New York Times blasts the PS3.. O_O

I love how he slams Sony for lack of online features that the 360 supports, then fails to mention that you have to pay for xbox live...
 
Having to watch the games download and music not going with you and not having a single friend list, doesn't sound all that user friendly to me.... (I obviously don't have the system, so I can't point out anything else besides what this article already pointed out)
 
Not a Wii fanboy, but I am sure enjoying Zelda. Plus, Wii Sports is a lot more fun then I thought it was going to be. Now, if only I had some stupid extra remotes to play with my friends!
 
That's about the only thing I can think of that's wrong. Maybe a tweak on the friend's list to where you can send them friend invites. But other than that, its a fine system.
 
opinion? there isnt a single fucking person on this earth who thinks ps3 online > xbox live.


and that's fine...you don't have to pay since you don't play games online. xbox live still wins
 
then your opinion on paying for console gaming is worthless

and xbox live + me losing 50 dollars a year >>>>>> playstation online network >/ wii online
 
There's no reasoning why Sony wouldn't be number 1. They have the biggest console base for the last generation (110 million plus) and have had a limited successful launch of the PS3. The Dreamcast had a successful launch and had a huge lead over Sony. But somehow, the PS2 won and the DC was shut down after a year.
 
Back
Top