Topic: Who is your favorite of the big three?

Sony's fault? How so?

Maybe their cross play was flawed in Capcom's eyes, or maybe the hardware is a pain in the rear and they don't want to deal with that? Whatever the case, it's not happening here in the U.S. on PS3+PSVita or PSP, where I reside, so it doesn't matter. The Wii U will though.
Like my other post said, some of Microsoft's IPs got onto Nintendo handhelds even though Xbox exists.

Microsoft doesn't have a handheld to support and the Nintendo DS, when it was high in demand, was the perfect choice to publicize its IPs to the Nintendo audience and make extra money.

Am I the only one who has been struck by with utter amusement that a few weeks back, SCAR was arguing that cross play and Cloud features between the PS4 and Vita were useless, is now claiming that it's a massive advantage for the Wii U and 3DS?

It's useless for PS IMO. They should be charging half of what they do on PSN for crossplay games, because it's not guaranteed everyone's going to have both the PS platforms. They develop the same game, then pretty much copy and paste it onto Vita and charge the same amount as a full game for only one. If you ONLY have a PS3 or Vita, you're paying double of what you should.

Can you please learn what your talking about before you start talking?

Thanks in advanced.

Your irrational and factually inaccurate hatred of Sony is embarrassing you.

With PlayStation Cross Play games if you buy the PS3 game, you get the Vita game for free. In some cases (Dead or Alive V) the Vita port is enhanced with new features so you need to buy it again, but in that case you can still get redownload and DLC you have purchased on the PS3 game for free.

The Wii U and 3DS versions of MH3 are in terms of content exactly the same, with some features stripped out of the 3DS game. THAT is the ripoff, because you have to buy both copies of that game.

Once again, these are facts. Versus your factually incorrect opinion.

Bankai is like my avatar. Very handsome.

Uh... embarrassing. I'm so touched.
I do know what I'm talking about. My hatred is totally against Sony, that's exactly why I have a perfectly good bluray player right here(PS3), and the best 7.2 receiver Best buy has to offer(Sony brand).
I'm not gonna pay double for a PS game when I'm only gonna play it on PS3. They should of had an option to buy crossplay games for $20 vs. $40 of you're only buying it for one.
Fact is, is that Nintendo is at least a year and 7 months ahead of Sony in terms of releasing hardware. Nintendo has had internet features in Japan since NES and cross play since SNES. Sony meanwhile, was making TVs, the Walkman, VHS players, and sound systems. CDs were barely becoming popular when PS and Sega were using it, and Nintendo used the cartridge that was an already safe way to get games out. Nintendo now has DVDs and high capacity discs out, we have Sony to thank for that.

You. Do Not. Pay. Double. For PlayStation Cross Play.

You do, however, pay double for the one and only Nintendo Wii U/ 3DS game that has cross play.

I'm not even buying the 3DS version, so it doesn't matter to me. If I only had a 3DS, I would buy it for $40. Same game minus internet apparently knocks off $20.

So it's okay if it happens on Nintendo's console but it's practically genocide if it happens on Sony's?

_{Haha! Oh! My stomach! Hahahaha!}

Whether you buy it or not doesn't really change the facts that to have both the 3DS and Wii U games you need to buy both games. Over on PlayStation you only need to buy one. The PS3 one. The Vita one is free.

By your own line of argument, that makes the Sony option better.

I don't usually need the same game in 2 places. The gamepad acts as the PS Vita would when doing crossplay. The 3DS may even add crossplay using download play.
Nintendo's bound to get some deals going when they do crossplay. Your entry fee for crossplay on SNES was buying Super Gameboy, or Gameplayer on GCN. You didn't even need a Gameboy to play those games as long as you had the said accessory. Then they had the GBA connectivity with GCN which is bascially what the gamepad is doing now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo gets 3DS to act as a controller on Wii U.
Cross play isn't even needed really, it's just a cool bonus. You're playing the same game, you're just getting it on the TV or vice versa.
I would have probably gotten only the 3DS version of MH if it had internet.

If I can get a game to be portable and still have the full console version, I'm going portable, no matter whether it's HD or has good sound quality or not.
That's why I'm not buying the 3DS version. How much does Sly Cooper cost if you only have a PS Vita?
I'd rather spend $170 than $250 for crossplay capability. You could buy a Gameboy player for cheaper than a GBA if you had a GCN. If I have to choose portable over the other, I'm gonna look at the differences between the 2.

In the span of like 10 comments you went from arguing that Nintendo has an advantage over PlayStation because of cross play. Then, when you were proved incorrect, you are now arguing that cross play doesn't matter.

@Bankai provides commentary
@SCAR392 needs to write a book
@Chrono_Cross is supplying the popcorn (?)
kicks the TV, Braveheart flickers onto the screen

+100

You're awesome.

This actually pretty much sums up our whole argument, really. Apperently, Sony has been paving the way for Nintendo to continue doing crossplay like they have in the past. This isn't competition, it's teamwork. I guess Microsoft is gonna help out Apple now? Haha.