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

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.

[quote name='J7.']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?
[/QUOTE]

1. Live. Great service and most of my friends are on their.
2. Love the 360 controller, always hated the dual shock.

But Home sucks.

Maybe if I get enough trophies it will unlock features that should be in Home already.

[quote name='dmaul1114']1. Live. Great service and most of my friends are on their.
2. Love the 360 controller, always hated the dual shock.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='Blackout']But Home sucks.

Maybe if I get enough trophies it will unlock features that should be in Home already.[/quote]
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.

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.

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.

Home = Second Life

right?

Yeah, so how does this make the PS3 more attractive? FAIL.

[quote name='J7.']

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.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='J7.']These general improvements are objective and then they are subjectively valued. Instead of stating only personal subjective values.[/quote]
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Home is atrocious. I would never buy a game on the PS3 because it adds stuff to Home.

[quote name='J7.']These general improvements are objective and then they are subjectively valued. Instead of stating only personal subjective values.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

[quote name='lokizz']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?
[/QUOTE]


There's also that whole "the only thing to do there is host dancing man trains" thing.

A Home bashing thread? I've never seen one of these before...

[quote name='VipFREAK']Home = Second Life

right?

Yeah, so how does this make the PS3 more attractive? FAIL.[/quote]
No Home is not the same as Second Life.

[quote name='Blackout']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.[/quote]
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.

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.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']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.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='J7.']
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? [/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='lokizz']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?
.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
You've never played a game older than this generation?

[quote name='J7.']
You've never played a game older than this generation?[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
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.

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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
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.

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.

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.

[quote name='J7.']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.[/quote]

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

[quote name='Blackout']But Home sucks.[/QUOTE]
.

[quote name='Poor2More']
Blu-ray Player I own.......PS3, easy as that[/QUOTE]

I'm quite pleased with the Sony BDP-S350 I got for $150 with free shipping on Black Friday from SonyStyle.com.

[quote name='J7.']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='Poor2More']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[/quote]
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.

[quote name='J7.']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='Xploited']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.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
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.

Calm down.

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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I grew up with an Atari 5700...[/quote]Ah yes, the Atari 5700. With such classics as Puck-Man. And Space Inflaters.

[quote name='J7.']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...
[/quote]

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

[quote name='The Crotch']Ah yes, the Atari 5700. With such classics as Puck-Man. And Space Inflaters.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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]

[quote name='J7.']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.[/quote]

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.