The WoW starts now

I got so excited leading up to the impending launch of World of Warcraft. Adam had been telling me about everything you could do in the game, and how we'd play online with Nick and Nick and Sam and people. So I downloaded the beta, and I hated it. There was nothing to indicate what to do next, the combat was uninvolving and the price (£9 per month) was far too high - so I gave up after the 2 week-trial.

For those of you who don't know, World of Warcraft is the most successful massively-multiplayer online game (MMOG) ever. Something about its familiar, Tolkien-esque setting and accessible nature has convinced over 6 million people around the world to explore the land of Azeroth - battling monsters, crafting armour and, crucially, interacting with other players from around the world. It's this social aspect that makes the game so appealling, since tasks can be carried out in groups of players, all aiding each other.

So the other day, the Times came with another free trial of the game. Why not give it another go, I thought? After all, 6 million players can't be wrong. For some, levelling up their virtual orc is more important than their children.

And though I'm not quite as addicted to the game, I get it this time. No objective? Sure there is! There's plenty to do, it's just not spoon-fed. The combat is still slow and tedious, but I can chat with nearby players while I watch my dwarf hack away at enemies. As for the price, my younger brother has also got into the game - being a fan of several other MMOGs, his newfound love of WoW comes as no surprise - and hopefully we'll be able to split the cost of an account between us.

Anyways, this entry's gone on for far too long. I'm off to hunt some wild boar near Kharanos.

It's official: Sony hates Europe

Actually, that's not entirely true. Sony hates the entire world, apart from North America and Japan.

I'm sure you may well have heard of its upcoming console, the PlayStation3. It's the follow-up to the PS2, which is arguably the most successful console ever. But, guess what? As well as having to pay more than Americans for the console, we're now getting a stripped-down version that will only be able to play a "limited" amount of PS2 games, rather than all of them.

This is because Sony are taking out a processor chip that was used for playing these old games in order to cut costs. But since the PS3 is costing Sony $200 per unit (that's right, they're making a loss), none of this cost-cutting will make it any cheaper for us. So, to summarise:

• we're getting the PS3 5 months later
• for £100 more
• and able to play less PS2 games than the US version
  

Anyone still planning on getting one?

Story from Kotaku.

Linerider = funness

I can so see myself wasting hours on this thing.

Why the PS3 will fail

PlayStation 2 is the most popular and fastest selling gaming console ever, so it's no wonder that the most anticipated console of the "Next Generation" is Sony's PlayStation 3. But is it really going to dominate the competition as much as its predecessor did? Here's why the PS3 will phail with a "ph".

Firstly, it's hideously expensive. It's $600 in America, and likely to be £425 when it finally arives here. Compare that to its competition: the Wii is only £180, while the XBox 360 is £300 £200.

Secondly, it's incredibly late. It was supposed to be out wordwide by spring 2006, but because of manufacturing problems it was delayed until November - in the US. We still have to wait until March.

The Blu-Ray player that Sony have put in the machine is causing all of its headaches. It's over-expensive and very difficult to make. Who needs that blu-ray player, anyway? No-one has hi-definition TVs apart from Chris.

There's more problems with the console, of course, but most are caused by its price and lateness. And it's all because of that damn blu-ray. Sony must be kicking themselves.