I'm Sorry, but...
...95% for the playstation 3 is a bit ridiculous. To claim you're just rating the hardware is slightly moronic, otherwise, I'd give my kettle 93% and my toaster 95%. Both do the job, the PS3 hasn't.
I've played a PS3. The loading times seemed to be almost obsessive.
The main games seem to be:- Resistance (dull, and the visuals don't even have the right to shine Gears Of War's shoes), Motorstorm (a fun racer that seems to be well recieved) Oblivion (Hello year old 360 and PC title that everyone already knows) and VF 5 (coming to 360).
The rest seem to be just mediocre versions of games that are multi-platform anyway. Virtua Tennis 3 is a prime example. Why is there no online play, when the 360 version has it? Senseless.
OK, you can make the argument for the blu ray, which I have seen its performance in, and I must say, I was impressed. However, why do you need to spend £425 to buy into a format that hasn't proved itself in any way. There are only a few titles, and I'm damned if I'm buying all my DVD favourites all over again.
Another thing, why can't we buy the 20gb version? Are sony taking the p1ss? Are they actually? Because, it seems that they want to screw europe left right and centre. £425 translates to $836 US. They pay $599 for it over there. This would mean that sony loses $241 on each one they sell in the states, as each one costs an estimated $840 to produce (source: wiki). Meaning they only lose $4 on each one they sell here? How can we just bend over and take it up the *** from them?
You can say what you want about MS's childish launch-ruining tactics(I think they were just that-however, sony's stooped lower in the past), but they have a point to say "you're late", they are late! and they're too expensive, with a console that doesn't play any of the decent PS2 games, has games that aren't better than 360s, on an unproven format, with few exclusives...
This might be 95% in a few years, but now, I doubt it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
