Developments that may make PS3 multiplatform games more attractive than 360

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='jkanownik']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.[/QUOTE]

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

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 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.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']I don't understand how you can say that a publisher wouldn't green light another big PS3 exclusive.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']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.[/quote]

Isn't the next GTA tentatively scheduled for a last 2010 release?
 
[quote name='jkanownik']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.
[/quote]
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='heavyd853']Isn't the next GTA tentatively scheduled for a last 2010 release?[/quote]
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
 
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.
 
[quote name='Tsukento']
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.[/QUOTE]

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


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

[quote name='lokizz']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!!!!!!!!!![/quote]
I seriously hope you're trolling.
 
[quote name='J7.']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[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='SteveMcQ']Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.

Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing. It looks likes the SDF just got a new member.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]

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

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='SteveMcQ']Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.

Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?[/quote]

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
 
[quote name='Thomas96'] Multiplatform is the best way to go overall, but I can imagine instances where a it might be better to be on one platform.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Thomas96']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Killzone.

EDIT: Now get to killing some motherfuckers, Necro. Or at least find me a generator.[/QUOTE]

Still running in circles trying to find a bounty. Yeah, I'm seriously not cut out for being a bounty hunter
 
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.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']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.[/QUOTE]

okay, I'm there right next to you in the square (I was down in Pitneybank). Need a revive though
 
[quote name='HowStern']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 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.[/quote]

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)."
Click to expand...


Raw numbers don't always tell the real story.
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']okay, I'm there right next to you in the square (I was down in Pitneybank). Need a revive though[/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']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]
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.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']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]
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.

[quote name='jkanownik']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.[/quote]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='J7.']
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.
[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='captainfrizo']
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.[/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='J7.']I doubt you even own a PS3..[/QUOTE]

One could say they doubt you own any current gen systems looking under your name.
 
[quote name='J7.']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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[quote name='dmaul1114']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![/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='help1']As soon as Sony implements it, MS will copy it. Just like how Sony ripped off gamerscore.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']
Isn't it the fanboys that supposed to be getting all hot under the collar and threatening to "ignore" people. Its just another forum.
[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!!!!
 
[quote name='Ronin317']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)."
Click to expand...


Raw numbers don't always tell the real story.[/quote]

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

[quote name='SteveMcQ']Home is and always will be a terrible for this generation at least.

Also, J7 = TMK version 2.0?[/quote]
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?

[quote name='Thomas96']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.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='manthing']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[/quote]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='The Crotch']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.[/quote]
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?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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![/quote]
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!

[quote name='TC']One could say they doubt you own any current gen systems looking under your name.[/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='J7.']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?[/quote]
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top