Ctrl Alt Del - Holy Soapbox Retort

CAD, an online comic that makes me laugh most of the time contributed this little ditty along with a very long post calling out gamers who hate the idea of DLC and paid subscriptions for online games. I am such a gamer, but what annoys me about Tim's post is how inaccurate he is portraying the argument on the side of gamers who dislike this. In a nutshell, here is what the CAD article says, see below:

1. The most commonly used argument (and this extends to DLC situations) is "Why should I have to pay to play something I've already bought?" In response to which I generally think to myself "Umm... because that's the way some things in the world work?"

2. You can buy a car, but unless you're regularly paying to insure it and fill it with gas, you're not going to get much use out of it. You can buy a game console, but unless you buy games or DVDs to play on it, it's a decoration. You buy a tv and then pay monthly for cable so you have shows to watch. The concept of "shelling out cash to use stuff we've already bought" is nothing new. In video games, the concept is still in its relative infancy (DLC, subscriptions) but not so much that it deserves the "ohmygodwtf how dare they?!" attitude it receives.

3. I think its born of two mostly erroneous assumptions. A) That the gamer deserves things for free and B) that it's only happening because the game developer/publisher are greedy bastards who want to pocket your subscription fees while laughing and killing kittens.

4. First of all, if a game is asking a subscription fee (and this is a generalization, I'm sure there is an exception or two) it's because there are larger costs associated with running the game. MMOs for instance, require dedicated servers and constant manpower to monitor and respond to issues. The servers cost money each month, and the people working on them need to be paid. So your initial purchase of the game pays for the (sometimes many) years of actually creating the game. Your subscription fees pay to keep the servers running and the game updated, etc.

Now, to my retort. 

1. I do not buy MOST DLC, very little of it actually gives the game more life for the price. Granted, I do not have to buy DLC and again in most cases I won't. But some DLC outright ruins the expierence that a gamer gets in the first place. Let's take Blazblue Continuum Shift to prove this point. Aksys has decided to offer as DLC another character (even before they release the game mind you). So what they're telling us is to have all the characters in the game you not only have to buy the game but also buy another character. Understand that CHARACTERS are a vital component to any fighting game and not chinsey add-ons you don't need like "skins." What Aksys is telling us then is you don't get the full game when you buy it. It would be like if Nintendo released a Mario game, but he can't jump unless you buy the DLC "Jump command for $5." It's ridiculous. Map-packs are another example of DLC that ruins the experience. If you're in a deathmatch where most people have the DLC map pack but one dude doesn't, then sorry old maps for you. This is a detriment mainly to the people who actually buy the DLC maps. Further, in the instance of Resident Evil 5 where they made people pay for the online multiplayer component of the game (which was already on the disc) is also laughable. I understand that companies develop these things and should be paid for them, of course they should I'm not arguing that. But here's what Capcom essentially did, they sold the consumer a "final product" for $60. This product was then discovered to have content not available to the final user unless they paid $5 more, thus being lied to entirely. However, what would the reaction be if Capcom sold Resident Evil 5 for $65 explaining the multiplayer component of the game is what the extra $5 was for. This is as least honest business. What they are doing instead is like if I bought a car and then discovered that I was unable to open my trunk unless I bought a special key from the dealer unbeknown to me upon initial purchase. 

2. This is just laughable, and a horrible comparison. Cars are a money pit, you always have to put more money into them. Then he makes the argument that buying a video game console and then buying games for it is continuing the "paying for it after you buy it" logic, which is also flawed. You buy a car knowing it needs gas to run it. You buy a video game console knowing it needs games to play it. In my experience of playing video games you NEVER needed to buy an extra character to play a fighting game. You NEVER had to buy a map-pack to play with everyone. Games were made and developed right the first time. The car is the investment, the console is the investment, the Game is the end-product...but here the argument is the game is not the end product anymore, such is the case with DLC. 

3. The (A) assumption is where he just doesn't understand where we're coming from. A $60 game is not free and I never see anyone complaining about initial game purchases. I never see anyone saying "this should be free," either. What I see, and rightfully so, are people saying "This should have come with the game when I bought it." How is this difficult to understand? His (B) assumption is correct. They are out to make money, and I'm not scorning them for it. In certain instances though it's utter trash, like the Blazblue one I mentioned. The game isn't even out yet, and we're already told we won't get all the characters with the game. Another thing that happens is the gamer feels cheated. They set out to buy a game for $60 thinking that's all the investment required to enjoy the product. When more stuff comes out for the game, the product they spent $60 on now feels diminished, unfinished, and now they are being charged more for it. They cannot be on the same level as everyone who bought the game as now there are classes of people, those who bought the extra character and those who didn't. Those who did can use that character to win more matches on people who do not understand the properties of that new character because they don't have it. 

4. Paid subscriptions, we generally agree here. I agree that MMO's need dedicated servers to run all their data and thus a paid subscription is warranted. I for one will never play these games however, because there are so many games I can play that do not require this. It's not my kind of game. I love games that I can go back to at any moment, pop in and go. MMO's do not have any sort of "staying power." You can't even enjoy Matrix Online anymore for instance, however I can still enjoy Pac-Man whenever I want and never once paid a monthly subscription to play it. 

To Conclude: I mentioned my thoughts on DLC in the past, I don't like it. The CAD article tells us to stop living in the past when games came out complete, those days are over. That doesn't change the fact that I shouldn't be allowed to be angry over it. I am very pleased with Nintendo in this regard as they still ship out a finished product to consumers. So in that regard, the past is not dead yet and Tim from CAD is wrong. Expectations for a finished game can still be met, and not all developers are offenders of this nonsense. The CAD article also does something else that always irritates me. He basically says "if you don't like it don't buy it." What purpose does this "advice" give exactly? It's probably my most hated quote I see online of all time. It's a nothing statement, and adds nothing to the debate. Of course if I don't like it I'm not going to buy it, the ISSUE here is the game I bought is now a lesser product because I refuse to invest more money in a game that was supposed to be the finished product. I refuse to buy the key to the trunk, I should have been allowed access to the trunk in the first place. If it wasn't done yet, don't release it. The anger is toward the companies that do this, and our general wish to make them cut it out by not buying it. Maybe I'm just living in the past, expect more from game companies, expect to buy a finished product. 

    Ultimately there is no right or wrong in this argument, you either like DLC or you don't. Heck, you can even like some DLC and hate others, that's your choice. But for Tim to claim that "we want it for free" or that we should stop living in the past is outright foolish. He can't tell me what should anger me, and he's an idiot to believe that I expect DLC for free. On the contrary, I expect my $60 to buy a finished product sans the DLC entirely. *Perhaps it is Tim that expects all game companies to screw him over so he'll simply bend over and accept it. *

Porter Perspective - E3 2010

I may as well update the site with my thoughts on E3 2010. We were supposed to do a video update, but my memory is a short one (much like myself) and need to lay out my thoughts before they die in some brain cavern guarded by an evil giant earthworm...

Overall my thoughts on E3 2010 were largely positive as a Nintendo fan. However, as a fan of gaming as a whole I was very, VERY disappointed with the show.I'll begin my review with the worst of E3.

Microsoft:

No shocker here I guess, but Microsoft clearly had the worst conference of E3 2010. Ask any industry analyst or go to any major video game site that discusses Best vs Worst of E3 and they all agree Microsoft dropped a giant turd on us all.

While we knew they would go off the deep end showing us "Kinect" (shudder) what we didn't realize is that they would...GO OFF THE DEEP END showing us "Kinect." By that I mean they literally had nothing new to show other than that. We knew about Gears 3, we knew about Fable 3, we knew about Black Ops, we knew about every game they had before they showed us they had it. It was uneventful to say the least, and comprised maybe 20% of their entire show. So for all us gaming fans we got to be "wowed" by footage we've basically seen before in Gears, Black Ops, and Fable 3. Oh and some gladiator game we only saw live action footage of...*yawn*

And then their show went to "Kinect." This would be the rest of their show, sadly. Here we have a device that is touted to be for the casual gaming crowd and thus we saw many casual games, and only casual games. Games that in my eyes lack the very distinction of being categorized as such and instead I am left to call them...Cagms?

These "Cagms" were no more interesting than what Nintendo showed us years ago with Wii Sports, but Nintendo never hid the fact that those were simply just pieces of tech demo for the Wii itself and we were sold on that. But no, Microsoft wants us to believe what they have is different in some way, you get to do all that but without a controller at all. Nothing stands between you and the game....except that it does make you stand...

A quick rundown of these Cagms you'll find that you can play with animals by waving your arms around, you can paint on the TV by...waving your arms around, you can dance at the TV, you can run in place at the TV and pretend to do all manner of other sports.
Now here's my main issues with this piece of hardware.

#1: There is nothing, and has been nothing that tells me this unit can offer a decent video game.

#2: It's targeted toward the Casual game audience right? Ok, the unit has been speculated to be priced at $150, coupled with a $300 Xbox that casual gamers are sure to not own yet. And of course $60 per game and much more in untold extras. I dare say that "casual" gamers will not be drawn in by these figures when last I checked Bejeweled is still free to play on Facebook.

Casual gamers or Desperate Housewives; you decide.

#3: The lag. Even though all the Camgs on the Kinect sucked on their own merit, watching the live demos proved to me that they also lag ridiculously. I watched as the man playing jumped, then landed. I then observed his avatar begin his jump as the human landed. This is horrible. While I never expected a 1:1 play ratio I certainly didn't expect it to be as bad as it was. How can gaming be played this way? It's as if your playing an online game with someone who has a horrible connection...constantly.

Above is what Microsoft's marketing team wants you to think the Kinect can do
What the Kinect will actually do

So how else does Microsoft try and sell this hunk of junk? Why by showing us the immense power that is online video chat....that computers have had since the dawn of webcams...A teenage girl gets up on stage and sells the fact that the Kinect is great for her being able to video chat with her friends as she is not a gamer...though later mentions how easy it is to check her gamerscore *facepalm.* So Ms. Not a gamer wants to shell out $450 + $50 a year for Xbox Live to do what her laptop already does, or what phones probably do now as well.

Now I have a degree in marketing and even I know this is a tough sell. Younger teenage girls, will they want A. Top of the line Cell phone, B. Laptop computer that does schoolwork and built in web-cam, or C. A video game console with a really expensive web-cam....
Microsoft has shown us an item that will fail with casual gamers or "Cagmers" and will fail with actual gamers as there were no decent games to play.

Two positive notes came from Microsoft's show. One was being able to watch various sports games for free through Xbox Live which is amazing when you think about the savings if you have dish or cable and just want sports. And they showed the Xbox slim which cannot get the Red Ring of Death because the system now shuts down like a normal computer if it overheats. It took you guys 5 years to implement this and could have saved you MILLIONS on RRoD hardware? Morons...

Next up was Nintendo, and they pretty much just had to deliver what we all expected the 3DS to outshine Microsoft. They did that and so much more.

Nintendo:
Nintendo's show was something I haven't seen at E3 in years. They brought to the table something gamers every year yearn to see at E3 prior to the downfall of E3 some years back. Their show was quick, concise, and comprised of nothing but an onslaught of upcoming game releases and just how fricking awesome the 3DS is going to be.
Not to drone on, this was Nintendo's show in a nutshell:

New Kirby, new Donkey Kong Country, new Zelda, new Kingdom Hearts, new Kid Icarus, new Star Fox, new Animal Crossing, new Dead or Alive, Street Fighter 4 on 3DS, new Metal Gear, new Resident Evil, new Pilot Wings, new Golden Sun, remade Zelda OoT on 3DS, 3DS has Wii-like graphics, no glasses required for 3D effects, and every company and their mother is making games for the 3DS *shows heart-stoppingly large chart of top game companies.*

Me

While it seems like I mentioned a lot of games up there I'm pretty sure I missed about half of them as I don't care for a lot of games like Ridge Racer and some other stuff they mentioned. But Nintendo's show was literally an hour and a half bombardment of future game releases and gawking at just how amazing the 3DS looked.

If I have one complaint with their show it's that they wouldn't STOP telling us about new awesome games. Hours after their show ended we learned about MORE titles coming to the 3DS. The seemingly endless lineup of quality titles on the 3DS has already out-shined the entire lineup available on the PSP and Nintendo thought it necessary to continue mentioning more games. I was overloaded and just wanted them to stop so I could process this amount of awesome.

There's really nothing else to say about their show. It was perfect, what every gamer loves to see and hear. They did it well too, we saw some clips and snippets of new games a demo of the new Zelda. They didn't drone on, they weren't boring, and the show was constantly shocking at the sheer quantity of titles.

Now on to Sony who needs to learn the definition of "pandering."

Sony:

I was hoping for a lot from Sony, more than I should have been hoping for. The show started with little fanfare as Sony came out, talked, and showed a trailer. They came out and talked again, left and showed another trailer. This went on for a long time and the trailers we were seeing were nothing surprising and about games we already knew about like Killzone 3 and Infamous 2. They went on about their 3D for PS3 that no one in their right mind would try, (glasses cost a fortune and you need a 3D capable HD TV which are upwards of $3,000).

They talked more, finally brought out the Playstation Wii with a lollipop on the end that they call Move. Maybe they took note of how horrible Microsoft's show was because they didn't stick with this for very long. It came out with a few trailers that felt way more like commercials of people pretending their holding the item in-game with the lollipop and they had a few game demos though I only remember the one where the guy is Harry Potter but isn't really.

It sucked, that's really all I can say about it. It's no better than a Wii-mote now with the Plus on the end except Sony didn't really show us any worthwhile games to get with it. Basically the PS3 can now just be a Wii when it wants to now as long as you buy the lollipop and Playstation Eyetoy. They did have Time Crisis and Tiger Woods to show which was at least what I would call video games unlike all the Kinect "Cagms."

At least we can understand what the Move can do (which is exactly the same thing as the Wii) so we know what to expect. We can expect "waggle" games, games that use a pointer to aim, sword slashing stuff...and that's about it.

Then they bring out the PSP and here's where I was hoping we'd see something amazing like Nintendo with the 3DS, a PSP2? Ok, immediately we saw that they were sticking with the PSP. Fine, I'll live with that. Any new awesome games? Well they showed us a brief cinema trailer for a new God of War that we knew they were making anyway. Sweet, I loved Chains of Olympus. But what took up the majority of the PSP's time? What did they do to entice gamers to get a PSP over a 3DS. See below.Who is Marcus Rivers? He's the new spokesman for the PSP. Yeah, because a room full of gamers wanting to see new additions to the PSP will enjoy seeing two straight commercials advertising...NOT the PSP but Marcus Rivers, a young black male who underscores all the stereotypes of the late Gary Coleman because apparently Sony's writers haven't left the late 70's and apparently think these stereotypes are still somehow accurate.

I guess it's still an improvement?

At this point I was beyond bored. I've never honestly seen more commercials in an E3 show before (even though I'm astutely aware it's all one large commercial). Finally, EA comes out and wows the crowd with some Medal of Honor and Dead Space 2. I guess we were all desperate to see some actual gaming going on, but Dead Space 2 looked super sweet. Then we saw some Portal 2 action and to top it off we see the new Twisted Metal. The end of Sony's show was the best part, all those games looked decent to great and didn't involve any droning commentary, lollipops, or Marcus.

In closing:

Let's get one thing straight here about these new "Cagms" that Sony and Microsoft are trying to pull. They missed the boat, period. The Wii was a big hit for one reason, the promise. The promise that we would play games in a new and fun way. Once that reality wore off and Nintendo got all it's money everyone realized something very quickly, that the Wii would not deliver what was promised. Even Nintendo knows this now as they are putting all their efforts into real video games again as evidenced by their E3 show this year.

Sony and Microsoft on the other hand, who once panned Nintendo into oblivion are only here to wow a crowd of casual gamers that have all but left or continue to purchase software for the Wii they already bought.

They won't be fooled twice into believing this new gadgetry will allow them to accurately pretend to bowl or hit a baseball. No, they can see that the hardware just isn't up to par yet. They saw as Sony demoed the Tiger Woods game with beyond noticeable lag and wonder to themselves why not just actually go golfing. They saw how absurd people looked playing Kinect. And I'm giving the casual crowd a lot of credit here really. The very idea that they "saw" any of this is also absurd. How many casual gamers are even aware E3 exists? Nintendo spawned the Wii from E3 but got the word out through many daytime TV shows and internet blogs. Practically everyone was messing around with the Wii from Ellen to any "Early News Show" you can think of. Nintendo couldn't buy the amount of publicity it actually got and essentially steamrolled the world.

This won't happen again, this was Tickle Me Elmo, this was Pogs, this was Beanie Babies, the Wii now is what Nintendo makes it which is a video game console once again. And once again Nintendo is one step ahead of its competition as they try in vain to play catchup making "Cagms."

*E3 2010 out*

PRE-3 - Our E3 2010 Predictions

Our first video in a while. Keith, Kyle and Porter give you a special hour long unedited view of what we think will happen in LA in the coming days.

Microsoft... We Have A Spelling Problem.

The first piece of news to come out of the Electronic Entertainment Expo in LA was the Natal Experience with Cirque de Soleil.

At the event we learn that Project Natal in now renamed Kinect (pronounce connect), and some of the games including a Star Wars lightsaber game, and Wii Sports Kinect Sports. Also demoed was Wii Fit a yoga game for the Kinect.

All of this would be news, however USA Today accidentally posted a news article about it hours before the even.

Apparently advertising is underway. A recent Google search of the word “Connect” brought up a sponsored link for the device.

Last part of this is that the even was shot Live-To-Tape to be aired in a 30-minute, commercial-free special broadcast on MTV on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm ET, and on Nick at Nite, mtvU, MTV Hits, and Logo at 9 pm ET.

I call shenanigans on this however. It is not commercial free, rather it is a 30-minute commercial.

Microsoft hold their Press Briefing later today. More news on Kinect should be coming, such as a price, a release date, and maybe a better name.

Linking it Together: The Legend of Zelda

This is an open letter to the team currently responsible for the new title in the Legend of Zelda franchise: PLEASE don't make the game suck. I've been playing these games since the very original, and feel the same way about them as a fish feels about water; they are my element, and it takes quite a lot to get me to dislike them. I've loved and beaten very nearly every Zelda I've ever played, from the original to Twilight Princess, and so I've decided to talk a little about the series and why it's such a big deal to me.

A long time ago, my Uncle hand an NES, long before my family inherited it, from him. It was one of the greatest joys of my young life to go to his house for a visit, because while there, I could play Super Mario Bros, Megaman, and, of course, The Legend of Zelda. When I was very young, I used to flip out over the game simply because it had a gold cartridge. Really!? GOLD!? I would stare at it in awe, hardly daring to believe that such a game could be touched by my hands. When gazing at it in the lineup, I simply assumed that no game that looked so splendid could be mine to play. The very first time I was allowed o play, I took the controller as if it could turn to dust in my hands. Surely, this would be the greatest experience of my life! The game did not disappoint. Where other games put you on a set path, and said, "GO THAT WAY!", this glorious game allowed you the freedom to go where you would. I was so amazed by this, that the very first time playing, I tried to play the game without even picking up the sword! Shortly after I died, I was able to start the long learning process that was the Legend of Zelda. Ever since that very first game opened the door and put true freedom in my hands, I've been a junkie for those types of games.

Moving forward through time, Zelda II was every bit as good as the original, though it did mix things up with an entirely new gameplay style. The world was enormous beyond imagination, and I never felt like I was running out of hings to do. And so it went. With each new game, I found something new to love. There were frustrations, and difficult puzzles, but as with the very best of relationships, the good outweighed the bad. For twenty years, I would never find a single game disappointing. Zelda was my rock. When Final Fantasy went awry, or Mario became repetitive, or when Resident Evil wasn't scary, or when Metal Gear lost it's freaking marbles, I always had The Legend of Zelda to turn to.

Five years ago, as I bought my Wii, a smile on my face, only one thing was on my mind: The Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess. After endless internal debate over what I should do, I had made the decision to purchase the whole new system that would be required to play the ultimate version of the game. Money in hand, I stood in a Meijer for twenty-seven hours waiting. Finally, it was time to play the greatest Zelda ever made. I played the game for days straight, and was not disappointed. Or that's what I wish I could say.

For all that I loved about it, and there was a LOT to love, I found my heart wavering. The Wind Waker and Majora's Mask, easily my two favorites titles thus far, has been utterly massive, with hours and hours worth of adventures and side quests to back up the main meat of the game. With Twilight Princess boasting the largest game world yet, I felt it was safe to assume that it would have even more. Sadly, when I played, I discovered it to have about a much to do as a game boy title. Though truly an excellent game, for the first time, I found myself unsatisfied. Shaking it off, I smiled, thinking to myself, "This was a Gamecube port, after all. They spent a lot of time preparing i for the Wii. Of COURSE something had to go." Nodding happily, I set about waiting for the next title in the series, The Phantom Hourglass.

Hooboy. This was... a problem. The game debuted on the DS, a system that has similar power to that of the N64, home of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, two of the most beloved Zelda games of all time. LOgically, with Super Mario 64 DS being an EXCELLENT port, which even EXPANDED on the original, I assumed that here, for sure, would be the sprawling adventure I desired. Not only that, but it was a direct sequel to The Wind Waker. I was overjoyed to receive it as a gift, the very day it was released. And it was... okay. Rather than exploring the possibility of a full 3-Dimensional Zelda, Nintendo opted for a more classic top-down perspective. Not only that, but rather than putting all they could into side quests and an expansive world, they instead seemed focused on replicating the pretty graphics of it's predecessor. Nice though this was, it made for lazy level design, with the game even going so far as to have to do and redo and REDO the same dungeon every time the plot progressed. With padding like this, it felt less like a Zelda game and more a pale imitation of one. With a heavy heart, I returned to waiting.

Finally, The Legend of Zelda: The Spirit Tracks arrived. Unfortunately, we have something amazing here: A bad Zelda game. Never before has this occurred. (The CDi games don't count.) Failing to even get a moment of fun for me, this game has caused me some concern. We have come full circle. Where the original game of the series bewildered me so wonderfully with its open world, the most recent game is LITERALLY on rails. You can only stop the train and get off where the game tells you you can, thus effectively removing ALL exploration.

Rather than rant about the negative experience I had, I'll now make it clear why I'm writing this; there's still time. One bad game does not a broken heart make. I'm not even more than a little concerned. I'm just imploring you, Nintendo, to not let this become a habit. Next week, you will be announcing your newest Zelda game, one five years in the making. PLEASE, before its too late, return to the way things should be. Put that smile back on my face, Nintendo. I know you can do it.

My Experience With The PS3 - Part 1

In late April, I did something that I had never done as a gamer.

I became the owner of all the consoles of the current generation. Last generation I owned the Gamecube and the Xbox, but I did not get a PS2. Yes I missed out on some great games. There is no question about that, but I am just setting up the review as someone who in this generation mainly used his Xbox 360. (Also worth noting that I did not own a PSP at all either)

Since purchasing my 360 in February of 2007, I have logged a number of hours and even got the RRoD. Yes, the 360 is not perfect, but it is what I was used to.

Now I was planning to eventually get the system. There were some games that I wanted to play and now the the war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray was over, (and still to this date the Xbox has no plans of having an add-on Blu-ray player like they did with HD-DVD) I figured that a PS3 would cover my want for both.

Now came the excuse that I needed.

I got a free copy of God of War 3. With this, I justified a purchase of a PS3 slim. (Yeah, I was really just looking for an excuse).

It took me a couple weeks to find one in a store. Eventually, I got a 250GB PS3 Slim.

Unpacking

I have said it before and I have said it again that the lack of HD cables being included with the PS3 is a mistake. Lucky I had a HDMI cable handy. (Seriously go to Amazon, you can find low prices on cables there. Mine was about $7)

Though they did one-up the 360. Not only is the controller rechargeable, but they give you the cable to charge it. Microsoft want to charge you another twenty bucks for that, and for this fact I was willing to give the PS3 a chance.

Setup was easy enough, I just had to tweak a few settings for my TV but I was up and running with WiFi in 15 minutes. After the console update, I was ready to play, but before I get to this, it is a good thing to point out.

Xbox 360 WiFi Adaptor and Play and Charge Kit = $120.00
Playstation 3 = Included

The UI and OS

There is a love/hate relationship here. I love some of the features that the XMB provides. However the lack of it being intuitive is... for lack of a better work... stupid.

I use my 360 to play video, view photos, and listen to music. I expected the PS3 to be as good as the 360, if not better. Sadly, it comes up short.

Streaming Content
I was able to find a great free program for my Macbook that streams over the network. A quick Google search popped up the PS3 Media Server software and it is good, except when trying to playback HD content over WiFi, but that is really to be expected. It still works great though.

Moving Files Through USB Thumbdrive
I only have one issue with this. The fact that Sony wants you to use their file structure on the thumbdrive annoyed me... That is until Porter told me that all I had to do was hit triangle and select “View All”. I like this way better and wish I could set that to default.

I love the fact that I can just copy the files to the PS3 and not be worried about it. It is just there. Absolutely love this! Though wish I could make my own folders on the PS3.

Other Devices Through USB
The keyboard and mouse combo worked well, but I am sad that my iPhone is not supported at all. Comparatively the 360 allows me to view my pictures from my iPhone. While that is not fully functioning, it is still more than the PS3 recognizes.

This brings me to the one thing I HATE HATE HATE about the PS3.

Music
I got used to having custom soundtracks going all the way back to the Xbox. There are some games, albeit mainly sports games, that would be better with the inclusion of my own music. I am only allowed to do this by a game by game basis, and 90% of the games that I have played on the PS3 have not allowed me to play my music.

I know that I might be overreacting, but what is stopping this from happening? Not the game makers, otherwise you would see the same problems on the 360. So this is one thing that I think Sony screwed the pooch on. I want my music while playing some of these games.

This is going to conclude part one. Part two is going to focus on the Playstation Network, Games, and Blu-ray.

--Keith