Ports TO PS3 Stink.

Once again, my previous suspicion was proven correct, as after a
friend had discovered a specific trailer for Dice's Battlefield 3
showed supposed PS3 was debunked, it was announced that the port was
actually sub-HD resolution, proving that 3rd party need to stop
bragging or lying about their PS3 coding skills.

In one of my earliest posts, I warned of this happening, and thanks to
a colleague debunking my latest vid on it, which in I was a little too
optimistic, reality struck me AND everyone else poised to get this
game on a PS3, and that is it's only really worth getting on PC
instead if you have the rig for it.

Utter fail, Dice, and utter fail, I, for even falling into your hype
for even a second.

Dice, You're Next!

After the debacle that was Crytek's claims about the PS3 version of Crysis 2 being superior blowing up in everyone's faces, it has made me think: Why must Third Parties lie about knowing how to handle the PS3? It's always the same rhetoric, about using the PS3 to the max, and in the end, doesn't even look good as Uncharted 1 from 2007.

BF3's Dice is the next developer with such claims as using 4D (Defferred) Rendering and Shading on all the SPE's along with Morphological Anti Aliasing (MLAA) on, basically going the Guerrilla Games/Killzone Route, but can THEY, a Third Party bring that same quality to a PS3 version of a Multi-plat?

Obviously, the PC version is the superior version, but the comparison will be the console versions, and more specifically, the PS3 version. It's about time PS3 owners stop taking in empty promises and start demanding results. It's now up to Dice to stop spraying it, and start bringing it, and that goes for ALL Third Parties in the future.

We're watching you Dice, like a hawk.

My Views on "Project $10"... Part 2.

There are people in the world that need to live and love to play video games, but when you start paying as much for a portion of one game as you would pay for a FULL game elsewhere, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

$15 for an online portion of a single video game should be considered a MAJOR NO-NO for our industry, yet here they are, at our local used game shops, looking at us with a dark grin that intimidates us as consumers.

My only solution to this: If we really have to help developers out, then should have to pay NO MORE than $2-$3 tops, that way the developers make money, and we keep ours.

We, the consumers, should not only speak with our wallets, but also our hearts, if we're to keep this industry moving forward. Everyone must communicate together if we're to get things done.

I hope these words are heeded, for the greatest evil to occur is when good men do nothing.

Thanks everyone, this is yewles1, The Homeless Gamer, signing out.

My Views on " Project $10"... Part 1.

As someone who's lost money--enough to be at the complete bottom of the food chain--I know what it feels like to be desperate for funds to live on, but SOMETIMES, I've got to realize I'm not the only one in these shoes...

EA, Sony and other companies have felt that they should stop the bleeding of their finances at the hands the used game market by getting a cut of that revenue, but it has shown to be too steep.

When you buy a game used, and that game has online components, you are needed to pay for a voucher pass to be able to play the online portion. The PROBLEM is that these passes cost as high as F-I-F-T-E-E-N D-O-L-L-A-R-S!!! $15, PLUS TAX DEPENDING WHERE YOU'RE AT!!!

Now I'm all for developers making money so they can create more games, but $15 for a "portion" of a game? That's the price of a full game on PSN, XBL, Steam etc., there ARE other peoples ' mouths to feed, you know...

To be continued...