Viewing Thread:
"X Box Live, How can Sony hope to compete?"

Hear that rolling sound? That because Sony dropped the ball on internet connectivity. Microsoft have picked it up, got their FPS line up sorted and seem destined to win the online battle by default. Sony have been way too slow. Microsoft are currently gearing their top titles for XBox live, for instance Halo 2 and PGR2. Also through May there's Ghost Recon and Wolfenstein. What have Sony unleashed as far as FPS's go? Tribes 2. erm..

Plus for the ps2 you actually have to buy the modem and buy the harddisk.

Am I overlooking something? aside from the blind loyalty factor?

i had considered putting 'just my opinion' at the end of my last post

but its really obvious its just my opinion so i didn't bother. mabye for your sake i should. All these posts are just peoples opinions, facts form opinions (and opinions facts, buts let not get into that).

anyway back to the obiously opinionated statements:

if i were a casual gamer i'd have a ps2

Nobody can make a valid judgement unless then own all three consoles and a fair number of different games.

Your OPINION in that the others are better than the PS2. Whereas my opinion is that the PS2 is better.

All boils down to personal opinion and everyones will change on here.

There is no right or wrong answer so you can't really argue any of it.

So how about we leave it at I'll play the games I like, you play what you like and others do likewise??

its not a pity at all! Ps2 ranks a definite third on my favourite consoles list. Actually considering the SNES perhaps its edging into fourth! I still recon serious gamers (NOT casual) appreciate the Xbox and Cube approaches more than the lowest common denominator approach of the PS2.

(amiga) different times, less competition etc etc

well it was about 10 years ago, so i may very well be wrong. As i say i really can't remember, who cares. This started off about the online stuff and its kind of veered.........

El Blokey wrote:
> Matrix Reloaded could just be two hours of a blank screen and it would
> still gross $300m+.

It is?

There goes my plans for the 23rd.

The PSX was released at 400 quid, hell, the AMiga was 1000 quid at release and they sold by the bucketloads.

Hedfix wrote:
> Sony's logic is a bit flawed. When competing against 3 competitors
> (dreamscast was still going at ps2 launch so its included) you don't
> adopt a "if it aint broke don't fix it" attitude. That's
> just asking for trouble.

Yes, because it's all worked out SO badly for Sony, hasn't it?


> They'll probably do it with the PS3 and once again i probably won't
> buy one

Oh dear, what a pity, never mind!

Hedfix wrote:
> So yeah at launch it was 80 quid for a multitap (actually it was so
> long ago it might've been the 8 player one. was there one? i can't
> remember!)

*Sniff ... Sniff*

I smell bull

There never was an 8-player multitap, and the multitap has NEVER, EVER, in the entire history of the Universe, cost £80.

Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Yeah...so well it led to Sega's retreat from the hardware industry.

It sold well; Sega fans bought it. The fact that it was crap is neither here nor there - if a product has a good name behind it it can be sold for ridiculous prices. And Sony is THE name.