ATM94

@Hobsie Nintendo doesn't sell hardware below cost, but that is not the same thing as "profitable". It takes between 500 million to one billion dollars to R&D and launch a new console. To be "profitable" they have to erase that debt one they start selling consoles. The problem Nintendo had with the N64 was that it was very expensive to make (it was pretty cutting edge) and as were the cartridges. The GC was also pretty advanced and they sold it at near cost early in its life cycle. A major source of revenue for the console makers is third party license fees (they are pure profit because they are collected for each game manufactured whether it sells or not). With third parties abandoning both the N64 and the GC early in their life cycles, Nintendo lost a major source of revenue on both platforms. The N64 and the GC, may or may not have turned a profit, but Nintendo definitely did not make "a ton" of money on either. Had it not been for the unending fountain of money called "Gameboy", Nintendo easily could have gone the way of Sega after the N64. The Wii is a totally different story since most of the R&D was taken from the GC (the Wiimote started life as a GC accessory) and the tech was very modest (mostly a die shrink on the GC hardware which made it faster but also cheaper to make ) so they had a much higher profit margin on the hardware to quickly make back their launch costs.

This company is not Atari. It is Infogrames. They bought the Atari name and some of its library (the rest went to the defunct Midway). The real Atari hasn't around for over a decade (though many would argue the "real" Atari died when Jack Tramiel took over and split the computer and arcade divisions).

The DroidDoes website lists multitouch as a capability of the phone. It's been there since the website launched. You can't click on it for more info, but it is there as a feature of the phone right under Turn-by-Turn Nav

If you want good streaming performance on the Wii, use the ethernet-to-usb dongle. The builtin wifi on the Wii (and the PS3) is pure crap with its tiny, internal antenna. Even for SD video, a console's builtin wifi is going to stutter because those cheapo chips they use drop packets for any little interference from cordless phones, microwaves, your neighbor's router, etc. If you want to stream video to a console (or even have quality gaming session) you need to go either wired (MoCA if you can't run Cat5) or as a last resort have a single, dedicated MIMO n-router that all your net-ready devices near your tv share so they can't fight each other (in addition to your neighbors) for the spectrum.

There was one upside to Microsoft's exclusive control over peripherals- Rock Band/Guitar Hero controllers. Activision originally tried to block GH guitars from working with Rock Band. Sony rolled over and played dead for Activision (probably because they had no legal leverage), but Microsoft pointed to the peripheral licensing agreement and said "no you can't". Any piece of software has to be allowed full access to any peripheral on the 360, so you could in theory play DDR with the Big Button controller if you so desired. PS3 owners only got to use GH controllers because it looked bad that 360 owners could do something their PS3 brethren couldn't, so Sony negotiated with Activision. This is a case where Sony's lax attitude with peripherals came back to bite them.

If the PSP "Take a Dump" is any indication of Sony's ability to read the wants and needs of its customers, Droid has nothing to worry about.

A patch that will make all existing games play in 3D? Not likely. Remember Sony was supposed to have a patch that allowed all games to run at 1080p/i or whatever and to this day you still can't run Resistance- a first party game- in 1080i, so if you have an older HD
set that doesn't do 720p, you are SOL. Now Sony's saying they will make a patch that makes all existing games render an additional
viewpoint? The RSX is already fill-rate limited on most games because of its lack of EDRAM, so now it has to setup and render twice
as many frames and that won't be an issue? Un-bloody-likely. And if they actually could do that they would have shown it working on a third-party game (i.e. one Sony doesn't have the source code for). Add this to all the other patches like cross-game voice chat, Blu-ray
streaming to the PSP, universal upscaling, universal background music, etc. that Sony promised but hopes everyone will forget about
after they already have your money.

It worked flawlessly for my friend and I. You definitely don't want to do a drama. We picked an hour-long stand-up routine by Daniel Tosh. It was perfect material for something like this. It was so fun, we decided to start a weekly internet movie night among our online friends.

I didn't see your ridiculous headset comment. 1) The 360 comes with a headset, so there's $20 I save right there. 2) Why do I need a wireless headset, when I can plug into the wireless controller? The official wired headset is $20 but Sony's OFFICIAL (which you only seem to buy) headset is $50. If your argument is that the PS3 can use any BT headset (it can't, the selection is very limited) then I have to point out that the 360 can use almost any cell phone wired headset (those are like $3) because the jack is standard.

The old "the wifi costs $100" myth again. 1) Anybody on this forum likely has more than one internet ready device near their tv. Why would you want each individual device fighting for bandwidth and interfering with each other? 2) For $30, you can get a wireless router that will kick the crap out of the POS builtin Wifi on the PS3 and work with ALL your internet devices. 3) The crap G wifi in the PS3 can't stream HD. 4) Most real gamers don't use wireless because of the lag and random drops, unless it is a high performance N-router that can prioritize traffic. Me, I just strung cat5 until i got a MoCA box. No lag and no random drops because the neighbors turned on their microwave. 5) If you include the $100 for the 360 self-contained adapter (again, you could use any $30 wireless router iinstead), then I can say the PS3 has hidden costs as well. What about having to spend $60 extra on an IR adapter if I want to use a real universal remote to turn on my PS3 and control it for movies? Sure it's not necessary (just like wifi isn't necessary on the 360), but I don't feel like spending extra for Sony's proprietary (and crummy) bluetooth remote and have to juggle it with my real remote which can control everything else in the known universe. I don't use wifi, but I do use a Harmony remote, so on the PS3 I would have to spend that extra money while on the 360 I was good to go. 6) How about spending $400 on a PS3 and they don't even give an HD cable but a crappy composite cable instead? Bet Blu-rays will look real nice over that. Since you apparently only buy official, console-branded items- that an extra $50 for the Sony PS3 HDMI cable. Or you could splurge and spend $150 for the official PS3 Monster HDMI cable. Ridiculous, right? But I'm just going by your rules