Why try to change something that doesn't need fixing? I have no complaints about the Sony controllers. The one drawback I will say is the poorly tacked on Sixaxis.
The controller thing is an argument of preference, but if you remember, Sony was developing the new Sidewinder controller for the PS3, and it got axed because it was too close to Wii Mote technology. So despite the fact that Sony intended to change their own controller, they
had to revert back to the Dual Shock at the last minute.
Personally, I can't understand why Sony hasn't updated their thumbsticks. They're uncomfortable and outdated. I've never played a game on a Sony machine where my thumbs didn't hurt like hell afterward.
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
Microsoft HAD to change their controllers because they found out pretty fast that gamers weren't giants.
That's true, but the "sled" (as my friends and I affectionately call it) was only the standard for the first six months or so. After that, S-controller was the norm for the next three years. So it wasn't a big deal, really. I remember only having to deal with briefly when I first bought my XBOX and
Morrowind, and shortly after that, the S-controller was released.
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
I will agree that X-Box had better graphics and an internal drive (which isn't always the best), but the amount of games for it were weak.
This is the token argument I've heard from Sony acolytes ever since the XBOX was released. "The PS2 has more games." Yeah, but I followed console gaming closely during that time, and it wasn't often that the PS2 actually had a new game with a notable rating. The console was flooded with forgettable RPGS, fighters, strategy games, and platformers, most of Japanese origin. There was also an unfathomable amount of rushed releases based on popular children's properties like
Spongebob and
Barbie, none of which were high profile games, and all of which were terrible.
So the volume of games on the PS2 really never equaled "better games," in my opinion... but that's how Sony wanted to spin it. Sure, the XBOX had some stinkers too, but it was my experience that the system produced just as many renowned titles (and a lot of sleeper hits, too) as the PS2, despite being released a full year or more later.
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
A buddy of mine grabbed a 360 when it first game out, it melted 3 of his discs. I had a good laugh.
It sounds like he had a bad unit. I bought one of the early models, and I haven't had a problem with that, nor have I heard common reports of that happening. I have heard of people nearly setting their systems on fire because they ran it nonstop for 12 hours or more, but who in their right mind would do that?
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
You keep saying that blu-ray seems to be a "disadvantage", when the format could very well be the norm in the next few years. For those who are already converted to blu-ray (which is indeed beautiful) they don't have to go through the hassle of ridiculously over-priced add ons. Backing HD was a problem for Microsoft.
Spud said it all. Blu-Ray will likely become the standard, but right now they're designed to make consumers buy the most expensive version of a given DVD without any options. I like being able to decide whether I want additional features on a case by case basis. Most often, I only want the film. And I'm not alone. But no, Sony doesn't want to do that, because since Blu-Ray discs are so expense to manufacture, it's cheaper for them to produce a catch-all version than give consumers options.
Blu-Ray is only as good as your television and sound system, which are both
significant investments that a lot of people just aren't interested in making. I mean, even today, standard DVDs still look great. High-definition certainly looks phenomenal, but for the value, it hasn't yet hit an acceptable mark for those who can't afford it. (And yet, the Sony marketing machine is still convincing people who can't afford it to do everything short of having a home theater installed.)