But, still, on a whole, you’re buying into an image and a dream when purchasing a new console rather than the games themselves. It’s the promise and potential of future games, coupled with the innate human desire to own whizzy technology, that is the real reason to give up the pennies. Even moreso with the 360 and PS3. Because, seriously, nobody with any sense was buying a launch 360 for Perfect Dark: Zero, right? And nobody is going to be buying a PS3 at launch for Warhawk and Singstar, no matter how whizzy and flash the new Singstar is. Right? For the good of our species, I better be right.

£280 for what Microsoft were selling at launch was still, when it came down to the games, a waste of £280. I think when you start dealing with money in these amounts – the hundreds – anyone that can afford £280 just like that can probably put down £425. I mean, sure, it’s fine if nobody wants to, but there’s so much disposable income from all these twentysomethings out there that people CAN afford £425.

No, you’re buying an image, a dream, and the reason people are being so tough on Sony right now is that Sony aren’t selling the future as well as Microsoft are. What they need to do is announce more videos of stuff like DMC4 and MGS4, and get these established brands out in the open. That will convince more people that the PS3 at least *has* a future. Get some videos of a new FF game out there or something.

For instance, Heavenly Sword could be a game so great it makes everyone cream themselves by just hearing it’s name, but nobody will know this until that game comes out. It’s a new brand, and people just don’t want to invest in new brands as much as they want to be reassured by new sequels from their favourite franchises.

If I was playing the PR game, every time Microsoft put out some crummy billion year old game on XBLA, i’d whip out some whizzy video of something badass the PS3 will do. So you’re going to play GALAGA on your 360, huh? That’s really worth £280. Well, check this out, the PS3 is going to have Dante killing a hojillion monsters! Ka-smack! Boom! Check out his MOVES!

Or I could just send out press releases announcing that i’ve copied another bloody feature from pissing xbox live. S’cool.

The thing with the PS3 though is that it doesn’t have that AAA title now, doesn’t have it announced on the horizon as far as I can see, and costs four hundred and twenty-five pounds. At least the 360 was/is only £280, and even the Xbox and PS2 were under £300 at launch. The PS2 took an age to have anything worth buying it for as well, but here you’re paying for the Blu-ray trojan horse which has received poorer writeups than HD DVD at half the price.

As for the PS2, it certainly now does have some great stuff but it took its sweet time. The thing is I still have more Dreamcast games and I still consider it a better system, so eventual success or failure is of no relevance whatsoever for me. Just like I’d take an N64 over a PS1, as well.

I never give these consoles much credit at launch. I thought the 360s little launch line-up was nothing short of an atrocity. But now that some proper games have been announced, it’s a package that’s easier to tolerate.

The PS3 really needs to get some games out there. Not even finished games, just some new screenshots of promising titles. For every update on every decent game announced, that £425 price tag would become a little easier to swallow, I would imagine.

I still maintain my stance that people are being overly critical of Sony because they’re just bored and really need something to hate.

If anything, the PS3 release is almost a carbon copy of the PS2. It comes out later than the opposition, it costs way more than its worth, and the original software doesn’t look at good as the stuff that was already kicking about on the alternative white box console at the time. And i’ll be damned if the PS2 didn’t eventually yield some of the finest gaming fruit i’ve ever tasted.

Besides, everyone’s got to get all their anti-Sony comments in before Team ICO announce a PS3 exclusive title.