Wii Wii (I couldn't resist)
by Okashira · in General Discussion · 08/09/2006 (5:50 pm) · 50 replies
Alright, I have decided on the Wii. What changed my decision from the PS3 to the Wii? Here are some reasons-
1.The only worthwhile PS3 package is 699.99
2.Sony announced the PS3 games will range from $60 to $100 EACH!
3.The Red Steel(Wii) video.
4.The Wii's welcoming $250 pricetag
5.The Wii's welcoming $50 each First-Part Game pricetag(aobut $60 for third-party)
6.The Wii's graphics quality doesn't look as Gamecube-ish as I though when I got a glimpse of it watching G4's E3 coverage.
7.The Wii will be released in November, possibly way before the PS3.
So there ya go. I will be getting a Wii.
-Okashira
1.The only worthwhile PS3 package is 699.99
2.Sony announced the PS3 games will range from $60 to $100 EACH!
3.The Red Steel(Wii) video.
4.The Wii's welcoming $250 pricetag
5.The Wii's welcoming $50 each First-Part Game pricetag(aobut $60 for third-party)
6.The Wii's graphics quality doesn't look as Gamecube-ish as I though when I got a glimpse of it watching G4's E3 coverage.
7.The Wii will be released in November, possibly way before the PS3.
So there ya go. I will be getting a Wii.
-Okashira
About the author
#2
The real question for me, honestly, was whether I was buying into this generation of consoles at all. I wasn't interested in the 360 because I bought an original XBox and discovered that it completely failed to have any games that appealed to me and it really doesn't look like the 360 will be any better.
So, ultimately, it was more of a "To Wii or not to Wii," that was the question. ;-) Right now, I am thinking I probably will, but I am not thinking I'm going to be an early adopter this generation. I'm thinking I may wait and see if even the Wii really managed to appeal to me.
08/10/2006 (9:55 am)
It was never a question of whether I was getting a PS3 or a Wii, Sony officially pissed me off permanently when they installed spyware from an audio CD, and they are on my boycott list - they will never get another penny of my money. This actually hurts a little bit in that they own Sonic Foundry now, but I stick to my boycotts and Sony can kiss my shiny metal... ahem.The real question for me, honestly, was whether I was buying into this generation of consoles at all. I wasn't interested in the 360 because I bought an original XBox and discovered that it completely failed to have any games that appealed to me and it really doesn't look like the 360 will be any better.
So, ultimately, it was more of a "To Wii or not to Wii," that was the question. ;-) Right now, I am thinking I probably will, but I am not thinking I'm going to be an early adopter this generation. I'm thinking I may wait and see if even the Wii really managed to appeal to me.
#3
Though my girlfriend wants me to get a Wii.... probably since we play my Gamecube together about 100x more than we do my Xbox.
08/10/2006 (12:24 pm)
I think I might go with a 360, since games like Castle Crashers will be coming out on the Arcade, and Halo 3/ Forbidden Planet/ Gears of War all look sweet.Though my girlfriend wants me to get a Wii.... probably since we play my Gamecube together about 100x more than we do my Xbox.
#4
08/10/2006 (3:39 pm)
Quote:Sony officially pissed me off permanently when they installed spyware from an audio CD, and they are on my boycott listUmm... That was a completely different sector of Sony to the Playstation team. They have more than one big room filled with employees, you know ;)
#5
This is a boycott, not a fear thing.
08/10/2006 (3:49 pm)
... and what exactly does that have to do with me being unwilling to give Sony my money? So they're a really gigantic corporation... this isn't about a lack of trust, this is about an abject hatred for a corporation that can sink so low as to install a freaking rootkit on their own customers' machines just to try and stop something that can't be completely stopped.This is a boycott, not a fear thing.
#6
Yeah, even though the name Wii (gee Nintendo, thats a good idea) is a little off putting, im getting a Wii because its a game console. I dont give a toss if it dont make me a soda, with ice....
08/10/2006 (4:55 pm)
Yeah but the price tag of the PS3 is justified, as its not just a dedicated games machine. Come on, its not as if we dont have dvd players, ipods et al, so really you are savig a fortune. Do some people really care what company is behind these things?Yeah, even though the name Wii (gee Nintendo, thats a good idea) is a little off putting, im getting a Wii because its a game console. I dont give a toss if it dont make me a soda, with ice....
#7
08/10/2006 (5:16 pm)
Regarding the built-in Blu-Ray, I personally also am not interested in paying so much extra for something I've no use for. The PS3 (and really, the XBox360 as well) is aimed squarely at the Early Adopter crowd, which may be a good crowd to target for your initial hype but when the hype starts to die down, the folks that don't have an HDTV (which is still the majority of the people) are going to choke on the extra price-point for all those things in the PS3 that are there only for HDTV users.
#8
08/10/2006 (5:32 pm)
Well good for you, but some of us actually do have uses for Blu-Ray and hi-def video.
#9
08/10/2006 (5:33 pm)
That's great... they would've been better off having two versions of it. Why should the majority of the people have to pay the same price you do just because you can use it when they can't?
#10
08/10/2006 (5:45 pm)
Because that's how it was designed, quite obviously. Using Windows XP on my old P2 laptop, I can't use the default XP skin, so should I not have to pay for that either? In Quake 4, My PC can't handle the "Extreme" mode so should I have not paid for that either?
#11
Your argument about a P2 laptop is invalid because P2 is not the standard any more. Non-HDTV is still the standard, no matter how much the television manufacturers would like for it to be otherwise. Therefore, that argument is completely invalid.
Does Quake 4 have an unusually high price tag because it has an "Extreme" mode? No, it doesn't... they do not force everyone to pay extra for Quake 4 just because a minority of their players can take advantage of the "Extreme" mode.
So, let me re-iterate: It is not a good business move to force the majority to pay extra for something that only a minority of the customer base can actually use.
To use an analogy, this would be like charging everyone $75,000 for a copy of World of Warcraft because you include the software to run your own server in the box - even though it requires a robust server farm and an Oracle license to run.
To use an analogy similar to one of your own, this would be like having only one edition of Windows, one that includes all server functionality as well as normal functionality, and expecting the home user to pay the same price as the corporate enterprise users pay for the high end server edition. If Microsoft did this, then people would start taking a real look at their alternatives.
What Sony is actually doing, though, is attempting to leverage their video game division to help them to win in the HD video format wars... and they are doing it in such a way that is a very poor business strategy for their game division.
08/10/2006 (7:40 pm)
Oh, nice strawman arguments.Your argument about a P2 laptop is invalid because P2 is not the standard any more. Non-HDTV is still the standard, no matter how much the television manufacturers would like for it to be otherwise. Therefore, that argument is completely invalid.
Does Quake 4 have an unusually high price tag because it has an "Extreme" mode? No, it doesn't... they do not force everyone to pay extra for Quake 4 just because a minority of their players can take advantage of the "Extreme" mode.
So, let me re-iterate: It is not a good business move to force the majority to pay extra for something that only a minority of the customer base can actually use.
To use an analogy, this would be like charging everyone $75,000 for a copy of World of Warcraft because you include the software to run your own server in the box - even though it requires a robust server farm and an Oracle license to run.
To use an analogy similar to one of your own, this would be like having only one edition of Windows, one that includes all server functionality as well as normal functionality, and expecting the home user to pay the same price as the corporate enterprise users pay for the high end server edition. If Microsoft did this, then people would start taking a real look at their alternatives.
What Sony is actually doing, though, is attempting to leverage their video game division to help them to win in the HD video format wars... and they are doing it in such a way that is a very poor business strategy for their game division.
#12
I'll close with this then - the Blu-Ray drive is not free in the PS3. Here, go take a look at the Cost Analysis done by Merrill Lynch. Figure the Blue-Ray is almost 50% of the cost of the device, and if you take out just that, then the cost to manufacture is $450. So, the Blu-Ray drive is by no means free.
So, if it costs them $800 and they sell it for $600, why not have the non-Blu-Ray version, which costs them $450 to build, be available to the market for $337.50 (to use the same percentage breakpoint they picked). They'd sell to more customers, and have a greater chance of success. Round it up to $349.95 just to keep Marketing happy, and you're talking a machine that is only $100 more than the Nintendo Wii. That's a small enough difference that the expected game library advantage would convince a lot more people to spend the extra cash.
I do not understand where the Blu-Ray drive being free concept came from, but since it appears to be the cornerstone of your position, I can see where the discrepancy comes from.
08/10/2006 (11:30 pm)
OK, that's fine.I'll close with this then - the Blu-Ray drive is not free in the PS3. Here, go take a look at the Cost Analysis done by Merrill Lynch. Figure the Blue-Ray is almost 50% of the cost of the device, and if you take out just that, then the cost to manufacture is $450. So, the Blu-Ray drive is by no means free.
So, if it costs them $800 and they sell it for $600, why not have the non-Blu-Ray version, which costs them $450 to build, be available to the market for $337.50 (to use the same percentage breakpoint they picked). They'd sell to more customers, and have a greater chance of success. Round it up to $349.95 just to keep Marketing happy, and you're talking a machine that is only $100 more than the Nintendo Wii. That's a small enough difference that the expected game library advantage would convince a lot more people to spend the extra cash.
I do not understand where the Blu-Ray drive being free concept came from, but since it appears to be the cornerstone of your position, I can see where the discrepancy comes from.
#13
Don't you NEED the Blu-Ray drive since the discs are Blu-Ray? Or are you saying that they shouldn't put their games on Blu-Ray discs now?
08/11/2006 (6:55 am)
@CliffDon't you NEED the Blu-Ray drive since the discs are Blu-Ray? Or are you saying that they shouldn't put their games on Blu-Ray discs now?
#14
08/11/2006 (7:03 am)
Lots of fun to read this thread! Thanks for making my work day go by faster :oP
#15
Now, admittedly, they could have some higher bitrate/resolution videos, music files, etc. There are things that can be done to consume some of that extra space, but these are not necessary to the games at all.
Have we seen any multi-DVD games yet? The switch from games on CD to games on DVD came after games started requiring more than one CD to contain all of their content. They didn't come up with artificial reasons, but had real concrete reasons. On the other hand, I have yet to see a game that required multiple DVDs... maybe it exists and I'm just unaware of it, but it certainly doesn't seem like we've reached the critical mass of this becoming a common issue.
The system doesn't have Blu-Ray for the games. The games don't need it. They could've actually put a DVD drive in the box and kept the HDTV output without driving the cost up, and then they could've had a much more reasonable pricetag while at the same time enabling early adopters like Mincetro to take advantage of the hardware they own. They could've offered a Blu-Ray enabled system for the $600 that they want to charge, and they would've sold those to the audience that is looking for that.
From the angle of smart business, especially in the console industry, it's all about numbers. The more units you can sell, the better off you are. Now, admittedly, console manufacturers take a loss on console sales, so the more units they take a loss on the more their up front losses are - but the hope (as everyone here knows) is that they can make it back on game sales.
I have yet to see in any article I've read a valid reason for Blu-Ray in the PS3 except as an attempt by Sony to win the latest video format war. I'd be surprised to see that extra space being fully utilized before Sony starts touting the PS4, considering how short the console cycle has gotten these days.
Jean-Pierre - Can you tell I'm looking for a bit of distraction myself? ;-)
08/11/2006 (11:49 am)
Okashira - Oh, I absolutely don't think they should put their games on Blu-Ray disks. How many developers are going to need more than 7.5GB for their game? The games are not Blu-Ray because they need the extra storage for the games, they're Blu-Ray because that helps to push Sony's agenda.Now, admittedly, they could have some higher bitrate/resolution videos, music files, etc. There are things that can be done to consume some of that extra space, but these are not necessary to the games at all.
Have we seen any multi-DVD games yet? The switch from games on CD to games on DVD came after games started requiring more than one CD to contain all of their content. They didn't come up with artificial reasons, but had real concrete reasons. On the other hand, I have yet to see a game that required multiple DVDs... maybe it exists and I'm just unaware of it, but it certainly doesn't seem like we've reached the critical mass of this becoming a common issue.
The system doesn't have Blu-Ray for the games. The games don't need it. They could've actually put a DVD drive in the box and kept the HDTV output without driving the cost up, and then they could've had a much more reasonable pricetag while at the same time enabling early adopters like Mincetro to take advantage of the hardware they own. They could've offered a Blu-Ray enabled system for the $600 that they want to charge, and they would've sold those to the audience that is looking for that.
From the angle of smart business, especially in the console industry, it's all about numbers. The more units you can sell, the better off you are. Now, admittedly, console manufacturers take a loss on console sales, so the more units they take a loss on the more their up front losses are - but the hope (as everyone here knows) is that they can make it back on game sales.
I have yet to see in any article I've read a valid reason for Blu-Ray in the PS3 except as an attempt by Sony to win the latest video format war. I'd be surprised to see that extra space being fully utilized before Sony starts touting the PS4, considering how short the console cycle has gotten these days.
Jean-Pierre - Can you tell I'm looking for a bit of distraction myself? ;-)
#16
Also, to answer your other question. Star Ocean: Till the end of Time for the PS2 is a 2 DVD game sitting right on my bookshelf. A long ass RPG from what I hear. Hideo Kojima said they had to cut scenes from Metal Gear 3 because the DVD was already filled completley, and he didn't want to release a 2 disk game. What if I wanted a game to where I can have the original English voices along with the Japanese version or vice versa? What if I took textures with the highest quality camera possible and I didnt' want to lose any of it? Final Fantasy games have a huge ammount of pre-rendered movies in their games. Everything in 1080i AND the highest quality sound will need a lot of memory I would imagine. What if my game has a soundtrack full of symphony orchestra recorded at 64 bit and I wanted to keep it all in the game AND have every track separated to let the music be interactive? That may be possible with Blu-Ray. Yeah, you have companies like EA who make the game for the Nintendo DS and then port it up to every other system including next gen, but there's gonna be those gems that really take advantage of the technology in each console.
I'm not justifying the PS3's price. It's rediculous but as far as Sony "trying" (still haven't seen anything blowing out 360) to go above and beyond the competition as far as hardware speed and graphics are concerned, I don't have a problem with it at all. The next, next gen systems will have to be that much better than the PS3, not the Wii or 360 (if in fact the PS3 is more powerful than the 360) and in the long run, that's better for me as a consumer. If I can afford it, I want the biggest and best. If 500 gigs is possible today, don't tell me all I need is 30. Becuase you have no idea what the future holds and what I'll need when it gets here. And as long as I have a cheaper alternative, what's there to complain about.
-Ajari-
I plan on getting a Wii as well but to all you guys talking about your only getting the Wii, while your putt putting around in your go-cart overclocked GameCube, and playing in the past, I'll be zipping by you in my Ferarri and Lambo with Gears of War and Assassins Creed bumper stickers all in your face. Don't worry, I'll come back here and give you a full description of what next gen graphics look like and what a next gen console can do. :P
08/11/2006 (10:26 pm)
Quote:There are things that can be done to consume some of that extra space, but these are not necessary to the games at all.Just like power windows, A/C, and CD/radio aren't necessary in your car. Isn't the whole point of the advancement of technology to get as far as we can with it and to enjoy the latest and greatest versions of everything it has to offer? Why hold back the future if it's possible today? It'll just push tomorrow that much farther up the technology ladder. If Sony can allow developers to put the highest level of detail in to their products over the 360, visually and sonically, why would you want to keep that from happeneing? There are always other alternatives if you think we should stay limited to DVD9 or HD-DVD's lower space capacity.
Have we seen any multi-DVD games yet?
Also, to answer your other question. Star Ocean: Till the end of Time for the PS2 is a 2 DVD game sitting right on my bookshelf. A long ass RPG from what I hear. Hideo Kojima said they had to cut scenes from Metal Gear 3 because the DVD was already filled completley, and he didn't want to release a 2 disk game. What if I wanted a game to where I can have the original English voices along with the Japanese version or vice versa? What if I took textures with the highest quality camera possible and I didnt' want to lose any of it? Final Fantasy games have a huge ammount of pre-rendered movies in their games. Everything in 1080i AND the highest quality sound will need a lot of memory I would imagine. What if my game has a soundtrack full of symphony orchestra recorded at 64 bit and I wanted to keep it all in the game AND have every track separated to let the music be interactive? That may be possible with Blu-Ray. Yeah, you have companies like EA who make the game for the Nintendo DS and then port it up to every other system including next gen, but there's gonna be those gems that really take advantage of the technology in each console.
I'm not justifying the PS3's price. It's rediculous but as far as Sony "trying" (still haven't seen anything blowing out 360) to go above and beyond the competition as far as hardware speed and graphics are concerned, I don't have a problem with it at all. The next, next gen systems will have to be that much better than the PS3, not the Wii or 360 (if in fact the PS3 is more powerful than the 360) and in the long run, that's better for me as a consumer. If I can afford it, I want the biggest and best. If 500 gigs is possible today, don't tell me all I need is 30. Becuase you have no idea what the future holds and what I'll need when it gets here. And as long as I have a cheaper alternative, what's there to complain about.
-Ajari-
I plan on getting a Wii as well but to all you guys talking about your only getting the Wii, while your putt putting around in your go-cart overclocked GameCube, and playing in the past, I'll be zipping by you in my Ferarri and Lambo with Gears of War and Assassins Creed bumper stickers all in your face. Don't worry, I'll come back here and give you a full description of what next gen graphics look like and what a next gen console can do. :P
#17
I plan on getting a 360 and maybe a PS3 later on, but for now only a Wii.
08/12/2006 (1:11 pm)
@AjariI plan on getting a 360 and maybe a PS3 later on, but for now only a Wii.
#18
08/12/2006 (1:32 pm)
I plan on buying a Wii and i already have an xbox 360.. do i have HD and all that other crap? no.. do i still enjoy the 360 yes.. quite honestly the 360 isnt just about "early adopter" i have yet to see a system that matches xbox/xbox360 mulitplayer abilities.. thats the only reason i have an xbox, the xbox360 has a few games coming out that i want that are exclusives by mystwalker entertainment and thats the intire reason i got the system. Just like the intire reason i want the Wii is the new metroid and the new zelda. its not about the power of the system, HD or not, hard drive or not its about the games, what they do with them, and how fun they are to play. if they do release a remake of FFVII on PS3 then eventually i will own one of them only because FFVII is #2 on my all time favorite games with FFVI on the #1 spot.. but thats just my two cents
#19
OK, so that's one game and one other that would've liked to have more cutscenes. I'm personally more interested in real content, not cutscenes... but I believe my point still stands, the saturation point of multi-DVD games has not arrived yet... very few developers are capable of filling a DVD, much less a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disk. I personally will be surprised to see them get filled with anything but fluff for quite some time. I do not believe it is worth paying for a Blu-Ray drive just to have multiple voice-over tracks and a director's commentary.
Regarding the power windows, A/C and CD/radio - those are invalid points in this argument. Those are options, and you can get almost all vehicles without them. I'm not saying there's no place for a system with Blu-Ray as an option, I'm saying it is a bad business move for Sony to not try to sell as many PS3s as they possibly can by offering an option to not have it. The way to do that is by having a more reasonable price point for the more casual household. Not everyone gets power windows and a CD player in their car. Some folks are more cost conscious than they are bells-n-whistles conscious. There's nothing wrong with either opinion, but the console market is a volume business. What Sony has done is come up with the equivelent of an expensive luxury car - which may work for cars, but I believe is going to hurt them in consoles.
Oh, by the way... 64 bit sound is a cool sounding fantasy, but I don't think your going to see it available for quite some time. But that's neither here nor there.
So many of the arguments I keep hearing are based on the premise of what might be possible if the machine gets pushed, but what I'm talking about is pure business here. Sony has spent so much time listening to the Early Adopter fans that they seem to have bought into that being their entire market... and I believe it's going to bite them in the... ahem. I do not believe the majority of the game manufacturers are going to be capable of pushing the storage capacity if they haven't yet pushed the envelope on the existing capacity.
It's real nice that so many of you have so much faith in Sony that you are willing to ignore basic business sense, but my argument has never been about whether or not the PS3 is going to rock from a pure capability standpoint. I'm sure it will be incredibly powerful. However, if they don't achieve sufficient market penetration, how good it is will not help it to retain its dominant position - dominance comes from mindshare.
Mindshare is achieved by finding the maximum load that the market will bear... and I personally do not think it is $600. It's simple economics.
I think I've made about all the points I can, it seems like nobody comes back with any counter argument that is at all business oriented... I'm not interested in faith, I'm not interested in how much the games might rock, I'm not interested in pushing the technological envelope - I'm interested in an explanation for how what Sony's doing is an incredibly solid business move and why. I don't see it. What I see is a company trying to leverage its dominance in one domain to try and achieve dominance in another, and in the process have overestimated their dominance in the first domain.
08/13/2006 (12:23 am)
Quote:Also, to answer your other question. Star Ocean: Till the end of Time for the PS2 is a 2 DVD game sitting right on my bookshelf. A long ass RPG from what I hear. Hideo Kojima said they had to cut scenes from Metal Gear 3 because the DVD was already filled completley, and he didn't want to release a 2 disk game.
OK, so that's one game and one other that would've liked to have more cutscenes. I'm personally more interested in real content, not cutscenes... but I believe my point still stands, the saturation point of multi-DVD games has not arrived yet... very few developers are capable of filling a DVD, much less a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disk. I personally will be surprised to see them get filled with anything but fluff for quite some time. I do not believe it is worth paying for a Blu-Ray drive just to have multiple voice-over tracks and a director's commentary.
Regarding the power windows, A/C and CD/radio - those are invalid points in this argument. Those are options, and you can get almost all vehicles without them. I'm not saying there's no place for a system with Blu-Ray as an option, I'm saying it is a bad business move for Sony to not try to sell as many PS3s as they possibly can by offering an option to not have it. The way to do that is by having a more reasonable price point for the more casual household. Not everyone gets power windows and a CD player in their car. Some folks are more cost conscious than they are bells-n-whistles conscious. There's nothing wrong with either opinion, but the console market is a volume business. What Sony has done is come up with the equivelent of an expensive luxury car - which may work for cars, but I believe is going to hurt them in consoles.
Oh, by the way... 64 bit sound is a cool sounding fantasy, but I don't think your going to see it available for quite some time. But that's neither here nor there.
So many of the arguments I keep hearing are based on the premise of what might be possible if the machine gets pushed, but what I'm talking about is pure business here. Sony has spent so much time listening to the Early Adopter fans that they seem to have bought into that being their entire market... and I believe it's going to bite them in the... ahem. I do not believe the majority of the game manufacturers are going to be capable of pushing the storage capacity if they haven't yet pushed the envelope on the existing capacity.
It's real nice that so many of you have so much faith in Sony that you are willing to ignore basic business sense, but my argument has never been about whether or not the PS3 is going to rock from a pure capability standpoint. I'm sure it will be incredibly powerful. However, if they don't achieve sufficient market penetration, how good it is will not help it to retain its dominant position - dominance comes from mindshare.
Mindshare is achieved by finding the maximum load that the market will bear... and I personally do not think it is $600. It's simple economics.
I think I've made about all the points I can, it seems like nobody comes back with any counter argument that is at all business oriented... I'm not interested in faith, I'm not interested in how much the games might rock, I'm not interested in pushing the technological envelope - I'm interested in an explanation for how what Sony's doing is an incredibly solid business move and why. I don't see it. What I see is a company trying to leverage its dominance in one domain to try and achieve dominance in another, and in the process have overestimated their dominance in the first domain.
#20
Wouldn't every film studio, every company that manufacures Blu-Ray disks have to pay Sony to use their format? That's way bigger than a videogame console. Were talking movies made by every country, in every genre. A lot more people watch movies than play games around the world, and Sony they will be the only game in town. In console market you have to split the market 3 or 4 ways. In the movie business there can only be one. Consoles last 5 years while movie formats last at least 10 before the next one comes out. I think that's way more money and a smart business move in that sense. They're sacrificing the PS3 to do it though and of course that hurts me as a gamer.
-Ajari-
08/13/2006 (2:22 am)
If that was your point then I agree with you. It's a very silly business move for the videogames portion of their company. I believe the PS3 will no doubt become 2nd to the 360 simply for the price difference alone. You may not be looking at the bigger picture though. Which is pushing Blu-Ray. I think the PS3 is nothing but a tool to get an edge on HD-DVD. The more gadgets you can get to play Blu-Ray, the more people will be buying Blu-Ray disks over HD-DVD. The next Playstation seems like the perfect host body for this type of birth. The side effect was the price but Sony thinks Playstation's name is popular enough that people will buy it anyway. Or at least they did before E306.Wouldn't every film studio, every company that manufacures Blu-Ray disks have to pay Sony to use their format? That's way bigger than a videogame console. Were talking movies made by every country, in every genre. A lot more people watch movies than play games around the world, and Sony they will be the only game in town. In console market you have to split the market 3 or 4 ways. In the movie business there can only be one. Consoles last 5 years while movie formats last at least 10 before the next one comes out. I think that's way more money and a smart business move in that sense. They're sacrificing the PS3 to do it though and of course that hurts me as a gamer.
-Ajari-
Torque Owner Thomas \"Man of Ice\" Lund