Exclusive Means Nothing
This topic is locked from further discussion.
But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.jlabadie88couldnt agree with u more
But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.jlabadie88aha, no more PS3 only exclusives will be going to competitors, they cant, MS doesnt have the same tech, IE 360 cant play big games like RFOM, 360 cant play it, unless its released on multiple discs, go ahaed MS do it.
But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.jlabadie88You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.Alyxm1aha, no more PS3 only exclusives will be going to competitors, they cant, MS doesnt have the same tech, IE 360 cant play big games like RFOM, 360 cant play it, unless its released on multiple discs, go ahaed MS do it.
Â
Ok buddy thats not the reason they dont put it on 360! Yea resistance is an awsome game but it aint nothing legendary! Resistance is sony owned man! It has nothing to do with blue ray!Â
You people keep on forgeting the history of video games. Every time I see somebody whine over exclusives makes me laugh. The simple fact is that every new generation of gaming has its own mega blockbuster hit, for example last gen GTA and Halo were the top hits to each platform. However thus far in this new gen GEoW and RFOM are top hits and both are NOT SEQUELS. You get my point? This gen like any other gen will be defined by something NEW a different kind of experience and not some old re-hashed sequel to a previous franchise. Honestly I don't care about this exclusive stuff cause I own both consoles.ghettocheeze
Very good point,i've said this before in another thread:The loss of DMC isnt as big as people are making it out to be.
It will be on Ps3,as well as Pc,and 360.With Ps3's fanbase expected to double with the release of the console in Europe,the game will more than likely sell more on the Ps3.
If Sony lose MGS4 and Final Fantasy,this wont be anything new as well,MGS has appeared on the Xbox before,as well as Final Fantasy too.And the series still sold better on the Playstation.
But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.jlabadie88yeah but dotn you see, if both systems have both games that creates more competition, which in the end will lead to a Sony price drop to contend, which means if they drop the system $100 you are gettign a blu ray player, six axis controller, free online, and features liek home, for just $100 more then the 360. an di woudl say all that stuff is totally worth it.
Exclusive is EVERYTHING! Especially for the PS3. If you can get the same game by paying a lesser price for the console it is to be played on, then what reason do you have buying a PS3? Devil May Cry has a huge following that would have had to buy a PS3 to play the game. That would have boosted sales for the system. Now, they can just play a cheaper 360 version of the game or just plug it into their PC's. That hurts. Think about the millions upon millions of Metal Gear and Final Fantasy fans out there. Those two games alone could cause for millions of PS3's to be sold just so fans of the series can keep playing their favorite games. If they go to 360, then what? The PS3 loses those millions upon millions of sales. As far as what Sony has for exclusives published under the SCEA name, Resistance is incredible, Motorstorm is amazing and Lair is going to be simply jaw-dropping. But what established following do those games have? Do they already have millions of fans going into depression waiting for the game? No. Because not so many people have actually played them yet. And they can't until they buy a PS3. And games like Metal Gear and FF force them to buy a PS3, and then they play SCEA exclusives and fall in love with them, and then when the sequels come out they buy them. And the Sony makes lots of money and the PS3 wins damn it! Sony can't afford to lose any more exclusives.
How come last generation the ps2 won because of it's library of games that you couldn't get anywhere else, and now exclusives don't matter? Much like rumble doesn't matter until Sony strikes a deal with immersion.
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.
Yea, and in the fourth year you'll have to buy a new Micro$oft system for another $399. And all the people who buy it at launch will have their houses burn down.
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. Hmmmm, so a very expensive machine with no exclusives? I have a PS3, but the reason I have one is because my mom bought me one, and I rarely play games. Haven't even really touched it yet, all I really did was watch Taladega Nights. Anyways, I think you're reasoning only leads to the cost of the machine. Now if I was probably a hardcore gamer, I would probably want some exclusives for that price of the machine. But thats just me I guess, never really became a real hardcore gamer.
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.
Excellent post,plus,in order to watch a movie in crystal clear quality,you'll need a next-gen format,which would then set you back $200 more.Thus,in actuallity,the Xbox 360 costs more than the Ps3.
 With HDTV installbase increasing,the demand for higher quality movies will increase as well.And this is where the Ps3 steps in,being the cheapest Blu-ray player out,and at the same time,a videogame system and vice versa.
 HD-DVD isnt dead,but after the Ps3 launch,the numbers have gone down by a large sum.Expect half the studios to jump ship by May this year.
How come last generation the ps2 won because of it's library of games that you couldn't get anywhere else, and now exclusives don't matter? Much like rumble doesn't matter until Sony strikes a deal with immersion.
kingsfan_0333
The Ps2 didnt mainly win because of the games,it won because it had about 3-5 system seller games,and at the same time was the cheapest Dvd player around.....
 GTA was also on Xbox,MGS was on Xbox,etc.But Ps2 still outsold Xbox,Dreamcast,and Gamecube by 10's of millions of units.
[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]How come last generation the ps2 won because of it's library of games that you couldn't get anywhere else, and now exclusives don't matter? Much like rumble doesn't matter until Sony strikes a deal with immersion.
Dualshockin
The Ps2 didnt mainly win because of the games,it won because it had about 3-5 system seller games,and at the same time was the cheapest Dvd player around.....
 GTA was also on Xbox,MGS was on Xbox,etc.But Ps2 still outsold Xbox,Dreamcast,and Gamecube by 10's of millions of units.
I still say that the PS2 did not win because of its "3-5 system sellers". Those games only propelled them to an even larger margin of victory. The PS2 GOT those games by having the better hardware. At the time, pressure-sensitive controls, a built-in DVD player, and backward compatibility were completely new concepts and gave Sony the edge. Also at that time there wasn't a format war going on like the HDDVD vs BluRay thing we have now. DVD's were it and $300 for a DVD player was a steal. It sold ALOT of systems. Once the hardware created the market, the games followed. By the time FFX and MGS2 came out, the PS2 was over a year old and was ALREADY crushing the Xbox.How come last generation the ps2 won because of it's library of games that you couldn't get anywhere else, and now exclusives don't matter? Much like rumble doesn't matter until Sony strikes a deal with immersion.
kingsfan_0333
PS 2 also lost exclusives at the beginning. In fact, PS 2 lost RE at the beginning. And who was the dev.?? Ohh yeah!! Now I remeber, it was Capcom!!! DMC is not as big as otehr games. DMC 3 sold 1.5 million copies, thats almost as much copies as Dirge of Cerberus. Not to bash the game, its one of my favourites, and with the new info on 4 Im way more hyped. But its not ALL exclusives are important. Its WHICH EXCLUSIVES are important.Â
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="ilikemilk007"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"] ghaleon I love you.Alyxm1I love you too bud
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would.
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.bballboy986You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecks
I am sorry but the poster of this topic is a complete idiot. The PS, and PS2 had the most exclusives, it practically made it what the PlayStation brand is and is known for. Unfortunately it's being tarnished.mjf249It only APPEARS that way. Those exclusives only appeared on the PS and the PS2 because Sony brought the better console to the market. The PS had lower development costs than the N64 and the PS2 sold like crazy largely in part to its built in DVD player. Developers wouldn't make those exclusive games unless 1) the hardware was already out and created a large enough market or 2) They believed that the technology in the hardware would sell enough to MAKE a large enough market for their game. If exclusives are what sold a system, then why doesn't Kojima just make his own system and sell MGS on it until the end of time? He should have no problem getting Acclaim, Capcom, and the other 3rd party whores to port their games over. While we're at it, why doesn't Square just start building the FFBOX and sell that. Sony's PS2 was a system with innovations like backward compatiblity, built-in DVD, and pressure sensitive controls that gave it AWESOME gaming potential. The HARDWARE made people notice the system and created the market. Sony's market was largest, therefore they got the exclusives. Sony didn't get exclusive PS2 games because they asked developers nicely to make games for just one system. They gave developers the greatest profit potential by selling a system that people wanted. Now it's different. There are two systems that people want and the developers can't afford to ignore one or the other. End of story. It's going to come down to whoever gives the consumer the most value for their buck and right now that is Sony. The xbox for $400 is nothing but an offline, stand-alone, single-purpose gaming console.
[QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecksÂ
Â
 Sorry this account name is about 5 years old... but I work 40 hours a week and could afford to buy a PS3 a week and still pay bills if I wanted to. But I'm not going to spend $200 on internet browsing when its got to be connected to my ISP which I already pay for in order to browse the internet, media viewing when I don't enjoy photography or fliming, or a Blu Ray player when I already own 200+ DVDs and don't plan on buying a new format until I have to. Maybe some day you'll join the rest of us and respect the value of a dollar.
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. Well those are good points, and I've tried to make that point to other people (about how it's really the same price). But that's exactly the main reason Sony is being attacked, because of the price. And Microsoft's argument for HD is that they're "giving people a choice" by not putting an HD-DVD player into the 360.
[QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecks Well that's also a good point about the PS3's target market. And that pretty much sums up what's going on with Sony. But the problem is, 360 appeals to more people right now. Sony can sit there all day and say, "This is what we're gonna do," but if they're not selling systems, they're going to have to rethink their gameplan. I have a PS3 so I'm not against Sony here, but they've got to find a way to appeal to more people.
[QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.Alyxm1aha, no more PS3 only exclusives will be going to competitors, they cant, MS doesnt have the same tech, IE 360 cant play big games like RFOM, 360 cant play it, unless its released on multiple discs, go ahaed MS do it. You know that all of the data of the Blu-Ray disc for RFOM was uncompressed right? If they'd compressed it it would've easily fit on a standard DVD. Also, I think the 360 could handle running RFOM the same way that the PS3 could handle Gears of War. I read an article saying that at most the PS3 may be 6% more powerful than the 360, so arguments over each systems abilities are pretty much a moot point. That's so little diferrence in ability compared to the PS2 and the Xbox, and yet games appeared on both of those consoles.
You people keep on forgeting the history of video games. Every time I see somebody whine over exclusives makes me laugh. The simple fact is that every new generation of gaming has its own mega blockbuster hit, for example last gen GTA and Halo were the top hits to each platform. However thus far in this new gen GEoW and RFOM are top hits and both are NOT SEQUELS. You get my point? This gen like any other gen will be defined by something NEW a different kind of experience and not some old re-hashed sequel to a previous franchise. Honestly I don't care about this exclusive stuff cause I own both consoles.ghettocheeze
You make a good point about exclusives not being that big of a factor. But the only exclusives that matter are the new IP exclusives. Like you said Gears is a huge exclusive. Mass Effect will be another from the looks of it right now. 8 days looked good for PS3. Exclusives do matter but it the new IPs that matter not the old stuff. Look at the Wii, All new esclusive that might never be seen on the PS3 or 360 unless they copy the motion sensing and the wii is selling like hot cakes that havent been made yet. Certain good new games make people buy a new system. I bought a PS1 for Gran Turismo. That is a switch from nintendo to sony, then I bought a Dreamcast for the nba 2k, nfl 2k etc. I bought a xbox for Halo. I did not buy a PS2 only because I was playing GTA on the PC.Â
You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.Dualshockin
Excellent post,plus,in order to watch a movie in crystal clear quality,you'll need a next-gen format,which would then set you back $200 more.Thus,in actuallity,the Xbox 360 costs more than the Ps3.
 With HDTV installbase increasing,the demand for higher quality movies will increase as well.And this is where the Ps3 steps in,being the cheapest Blu-ray player out,and at the same time,a videogame system and vice versa.
 HD-DVD isnt dead,but after the Ps3 launch,the numbers have gone down by a large sum.Expect half the studios to jump ship by May this year.
Sorry to make you look silly but I am watching HD movies all the time using xbox live with no bluray or HDdvd.Â
I don't know if Capcom officially said RE4 was a Gamcube exclusive.
But the DMC4 exclusive isn't misleading but outright lying. Other developers are cautious enough just to say 'the game has only been announced for one console'. I don't really care about the DMC4 going to the Xbox360. I think it's just dispicable that Capcom would lie to their consumers.
Everybody still remember these vidcaps from the DMC4 teaser trailer. The trailers which are saying with big letters 'only for Playtation 3'. Why release these trailers at all?
Don't say never.That's why I keep saying DMC4 is PS3 exclusive, until Capcom says otherwise.
[QUOTE="Dualshockin"]You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.balindos
Excellent post,plus,in order to watch a movie in crystal clear quality,you'll need a next-gen format,which would then set you back $200 more.Thus,in actuallity,the Xbox 360 costs more than the Ps3.
 With HDTV installbase increasing,the demand for higher quality movies will increase as well.And this is where the Ps3 steps in,being the cheapest Blu-ray player out,and at the same time,a videogame system and vice versa.
 HD-DVD isnt dead,but after the Ps3 launch,the numbers have gone down by a large sum.Expect half the studios to jump ship by May this year.
Sorry to make you look silly but I am watching HD movies all the time using xbox live with no bluray or HDdvd.Â
How big is a full 1080p HD-movie download, 25Gig? If not, than it's much lower quality than movies on HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
[QUOTE="balindos"][QUOTE="Dualshockin"]You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.Bunnyslippers
Excellent post,plus,in order to watch a movie in crystal clear quality,you'll need a next-gen format,which would then set you back $200 more.Thus,in actuallity,the Xbox 360 costs more than the Ps3.
 With HDTV installbase increasing,the demand for higher quality movies will increase as well.And this is where the Ps3 steps in,being the cheapest Blu-ray player out,and at the same time,a videogame system and vice versa.
 HD-DVD isnt dead,but after the Ps3 launch,the numbers have gone down by a large sum.Expect half the studios to jump ship by May this year.
Sorry to make you look silly but I am watching HD movies all the time using xbox live with no bluray or HDdvd.Â
How big is a full 1080p HD-movie download, 25Gig? If not, than it's much lower quality than movies on HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
Hey it looks HD to me. Anyways both formats suck anyways. Why waste your time with old technology. If they wanted new tech then everything would be on Flash. HD movies will be on DVD9 soon just to end this whole format war. I use xbox live to rent movies because it is cheaper to rent and i dont like watching the same movies a million time only certain special ones, which these days most movies suck.
[QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.ghaleon0721You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecks
Â
1st off the "HARDCORE" gamers don't decide who wins since it was a small majority of the people that bought the PS2. Sony wants the PS3 to be center piece of your entertainment center which means it'll target the "average" consumer not the "hardcore".
2nd as a working man with family spending $600 vs (the cheaper) 360 for $400 is a big deal. Stop with the feature for feature comparisons because the fact remains the 360 IS cheaper. I can go to the store purchase a premium get a game and play in High Definition. That's what I want out of my GAMING machine.
So to say Sony doesn't want the "average" consumer is very ignorant on your part.
I would direct you to the March 2007 issue of PSM magazine where this question was first asked in a letter to the editor. In this letter the author asked why are there no games targeting "younger gamers" in the PS3 library. Why are there no Spyro's or Crash Bandicoot games? The answer, PSM itself, is that the Playstation 3 is targeted towared the hardcore gamer who cares enough about games to spend $600. I'm paraphrasing obviously but the point is, that the PS3 and its current library of games is not directed at the 14 year old with a paper route. It's not directed at the college burnout who makes 6.50 an hour working at the bookstore. It's for an older, more passionate gamer, with the disposable income to invest in the system. If you're a grown up, with a job, a house, family, etc. and you have $400 to piss away on a console but not $600 then the PS3 is also not for you. It means that all you want is a stand-alone, offline, single-use game system. Fine, the Xbox 360 fits that bill very well. You are in the demographic who does not have a passion for, nor take pride in a collection of consumer electronics. If you were in that demographic, you would recognize the cross-functionality, innovation, and long-term staying power of the PS3. And I will stand corrected on one point. Saying that Sony doesn't "want" this consumer or that consumer is ignorant. Any company "wants" all the customers it can get. But Sony does have a particular market in mind.[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]So to say Sony doesn't want the "average" consumer is very ignorant on your part.
kingtito
You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecks[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.kingtito
Â
1st off the "HARDCORE" gamers don't decide who wins since it was a small majority of the people that bought the PS2. Sony wants the PS3 to be center piece of your entertainment center which means it'll target the "average" consumer not the "hardcore".
2nd as a working man with family spending $600 vs (the cheaper) 360 for $400 is a big deal. Stop with the feature for feature comparisons because the fact remains the 360 IS cheaper. I can go to the store purchase a premium get a game and play in High Definition. That's what I want out of my GAMING machine.
So to say Sony doesn't want the "average" consumer is very ignorant on your part.
1)Good point,but at the same time,flawed.The hardcore crowd isnt as small as you believe,if I were to take a stab at it,I'd say the Hardcore crowd are around 20-30 million consumers.
2)As a working man and student,I make $1800-$2000 a month(Depends on the hours I put in).And I can still afford a Ps3 :|
 3)What makes the Ps3 any less a gaming machine,because it can play a next-gen movie format right out the box?
360 is cheaper but it lacks a handful of great features,and that is why I have not and will most likely never buy one.
[QUOTE="Dualshockin"]You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.balindos
Excellent post,plus,in order to watch a movie in crystal clear quality,you'll need a next-gen format,which would then set you back $200 more.Thus,in actuallity,the Xbox 360 costs more than the Ps3.
With HDTV installbase increasing,the demand for higher quality movies will increase as well.And this is where the Ps3 steps in,being the cheapest Blu-ray player out,and at the same time,a videogame system and vice versa.
HD-DVD isnt dead,but after the Ps3 launch,the numbers have gone down by a large sum.Expect half the studios to jump ship by May this year.
Sorry to make you look silly but I am watching HD movies all the time using xbox live with no bluray or HDdvd.
Oh,then you shouldnt be on this board then :)Â
You people keep on forgeting the history of video games. Every time I see somebody whine over exclusives makes me laugh. The simple fact is that every new generation of gaming has its own mega blockbuster hit, for example last gen GTA and Halo were the top hits to each platform. However thus far in this new gen GEoW and RFOM are top hits and both are NOT SEQUELS. You get my point? This gen like any other gen will be defined by something NEW a different kind of experience and not some old re-hashed sequel to a previous franchise. Honestly I don't care about this exclusive stuff cause I own both consoles.ghettocheezeIt means everything when deciding which system to buy. One that costs more with no improved visuals, no better game library, no real exclusives coming, and nothing but promises of what is to come OR one that's significantly cheaper, has similar visuals, AND now has all the exclusives that you thought were the property of the competition. Just want some justification for my shelling out some major dough for a PS3 and Sony is losing something almost every week now.
aha, no more PS3 only exclusives will be going to competitors, they cant, MS doesnt have the same tech, IE 360 cant play big games like RFOM, 360 cant play it, unless its released on multiple discs, go ahaed MS do it.[QUOTE="Alyxm1"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.Gerardo1963
Ok buddy thats not the reason they dont put it on 360! Yea resistance is an awsome game but it aint nothing legendary! Resistance is sony owned man! It has nothing to do with blue ray!
so if u got the 360 and PS3, and MGS 4 gets released on both, and is several discs on the 360, being one fullly optimized version on the PS3.. hmmmm yes it does have to do with the blu ray[QUOTE="kingtito"]You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecks[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.Dualshockin
Â
1st off the "HARDCORE" gamers don't decide who wins since it was a small majority of the people that bought the PS2. Sony wants the PS3 to be center piece of your entertainment center which means it'll target the "average" consumer not the "hardcore".
2nd as a working man with family spending $600 vs (the cheaper) 360 for $400 is a big deal. Stop with the feature for feature comparisons because the fact remains the 360 IS cheaper. I can go to the store purchase a premium get a game and play in High Definition. That's what I want out of my GAMING machine.
So to say Sony doesn't want the "average" consumer is very ignorant on your part.
1)Good point,but at the same time,flawed.The hardcore crowd isnt as small as you believe,if I were to take a stab at it,I'd say the Hardcore crowd are around 20-30 million consumers.
2)As a working man and student,I make $1800-$2000 a month(Depends on the hours I put in).And I can still afford a Ps3 :|
 3)What makes the Ps3 any less a gaming machine,because it can play a next-gen movie format right out the box?
360 is cheaper but it lacks a handful of great features,and that is why I have not and will most likely never buy one.
Â
1. Not positive it's as big as you say but even if it were 20-30 million compared to what, 110million that the PS2 sold is a small fraction.
2. I'm not saying every working person with a family can't afford it but not everyone is willing to spend the extra. It has nothing to do with being able to afford it. Some of the cheapest people in the world are also some of the richest. The average buyer looking for a BR player would consider the PS3. Your average buyer looking for a gaming machine would probably lean towards the 360 considering most games coming out are going to be multiplat.
3. I never said the PS3 was less of a gaming machine. When it comes to buying a console I don't care about it's movie playing ability, all I care about is how well it plays games. Right now the 360 does it just as good if not better at a $200 lower price tag to boot. If watching movies was my 1st priority then I'd get a stand alone player just like I did when the original DVD players came out. So the extra features on the PS3 really don't matter to me.
I do own both systems I just don't agree that it's the hardcore gamers Sony has aimed for. Hardcore gamers didn't need a BR player just as an example.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment