double the detail at 30 fps over half the detail at 60 fps kinda worthless because it is hard to see finer details at a low 30fps rate.

I miss the old days of 16-bit games where it was always 60 fps. I remember playing Sonic the Hedgehog games with speed and fluidity before Sega gimped him to at times even less than 30 fps. This 30fps target is the biggest reason I prefer PC over consoles :/ . That and my "moral" opposition to fragmenting gamers across several locked and closed down game systems.

I see your point. Like, it's offensive to talk about Nazism and how Jews are bad. But if you're a Muslim it's okay to praise Mohammad who also hated Jews. If Nazis wanted to be accepted in modern society, they'd have to say Hitler was a prophet of God, like Mohammad. Then they could claim religious freedom and say anyone who mocked Nazism was a bigot.

since vita can also be a ps3 controller, if you buy it and already have a ps3, you just made the Wii U obsolete. who will buy a Wii U when vita can do similar graphics and yet is entirely portable? i'm not paying 250 dollars for a vita though...after seeing how crappy their d-pad on psp was which made diagonals nearly impossible, and a lackluster "analog" slide pad, i don't want to risk paying such a price for a portable device only to be stuck with crappy controls.

Well Nintendo may have made a mistake then to focus so much on casuals. But casual gamers can't be dismissed too easy as still wanting dedicated portable game systems over smartphones, they will still want good gameplay that iPhones can't often provide for many game genres. Like Call of Duty I consider more of a casual game. Most people who for example bought CoD4 would play on hardcore mode (makes all weapons kill quickly for example), which removes much of the gameplay variations and cheapens the necessity of skill, and the game didn't offer a lot aside from airstrikes and guns, not even explosive barrels could be found in that interactivity-lacking game. People like that will still want buttons I think...But if you are talking of people so casual that they wouldn't even like CoD4 on hardcore mode, I think they'd be happy just buying a computerized playing card game. If smartphones change the industry, then I hope I see less crapware and development of less serious games out on 3ds/vita in the future and the don't-really-like-video-games-much people just stay happy with their $1 game purchaes, so everybody wins.

All these articles nowadays saying dedicated handheld gaming systems are threatened by smartphones need to stop. The justification that smartphones offer cheap and good-enough games is like saying no one would buy a an original Game Boy because buying a crossword puzzle book would be cheaper and good enough. As long as smartphones don't have physical buttons, they are at a serious disadvantage. I'd rather pay 40 bucks for Street Fighter 4 on 3ds than pay 1 dollar for it on an iPhone.

perhaps you noticed the ass framerates on the ps3 ports, though

sounds like your problems started from the moment you were using 2D displays ;].

what the fuck do you know, cunt

1. Take out Linux functionality to provoke hackers to unlock your PS3
2. Boost hardware sales from all the people buying PS3's to play pirated games, while acting innocent to your third party game developers
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

A company that lets that happen probably wouldn't be in business for long. And if there were no government inspectors, there could be various businesses that do checks on the business and certify them as safe. Government really isn't necessary for the job of inspection to be done. People could only choose to buy meat certified by whatever certification-business they trust most, instead of the FDA. Look at all the bad medicine the FDA lets slip through and kill people. Can we trust the FDA to prevent us from being fed human sausage?

Who will have a say in how this law is written? My guess is it will ONLY be the biggest corporations out there, and some people in the government who want to expand the power of the government. There's not enough freedom-loving guys like Ron Paul working high up in the government to make sure that any net neutrality that passes is really going to be beneficial. There's too much money and power involved in the internet for any law on it to turn out good. I consider it a miracle it ever turned out as free as it did.

obama a terrible president. government regulation of business is not going to help poor or middle class. it just means that the elite are writing regulations that help big business. we didn't need obama's healthcare overhaul, we needed less government involvement in healthcare. all i've seen government do to anything is make it corrupt, costly and inefficient. how much more do we need the wealthy taxed? they already pay half the income tax in USA. i want them investing in USA, not just letting their money go idle or sending it overseas so it will hide from taxes. i don't blame them wanting to hide it from taxes either. the government just wastes it most of the time. and that moron actually supports the TSA, so now if i want to fly I have to go get my balls touched by someone who hasn't changed his glove from the last 100 passengers he's touched and who knows how many diseases i'll get. obama's doesn't want to help the middle and lower class, but rather make the middle class poor. the democrats here don't want a prosperous country, it's not to their political advantage. i'm dirt poor but i'm not a simpleton enough to think the democratic party or Obama is the solution to my troubles.

it may not be to microsoft, sony or nintendo's benefit to make a new system, but what is to stop Electronic Arts, Matsushita, Philips, NEC or someone else among these who has attempted before, from trying again? or they can do like Sony did and bravely enter into the video game console business for the first time. since the big 3 don't seem to be working on any hardware, now would be a good time to jump in since all 3 are too scared to do it since they want to squeeze more out of the current hardware than they ever wanted to before.

societal equality brought about by bringing the quality of life of the middle and upper classes down, or bringing the lower classes up?