sony?
      Are the people at Nintendo really better? Remember the price fixing? [bbc.co.uk]
      Corporations will always be corporations, that doesn't mean the developers at sony computer entertainment or microsoft games are asses..
  • Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Friday June 16, 2006 @05:27AM (#15547300) Homepage
    Which ever one has the games you like.

    If you like western style games (very easy FPS, racing, movie tie-ins) get an XBOX 360. If you like Japanese style games (difficult RPGs, 2D/3D fighting games, anime tie-ins) get a PS3.
    • I agree, but I'd extend it to whichever ones has all of the features you like.

      For me, the 360 is an easy choice because:
      a.) It's out now.
      b.) It has lots of nice sports games, and I like sports games.
      c.) I don't have to pay $200 extra for a BluRay drive that I won't use.
      d.) I like Halo. Everyone I know likes Halo. There's only one console that has Halo.

      If I was in a different situation - namely, a much more affluent situation - I'd go PS3. I don't really see how one is "superior" to the other, they'r
    • I like how you pick the most boring examples of both western and eastern gaming ;)
    • It's AMAZING how much discussion is placed on the consoles themselves when this is really the only true answer.

  • PS3 offers both Super Audio CD and Blu-Ray reading and I think that makes it less of a commodity. Wii and Apple position themselves as charging a premium for good design quality and special features and I'm glad Sony is adding unique/first to market technologies to their mix. I personally can't wait to try the SACD I ordered from Amazon.com (Switchfoot) but my the entry fee is at least $100 for a player of not so great quality...it's being sold at TigerDirect and discounted and all but I don't think a Pio
  • I'm getting a Wii. Nintendo have done a superb job this time round and I think that deserves my money.

    Plus I haven't got an extra few hundred to spend for an xbox/ps3.

    Here in Ireland it is all about the second hand games market. The GC did poorly here and the lack of second hand games showed.

    This time around I think the Wii will capture 50%+ of the market and that means loads of second hand games.

    I might get a ps3 in a few years, but only if they have some really really good games and their controller is d
  • Just like reading an article comparing a Hummer with a Ford Excessive. I don't really care which one has more power and uses more gas because I have no interest in owning either of them.
  • Personally, I'm a cheap SOB. For me, it's all about entertainment value for my dollar. I've got a PS2, which I love, and I've been scouring ebgames and microplay's bargain bin for ages - I don't have time to sit down and play for hours on end, and I certainly don't want to pay $50-90 for a game, never mind $500+ for a gaming console. I can wait a year (or two) to play the 'latest, best game yet', simply because it will still be good two years from now.

    There's more to a good game than good graphics. Look

Natural laws have no pity.

Working...