View Full Version : Developments that may make PS3 multiplatform games more attractive than 360
First thing is that PS3 games will now be allowing you to access arcade games within home for free. Resident Evil 5's space in Home will have an arcade game that is accessible for free if you own RE 5.
Second thing is that trophies you unlock in PS3 games will allow you to get items within home for free. Yes, trophies will be worth something for more than gamerscore.
I don't know how far they will take these developments, but if they have a lot of multiplatforms do this, it may have people buying PS3 versions instead of 360. Then add in that they may be packing games with Bluray films together in the future too. The war between 360 and PS3 should get a lot more interesting soon. MS must have some developments in the works as well. http://www.n4g.com/gaming/News-291131.aspx
jkanownik
03-09-2009, 02:01 AM
Um. OK. I'm sure Wombat will buy your arguement since he thinks marketing is to blame for the majority of PS3's troubles. I actually heard PS3 described as a "cancer" at retail, so the February NPD numbers should be interesting.
Huh? This is about reasons that may make PS3 multiplatform games better on PS3. If the games are equivalent in other respects, and you can get access to free arcade games and your trophies get you rewards, wouldn't you pick that over just the game by itself? Also, if you can play arcade games only if you own the larger retail game, less people will sell their games and less used games will result in more new purchases for PS3.
As far as marketshare determining software sales, as long as PS3 sells as well as 360 for the rest of their life cycles, 7 million unit difference would not play a big role. And it's not unheard of to think PS3 can gain marketshare away from 360 in the next few years. A price drop will be coming this year.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 02:17 AM
Huh? This is about reasons that may make PS3 multiplatform games better on PS3. If the games are equivalent in other respects, and you can get access to free arcade games and your trophies get you rewards, wouldn't you pick that over just the game by itself?
1. Live. Great service and most of my friends are on their.
2. Love the 360 controller, always hated the dual shock.
Blackout
03-09-2009, 02:23 AM
But Home sucks.
Maybe if I get enough trophies it will unlock features that should be in Home already.
1. Live. Great service and most of my friends are on their.
2. Love the 360 controller, always hated the dual shock.
Most of my friends are on PS3. Though, right now most people are probably in your situation on that, but that could change. Also, it wouldn't mean anything for games that are more about single player. Like FF13 that could allow you to play another FF game in Home, like Crystal Defenders or maybe even a cannon game.
As for controller, I know people who prefer the PS3 just as many as who prefer the 360. 360 has better triggers & not off centered analog. But PS3 has better analog stick sensitivity, digital pad, and battery life. I only see diehard shooter fans choosing 360 over PS3 game for controller.
But Home sucks.
Maybe if I get enough trophies it will unlock features that should be in Home already.
It's going to get better over time. It will be pretty awesome when lots of games get their own Home spaces with free arcade games. And who knows what else they will think of.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 02:30 AM
Well of course. I was giving my personal reasons, not trying to list opinions objectively as fact. That's for fanboy losers.
I was talking about objective reasons as to why people might start preferring PS3 games more. You countered with personal reasons, so I countered that with objective reasons that apply to people regarding the same 'advantages' you speak of.
I enjoy discussing stuff relevant to the industry. This doesn't need to be about fanboyism, even though it will go there; I don't see any of the stuff I've stated being highly fanboyish. I am expecting MS to announce something as well, it should be interesting, maybe they will start tournaments or allow you to earn something for achievements.
Dr Mario Kart
03-09-2009, 02:57 AM
There are no objective reasons. People buy what they want because of the relative value to them.
These general improvements are objective and then they are subjectively valued. Instead of stating only personal subjective values.
VipFREAK
03-09-2009, 03:38 AM
Home = Second Life
right?
Yeah, so how does this make the PS3 more attractive? FAIL.
Blackout
03-09-2009, 03:46 AM
It's going to get better over time. It will be pretty awesome when lots of games get their own Home spaces with free arcade games. And who knows what else they will think of.
I don't feel like waiting 2 years for Home to get good. Free arcade games is not enticing. I don't feel like standing in line in a virtual world to play a video game.
Dr Mario Kart
03-09-2009, 03:59 AM
These general improvements are objective and then they are subjectively valued. Instead of stating only personal subjective values.
Maybe we need a bigger picture here. There are no objective values, period. The term improvement is a subjective value judgment. If there are objective values that are then subjectively valued, then objectivity becomes a useless middleman that can be cut out of the equation.
But back to the original point, it is something that a few people might find interesting. I think it largely wont bring significant additional customers.
And it's not unheard of to think PS3 can gain marketshare away from 360 in the next few years.Technically correct. Its not unheard of to THINK this, but it has never happened nor will it this time.
The PS3 is trending competitively with the 360 as long as the comparison excludes the present year for 360, and only compares present time PS3 with last year 360 (in order to make up for the year head start). Once you include present 360, there is no catching up.
Price drops have never changed the market position of a console, you're free to cite a counter-example. 360 can counter drop immediately or even ahead of the PS3 if they really want to. Its impossible to have price parity for very long, nor does it matter when the 360 Arcade is currently cheaper than the Wii and no one cares.
Which brings us around to the last point, that the race for distant second is moot. A minor theoretical gain on the part of the PS3 wont secure any additional exclusives.
munch
03-09-2009, 08:59 AM
Home is atrocious. I would never buy a game on the PS3 because it adds stuff to Home.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 12:34 PM
These general improvements are objective and then they are subjectively valued. Instead of stating only personal subjective values.
Still comes down to opinion on whether you care about various things. I mean if I was a fanboy I could say that Live is objectively better than PSN (cross game invites, more users, more people using headsets etc. etc.) and that offset analog sticks are better for shooters etc. etc. So I don't think those are any less "objective" than the features you mentioned. It's all just a matter of whether those things matter to the individual person.
But I'm not a fanboy so I don't try to objectively say anything about one console is better than the other. I just like to play the games and I decided to go with a 360 since I only have time/interest in gaming to justify owning one console. I'm happy with my decision but I couldn't care less what other people prefer or play and certainly I'm not going to go around saying what's objectively better about the 360. I'll just say why I like it more.
I deleted home from my hard drive. Now its just a lonely icon I'll probably never click again.
ninja dog
03-09-2009, 01:26 PM
I can think of one development that would actually mean something to developers (nobody cares about home):
--PS3 console sales suddenly surge and 3rd party games start consistently and handily outselling 3rd party 360 games for months straight, proving that it isn't just a small boost thanks to one big title.
lokizz
03-09-2009, 02:22 PM
it would take alot for me to try home again. i was very put off by having to wait for each area you go into to load and whats the deal with the arcade games you mentioned? you say if you have re 5 it will give you an arcade game in home but when you get it what do you do with it? does it just let you access re5 from home or is the arcade game in home a completly diff game?
both the wii and ps3 are lacking in what they coulld be doing or could have done with their avatar system. if you did something as simple as allowing people to be able to fight or use their avatars in diff sports/fighting games in real time people would spend alot more time in those worlds.
ninja dog
03-09-2009, 02:25 PM
it would take alot for me to try home again. i was very put off by having to wait for each area you go into to load and whats the deal with the arcade games you mentioned? you say if you have re 5 it will give you an arcade game in home but when you get it what do you do with it? does it just let you access re5 from home or is the arcade game in home a completly diff game?
There's also that whole "the only thing to do there is host dancing man trains" thing.
TruthinessFC
03-09-2009, 05:06 PM
A Home bashing thread? I've never seen one of these before...
Home = Second Life
right?
Yeah, so how does this make the PS3 more attractive? FAIL.
No Home is not the same as Second Life.
I don't feel like waiting 2 years for Home to get good. Free arcade games is not enticing. I don't feel like standing in line in a virtual world to play a video game.
A free game in the same theme as its retail counterpart would not be enticing? Resident Evil type game with RE, maybe even one of the classics. Final Fantasy type game with FF 13. God of War game with GoW3. Classic GT game with GT 5. Etc. And maybe they will get rid of having to wait in line, Home is in beta afterall.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 06:56 PM
Not enticing to me as I have no desire to play/replay old games, don't play arcade games etc.
Again nothing in game consoles is an objective advantage. There are objective differences, but it's totally subjective whether an individual gives a crap about them and sees them as an advantage.
Maybe we need a bigger picture here. There are no objective values, period. The term improvement is a subjective value judgment. If there are objective values that are then subjectively valued, then objectivity becomes a useless middleman that can be cut out of the equation.
But back to the original point, it is something that a few people might find interesting. I think it largely wont bring significant additional customers.
Technically correct. Its not unheard of to THINK this, but it has never happened nor will it this time.
The PS3 is trending competitively with the 360 as long as the comparison excludes the present year for 360, and only compares present time PS3 with last year 360 (in order to make up for the year head start). Once you include present 360, there is no catching up.
Price drops have never changed the market position of a console, you're free to cite a counter-example. 360 can counter drop immediately or even ahead of the PS3 if they really want to. Its impossible to have price parity for very long, nor does it matter when the 360 Arcade is currently cheaper than the Wii and no one cares.
Which brings us around to the last point, that the race for distant second is moot. A minor theoretical gain on the part of the PS3 wont secure any additional exclusives.
The whole objective not existing debate is interesting but I don't feel like debating that here in this thread. What I will say is that I do think free arcade games, free rewards for trophies, and movie pack ins for a better price than buying game and movie alone will be seen as improvements by just about everybody, but they will value them differently. I certainly think these things are better than nothing at all.
Didn't the price drop of the SNES ultimately help it to pass the Genesis? Not the same but, didn't Sony dropping their expected PS1 launch price help them beat Saturn right out of the gate? I don't think two consoles have ever been this close with such price difference in their histories, so you can't say price cuts will never make a difference.
Haven't the far majority of the press and gamers said that the reason they don't want or think PS3 is doing as well as it could be is because of the price being high? How much lower do you think 360 will go to counter with a price drop of their own? Once you get to a certain level price drops do not help anymore. It's more of how high the price actually is than how long it can go. As you say yourself: "the 360 Arcade is currently cheaper than the Wii and no one cares."
I never said anything about PS3 securing exclusives, they will only rely on their 1st party exclusives since the amount of internal studios they have is bigger than any other software company in the world. I'm talking about how multiplatform titles sell on 360 vs PS3. PS3 can still equal 360 in hardware marketshare and surpass them. Less than half the amount of people that bought a console last generation have yet to purchase one this generation. It is not all said and done.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 07:06 PM
Haven't the far majority of the press and gamers said that the reason they don't want or think PS3 is doing as well as it could be is because of the price being high?
The real problem was the launch price. Launching a year later and at $100-200 more than the 360 killed them and subsequent price drops haven't helped. I don't think the current price difference is a huge factor, especially if you consider the Blu Ray playback.
But price is'nt the only/main reason. For me I've never liked many of the Sony first party games, so them losing most of the third party exclusives really gave me no reason to own one. Sure there are a few games I'd like to play, but none I have to play....especially when I barely touch my 360 as is due to being busy and burned out on games from playing a lot last year.
it would take alot for me to try home again. i was very put off by having to wait for each area you go into to load and whats the deal with the arcade games you mentioned? you say if you have re 5 it will give you an arcade game in home but when you get it what do you do with it? does it just let you access re5 from home or is the arcade game in home a completly diff game?
.
As far as I've heard new areas only need to load and be saved the first time you visit them. They have not announced what exactly the arcade game is yet, but it sounds like it will be a different game.
Not enticing to me as I have no desire to play/replay old games, don't play arcade games etc.
Again nothing in game consoles is an objective advantage. There are objective differences, but it's totally subjective whether an individual gives a crap about them and sees them as an advantage.
You've never played a game older than this generation?
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 07:10 PM
You've never played a game older than this generation?
I grew up with an Atari 5700 and have gamed since then, so of course I have. I just have little interest in replaying old games. I don't have the time/interest to play all the new games I'd like to, so I don't want to waste time on old games.
I tried playing a few on the VC when I just had a Wii (since there wasn't shit else to play on it) and couldn't get into most of them. Would rather play the latest and greatest 3D game in all it's HD and surround sound glory. I'm not big on nostalgia.
The real problem was the launch price. Launching a year later and at $100-200 more than the 360 killed them and subsequent price drops haven't helped. I don't think the current price difference is a huge factor, especially if you consider the Blu Ray playback.
But price is'nt the only/main reason. For me I've never liked many of the Sony first party games, so them losing most of the third party exclusives really gave me no reason to own one. Sure there are a few games I'd like to play, but none I have to play....especially when I barely touch my 360 as is due to being busy and burned out on games from playing a lot last year.
Subsequent price drops have helped actually. Look through their monthly sales. And now that they keep getting very good exclusive games, a price drop will help even more. And a price drop down to $299 will help much more than one to $399. They're approaching attractive mainstream price points. Most people don't care about Bluray yet, and that will change eventually as well. You're talking about the price in relation to everyone, and talking about the 1st party games in relation to yourself. So I won't debate your tastes in games on PS3.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 07:13 PM
The price drops have helped sales, but they haven't got them any closer to getting out of third place is what I meant. Nothing they do can change that. They're finishing third and have to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to do better next generation.
I grew up with an Atari 5700 and have gamed since then, so of course I have. I just have little interest in replaying old games. I don't have the time/interest to play all the new games I'd like to, so I don't want to waste time on old games.
I tried playing a few on the VC when I just had a Wii (since there wasn't shit else to play on it) and couldn't get into most of them. Would rather play the latest and greatest 3D game in all it's HD and surround sound glory. I'm not big on nostalgia.
Ya, VC ports are not that great because they're just rom dumps. Upgraded remakes on XBLA/PSN are better and more easily enjoyable. I see many modern games as more of a waste of time than older games. I think most people do like to play older games or remakes, many want to get to play them again or experience those they missed out on.
Mr Unoriginal
03-09-2009, 07:19 PM
My immediate thought would be what benefit would it be to a developer to put more money into a PS3 version of a game to include something for Home that would be exclusive? The number of 360s out there really dwarf the number of PS3s. I really don't see companies spending the time/money/resources on the underdog.
I don't see how you can say PS3 will finish behind 360 when this generation is over some 5-8 years from now. You really cannot. It would not take much for PS3 to overtake 360 eventually. 360 is at 27.93 million with 3 years of sales, while PS3 is at 21.3 million with 2 years of sales & only 1.5 years in Europe. Both stats being through end of 2008. A 7 million unit lead is not dwarfing PS3 sales.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 07:25 PM
It's over. They're too far behind and the 360 is still selling well and outselling the PS3 most months. And it won't be 8 years more. MS will have a console out in 2010 or 2011 is my guess. They're losing too much repairing the 360.
As time goes on and we get closer to next gen sales will dwindle down. I just don't see Sony making up that gap. Maybe they will, but I see it as unlikely.
But really I don't care one way or the other and have not bias or interest in who wins. I'm not a fanboy, and in fact don't like any of the three companies. And in all honesty I probably won't give any my money next generation if my interest in gaming (and free time) keeps eroding. Hell I've been sick for 3 days and stuck at home and haven't played a game once. Just done some work, goofed online and read on my new Kindle.
Poor2More
03-09-2009, 07:27 PM
I don't see how you can say PS3 will finish behind 360 when this generation is over some 5-8 years from now. You really cannot. It would not take much for PS3 to overtake 360 eventually. 360 is at 27.93 million with 3 years of sales, while PS3 is at 21.3 million with 2 years of sales & only 1.5 years in Europe. Both stats being through end of 2008. A 7 million unit lead is not dwarfing PS3 sales.
This generation is going to last for another 8 years?? sure about that? anyhow this arcade mumbo jumbo will not entice me nor a casual gamer to purchase the PS3 version over the 360 version, I can not stand the Dual Shock controller.
Honestly,
Videogame Consoles I own
DS Lite
360
PS2
Blu-ray Player I own.......PS3, easy as that
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 07:31 PM
Blu-ray Player I own.......PS3, easy as that
I'm quite pleased with the Sony BDP-S350 I got for $150 with free shipping on Black Friday from SonyStyle.com. :D
Xploited
03-09-2009, 07:41 PM
I don't see how you can say PS3 will finish behind 360 when this generation is over some 5-8 years from now. You really cannot. It would not take much for PS3 to overtake 360 eventually. 360 is at 27.93 million with 3 years of sales, while PS3 is at 21.3 million with 2 years of sales & only 1.5 years in Europe. Both stats being through end of 2008. A 7 million unit lead is not dwarfing PS3 sales.
Why do you feel the need to argue future sales and root for one over the other? Why is it necessary for PS3 multiplatform games to be more attractive than the 360's? As a gamer with both consoles, I'd prefer there not to be a difference, so that I may purchase solely on which friends and community will be more enjoyable to play with. Personally, I don't mind Sony being behind Microsoft this generation. It's a nice wake up call, they'll go into the next generation of consoles with the knowledge and experience that gamers are not just going to rely on the brand name. And we'll be rewarded for it.
It's over. They're too far behind and the 360 is still selling well and outselling the PS3 most months. And it won't be 8 years more. MS will have a console out in 2010 or 2011 is my guess. They're losing too much repairing the 360.
As time goes on and we get closer to next gen sales will dwindle down. I just don't see Sony making up that gap. Maybe they will, but I see it as unlikely.
But really I don't care one way or the other and have not bias or interest in who wins. I'm not a fanboy, and in fact don't like any of the three companies. And in all honesty I probably won't give any my money next generation if my interest in gaming (and free time) keeps eroding. Hell I've been sick for 3 days and stuck at home and haven't played a game once. Just done some work, goofed online and read on my new Kindle.
It's not over. 7 million difference with 2 and 2.5 years longer on the market... How could this gen not last 8 years more. It doesn't end when a company backs out. It ends when all the consoles are no longer being sold. Do all the PS2 sales that have been made since this generation started suddenly not count to its tally of overall sales? No.
PS2 has been on the market for 9 full years in Japan and 8 years elsewhere and is still selling well at $129. With the economy the way it is now, companies are going to want this generation to last longer than past generations.
I'm not saying PS3 definitely will pass 360. I'm saying it is quite possible. To say it is impossible is nearsighted.
This generation is going to last for another 8 years?? sure about that? anyhow this arcade mumbo jumbo will not entice me nor a casual gamer to purchase the PS3 version over the 360 version, I can not stand the Dual Shock controller.
Honestly,
Videogame Consoles I own
DS Lite
360
PS2
Blu-ray Player I own.......PS3, easy as that
I doubt you even own a PS3... and if you did and you thought it didn't offer any decent games you would have to be blind. It has over 20 great exclusives. A generation, in terms of a consoles sales, as we are discussing here does not end simply when a next gen console is launched. If that was the case you would need to go back and subtract millions of console sales from many consoles lifetime totals.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 07:49 PM
It's not over. 7 million difference with 2 and 2.5 years longer on the market... How could this gen not last 8 years more. It doesn't end when a company backs out. It ends when all the consoles are no longer being sold. Do all the PS2 sales that have been made since this generation started suddenly not count to its tally of overall sales? No.
PS2 has been on the market for 9 full years in Japan and 8 years elsewhere and is still selling well at $129. With the economy the way it is now, companies are going to want this generation to last longer than past generations.
I'm not saying PS3 definitely will pass 360. I'm saying it is quite possible. To say it is impossible is nearsighted.
No one cares about the PS2 sales after this gen started other than Sony and Fanboys. Sony was declared the winner of last gen long before then.
It's good for companies to keep selling, but once the new consoles are all out developers aren't swayed by additional sales of the old console. They may keep annual titles like Madden on it longer, but they've moved most of their efforts on to the next gen machines--and it's the next gen market share that determines exclusives--not any on going sales of outdated consoles.
Anyway, you should get over it. No one likes fanboys who actually care who wins the console wars. Just play what you like and STFU.
Why do you feel the need to argue future sales and root for one over the other? Why is it necessary for PS3 multiplatform games to be more attractive than the 360's? As a gamer with both consoles, I'd prefer there not to be a difference, so that I may purchase solely on which friends and community will be more enjoyable to play with. Personally, I don't mind Sony being behind Microsoft this generation. It's a nice wake up call, they'll go into the next generation of consoles with the knowledge and experience that gamers are not just going to rely on the brand name. And we'll be rewarded for it.
I'm trying to argue rationally by putting actual facts together. I'm wondering what each company has up their sleeve. I find it interesting what plans Sony and MS have and what they will be offering me. I honestly prefer how Sony offers a console with an open online environment and able to upgrade my HDD as opposed to MS making me pay extra for anything they can put a pricetag on and their closed online system and putting cheaper & older parts in their console in order to sell it earler (DVD instead of Bluray).
These practices result in restricting game developers. GTA IV had to have stuff cut out of it because of DVD format, they're not even sure if GTA V will appear on 360 yet because of DVD. Tekken 6's developers are struggling to fit the game in all of its glory on a DVD. Closed online helped ensure no mods this generation on consoles and capped file sizes on what developers can put up for sale. Proprietary HDD's mean I can't get enough storage space on my 360 unless I shell out much more than it was worth, so it was better to just get a PS3 instead of upgrading my 360 HDD. Let's not even get into them not making HDD standard across all SKUs... it was good for making sales to young kids and casuals, but it hurt game development.
No one cares about the PS2 sales after this gen started other than Sony and Fanboys. Sony was declared the winner of last gen long before then.
It's good for companies to keep selling, but once the new consoles are all out developers aren't swayed by additional sales of the old console. They may keep annual titles like Madden on it longer, but they've moved most of their efforts on to the next gen machines--and it's the next gen market share that determines exclusives--not any on going sales of outdated consoles.
Anyway, you should get over it. No one likes fanboys who actually care who wins the console wars. Just play what you like and STFU.
We haven't been talking about "winning a generation" which really doesn't mean much if its close. We have been talking about who is going to sell more hardware and software in the end... You're the classic 360 fanboy, uninformed and unopen to logical arguments. I am talking about how much hardware each company will sell and how well their multiplatform software will do against each other based on what they have to offer. You're the one talking about who will "win" in a psychological sense, yet you are trying to claim I am a fanboy who cares who wins the console war, when you are the one arguing about that. I am talking about hardware #s and software sales, you're being a hypocrit.
Dr Mario Kart
03-09-2009, 08:30 PM
Regarding the Genesis and SNES, the trend was set early after the SNES launched, despite that Europe sided largely with Sega. It was only a matter of time before Sega's 2 year head start was overcome.
Regarding the problem of price, fixing the price doesnt fix the problems that it created.
Theres a good analogy I heard for another purpose but I can bend it to fit here:
Someone has a heart attack. You're about to cut open their chest to do whatever extreme thing you have to do to resolve the matter. Someone casually mentions to you, by the way, I hear that the way to keep your heart healthy is diet and exercise. At this particular point where we have a problem, those measures dont work. Solving what caused the problem and the problems themselves are now two separate things.
In regards to lifespan: Lifespan is always proportional to your marketshare. The losers of the generation are the ones that are most eager to start a new race. PS3 wont have the marketshare/developer momentum to last well beyond the launch of a new machine.
Any scenario that has the PS3 catching up has a lot of reality working against it, so its going to be an uphill battle.
There has never been a trend reversal beyond the first year (or two to be very, very generous) that all competing systems are out. Price drops merely flex the trends a bit before going back to baseline. The most powerful or most expensive consoles are not going to sell the most.
Also, being future proof or ahead of your time basically counts for nothing.
The Crotch
03-09-2009, 08:37 PM
I grew up with an Atari 5700...Ah yes, the Atari 5700. With such classics as Puck-Man. And Space Inflaters.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 08:41 PM
We haven't been talking about "winning a generation" which really doesn't mean much if its close. We have been talking about who is going to sell more hardware and software in the end...
Um, whoever sells the most software and hardware in the end is who won the generation. If a console didn't do that it's not going to keep selling into the next generation. The PS2 dominated last gen, and thus sales have kept going.
You're the classic 360 fanboy, uninformed and unopen to logical arguments. I am talking about how much hardware each company will sell and how well their multiplatform software will do against each other based on what they have to offer.
Nope. I hate microsoft. They just have the most games I want to play this generation. I don't care who sells the most etc. I don't like any of the 3 companies, and again probably won't even buy a console next gen. And if I do it will be which ever has the most games I want to play after a price drop or two. I have no brand loyalty.
You're the one talking about who will "win" in a psychological sense, yet you are trying to claim I am a fanboy who cares who wins the console war, when you are the one arguing about that. I am talking about hardware #s and software sales, you're being a hypocrit.
Again, I'm saying the 360 hardware and software sales will stay on top of Sony throught this gen and into the next. They're outselling Sony most months, multiplatform titles sell more on the 360, etc. etc. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Maybe you're lame fanboy ass should grasp onto some type of "win in a psychological sense" as that's the only chance the PS3 has of "beating" the 360 this generation. Its not going to pass it in hardware or software sells. Period.
And I don't see why you and other fanboys give a shit. Again play what you like or shut the fuck up. I'm just humoring your lame ass as I have a cold and have nothing better to do than rile up nerds on the net.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 08:42 PM
Ah yes, the Atari 5700. With such classics as Puck-Man. And Space Inflaters.
Oops, meant 5200. But still, that console sucked. The red button would always break so we couldn't play anything but Pac-man and Frogger that didn't use the button.
I barely played it and didn't really get into gaming until we got an NES--which was a bit after launch. Probably '88 or '89.
Dr Mario Kart
03-09-2009, 08:44 PM
The bottom line is that "wait for ____" has never worked, whether you fill in the blank with price drops, games or features. No one has ever done it.
If Sony's options stay within the confines of either a) profitability or b) conventional methods that we all know have and will fail, then there is no scenario in which they can pull this off.
They have to try something which no one has ever considered, and that will cost a lot of money. Something that involves betting the farm, like cutting the price so low that even Microsoft is unwilling to match it. We're looking at a maximum price of $150-200. Value means nothing if you dont have price parity. At that point, what good is selling the most machines if you've done nothing but lose money. Sony is a business after all.
Thomas96
03-09-2009, 09:10 PM
I would say PS3 being the lead sku on titles may make the PS3 version of a game more attractive, however that hasn't happened very often. I don't think that at this point its really about making PS3 versions of games more attractive, its really about getting people to utilize their PS3s more. And as they utilize their PS3 more, then they might use it to play more than just the exclusives. Its not an issue of whether Game A, B, C, or D is better on PS3 or 360, its a matter of where the consumer wants to the play the game. What is the consumer's primary gaming console.. 360 or PS3. For me its always been PS3, and for many others it's 360. So far, most games have more benefits if you buy them on the 360. Fallout 3 (extra DLC), GTA IV (extra DLC), Virtua Fighter (online play), Guitar Hero III (ability to use previous game guitars), Call of Duty 4 (better matching making... in some people's opinion); In the end it all depends on what system you prefer to game on. When it was me w/ the SNES vs Genesis, I played all Madden(s) on Genesis. And the other games multiplatform mostly went to the SNES; and of course it was a decision that was made game by game. Anyone remember the Mortal Kombat issue - SNES vs Genesis; the SNES version only had green blood, whereas the Genesis version had a code where you could get Blood. I ended up picking the SNES version because I thought it looked better than the Genesis version. Its the same situation that everyone faces now....
[Hawx is a good example of a game that did something special - ability to post youtube video photage of your gameplay - but other than that not many games have done anything 'just' for the PS3 version]
jkanownik
03-09-2009, 09:12 PM
These practices result in restricting game developers. GTA IV had to have stuff cut out of it because of DVD format, they're not even sure if GTA V will appear on 360 yet because of DVD. Tekken 6's developers are struggling to fit the game in all of its glory on a DVD. Closed online helped ensure no mods this generation on consoles and capped file sizes on what developers can put up for sale. Proprietary HDD's mean I can't get enough storage space on my 360 unless I shell out much more than it was worth, so it was better to just get a PS3 instead of upgrading my 360 HDD. Let's not even get into them not making HDD standard across all SKUs... it was good for making sales to young kids and casuals, but it hurt game development.
There isn't a single 3rd party publisher that will greenlight another big budget PS3 exclusive. It won't happen in at least the next two years. Nevermind your ridiculous assumption that T2 would even plan on developing GTA V for this generation of consoles.
You're looking at things the wrong way. By creating a lower priced console Microsoft has actually expanded the next-gen market. A larger next-gen market is good for gamers because you get more games that have had larger development budgets. It's kind of hard to argue that we'd be better off based on the potential of games that would be greatly hampered by economic factors in your theoretical world where all next-gen consoles have a hard drive and HD disc drive when the quality of exclusives released on the 360 has been so high in the real world.
I sure would like to live in this magical gaming world where money doesn't matter, but then again if I'm living in a magical world where money doesn't matter there are much better things to imagine in it than slightly higher quality video games.
Thomas96
03-09-2009, 09:33 PM
There isn't a single 3rd party publisher that will greenlight another big budget PS3 exclusive. It won't happen in at least the next two years. Nevermind your ridiculous assumption that T2 would even plan on developing GTA V for this generation of consoles.
You're looking at things the wrong way. By creating a lower priced console Microsoft has actually expanded the next-gen market. A larger next-gen market is good for gamers because you get more games that have had larger development budgets. It's kind of hard to argue that we'd be better off based on the potential of games that would be greatly hampered by economic factors in your theoretical world where all next-gen consoles have a hard drive and HD disc drive when the quality of exclusives released on the 360 has been so high in the real world.
I sure would like to live in this magical gaming world where money doesn't matter, but then again if I'm living in a magical world where money doesn't matter there are much better things to imagine in it than slightly higher quality video games.
I don't understand how you can say that a publisher wouldn't green light another big PS3 exclusive. Decisions are made w/ the assumption (or estimation) of how the market will be in the future. Rockstar green lighted their PS3 exclusive and by the time the game is released, if its good then it'll probably be profitable for them. MS hasn't expanded any gaming market... they picked up the same customers that Sony had not too long ago, the same customers that Sony hopes to reclaim bit by bit as they lower the price of the console.
kube00
03-09-2009, 09:40 PM
And the Wii for the win with the most Shovelware! Seriously when did this gen of consoles become about the ultimate media center in my living room, I don't care about Netflix, and Blu-ray. I wanna play good looking games, hence the Wii gathers dust in my living room.
Seriously i gave up a long time on Sony winning this one, they didn't have their act together, and their marketing is terrible. It all depends on what games you want to play, most of the 360 games I want to play will eventually make it to pc. Back to my pc gaming...
HowStern
03-09-2009, 09:55 PM
I mean if I was a fanboy I could say that Live is objectively better than PSN (cross game invites, more users, more people using headsets etc. etc.)
Shockingly, possibly due to the surge of sales due to yakuza 3 and definitely the fact that it's free, PSN is up to 20mil users vs Lives 17mil.
I just read it the other day
http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/is-psn-overtaking-xbox-live--547878?src=rss&attr=all
Platform preference is definitely subjective for now. The home stuff I don't think is a dealbreaker since home is really pretty terrible. Once developers start utilizing blu-ray capacity like ID's RAGE (http://kotaku.com/5031985/rage-and-ids-lovehate-relationship-with-the-ps3) and FFXIII the multi-disc nuisance might start to be an objective deal breaker to get the PS3 version for those who have both systems.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 10:01 PM
I don't understand how you can say that a publisher wouldn't green light another big PS3 exclusive.
Because they're 7 million behind and you're not going to see one until they get the gap smaller (which I don't think will happen). Unless of course Sony pays them enough to get the exclusive to make it worth their while. Otherwise you don't make an exclusive for the console with the smallest market share.
But to be fair, any third party developer is pretty stupid to make any game exclusive on the 360 or PS3 without being paid to do so. The gap isn't as large as it was between the PS2 and the others last gen. Just makes more sense to put it on both and reach the most users possible if it's a good game and will sell.
Wii exclusives make more sense with the larger base--but third party games have generally sold poorly given the size of the base so even that is risky for anything other than cheap to develop games that don't have to sell a ton to turn a profit.
heavyd853
03-09-2009, 10:01 PM
There isn't a single 3rd party publisher that will greenlight another big budget PS3 exclusive. It won't happen in at least the next two years. Nevermind your ridiculous assumption that T2 would even plan on developing GTA V for this generation of consoles.
You're looking at things the wrong way. By creating a lower priced console Microsoft has actually expanded the next-gen market. A larger next-gen market is good for gamers because you get more games that have had larger development budgets. It's kind of hard to argue that we'd be better off based on the potential of games that would be greatly hampered by economic factors in your theoretical world where all next-gen consoles have a hard drive and HD disc drive when the quality of exclusives released on the 360 has been so high in the real world.
I sure would like to live in this magical gaming world where money doesn't matter, but then again if I'm living in a magical world where money doesn't matter there are much better things to imagine in it than slightly higher quality video games.
Isn't the next GTA tentatively scheduled for a last 2010 release?
Dr Mario Kart
03-09-2009, 11:28 PM
A larger next-gen market is good for gamers because you get more games that have had larger development budgets. It's kind of hard to argue that we'd be better off based on the potential of games that would be greatly hampered by economic factors in your theoretical world where all next-gen consoles have a hard drive and HD disc drive when the quality of exclusives released on the 360 has been so high in the real world.
Your first point is somewhat irrelevant because budgets are increasing far and above the rate that gamer/consumer population is increasing by. Budgets are already out of control, independent of sales. Sales/revenue are setting records every month while small and mid-tier development are going under left and right.
Your second point, regarding not wanting games hampered by economics - I do. Necessity breeds creativity, how to work within limits. There is one place where its safe to have an exclusive, and that is the DS, despite that games rarely break into the top of the charts.
dmaul1114
03-09-2009, 11:47 PM
I don't care about the economics of it. I want HD 3D games that looks and play the best they can, with nice online modes etc.
Not worth wasting my time on anything else. It's up to developers to find a way to make money on those kind of games, and thankfully people like Bungie, Epic, Rockstar, Valve, Infinity Ward have.
I have no interest in supporting developers that chicken out and make crappy looking casual games (or the random shit you like) on the DS or Wii.
jer7583
03-09-2009, 11:51 PM
I don't give a shit about any reasons that don't include a $100 price cut and re-adding backwards compatibility.
I had a PS3 for a while and I won't be going back anytime soon. Especially for 3rd party games.
DarkNessBear
03-10-2009, 12:57 AM
Heh, I used to go to threads defending Home and that people should give it a chance before passing judgment. Now, I absolutely hate Home it's such garbage.
Anyways - only reason I get multiplatform games on my PS3 is because I got a ton of friends always on my PS3 and the interface is so much nicer and faster. I LOVE IT.
TruthinessFC
03-10-2009, 01:27 AM
Isn't the next GTA tentatively scheduled for a last 2010 release?
Don't know about "tentatively scheduled" but there have been rumors and that Michael Pachter expects another GTA in the next fiscal year. Developing another GTA like Vice City or San Andreas shouldn't take as long as III or IV did. They already have the engine there.
So another GTA this gen is hardly "ridiculous". More like very logical and a recipe for $$$.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6205730.html
Tsukento
03-10-2009, 01:35 AM
At first I thought gaining trophies meant unlocking items within the game. Then I read further and saw all it would do is unlock things for Home. After the amount of time I had fiddling around with Home on an account I made on my friend's PS3, I can honestly say the idea of unlocking things in Home doesn't really grab me in the slightest bit and I really wouldn't bother dealing with Home should I ever get a PS3 of my own.
I honestly think it'd make more sense to have unlockables within the game itself, rather than in something that's still classified as being "in Beta." The amount of work put into the game seems like it'd go to waste if all it does is supply you with new things for Home.
dmaul1114
03-10-2009, 01:53 AM
I honestly think it'd make more sense to have unlockables within the game itself, rather than in something that's still classified as being "in Beta." The amount of work put into the game seems like it'd go to waste if all it does is supply you with new things for Home.
Agreed. And the same goes for 360 achievements.
I'd love to see them often coupled with unlocking in game content. I don't care at all about gamerscore, but I'd try for more of them if it unlocked worthwhile in game stuff.
captainfrizo
03-10-2009, 02:29 AM
I highly doubt the emergence of Home and the potential to release/unlock exclusive content for it will have any impact at all on the developers choosing to develop a multi-platform game more based with the PS3 in mind than the 360.
There's two much larger factors that will be more important to that decision:
1. Which platform is easier to develop for. I'm not a programmer, but from what I've read the 360 is the easier console to develop games on (if this has changed please feel free to correct me). If you're going to spend millions on a game it's going to be easier (and more effective) to primarily code the majority of it for the easier platform and then transfer as much data as possible to the others. For example: why waste 40 hours writing code only the PS3 can handle when you can spend 20 hours writing the same code for the 360 and it transfers over easily to the PS3? Ease of use is huge.
2. The platform with the most sales (both hardware and software) will be the "chosen one." You want maximum return on your investment, and the best way to achieve that is to make sure the current cash cow of consoles gets the most attention.
If a console has both of these elements going for it then it will be the primary focus of multi-platform games, period. This generation Microsoft has these advantages. Unless Sony can dramatically close the gap on Microsoft's sales lead there's little to no incentive for a developer to develop a game with the PS3 as its main focal point over the 360.
Home (which truly does suck, almost as bad as the 360's avatars) has nothing to do with it.
lokizz
03-10-2009, 02:43 AM
I highly doubt the emergence of Home and the potential to release/unlock exclusive content for it will have any impact at all on the developers choosing to develop a multi-platform game more based with the PS3 in mind than the 360.
There's two much larger factors that will be more important to that decision:
1. Which platform is easier to develop for. I'm not a programmer, but from what I've read the 360 is the easier console to develop games on (if this has changed please feel free to correct me). If you're going to spend millions on a game it's going to be easier (and more effective) to primarily code the majority of it for the easier platform and then transfer as much data as possible to the others. For example: why waste 40 hours writing code only the PS3 can handle when you can spend 20 hours writing the same code for the 360 and it transfers over easily to the PS3? Ease of use is huge.
2. The platform with the most sales (both hardware and software) will be the "chosen one." You want maximum return on your investment, and the best way to achieve that is to make sure the current cash cow of consoles gets the most attention.
If a console has both of these elements going for it then it will be the primary focus of multi-platform games, period. This generation Microsoft has these advantages. Unless Sony can dramatically close the gap on Microsoft's sales lead there's little to no incentive for a developer to develop a game with the PS3 as its main focal point over the 360.
Home (which truly does suck, almost as bad as the 360's avatars) has nothing to do with it.
yes it has changed ty very much !!!!!!to program game for a ps3 all you need to do is tell it what you want ( game length, controlls, character, story, environments) and it does it for you instantly. can your precious 360 do THAT!!!!!!!!!! I DONT THINK SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
Tsukento
03-10-2009, 03:00 AM
Agreed. And the same goes for 360 achievements.
I'd love to see them often coupled with unlocking in game content. I don't care at all about gamerscore, but I'd try for more of them if it unlocked worthwhile in game stuff.
Yeah, I'd definitely like that. Sorta like how Team Fortress 2 on the PC gives you new weapons for Scout, Heavy, Medic and Pyro if you manage to gain up to 22 achievements per class.
yes it has changed ty very much !!!!!!to program game for a ps3 all you need to do is tell it what you want ( game length, controlls, character, story, environments) and it does it for you instantly. can your precious 360 do THAT!!!!!!!!!! I DONT THINK SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
I seriously hope you're trolling.
integralsmatic
03-10-2009, 03:23 AM
First thing is that PS3 games will now be allowing you to access arcade games within home for free. Resident Evil 5's space in Home will have an arcade game that is accessible for free if you own RE 5.
Second thing is that trophies you unlock in PS3 games will allow you to get items within home for free. Yes, trophies will be worth something for more than gamerscore.
I don't know how far they will take these developments, but if they have a lot of multiplatforms do this, it may have people buying PS3 versions instead of 360. Then add in that they may be packing games with Bluray films together in the future too. The war between 360 and PS3 should get a lot more interesting soon. MS must have some developments in the works as well. http://www.n4g.com/gaming/News-291131.aspx
for fucks sake who cares about this. its just another way for these companies to make money. they arent doing it for the gamers. They do these things for your wallet. and this post is COMPLETELY situational to people who OWN both systems. MANY people do not own both so who really cares who offers what. atleast i can give a rat's ass about it.
The Crotch
03-10-2009, 03:24 AM
...
Yes. Yes he is.
SteveMcQ
03-10-2009, 03:46 AM
Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.
Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?
munch
03-10-2009, 08:33 AM
Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.
Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?
I was thinking the same thing. It looks likes the SDF just got a new member.
Thomas96
03-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Because they're 7 million behind and you're not going to see one until they get the gap smaller (which I don't think will happen). Unless of course Sony pays them enough to get the exclusive to make it worth their while. Otherwise you don't make an exclusive for the console with the smallest market share.
But to be fair, any third party developer is pretty stupid to make any game exclusive on the 360 or PS3 without being paid to do so. The gap isn't as large as it was between the PS2 and the others last gen. Just makes more sense to put it on both and reach the most users possible if it's a good game and will sell.
Wii exclusives make more sense with the larger base--but third party games have generally sold poorly given the size of the base so even that is risky for anything other than cheap to develop games that don't have to sell a ton to turn a profit.
Wii exclusives make sense when you look at the numbers, but of course after interpetation its evident that making games exclusive on Wii isn't that great. Wii is good for shovelware. Shovelware doesn't have to be crappy, but just a cheap, simple fun game. Devs try to tap into that huge user base of the Wii, but that user base isn't the customer that wants to play a 3D action game, and don't care if the game is exclusive or sloppy seconds. (for the most part) Nintendo has the right idea, with the release of their old gamecube titles with Wii controls (Pikmin and Mario Tennis) They can get away with rehasing old stuff because they have NEW customers. The rest of the devs need to understand that as well, that's not a market of gamers, that's a mixed market of new customers.
Just because the PS3 is behind in sales, doesn't mean that its not a good decision to release a game exclusively for the platform. There's still money to be made on the platform. I don't think that its good for a small developer to do a big budget game on the PS3; but Rockstar, EA, could take the chance. Haze was exclusive for a while, it did poorly not because of the PS3 platform, but because it wasn't that great of a game. Releasing it on the 360 wasn't a help for the game either. Each company has to do what's right for them. Multiplatform is the best way to go overall, but I can imagine instances where a it might be better to be on one platform.
Thomas96
03-10-2009, 10:45 AM
for fucks sake who cares about this. its just another way for these companies to make money. they arent doing it for the gamers. They do these things for your wallet. and this post is COMPLETELY situational to people who OWN both systems. MANY people do not own both so who really cares who offers what. atleast i can give a rat's ass about it.
we all know the underlying reason for any moves that a developer makes, however the point is will this extra content have an effect on someone buying the game on the PS3 rather than the 360. If you got a person running around in home, and they visit the RE5 HOME space there is a chance that maybe they will be more likely to purchase the game on PS3. HOME is just a 3D advertising space with some fun stuff to do. So if a dev is putting their content into the HOME area, then they must forsee some type of financial benefit resulting from the investment.
xycury
03-10-2009, 10:56 AM
I don't own a PS3 but even I know this is retarded.
Home to me seems like 2nd Life, which to me seems like a failed Sims Online.
This would be like Wii making new outfits or faces with every game... that is NOT how to sell games.
manthing
03-10-2009, 11:39 AM
Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.
Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?
To be fair, I don't think TMK is delusional enough to think having 4 arcade cabinets in Home, or a free COD6 t-shirt for your avatar is gonna tip the scales to the PS3
dmaul1114
03-10-2009, 01:12 PM
Multiplatform is the best way to go overall, but I can imagine instances where a it might be better to be on one platform.
True, for crappy games that aren't going to sell much period it's probably not worth the effort to spend money on developing on multiple platforms.
But I only play AAA games so that was more my thinking. For some major 3rd party game like a Call of Duty etc., it's stupid not to put it on both and maximize sales. Unless, again, MS or Sony throws a shit ton of money at them for exclusivity.
Thomas96
03-10-2009, 02:11 PM
True, for crappy games that aren't going to sell much period it's probably not worth the effort to spend money on developing on multiple platforms.
But I only play AAA games so that was more my thinking. For some major 3rd party game like a Call of Duty etc., it's stupid not to put it on both and maximize sales. Unless, again, MS or Sony throws a shit ton of money at them for exclusivity.
Does that money that MS, or Sony pay for a game's exclusivity really compensate for sales that they didn't make on the other console? Have you or anyone else here, ever gotten the details of what a company received in payment (or other incentives) for keeping a game exclusive. I'd like a difinitive answer, as to how much does it really cost to keep a game exclusive?
dmaul1114
03-10-2009, 02:13 PM
Does that money that MS, or Sony pay for a game's exclusivity really compensate for sales that they didn't make on the other console? Have you or anyone else here, ever gotten the details of what a company received in payment (or other incentives) for keeping a game exclusive. I'd like a difinitive answer, as to how much does it really cost to keep a game exclusive?
My guess is that it's a huge chunk of change, and that's part of the reason why we don't see hardly any third party exclusives.
It probably isn't worth it for MS or Sony to pay enough money to compensate for lost sales on the other console as the game probably won't sell enough consoles (especially this late in the game) to make paying for the exclusive worth while.
fart_bubble
03-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Where is TMK? Did he get banned or did he finally get to touch a tittie?
The Crotch
03-10-2009, 02:43 PM
Killzone.
EDIT: Now get to killing some motherfuckers, Necro. Or at least find me a generator.
fart_bubble
03-10-2009, 02:54 PM
Killzone.
EDIT: Now get to killing some motherfuckers, Necro. Or at least find me a generator.
Still running in circles trying to find a bounty. Yeah, I'm seriously not cut out for being a bounty hunter
The Crotch
03-10-2009, 03:14 PM
Link up with me 'n JJ in Heytown-and-area. There's a million over here, all hiding in the banks and cinemas and clubs.
That argument about Home being some kind of savior for the PS3 doesn't cut it for me. I don't care for it, and no one I know who owns a PS3 outside of CAG has any interest in it either. The only thing that will make multiplatform games more attractive on PS3 is if Sony sells more PS3s than MS sells 360s. Beyond that, Sony will have to be happy to take what it can get.
fart_bubble
03-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Link up with me 'n JJ in Heytown-and-area. There's a million over here, all hiding in the banks and cinemas and clubs.
okay, I'm there right next to you in the square (I was down in Pitneybank). Need a revive though
Ronin317
03-10-2009, 03:44 PM
Shockingly, possibly due to the surge of sales due to yakuza 3 and definitely the fact that it's free, PSN is up to 20mil users vs Lives 17mil.
I just read it the other day
http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/is-psn-overtaking-xbox-live--547878?src=rss&attr=all
Platform preference is definitely subjective for now. The home stuff I don't think is a dealbreaker since home is really pretty terrible. Once developers start utilizing blu-ray capacity like ID's RAGE (http://kotaku.com/5031985/rage-and-ids-lovehate-relationship-with-the-ps3) and FFXIII the multi-disc nuisance might start to be an objective deal breaker to get the PS3 version for those who have both systems.
First off, you're talking worldwide numbers, which of course Sony will have the lead on, due to larger install bases in Europe and Japan. In the US, the 360 and Live flat-out pummel Sony and PSN. Secondly, if you read the article you posted...
Cannot compare like-for-likeThe Sony numbers refer to PSN registrations which represent lifetime-to-date PSN registrations on both PS3s, PSPs and through PCs (although not by the same person across more than one platform)," according to Screen Digest's Senior Analyst, Piers Harding-Rolls.
Harding-Rolls notes that it is difficult to compare these latest PSN user figures to Microsoft's Xbox Live in a like-for-like type way because "these [PSN] registrations are not comparable to any announced Xbox Live subscriber numbers (as these are active accounts not lifetime registrations). The last reported Xbox Live subscriber numbers were 17 million at the end of 2008."
The analyst also adds the caveat that "neither of these numbers represent individual users (it's possible to hold more than one account as a user) nor individual consoles attached to the internet (it's possible to have more than one account on an individual bit of hardware)."
Raw numbers don't always tell the real story.
The Crotch
03-10-2009, 04:13 PM
okay, I'm there right next to you in the square (I was down in Pitneybank). Need a revive though
Yeah, Pit got chewed up something awful. You have MSN? 'Cause then we could stop filling up this thread with off-topic stuff.
...
Uh...
HOME.
Regarding the Genesis and SNES, the trend was set early after the SNES launched, despite that Europe sided largely with Sega. It was only a matter of time before Sega's 2 year head start was overcome.
Regarding the problem of price, fixing the price doesnt fix the problems that it created.
Theres a good analogy I heard for another purpose but I can bend it to fit here:
Someone has a heart attack. You're about to cut open their chest to do whatever extreme thing you have to do to resolve the matter. Someone casually mentions to you, by the way, I hear that the way to keep your heart healthy is diet and exercise. At this particular point where we have a problem, those measures dont work. Solving what caused the problem and the problems themselves are now two separate things.
In regards to lifespan: Lifespan is always proportional to your marketshare. The losers of the generation are the ones that are most eager to start a new race. PS3 wont have the marketshare/developer momentum to last well beyond the launch of a new machine.
Any scenario that has the PS3 catching up has a lot of reality working against it, so its going to be an uphill battle.
There has never been a trend reversal beyond the first year (or two to be very, very generous) that all competing systems are out. Price drops merely flex the trends a bit before going back to baseline. The most powerful or most expensive consoles are not going to sell the most.
Also, being future proof or ahead of your time basically counts for nothing.
Genesis and SNES were still battling it out a few years into that generation. To state that lowering the price of the SNES from its original release at $200 had little effect is wrong. So you think a high launch price for Sony was a heart attack and anything they do now cannot overcome that. Again I think that is wrong. They have the ability to change things and lower their price. They can still be competitive with 360 in sales down the line. With a heart attack you do not have the ability to change it.
Lifespan is not always proportional to your marketshare. Examples: Neo Geo, Saturn and Dreamcast in Japan, Xbox. All of these had horrible marketshare yet they lasted longer than expected. These are not the same types of situations as the PS3, they merely prove your point wrong. Besides, Sony is a much different company that always tries to maximize their lifespan as much as possible despite anything else that has occurred.
Sony did not lose the PS1 generation, yet they released PS2 a year earlier than Xbox and GC. Sega did not pose a big threat with DC. Sony could've waited longer if they had wanted. So your other point is proven wrong too. It's not a law. PS3's last years may not be as great as PS2's, but they will still have a long lifespan with PS3.
You act like just because something hasn't happened in the past, it cannot never happen, as if it is scientific law. Also, has a competing system ever been as close as PS3 is to 360 after being on the market for 2 and 2.5 years less time in EU at such a higher price in its first 2 years... Nope.
Who said anything about future proof or ahead of their time. No one.
help1
03-10-2009, 06:23 PM
As soon as Sony implements it, MS will copy it. Just like how Sony ripped off gamerscore.
Um, whoever sells the most software and hardware in the end is who won the generation. If a console didn't do that it's not going to keep selling into the next generation. The PS2 dominated last gen, and thus sales have kept going.
Nope. I hate microsoft. They just have the most games I want to play this generation. I don't care who sells the most etc. I don't like any of the 3 companies, and again probably won't even buy a console next gen. And if I do it will be which ever has the most games I want to play after a price drop or two. I have no brand loyalty.
Again, I'm saying the 360 hardware and software sales will stay on top of Sony throught this gen and into the next. They're outselling Sony most months, multiplatform titles sell more on the 360, etc. etc. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Maybe you're lame fanboy ass should grasp onto some type of "win in a psychological sense" as that's the only chance the PS3 has of "beating" the 360 this generation. Its not going to pass it in hardware or software sells. Period.
And I don't see why you and other fanboys give a shit. Again play what you like or shut the fuck up. I'm just humoring your lame ass as I have a cold and have nothing better to do than rile up nerds on the net.
A console that is so close to another in sales with less time on the market, that will likely be supported longer by its company who also has the most development studios in the world (2x as many as MS and Nintendo), can last longer than a console that may have barely beat it in marketshare. And that is if PS3 sold less by the time it and 360 were out of production, which I don't think will happen.
You obviously have some alliance to 360 as when I prove any of your points wrong or bring up factual figures or evidence you try to ignore them, discount them, or result to insults, which is why I retaliated with my own insults to you.
What has happened so far this generation in terms of 360 vs PS3 sales has not determined who will come out on top yet. It's been too close and PS3 wasn't what it was 2 and 1 years ago that it is now and is becoming.
Again, all you have is nothing but resulting to insults. Looks like you put a lot of effort into your job if a cold has you staying at home (just returning the favor there ;) ). You don't put much effort into debating this issue as well. And I am so upset that you called me a nerd, that really upsets me. I like discussing things about the gaming industry and that doesn't fit into mainsteam society. I feel so bad now.
I already explained why I care, but you probably didn't even read that post. MS has restricted game development in many ways and their answers to battling Sony is to buyout exclusive games and DLC.
They stole the Cell design from Sony (you probably don't even know that), they rushed their hardware and released it even though they knew it was faulty, they have a closed online environment that is bad for developers, they charge for online which is bs, they limited file sizes on XBL until just this week (which now screws over their customers without an HDD), they used DVD which has restricted some developers and is now restricting some more (and despite knowing DVD would require additional game discs they don't package them properly and they get scratched), they force proprietary accessories on you, they nickel and dime consumers to death. But I guess you like to support this kind of shit and enjoy consuming it. Otherwise you would understand why I discuss such things.
I would say PS3 being the lead sku on titles may make the PS3 version of a game more attractive, however that hasn't happened very often. I don't think that at this point its really about making PS3 versions of games more attractive, its really about getting people to utilize their PS3s more. And as they utilize their PS3 more, then they might use it to play more than just the exclusives. Its not an issue of whether Game A, B, C, or D is better on PS3 or 360, its a matter of where the consumer wants to the play the game. What is the consumer's primary gaming console.. 360 or PS3. For me its always been PS3, and for many others it's 360. So far, most games have more benefits if you buy them on the 360. Fallout 3 (extra DLC), GTA IV (extra DLC), Virtua Fighter (online play), Guitar Hero III (ability to use previous game guitars), Call of Duty 4 (better matching making... in some people's opinion); In the end it all depends on what system you prefer to game on. When it was me w/ the SNES vs Genesis, I played all Madden(s) on Genesis. And the other games multiplatform mostly went to the SNES; and of course it was a decision that was made game by game. Anyone remember the Mortal Kombat issue - SNES vs Genesis; the SNES version only had green blood, whereas the Genesis version had a code where you could get Blood. I ended up picking the SNES version because I thought it looked better than the Genesis version. Its the same situation that everyone faces now....
[Hawx is a good example of a game that did something special - ability to post youtube video photage of your gameplay - but other than that not many games have done anything 'just' for the PS3 version]
Some good points. You say so far most games have more benefits if you buy them on 360. But that is exactly what Sony is trying to do here with the free arcade games and trophies unlocking items. They're trying to make the games on PS3 have more benefits and they're not doing that by screwing over some gamers by paying for exclusive DLC. These are separate experiences from the core game.
I would agree that most games have more benefits on 360, but there are many that have more benefits on PS3. So I don't think developers will shy away from developing stuff just for the PS3 version: Unreal Tournament 3, DIRT, Red Alert 3, Oblivion, RE 5, Fight Night 3, Ridge Racer 7 (which is really 6 upgraded), Eternal Sonata, Stranglehold CE, possibly Sega Rally Revo I think I heard as well.
There isn't a single 3rd party publisher that will greenlight another big budget PS3 exclusive. It won't happen in at least the next two years. Nevermind your ridiculous assumption that T2 would even plan on developing GTA V for this generation of consoles.
You're looking at things the wrong way. By creating a lower priced console Microsoft has actually expanded the next-gen market. A larger next-gen market is good for gamers because you get more games that have had larger development budgets. It's kind of hard to argue that we'd be better off based on the potential of games that would be greatly hampered by economic factors in your theoretical world where all next-gen consoles have a hard drive and HD disc drive when the quality of exclusives released on the 360 has been so high in the real world.
I sure would like to live in this magical gaming world where money doesn't matter, but then again if I'm living in a magical world where money doesn't matter there are much better things to imagine in it than slightly higher quality video games.
For the 2nd time, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EXCLUSIVES. Why wouldn't T2 want GTA V coming out on this generation of consoles?! They definitely want it to come asap because the Houser's contracts end in 2012... It would be stupid to not release the next one on this gen. Using the same engine as they used for GTA IV but upgraded in some parts will save them a ton of money. It will cost a lot less than making the next one for next gen, especially this early. Seriously, you must be joking.
MS hasn't expanded the next gen market. The core gamer market has declined this generation. You speak of the current economic climate as something that we all saw coming. I'd rather have a little less amount of games in higher quality than a boatload of crap. There's a fine line between making a system that allows for development of quality games that cost enough to make so that you don't get too many games being made that suck.
The truth of the matter is that the 360 costs most people more money than a PS3 does. Most people who buy 360 then pay for a rechargeable battery and charger, Wifi, HDD or upgrade HDD, warranty, fans, repairs. And you get less for your money. Going into it you think you're saving money, but once you spend some time there you've spent more to be there.
dmaul1114
03-10-2009, 07:02 PM
You obviously have some alliance to 360 as when I prove any of your points wrong or bring up factual figures or evidence you try to ignore them, discount them, or result to insults, which is why I retaliated with my own insults to you.
You haven't proved shit. You're just basing arguments off what you think will happen with Sony some how passing another competitor in sales further into a generation than has ever happend before and faulty logic.
It doesn't matter that the PS3 may be supported longer. Look at the PS2, it was supported longer. Did it get any major third party exclusives more than a few months after the launch of the 360? How about after the Wii and PS3 launches?
Not really right? It got niche games like JRPGs and ports of things like Madden and the Treyarch Call of Duty games. All the big franchises, and major new IPs move on to the new consoles.
Sure the PS3 may stick around and see more sells into next generation. But development will move onto the new consoles, and at the outset developers will favor Nintendo and MS more, at least initially, since they sold the most units during this current generation.
I have no loyalty to these consoles. If I buy a console next generation it will be after a price drop or two and which one I buy will the one that has the most games I want to play. I've had no brand loyalty over the years, by generation my most played consoles where: NES, SNES, PS1, PS3, 360. I go where the games are.
At any rate, enough of this nonsense. Too much time wasted, time to put you on ignore with my other collection of fanboys. But thanks for some distraction last night and today while I'm layed up with a shitty cold!
1. Which platform is easier to develop for. I'm not a programmer, but from what I've read the 360 is the easier console to develop games on (if this has changed please feel free to correct me). If you're going to spend millions on a game it's going to be easier (and more effective) to primarily code the majority of it for the easier platform and then transfer as much data as possible to the others. For example: why waste 40 hours writing code only the PS3 can handle when you can spend 20 hours writing the same code for the 360 and it transfers over easily to the PS3? Ease of use is huge.
2. The platform with the most sales (both hardware and software) will be the "chosen one." You want maximum return on your investment, and the best way to achieve that is to make sure the current cash cow of consoles gets the most attention.
If a console has both of these elements going for it then it will be the primary focus of multi-platform games, period. This generation Microsoft has these advantages. Unless Sony can dramatically close the gap on Microsoft's sales lead there's little to no incentive for a developer to develop a game with the PS3 as its main focal point over the 360.
Home (which truly does suck, almost as bad as the 360's avatars) has nothing to do with it.
1) It's actually easier for developers to start on PS3 and port over to 360. It takes more time overall to develop on 360 and try to get it working on PS3. But yes, you had the right thinking there.
2) At this point 360 has a lead on multiplatform sales, though it has decreased over time. And its too early to say it will always have a 7 million unit lead.
Home right now reportedly has a tiny fraction of what it will be by the end of this year and the lines for arcade games are going to be alleviated. It will continue to get better over time, just like firmware updates have made PS3 so much better than what it was each time a significant one was released.
I doubt you even own a PS3..
One could say they doubt you own any current gen systems looking under your name.
Thomas96
03-10-2009, 07:48 PM
Some good points. You say so far most games have more benefits if you buy them on 360. But that is exactly what Sony is trying to do here with the free arcade games and trophies unlocking items. They're trying to make the games on PS3 have more benefits and they're not doing that by screwing over some gamers by paying for exclusive DLC. These are separate experiences from the core game.
I would agree that most games have more benefits on 360, but there are many that have more benefits on PS3. So I don't think developers will shy away from developing stuff just for the PS3 version: Unreal Tournament 3, DIRT, Red Alert 3, Oblivion, RE 5, Fight Night 3, Ridge Racer 7 (which is really 6 upgraded), Eternal Sonata, Stranglehold CE, possibly Sega Rally Revo I think I heard as well.
For the 2nd time, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EXCLUSIVES. Why wouldn't T2 want GTA V coming out on this generation of consoles?! They definitely want it to come asap because the Houser's contracts end in 2012... It would be stupid to not release the next one on this gen. Using the same engine as they used for GTA IV but upgraded in some parts will save them a ton of money. It will cost a lot less than making the next one for next gen, especially this early. Seriously, you must be joking.
MS hasn't expanded the next gen market. The core gamer market has declined this generation. You speak of the current economic climate as something that we all saw coming. I'd rather have a little less amount of games in higher quality than a boatload of crap. There's a fine line between making a system that allows for development of quality games that cost enough to make so that you don't get too many games being made that suck.
The truth of the matter is that the 360 costs most people more money than a PS3 does. Most people who buy 360 then pay for a rechargeable battery and charger, Wifi, HDD or upgrade HDD, warranty, fans, repairs. And you get less for your money. Going into it you think you're saving money, but once you spend some time there you've spent more to be there.
I think that people want PS3 but they couldn't afford it.. so once the PS3 gets in the price range then more and more people will start to buy them up. But there was some issues that PS3 games were not up to par with the 360 versions of the game. Every game that comes out gets a comparison video from Gametrailers, and other media outlets. To get people to buy on the PS3, PS3 needs to sell, but before it can sell, consumers need to trust that if they start to buy games on the PS3 that they aren't going to be gimped. If you look at the games that released in 2008, there weren't any games that I can remember that were subpar on the PS3... when compared to the 360. At least there wasn't anything that made the 360 vastly superior. WHich is why MS invested in getting some exclusive DLC (imo) .. at least one of the reasons. The PS3 was outselling the 360 for almost the entire year of 2008... like wombat mentioned ont he cagcasts it took 2 price drops before MS started to start to sell more consoles (per month) than the PS3. So there's a market for the system, the devs know it and Sony knows it. As long as there is money to be made then the system will get the games.
You haven't proved shit. You're just basing arguments off what you think will happen with Sony some how passing another competitor in sales further into a generation than has ever happend before and faulty logic.
It doesn't matter that the PS3 may be supported longer. Look at the PS2, it was supported longer. Did it get any major third party exclusives more than a few months after the launch of the 360? How about after the Wii and PS3 launches?
Not really right? It got niche games like JRPGs and ports of things like Madden and the Treyarch Call of Duty games. All the big franchises, and major new IPs move on to the new consoles.
Sure the PS3 may stick around and see more sells into next generation. But development will move onto the new consoles, and at the outset developers will favor Nintendo and MS more, at least initially, since they sold the most units during this current generation.
I have no loyalty to these consoles. If I buy a console next generation it will be after a price drop or two and which one I buy will the one that has the most games I want to play. I've had no brand loyalty over the years, by generation my most played consoles where: NES, SNES, PS1, PS3, 360. I go where the games are.
At any rate, enough of this nonsense. Too much time wasted, time to put you on ignore with my other collection of fanboys. But thanks for some distraction last night and today while I'm layed up with a shitty cold!
Isn't it the fanboys that supposed to be getting all hot under the collar and threatening to "ignore" people. Its just another forum.
If the PS3 is supported longer then that's a very good thing. If Sony knows that they have a 10 year strategy and a 10 year product in their hands, then that changes the way they do business. I can't say that I understand Sony's strategy because if I was running the show the system would have been cheaper now. But from what I see regarding sony is that they're selling and doing business at their own pace. They're not in any rush to drop the price... you sell as many Consoles, for as high a price as you can, for as long as you can. That's a long term strategy. I think everyone is so ready to declare a winner, but you can't really say someone won anything at this point. Obviously there's a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, but the race isn't really over. There's nothing that Sony can do to get people to just start buying PS3s at the rate of 360s and still be fiscally responsible. Price drop ... any monkey can do.. it takes no thought. Its easier to do things on a long term for Sony so that they're not taking big hits financially due to hard price drops. By the time a new Console comes out by MS or Nintendo, it may end up that the PS3 will be cheaper than both, and sure they'll sell, but there's going to be a lot of customers that's going to go w/ the cheaper PS3.
As soon as Sony implements it, MS will copy it. Just like how Sony ripped off gamerscore.
Good point, but you know what MS after hearing about home came up with the NXE and the avatars. They did that really fast and now people are starting to complain about the speed of the Dashboard. I think that MS responded too fast to Sony's Home when they decided to implement the avatars. THey should have done it in a way where it didn't have so much of an negative impact on the xbox OP (or dashbord) If you look at everything that MS has done, overall, they've done an excellent job at getting the games and the online services going. The NXE, and the console quality is the only issues that they've had. (360). Sony's had to play catch up with games, online services, console features, and pricing.
help1
03-10-2009, 08:16 PM
Good point, but you know what MS after hearing about home came up with the NXE and the avatars. They did that really fast and now people are starting to complain about the speed of the Dashboard. I think that MS responded too fast to Sony's Home when they decided to implement the avatars. THey should have done it in a way where it didn't have so much of an negative impact on the xbox OP (or dashbord) If you look at everything that MS has done, overall, they've done an excellent job at getting the games and the online services going. The NXE, and the console quality is the only issues that they've had. (360). Sony's had to play catch up with games, online services, console features, and pricing.
I don't really think NXE is slow, I just think it is too cluttered. There are way too many paths and too many options for everything.
dmaul1114
03-10-2009, 08:18 PM
Isn't it the fanboys that supposed to be getting all hot under the collar and threatening to "ignore" people. Its just another forum.
Not hot under the collar at all. A bit annoyed at myself for wasting time talking about this crap when I hardly even play games these days. But I'm sick and don't feel up to doing much else than goofing online. *shrugs*
And I just get tired of reading shit from people that have loyalty to corporations of any kind. I hate them all equally, they all just want my money and want to get as much as they can by overcharging as much as they can for their various products! :D
If the PS3 is supported longer then that's a very good thing. If Sony knows that they have a 10 year strategy and a 10 year product in their hands, then that changes the way they do business.
It's good for them in one sense as they keep making money. But in the other they lose developer support just like they have this generation by launching late and getting behind in the market share race.
Devs quickly move on to the next gen machines, again there wasn't really any major third party releases on the PS2 the past couple of years despite the consoles still selling fairly well.
Do the same again next generation (launch later and start in the hole) and they're screwed. They have to do the best they can this gen, and have the PS4 ready to launch the same time as the next Xbox and for the same price or less if they want to get back in the game.
jkanownik
03-10-2009, 08:20 PM
This thread is full on unintentional hilarity. I'm going to go home and do some roleplaying with my consoles based on this thread.
PS3: Oohhh mean Mr. Xbox you're gonna get it!
360: Hey Wii, did you hear something?
Wii: Shhh....I'm hibernating. Wake me up when another Zelda comes out.
PS3: Home is awesome!!!!!! Cower in it's awesomeness!!!!!!!
360: What the hell is that noise?
PS3: Killzone 2!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wii: Alright. I'm up. Oohhh look at the cute 360. When did you start trying to be more like me?
360: Um... this was all in development since before you even came out.
PS3: He's not copying you, he did it in response to Home!
Wii: Is that George Foreman Grill talking?
PS3(sobbing): Why won't anyone play games on me? Why do I get teased with BluRay movies and short sessions with Flower and Noby Noby Boy? One day I will have my revenge!!!!
HowStern
03-10-2009, 08:30 PM
First off, you're talking worldwide numbers, which of course Sony will have the lead on, due to larger install bases in Europe and Japan. In the US, the 360 and Live flat-out pummel Sony and PSN. Secondly, if you read the article you posted...
Cannot compare like-for-likeThe Sony numbers refer to PSN registrations which represent lifetime-to-date PSN registrations on both PS3s, PSPs and through PCs (although not by the same person across more than one platform)," according to Screen Digest's Senior Analyst, Piers Harding-Rolls.
Harding-Rolls notes that it is difficult to compare these latest PSN user figures to Microsoft's Xbox Live in a like-for-like type way because "these [PSN] registrations are not comparable to any announced Xbox Live subscriber numbers (as these are active accounts not lifetime registrations). The last reported Xbox Live subscriber numbers were 17 million at the end of 2008."
The analyst also adds the caveat that "neither of these numbers represent individual users (it's possible to hold more than one account as a user) nor individual consoles attached to the internet (it's possible to have more than one account on an individual bit of hardware)."
Raw numbers don't always tell the real story.
I read the article and what it doesn't mention is the fact that a lot of XBL accounts are just as easily duplicates as well. It's just as possible a lot of those XBL account figures could be gamers trying to avoid paying the XBL Gold fees to play online by creating multiple silver accounts for their free month of access.
And since most online games are worldwide, what does it matter the region? I play people from Japan in SFIV with no lag.
for fucks sake who cares about this. its just another way for these companies to make money. they arent doing it for the gamers. They do these things for your wallet. and this post is COMPLETELY situational to people who OWN both systems. MANY people do not own both so who really cares who offers what. atleast i can give a rat's ass about it.
Did I ever say this strategy wasn't about money, no. That's the whole point of making multiplatforms more attractive for your console. It applies to current owners of both consoles and future owners of either a PS3 or 360.
Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.
Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?
Nice contribution. Who is TMK? What did he do, try to share news of upcoming developments to discuss their potential impact and just have people try to belittle him and insult him so they made him angry and got him to reply in kind?
we all know the underlying reason for any moves that a developer makes, however the point is will this extra content have an effect on someone buying the game on the PS3 rather than the 360. If you got a person running around in home, and they visit the RE5 HOME space there is a chance that maybe they will be more likely to purchase the game on PS3. HOME is just a 3D advertising space with some fun stuff to do. So if a dev is putting their content into the HOME area, then they must forsee some type of financial benefit resulting from the investment.
Exactly. It gets their games more exposure and it can get the publisher more sales because less people will sell the game. Don't be surprised to see MS counter this.
To be fair, I don't think TMK is delusional enough to think having 4 arcade cabinets in Home, or a free COD6 t-shirt for your avatar is gonna tip the scales to the PS3
Duh... Never said that 4 arcade cabinets will make PS3 beat out 360. Here's what I said: "I don't know how far they will take these developments, but if they have a lot of multiplatforms do this, it may have people buying PS3 versions instead of 360." If they can get all the big releases (best games) to do this it will help get some people to buy the PS3 version instead of the 360. If both games are equal but you get more by buying the PS3 version, it will influence people. If 360 offerred anything like this for RE 5 I would plan to get it for 360, but as it is now I'll get the PS3 version.
Yeah, Pit got chewed up something awful. You have MSN? 'Cause then we could stop filling up this thread with off-topic stuff.
...
Uh...
HOME.
I think I'll start typing off topic shit in your threads. Thanks for the idea. How are the games on the Wii you own?
You haven't proved shit. You're just basing arguments off what you think will happen with Sony some how passing another competitor in sales further into a generation than has ever happend before and faulty logic.
It doesn't matter that the PS3 may be supported longer. Look at the PS2, it was supported longer. Did it get any major third party exclusives more than a few months after the launch of the 360? How about after the Wii and PS3 launches?
Not really right? It got niche games like JRPGs and ports of things like Madden and the Treyarch Call of Duty games. All the big franchises, and major new IPs move on to the new consoles.
Sure the PS3 may stick around and see more sells into next generation. But development will move onto the new consoles, and at the outset developers will favor Nintendo and MS more, at least initially, since they sold the most units during this current generation.
I have no loyalty to these consoles. If I buy a console next generation it will be after a price drop or two and which one I buy will the one that has the most games I want to play. I've had no brand loyalty over the years, by generation my most played consoles where: NES, SNES, PS1, PS3, 360. I go where the games are.
At any rate, enough of this nonsense. Too much time wasted, time to put you on ignore with my other collection of fanboys. But thanks for some distraction last night and today while I'm layed up with a shitty cold!
You think that 360 will continue to outsell PS3 even when the price difference gets smaller and smaller in the coming years with less exclusives (Sony has so many 1st party studios that they will gain a significant edge in exclusives). 3rd parties are not going to make many exclusives anymore. Your logic is more faulty to me.
PS2 did not need any major 3rd party exclusives after 360 launched. All it needed was publisher support, which it got. What was most important is that hardware and games continued to be sold, and they did, at the end of the generation when the profit margin is the highest. I don't know why you keep bringing up 3rd party exclusives, I have not said once that PS3 needs them.
Ya, rest that horrible cold!
One could say they doubt you own any current gen systems looking under your name.
Ya, cause I don't need random jerks bothering me online. But I've openly stated what I have and you're free to think whatever you want. I tried to start a civil minded discussion, but most of the people just want to try and anger and insult the person who tries to discuss how things will play out. If someone puts forth the possibility that PS3 or its multiplatform games could ever outsell 360's it's so damn impossible that another Earth emerging from the Sun is more likely. Yet, I'm willing to bet they have less data behind them than the person suggesting that does. Or people just come in and throw out a one liner insult because that's the best they can do.
The Crotch
03-10-2009, 09:16 PM
I think I'll start typing off topic shit in your threads. Thanks for the idea. How are the games on the Wii you own?
1: I have very few threads.
2: I am more than capable of derailing the very few that I own.
3: They're fine, though I suspect that Smash Brothers was behind the recent disappearance of Metroid Prime 3. I've had him separated from the others for their safety.
I think that people want PS3 but they couldn't afford it.. so once the PS3 gets in the price range then more and more people will start to buy them up. But there was some issues that PS3 games were not up to par with the 360 versions of the game. Every game that comes out gets a comparison video from Gametrailers, and other media outlets. To get people to buy on the PS3, PS3 needs to sell, but before it can sell, consumers need to trust that if they start to buy games on the PS3 that they aren't going to be gimped. If you look at the games that released in 2008, there weren't any games that I can remember that were subpar on the PS3... when compared to the 360. At least there wasn't anything that made the 360 vastly superior. WHich is why MS invested in getting some exclusive DLC (imo) .. at least one of the reasons. The PS3 was outselling the 360 for almost the entire year of 2008... like wombat mentioned ont he cagcasts it took 2 price drops before MS started to start to sell more consoles (per month) than the PS3. So there's a market for the system, the devs know it and Sony knows it. As long as there is money to be made then the system will get the games.
.
I agree, once the PS3 price tag goes down sales will go up, one reason among others. It's funny how people say a price reduction will barely do anything, yet it was the only thing that saved 360 from being outsold by PS3 for the entire year.
Not hot under the collar at all. A bit annoyed at myself for wasting time talking about this crap when I hardly even play games these days. But I'm sick and don't feel up to doing much else than goofing online. *shrugs*
And I just get tired of reading shit from people that have loyalty to corporations of any kind. I hate them all equally, they all just want my money and want to get as much as they can by overcharging as much as they can for their various products! :D
It's good for them in one sense as they keep making money. But in the other they lose developer support just like they have this generation by launching late and getting behind in the market share race.
Devs quickly move on to the next gen machines, again there wasn't really any major third party releases on the PS2 the past couple of years despite the consoles still selling fairly well.
Do the same again next generation (launch later and start in the hole) and they're screwed. They have to do the best they can this gen, and have the PS4 ready to launch the same time as the next Xbox and for the same price or less if they want to get back in the game.
Yes, but MS is screwing over customers and gamers more this generation than any other company before them. I don't have loyalty beyond one generation. I look at what each company offers, what their prices are on everything, what kind of things they do behind the scenes, and then I support the one that is offering the best games, value, and integrity.
If you hardly even play games anymore I really don't think you should try to argue over what's going on in the industry right now. If you're aware of how companies want to get the most money they can out of you, then you should seriously look at what MS is doing as a company.
Thomas96
03-11-2009, 12:17 AM
First off, you're talking worldwide numbers, which of course Sony will have the lead on, due to larger install bases in Europe and Japan. In the US, the 360 and Live flat-out pummel Sony and PSN. Secondly, if you read the article you posted...
Raw numbers don't always tell the real story.
yeah cause everyone on the PS3 forum got counted 2 or 3 times, once for the US, once for the UK and and one mo for Tokyo! lol ssshhhhh don't tell MS that!
I made the same argument reference the 360 sales where people are buying 2 and 3 systems to replace old ones.
Thomas96
03-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Not hot under the collar at all. A bit annoyed at myself for wasting time talking about this crap when I hardly even play games these days. But I'm sick and don't feel up to doing much else than goofing online. *shrugs*
And I just get tired of reading shit from people that have loyalty to corporations of any kind. I hate them all equally, they all just want my money and want to get as much as they can by overcharging as much as they can for their various products! :D
It's good for them in one sense as they keep making money. But in the other they lose developer support just like they have this generation by launching late and getting behind in the market share race.
Devs quickly move on to the next gen machines, again there wasn't really any major third party releases on the PS2 the past couple of years despite the consoles still selling fairly well.
Do the same again next generation (launch later and start in the hole) and they're screwed. They have to do the best they can this gen, and have the PS4 ready to launch the same time as the next Xbox and for the same price or less if they want to get back in the game.
The PS2 hasn't lost much developer support. The PS2 still has a healthy library of games. Developers see that there is still money to be made there. The real issue w/ the PS3 isn't that they launched too late, they launched too early. Truth is Sony was not ready to launch the PS3. Games weren't ready, the XMB OS, didn't have all its features in place, they didn't have enough consoles. I think... Sony rushed the PS3 to market so that they could capitalize on the Blu Ray market. They weren't prepared for the gaming market. That's why they got off to such a bad start and they had the highest price console (by far). I wouldn't launch a PS4 unless the PS3 never gets any steam. You got GOW III, the Team ICO game, and more. Those games will to jump start some sales. Remember, when EA came out and said that they made most of their profits on the PS3 console.. then that's got to make other developers feel like they can make a profit on the PS3 as well. I think that the PS3 will be able to compete with a newer xbox or a newer Wii. The main thing is that IF Sony brings out a new console..... if it comes late, or early, the main thing is that they need to be prepared.. Launch titles, system features in place, online features ready to go.. day one, and more than enough consoles for launch.
Tsukento
03-11-2009, 01:01 AM
Wii: Shhh....I'm hibernating. Wake me up when another Zelda comes out.
I lol'ed. :applause:
dmaul1114
03-11-2009, 01:23 AM
The PS2 hasn't lost much developer support. The PS2 still has a healthy library of games. Developers see that there is still money to be made there.
Disagree. Other than ports like the Treyarch CoD games, Madden etc. it's largely been shovelware and good niche titles like JRPGs etc.
Nothing mainstream more casual gamers like me give a crap about. We don't play those nice genres and for franchises like Madden and CoD on the next gen systems with the latest and greatest graphics and features.
My main point is yeah old consoles and games on them can sell into the next generation-- but it doesn't help the company win the console sales a race in that next generation.
Most people move on to the new consoles with in a couple years and focus on playing the latest and greatest games there. The old consoles just sell niche games to the hardcore crowd, and Madden to people who can't afford a next gen system etc.
Great for Sony as they make money, but the continued PS2 sales aren't helping the PS3 compete this generation and the PS3 lasting longer into next gen won't help the PS4 compete. Sony makes money selling last gen stuff, but it does nothing to help them beat MS or Nintendo in the current battle. If any thing it hurts since people can put off buying a PS3 longer since they have new JPRGs or whatever to play on their PS2.
Nephlabobo
03-11-2009, 01:36 AM
If Sony were smart, they would take the DLC that comes out for 360 games and release the *Sony* version on the Blu-Ray with both game and DLC for regular price.
The Blu-ray has the storage capacity and it would generate interest in games that are more than simple ports for PS3.
dmaul1114
03-11-2009, 01:41 AM
If Sony were smart, they would take the DLC that comes out for 360 games and release the *Sony* version on the Blu-Ray with both game and DLC for regular price.
The Blu-ray has the storage capacity and it would generate interest in games that are more than simple ports for PS3.
It's not like they have that option.
The developers want to hold it out seperate as they make big bucks selling the DLC (no shipping costs, pressing costs etc.).
So Sony would have to pay the developer enough to offset how much money they lose by not selling the DLC on the PS3.
Thomas96
03-11-2009, 01:14 PM
Disagree. Other than ports like the Treyarch CoD games, Madden etc. it's largely been shovelware and good niche titles like JRPGs etc.
Nothing mainstream more casual gamers like me give a crap about. We don't play those nice genres and for franchises like Madden and CoD on the next gen systems with the latest and greatest graphics and features.
My main point is yeah old consoles and games on them can sell into the next generation-- but it doesn't help the company win the console sales a race in that next generation.
Most people move on to the new consoles with in a couple years and focus on playing the latest and greatest games there. The old consoles just sell niche games to the hardcore crowd, and Madden to people who can't afford a next gen system etc.
Great for Sony as they make money, but the continued PS2 sales aren't helping the PS3 compete this generation and the PS3 lasting longer into next gen won't help the PS4 compete. Sony makes money selling last gen stuff, but it does nothing to help them beat MS or Nintendo in the current battle. If any thing it hurts since people can put off buying a PS3 longer since they have new JPRGs or whatever to play on their PS2.
The PS2 is great for casual and mainstream, that's why it gets the Maddens, Rock Bands, and shovelware. That's the PS2 audience. But, there's still some hardcore gamers that play the system, and there's some titles for them. What the PS2 does is help to keep Sony customers with Sony. There are just some people that can't afford a PS3 or any console priced more than 250 dollars. There are some that refuse to pay over 250 dollars for any gaming machine. [not including tax] If the PS2 was the only system that you owned.. you'd still have some good games to play. PS2 didn't get a lot of the AAA titles, but its those nich and mainstrem titles that continue to bring people to the PS2 aisles. What Sony needs to do is get these PS2 games... make them playable on the PS3 (all versions), and PSP2 as downloadables. [am I wrong for wanting the PSP2 to be like a Portable PS2?]
dmaul1114
03-11-2009, 02:02 PM
I agree. I'm just saying it doesn't help with getting developers to support the PS3 with exclusives or it as the lead sku.
And that's the only thing of interest to those of us who have taken the next gen plunge--which system has the most games we want to play and which has the best version of multiplatform games.
jkanownik
03-11-2009, 02:12 PM
The PS2 hasn't lost much developer support... Remember, when EA came out and said that they made most of their profits on the PS3 console.. then that's got to make other developers feel like they can make a profit on the PS3 as well. I think that the PS3 will be able to compete with a newer xbox or a newer Wii. The main thing is that IF Sony brings out a new console..... if it comes late, or early, the main thing is that they need to be prepared.. Launch titles, system features in place, online features ready to go.. day one, and more than enough consoles for launch.
PS2 is dying at retail. It's only a matter of time before a major retailer drops it and it starts a quick spiral to irrelevance. Overall sales are WAY down versus last year.
The reason EA had more profit on the PS3 in their FY2008 was solely due to favorable currency conversion from Europe and Japan. It is irrelevant to future business decisions. Their gross sales were still 2 to 1 in favor of the 360.
manthing
03-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Duh... Never said that 4 arcade cabinets will make PS3 beat out 360. Here's what I said: "I don't know how far they will take these developments, but if they have a lot of multiplatforms do this, it may have people buying PS3 versions instead of 360." If they can get all the big releases (best games) to do this it will help get some people to buy the PS3 version instead of the 360. If both games are equal but you get more by buying the PS3 version, it will influence people. If 360 offerred anything like this for RE 5 I would plan to get it for 360, but as it is now I'll get the PS3 version.
Looks at the OP:
First thing is that PS3 games will now be allowing you to access arcade games within home for free. Resident Evil 5's space in Home will have an arcade game that is accessible for free if you own RE 5.
Second thing is that trophies you unlock in PS3 games will allow you to get items within home for free. Yes, trophies will be worth something for more than gamerscore.
That's what you said in the OP. You're first 2 arguments were for items in HOME.
Anything you typed after that is a joke, cause you clearly have sustained some type of head trauma to ever believe HOME will tip the scales to the PS3.
Ronin317
03-11-2009, 03:10 PM
yeah cause everyone on the PS3 forum got counted 2 or 3 times, once for the US, once for the UK and and one mo for Tokyo! lol ssshhhhh don't tell MS that!
I made the same argument reference the 360 sales where people are buying 2 and 3 systems to replace old ones.
I didn't say that. The point is that the 360 dominates in the US, and that's not the case in other territories. Which equals a larger install base, as the 360 is a bit player everywhere else (save for the UK).
to your second point - the numbers discussed were ACTIVE LIVE ACCOUNTS, not systems sold. Are you assuming that when people replace a broken 360, they are registering a whole new gamertag and such, and leaving their gamerscore behind?
As for the rest of this thread...it seems that J7 here has a boner for Sony and some personal vendetta against Microsoft. How exactly is MS Screwing consumers and gamers this generation more than any other company ever has? What the fuck is that noise? And why do you give a fuck what other people buy and play?
And, J7, if you want to talk about screwing over gamers, you should read up on the Sega 32X, the Nintendo 64, or the Sony rootkit. You have done nothing but spout Sony fanboy shit for a week on this forum, with a ton of conjecture. It's a shame, because this thread could have been a good discussion, but it's nothing but a fanboy shouting over actual facts and intelligent discussion.
Thomas96
03-11-2009, 04:22 PM
I didn't say that. The point is that the 360 dominates in the US, and that's not the case in other territories. Which equals a larger install base, as the 360 is a bit player everywhere else (save for the UK).
to your second point - the numbers discussed were ACTIVE LIVE ACCOUNTS, not systems sold. Are you assuming that when people replace a broken 360, they are registering a whole new gamertag and such, and leaving their gamerscore behind?
As for the rest of this thread...it seems that J7 here has a boner for Sony and some personal vendetta against Microsoft. How exactly is MS Screwing consumers and gamers this generation more than any other company ever has? What the fuck is that noise? And why do you give a fuck what other people buy and play?
And, J7, if you want to talk about screwing over gamers, you should read up on the Sega 32X, the Nintendo 64, or the Sony rootkit. You have done nothing but spout Sony fanboy shit for a week on this forum, with a ton of conjecture. It's a shame, because this thread could have been a good discussion, but it's nothing but a fanboy shouting over actual facts and intelligent discussion.
I was agreeing with you [ and with MS because they think that the PSN user number may not be accurate] because the PSN number may not be totally accurate as that number may be inflated with registrations of persons that registered more than once. I was just comparing that situation to the number of consoles that MS sales - meaning that they may have the lead on PS3 in sales, but it could be assisted by the fact that some customers have had to buy multiple systems to replace the bad ones (or in hopes of getting the jasper chipped system). I don't think people are going to register more than one gamertag and activate it.. if you do that then you pay twice for live.
Thomas96
03-11-2009, 04:31 PM
PS2 is dying at retail. It's only a matter of time before a major retailer drops it and it starts a quick spiral to irrelevance. Overall sales are WAY down versus last year.
The reason EA had more profit on the PS3 in their FY2008 was solely due to favorable currency conversion from Europe and Japan. It is irrelevant to future business decisions. Their gross sales were still 2 to 1 in favor of the 360.
The PS2 is dying, however, the best way to show a products strength is to show the shelf space that it gets at the B&M retailers. All B&M retailers give the PS2 a big section of their store. No its not at the front of Best buy anymore, however it still gets a lot of shelf space. WHen you say sales are down, are you referring to consoles, or software? Because its really about the software at this point. I'm pretty sure that's down as well though. But the main thing is that, its still a viable market. There's still money to be made on the console. When does the PS3 get thrown out of retail? Of course its a matter of time, but how much more time would you give it?
its about time the PS2 to go... The 360 has a great library and its a pretty good ssytem at the right price. These are the PS2 customers upgrading their system.. some are compelled to go the 360 because its cheap price (and their unwillingness to spend 400 dollars)... PS3 can't get down to 200 dollars now, but you price drop here, and you price drop there, and over time, you get your customers back. The 800,000 persons who bought a 360 (most for the 1st time) aren't going to be in the market for another console for I'd say at least another year... so by next year, Sony needs to be at 249 or less so that they can captilize on those 800,000 customers that went on shopping sprees during the 08 Holiday Season.
HowStern
03-11-2009, 05:21 PM
I didn't say that. The point is that the 360 dominates in the US, and that's not the case in other territories. Which equals a larger install base, as the 360 is a bit player everywhere else (save for the UK).
to your second point - the numbers discussed were ACTIVE LIVE ACCOUNTS, not systems sold. Are you assuming that when people replace a broken 360, they are registering a whole new gamertag and such, and leaving their gamerscore behind?
As for the rest of this thread...it seems that J7 here has a boner for Sony and some personal vendetta against Microsoft. How exactly is MS Screwing consumers and gamers this generation more than any other company ever has? What the fuck is that noise? And why do you give a fuck what other people buy and play?
Like I said, active Live accounts can just as easily be duplicates. A lot of people create multiple silver accounts to get the free months of gold that come with them.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say J7 thinks MS is screwing people by selling a system with such a high failure rate, when they knew it had the problem.
dmaul1114
03-11-2009, 05:45 PM
I'm going to take a wild guess and say J7 thinks MS is screwing people by selling a system with such a high failure rate, when they knew it had the problem.
Which sucks, but at least after being dicks about it for a year or so they have been fixing them for free.
Thankfully I've not been bitten by the RROD yet *knocks on wood*.
Disagree. Other than ports like the Treyarch CoD games, Madden etc. it's largely been shovelware and good niche titles like JRPGs etc.
Nothing mainstream more casual gamers like me give a crap about. We don't play those nice genres and for franchises like Madden and CoD on the next gen systems with the latest and greatest graphics and features.
My main point is yeah old consoles and games on them can sell into the next generation-- but it doesn't help the company win the console sales a race in that next generation.
Most people move on to the new consoles with in a couple years and focus on playing the latest and greatest games there. The old consoles just sell niche games to the hardcore crowd, and Madden to people who can't afford a next gen system etc.
Great for Sony as they make money, but the continued PS2 sales aren't helping the PS3 compete this generation and the PS3 lasting longer into next gen won't help the PS4 compete. Sony makes money selling last gen stuff, but it does nothing to help them beat MS or Nintendo in the current battle. If any thing it hurts since people can put off buying a PS3 longer since they have new JPRGs or whatever to play on their PS2.
If two consoles are roughly neck to neck in hardware and software by the time the generation ends and one of them continues on to sell more hardware and software after the other one bales, then I would say the one who goes on longer and gets more sales is the winner in terms of hardware and software.
The earliest console release always gets good support at first, then those games are later ported to the later release console. This trend is most evident in recent generations. Yes, software sales on a last gen console will help secure more on its next gen console, but they're not the only determinator. Do you think 360 got the support it did because of the success of the Xbox compared to PS2?
PS2 sales are not hurting PS3 more than PS2 sales are helping Sony make needed cash. That is not "doing nothing to help them beat MS or Nintendo in the current battle".
It's not like they have that option.
The developers want to hold it out seperate as they make big bucks selling the DLC (no shipping costs, pressing costs etc.).
So Sony would have to pay the developer enough to offset how much money they lose by not selling the DLC on the PS3.
He said DLC on 360, not PS3. It could possibly be worth Sony's money to pay to get exclusive 360 DLC onto PS3 and include it with a rerelease of a game at the same time said DLC is released on 360. It all depends on the contracts MS has regarding the DLC. As for DLC on PS3 retail games as dmaul mistakenly suggested, publishers already do this, but you only see it happen on the most successful games like Oblivion, COD4, etc. It's not worth it on smaller games that do not have exclusive DLC.
PS2 is dying at retail. It's only a matter of time before a major retailer drops it and it starts a quick spiral to irrelevance. Overall sales are WAY down versus last year.
He was referring more towards how PS2 has done since the debut of the 360. Q4 2005 onwards.
Looks at the OP:
That's what you said in the OP. You're first 2 arguments were for items in HOME.
Anything you typed after that is a joke, cause you clearly have sustained some type of head trauma to ever believe HOME will tip the scales to the PS3.
You're still not getting it :roll:, a bit slow in the head perhaps or maybe you know your original comment was off base and the only thing you can do now is to try childish insults instead or that's what you always do since your original post in this thread was just a stupid insult. Again, you said: "To be fair, I don't think TMK is delusional enough to think having 4 arcade cabinets in Home, or a free COD6 t-shirt for your avatar is gonna tip the scales to the PS3."
Underlined so you understand this time!
And I said the free arcade games and trophy rewards may have people buying PS3 versions of games instead of 360, but it depends on how far they will take these developments. If they can get all the big released (best games) to do this it will help get some people to buy PS3 games instead of the 360 ver of the same game. If both games are equal but you get more by buying the PS3 version, it will influence people. Apparently you do not have the ability to see beyond 4 arcade games to all big titles.
As for the rest of this thread...it seems that J7 here has a boner for Sony and some personal vendetta against Microsoft. How exactly is MS Screwing consumers and gamers this generation more than any other company ever has? What the fuck is that noise? And why do you give a fuck what other people buy and play?
And, J7, if you want to talk about screwing over gamers, you should read up on the Sega 32X, the Nintendo 64, or the Sony rootkit. You have done nothing but spout Sony fanboy shit for a week on this forum, with a ton of conjecture. It's a shame, because this thread could have been a good discussion, but it's nothing but a fanboy shouting over actual facts and intelligent discussion.
I already typed how they have. Did you not read it? Here it is again.
They stole the Cell design from Sony, they rushed their hardware and released it even though they knew it was faulty, they have a closed online environment that is bad for developers, they charge for online which is bs, they limited file sizes on XBL until just this week (which now screws over their customers without an HDD), they used DVD which has restricted some developers and is now restricting some more (and despite knowing DVD would require additional game discs they don't package them properly and they get scratched), they force proprietary accessories on you, they nickel and dime consumers to death. But I guess you like to support this kind of shit and enjoy consuming it. edit: Instead of investing in 1st party studios to create great exclusives for their systems as Sony has, they resort to throwing cash to get exclusives and even worse exclusive DLC, which hurts most those who do not keep as up to date on gaming industry developments as others who find out their version of the game will not be continued. Throwing cash out for exclusives that would've came to both systems (1st party exclusives you always know will be exclusive so no worries for the future) segments gamers and it also screws over people when they find out that they bought a system for a specific game which is now for another system.
Why do I give a shit what other people buy and play :lol:. Jesus Christ. Because it affects what I get to buy and play. If people buy and play only 360 I and everyone else would get the type of crap I just posted above. What if people only bought and played Wii? Would you like that? No, I don't think you would want only Wii and what Nintendo offers, would you.
I know all about 32x and N64. That was 10-15 years ago. What relevance does that have to what we are discussing? Sony didn't make those platforms and I am not defending Sega or Nintendo here. The Sony Rootkit was for audio cd's as far as I know, and it was incredibly stupid of them, and they paid for that mistake. If Sony was doing shit like MS is with 360 I would be defending MS here and talking negatively about Sony.
As I said I have not been loyal to a company beyond one console generation. I look at what each company offers, what their prices are on everything, what kind of things they do behind the scenes, and then I support the one that is offering the best games, value, and integrity. If this change mid generation my loyalty might change as well. I am only loyal based on those things, not blind devotion. I support whats best for all gamers and consumers. What is most right and what holds justice.
I haven't spouted nothing but Sony fanboy shit. I have presented facts and possibilities, I haven't said what is going to happen or say things are completely impossible as others have. You think I'm so full of Sony just because I've had to deal with people being jerks and trying to make me into a fucking villain.
I was agreeing with you [ and with MS because they think that the PSN user number may not be accurate] because the PSN number may not be totally accurate as that number may be inflated with registrations of persons that registered more than once. I was just comparing that situation to the number of consoles that MS sales - meaning that they may have the lead on PS3 in sales, but it could be assisted by the fact that some customers have had to buy multiple systems to replace the bad ones (or in hopes of getting the jasper chipped system). I don't think people are going to register more than one gamertag and activate it.. if you do that then you pay twice for live.
I understood what you meant, it obviously went over his head because he did not take the time to read it properly. And if he's wondering why I'm being such a jerk he should look around.
Which sucks, but at least after being dicks about it for a year or so they have been fixing them for free.
Thankfully I've not been bitten by the RROD yet *knocks on wood*.
They had no other choice. All 360's with the original design will eventually get RROD (if used near average amount of use). No reason to knock on wood unless as you say you don't use it much at all, then it might not ever get it, but then it was a waste to buy to begin with.
Howstern see the red text above. Figure you might read it this time if I make it so obvious.
cochesecochese
03-12-2009, 01:26 AM
Esplode!
Ronin317
03-12-2009, 01:35 AM
I know all about 32x and N64. That was 10-15 years ago. What relevance does that have to what we are discussing? Sony didn't make those platforms and I am not defending Sega or Nintendo here...
I'll respond more at length when I have time, but you're going back and doublespeaking a ton here. Your whole red-text paragraph is YOUR OPINION, not fact. It's spun with your perspective. Microsoft did not 'steal' any processor - they had one designed that was similar, but not the same. And if you think that is the first time that has happened in the Consumer Electronics Industry, then you're wrong. By your definition, Sony stole their online system from the original xbox, and home from second life, etc. Imitation is what this industry thrives on. That is a fact, not an opinion. Apple "stole" the MP3 player from Diamond/Rio by your measure...then later 'stole' the portable video piece from everyone else who had video on their MP3 players for years before the iPod did (iRiver, Cowon, Archos).
As for the quote above - it has relevance because all of those listed were a much bigger fuck you to consumers than the 360 could ever be, especially the 32X. YOU said that MS is screwing gamers more than any other company ever has, then when questioned on it and provided with examples you argue the relevance of those examples. Keep running in circles, and you won't have to admit that you're wrong and spouting conjecture.
By the way, you can scream "I'm not a fanboy" all you like, but sitting around and suckling at the teat of one of the consoles while slamming others sure as hell looks like fanboy behavior. If it walks like a duck...all of the consoles have their pros and cons, and if you can only choose one then fine, but damn man, you are raging anti-MS.
Tsukento
03-12-2009, 10:49 AM
Unless we see another SEGA console madness, or see Sony or Microsoft treat their consoles like a 3DO and Jaguar, I don't really see anyone really being "screwed" any time this generation. The only ones who got boned were Wii owners who expected Nintendo to churn out the usual.
But either way, those who have either of the three major consoles and are enjoying them aren't exactly being screwed in the slightest bit if they're getting their money's worth. Unless Sony decides to invest in some other form of high definition media format, PS3 owners who invested in the console for Blu-ray aren't being screwed.
Unless Microsoft decides to start charging more for Xbox Live and intend to release a new console that isn't backwards compatible with the 360, Xbox 360 owners are not being screwed.
Unless Nintendo decides to release an HD console with a hard drive that's fully compatible with Wii and GameCube games, along with having a library focused more on things the regular gamer enjoys, Wii owners are not being screwed.
Just shut up and enjoy the damn consoles you bought. Be thankful you're not having the same shit happening now that happened back in the late '90s where companies abandoned hardware after release and made false advertising to try to push a product to do something it wasn't meant to do or worse, charging you close to more than $100 for certain REGULAR games.
Thomas96
03-13-2009, 12:29 AM
Unless we see another SEGA console madness, or see Sony or Microsoft treat their consoles like a 3DO and Jaguar, I don't really see anyone really being "screwed" any time this generation. The only ones who got boned were Wii owners who expected Nintendo to churn out the usual.
But either way, those who have either of the three major consoles and are enjoying them aren't exactly being screwed in the slightest bit if they're getting their money's worth. Unless Sony decides to invest in some other form of high definition media format, PS3 owners who invested in the console for Blu-ray aren't being screwed.
Unless Microsoft decides to start charging more for Xbox Live and intend to release a new console that isn't backwards compatible with the 360, Xbox 360 owners are not being screwed.
Unless Nintendo decides to release an HD console with a hard drive that's fully compatible with Wii and GameCube games, along with having a library focused more on things the regular gamer enjoys, Wii owners are not being screwed.
Just shut up and enjoy the damn consoles you bought. Be thankful you're not having the same shit happening now that happened back in the late '90s where companies abandoned hardware after release and made false advertising to try to push a product to do something it wasn't meant to do or worse, charging you close to more than $100 for certain REGULAR games.
I think that if you had to go through 2 or 3 360(s) before you could get one that didn't red ring.. you got screwed. Just because you got a smile on your face (because you're happy w/ MS, or the console) doesn't mean that you didn't get screwed.
davo1224
03-13-2009, 03:33 AM
Yeah this generation has probably dished out the hardest bonings ever. Nintendo practically released an as-seen-on-TV novelty arcade, Microsoft released something that's guaranteed to break, and Sony released a machine that's STILL retardedly overpriced.
I'll respond more at length when I have time, but you're going back and doublespeaking a ton here. Your whole red-text paragraph is YOUR OPINION, not fact. It's spun with your perspective. Microsoft did not 'steal' any processor - they had one designed that was similar, but not the same. And if you think that is the first time that has happened in the Consumer Electronics Industry, then you're wrong. By your definition, Sony stole their online system from the original xbox, and home from second life, etc. Imitation is what this industry thrives on. That is a fact, not an opinion. Apple "stole" the MP3 player from Diamond/Rio by your measure...then later 'stole' the portable video piece from everyone else who had video on their MP3 players for years before the iPod did (iRiver, Cowon, Archos).
As for the quote above - it has relevance because all of those listed were a much bigger fuck you to consumers than the 360 could ever be, especially the 32X. YOU said that MS is screwing gamers more than any other company ever has, then when questioned on it and provided with examples you argue the relevance of those examples. Keep running in circles, and you won't have to admit that you're wrong and spouting conjecture.
By the way, you can scream "I'm not a fanboy" all you like, but sitting around and suckling at the teat of one of the consoles while slamming others sure as hell looks like fanboy behavior. If it walks like a duck...all of the consoles have their pros and cons, and if you can only choose one then fine, but damn man, you are raging anti-MS.
I haven't doublespeaked. My red text paragraph is not merely opinion. Lets see...
-They stole the Cell design from Sony FACT proven below
-they rushed their hardware and released it even though they knew it was faulty FACT
-they have a closed online environment that is bad for developers FACT
-they charge for online which is bs FACT (only those who love Live think it's worth it, everyone else sees it for what it is, double charging for internet functionality)
-they limited file sizes on XBL until just this week (which now screws over their customers without an HDD) FACT
-they used DVD which has restricted some developers and is now restricting some more FACT GTA IV was restricted, they also say GTA V will be difficult to put on 360, Tekken 6 is being restricted.
-(and despite knowing DVD would require additional game discs they don't package them properly and they get scratched) FACT
-they force proprietary accessories on you FACT they do everything they can to make you have to use their HDD and wifi adapter despite everything else being able to work on it. Also their HDMI cable situation if you want optical audio out. They overcharge for these, etc.
-they nickel and dime consumers to death. FACT Their SKU strategy and console features result in many needing to buy their proprietary accessories which rip customers off, they force publishers to make just about anything MS can be charged for online (even though customers must pay for online :roll:), they encourage ridiculous DLC deals.
-Instead of investing in 1st party studios to create great exclusives for their systems as Sony has, they resort to throwing cash to get exclusives and even worse exclusive DLC, which hurts most those who do not keep as up to date on gaming industry developments as others who find out their version of the game will not be continued. Throwing cash out for exclusives that would've came to both systems (1st party exclusives you always know will be exclusive so no worries for the future) segments gamers and it also screws over people when they find out that they bought a system for a specific game which is now for another system. FACT
MS stealing Cell processor: (or pick up the Game Informer issue with their interview)
When the companies entered into their partnership in 2001, Sony, Toshiba and IBM committed themselves to spending $400 million over five years to design the Cell, not counting the millions of dollars it would take to build two production facilities for making the chip itself. IBM provided the bulk of the manpower, with the design team headquartered at its Austin, Texas, offices. Sony and Toshiba sent teams of engineers to Austin to live and work with their partners in an effort to have the Cell ready for the Playstation 3's target launch, Christmas 2005.
But a funny thing happened along the way: A new "partner" entered the picture. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the (as yet unnamed) Xbox 360. In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core. Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony.
All three of the original partners had agreed that IBM would eventually sell the Cell to other clients. But it does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary videogame-console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it.
Mr. Shippy and Ms. Phipps detail the resulting absurdity: IBM employees hiding their work from Sony and Toshiba engineers in the cubicles next to them; the Xbox chip being tested a few floors above the Cell design teams. Mr. Shippy says that he felt "contaminated" as he sat down with the Microsoft engineers, helping them to sketch out their architectural requirements with lessons learned from his earlier work on Playstation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069467545545011.html
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS MERE IMITATION. Did Sony get MS to spend all the money, research, time, planning, etc to build their online infrastructure. No. Read up on shit if you're going to try to argue factual information. You're arguing something different than I am. Did Apple have the makers of Diamond Rio directly fund the design and development of the Ipod. No.
Sega's decisions and outcome with 32X were primarily a result of miscommunication between between Japan and NA parts of the company. Something else you should look into reading about.
I got a 360 before PS3. I didn't know everything back then I do now about the moves and choices MS has made since development on it started. That info is still coming to light, and it certainly ain't pretty. I already explained what type of loyalty I give. It's conditional on what the companies do and can change at any time.
But either way, those who have either of the three major consoles and are enjoying them aren't exactly being screwed in the slightest bit if they're getting their money's worth. Unless Sony decides to invest in some other form of high definition media format, PS3 owners who invested in the console for Blu-ray aren't being screwed.
Unless Microsoft decides to start charging more for Xbox Live and intend to release a new console that isn't backwards compatible with the 360, Xbox 360 owners are not being screwed.
Just shut up and enjoy the damn consoles you bought. Be thankful you're not having the same shit happening now that happened back in the late '90s where companies abandoned hardware after release and made false advertising to try to push a product to do something it wasn't meant to do or worse, charging you close to more than $100 for certain REGULAR games.
Yes I agree with what you're saying. Where I am coming from is that MS is doing all these things to bleed you of money that they shouldn't be. That their competitors have not. As I said the reason I care is because it does affect me. If people didn't object to stuff they clearly see as wrong then companies could keep doing whatever they damn please at our expense.
As far as advertising something to do it wasn't meant to do, that has always been done and will always be done, there is nothing we can do about that, it's just not feasible.