jacob.buehler

My point is when you hear an article "Sony is losing $40 per console" only negative thoughts come to mind, it doesn't explain the full picture that the PS3 is actually a positive investment for sony and in reality is actually turning a lot of profit, maybe not straight off the shelf cash to console. If that's the way they want to spin it the article should read "Sony is losing $40 per console if you buy a PS3 and NOTHING else for it EVER!" that would be more accurate.

I play real guitar and I'm pretty good at guitar hero / rockband and I can say I love the rockband controller (maybe more than the guitar hero) but the biggest problem with it is that there is no clicks on the strumbar, it makes things alot easier when you can feel the click. This LED light idea is even worse cause you can't feel anything. Real guitar or gaming controller you are supposed to be able to "feel" when you've plucked or activated the strumbar, it's just natural, this LED light idea is horrible, but I'm sure he just did it cuz he was extremely bored ;P

Are you...supporting a system that had a 1/3 failure rate, no wireless included, a 20gig HD to boot, fees to play online, and still uses dvd technology? Re, really? Really bro? They keep re-releasing their console to support stuff so please save the "hardcore gamer" or logical choice arguments haha.

It's almost bothering me to see these news posts about them losing money per console because it's not looking at the whole picture so it makes things seem gloomy. For example. "A man leaves home jogging, he jogs for a while and turns left, jogs for a little while longer then turns left again, jogs a while longer and turns left again. As he nears home he sees two men in masks waiting for him."

When you hear that it might sound kind of creepy or mysterious, much like the "Sony is losing $40 per console!) add, but in reality I'm simply talking about baseball. So I say please cut with the negative news articles unless you let people know about the full picture.

Ya these guys are looking at the small picture, small statistics. They're losing money per console yes but why would they continue then? There is a reason and it's because of the software they sell and the developer's income etc. And over time it just turns more and more profit, things are always slow in the beginning, look at the PS2, it had thee slowest start to date at the time for any gaming console ever released, and now it's like an unstoppable force, you give ps3 enough time it'll be in the exact same position, it's all a matter of time, and that's what sony is good at, planning for the future.

Force unleashed was downright terrible. The engine was glitchy and unintelligent, just a hack and slash with occasional random instant deaths from falling or dying instantly to something else totally random. Horribly bad game. The last good Starwars game even worth playing was Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast. That game had a really fun single player, a great engine (based on quake 3), and the multiplayer was addicting as hell before they patched it for the slow brainers. You used to be able to force push or pull someone to the floor (that wasn't cautious) and kill them instantly, but the good players were putting too much whoop ass on the nubs so lucas arts patched it so it was much harder to get someone on the ground, and even if you did the finisher move did like a 1/10th of the damage. Lucas Arts plain and simple is just a horrible game developer.