hear me out. Wont games coming to both systems make more competition between the systems? hence forcing Sony do other things like price drops and adding more cool features to the system to make peopel want the PS3? i mean sure a system needs a exclusive game or two but Sony has that with all there first party developers. I dotn see high profile 3rd party games goin multiplatform bad, unless they are ported and arent optimized to take advantage of each systems hardware. I just see it has making sony try new thigns to sell teh system which in the end will benefit the gamers.
Well as I see it loosing exclusives can be sliced into 4 phases of loosing a titile based on the popluarity the titile that might or not affect you or your fellow gamers
Loose a game like Bullet Witch of Bomber Man act Zero...you get a cough...cough
Loose a game like Ace Combat or Katamari...you get a OH MAN! I might have bought one of those!
Loose a game like DMC4...you get WTF! and you might start hyperventilating but if you take some pills youll be fine :)
BUT!
Loose a game like MGS4 or FFXIII...and you might consider suicide to some point :?
it's a big thing on sony's part because what made them the king for so long was great first party games as well as having exclusive 3rd party support, so you was getting the best of both worlds with the playstation. Not only was you getting GOW and Rachet but you would get DMC and other third party exclusive games for the Playstation, so you felt like you was getting your moneys worth and you never looked at other consoles cause they wasn't giving you the option too. Now, the playing field has been leveled, DMC is going to the 360, Assassins Creed, Unreal, GTA4 and all these games are going to be availble on more than 1 console so it's put more emphasis on the exclusives titles. Sony may have more exclusive titles in the works but right now, Microsoft is trumping with every exclusive they have and thats what is making sony look bad. Sony has MGS4 and Microsoft snags Splinter Cell 5 for an exclusive, Sony have KIllzone 2, Microsoft has Halo 3, Sony=GT Microsft Forza Motorspot, and so on, you get what i'm saying. So for sony, the third party exclusive is important because when the playing field is leveled, sony looks weak unfortunately.
Yes, exactly. Let's face it the days when Playstation owners could scoff at the N64's low-capacity, wildly expensive cartridges are gone. We will never again see an age similar to the time when PS2 owners could look down on the Xbox for its miniscule library and lack of 3rd party support. It's a new age and there are TWO contenders. It's like the old days when Hulk Hogan was everyone's hero and you wanted him to win because he was the good guy. Then later on you had Steve Austin and the Rock. Both great wrestlers and fitting champions. Both had equal fan bases. Then.......I don't know what happens after that, I stopped watching wresting because it got stupid.
and another things, with all these games being availble on both systems, it's makes the comsumer think, which system I should get to play there games, and $400 dollar system or $600 system, which one will you buy to play the same games?
and another things, with all these games being availble on both systems, it's makes the comsumer think, which system I should get to play there games, and $400 dollar system or $600 system, which one will you buy to play the same games?SmoothBrother1
Sorry but it's more complicated than that. The extra $200 gets you FREE online, motion sensitive controls, and a blu-ray player. So if I have to spend $400 no matter what, then I get all that other stuff for another $200. It's a good value for me
But it is GOING to happen until Sony or MS starts buying 3rd parties, or paying them off. There is too much money to be lost by being single-platform. The PS1 had a lot of exclusives because they outsold the N64 by a landslide and the development cost on a cartridge was prohibitive for them. The PS2 had a lot of exclusives because they outsold the Xbox by about four gazillion to one so it was easy for developers to ignore the Xbox market. The potential profits were too small to justify the costs involved with porting a game over. Now BOTH systems are selling incredibly well. It's impossible to say which is selling better. The 360 has more units, but they started a year earlier. The PS3 has fewer units out, but they are selling FASTER than the 360 did at this stage of its life. Imagine YOU are a developer. Could you afford to ignore either of these markets? No freaking way. You won't see MS or Sony paying for many exclusives either. No game is worth the price that developers would require for them to afford to ignore one market or the other.
hear me out. Wont games coming to both systems make more competition between the systems? hence forcing Sony do other things like price drops and adding more cool features to the system to make peopel want the PS3? i mean sure a system needs a exclusive game or two but Sony has that with all there first party developers. I dotn see high profile 3rd party games goin multiplatform bad, unless they are ported and arent optimized to take advantage of each systems hardware. I just see it has making sony try new thigns to sell teh system which in the end will benefit the gamers.joevfx
PS3 lost two exclusives that are looking amazing, I dont give a piss about anything else that was lost exclusive wise.
Yes it does suck, and it pisses me off. It means we paid 600 bucks for nothing, actually. DMC was a big thing for me, and now, I could just play it on a 360, cause it's cheaper.
[QUOTE="Acid08"]Losing exclusives is never good. ghaleon0721
But it is GOING to happen until Sony or MS starts buying 3rd parties, or paying them off. There is too much money to be lost by being single-platform. The PS1 had a lot of exclusives because they outsold the N64 by a landslide and the development cost on a cartridge was prohibitive for them. The PS2 had a lot of exclusives because they outsold the Xbox by about four gazillion to one so it was easy for developers to ignore the Xbox market. The potential profits were too small to justify the costs involved with porting a game over. Now BOTH systems are selling incredibly well. It's impossible to say which is selling better. The 360 has more units, but they started a year earlier. The PS3 has fewer units out, but they are selling FASTER than the 360 did at this stage of its life. Imagine YOU are a developer. Could you afford to ignore either of these markets? No freaking way. You won't see MS or Sony paying for many exclusives either. No game is worth the price that developers would require for them to afford to ignore one market or the other. MS ALREADY BOUGHT OUT 3rd partys devs. they really want to hurt sony, they really do... I mean good lord, but heh not gona happen, Sony will release the 20gb version for the more casual gamers, which is still better then preium version of the MS second white console.
[QUOTE="SmoothBrother1"]and another things, with all these games being availble on both systems, it's makes the comsumer think, which system I should get to play there games, and $400 dollar system or $600 system, which one will you buy to play the same games?ghaleon0721
Sorry but it's more complicated than that. The extra $200 gets you FREE online, motion sensitive controls, and a blu-ray player. So if I have to spend $400 no matter what, then I get all that other stuff for another $200. It's a good value for me So you are willing to pay $200 more for a online services that not on the level of xboxlive, and motion sensitive controller thats not even used in all of there games, and not even used on the level as the wii-mote for the Wii, and a blu-ray player? I don't want to watch movies on my game system so thats a mute point for me. You really think all thats worth paying an extra $200 for?
[QUOTE="SmoothBrother1"]and another things, with all these games being availble on both systems, it's makes the comsumer think, which system I should get to play there games, and $400 dollar system or $600 system, which one will you buy to play the same games?ghaleon0721
Sorry but it's more complicated than that. The extra $200 gets you FREE online, motion sensitive controls, and a blu-ray player. So if I have to spend $400 no matter what, then I get all that other stuff for another $200. It's a good value for me yeah thast exactly what i was getting at. if both systems have the same games then Sony has to make the PS# more inticing. its got a blu rya player , its free online, it has a motion sensitive controller. and im sure at that point they will drop the price, so the gap woudl go from $200 for all those extras over the 360 to maybe $100.
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="SmoothBrother1"]and another things, with all these games being availble on both systems, it's makes the comsumer think, which system I should get to play there games, and $400 dollar system or $600 system, which one will you buy to play the same games?SmoothBrother1
Sorry but it's more complicated than that. The extra $200 gets you FREE online, motion sensitive controls, and a blu-ray player. So if I have to spend $400 no matter what, then I get all that other stuff for another $200. It's a good value for me So you are willing to pay $200 more for a online services that not on the level of xboxlive, and motion sensitive controller thats not even used in all of there games, and not even used on the level as the wii-mote for the Wii, and a blu-ray player? I don't want to watch movies on my game system so thats a mute point for me. You really think all thats worth paying an extra $200 for? Yes it's worth another $200. But that isn't really the case. Let's say I bought an Xbox for $400. Then I have to ask myself, is it worth $50 to play online? Yes it is. Then I ask myself is it worth $100 for a wireless adapter so I don't have to run a cable from my cable router to my living room? Yes it is. But wait, the PS3 has all of that, and for an extra $50 bucks I get a blu-ray player and motion sensitive controller (sure it isn't being used all that well now, but wait for lair and warhawk). And wait Xbox charges me another $50 next year?? so after two years, the two systems cost the same but one has a blue ray player. And what else, ANOTHER $50 in year 3???? So over a 5 year life cycle the xbox is going to cost me $750?? Ohhh... what's that you say, systems will now have lifecycles closer to 7-10 years?? So that's $850 to $1000 for an Xbox 360....to play all the same games as PS3??? The PS3 is worth the price
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"]Yes, exactly. Let's face it the days when Playstation owners could scoff at the N64's low-capacity, wildly expensive cartridges are gone. We will never again see an age similar to the time when PS2 owners could look down on the Xbox for its miniscule library and lack of 3rd party support. It's a new age and there are TWO contenders. It's like the old days when Hulk Hogan was everyone's hero and you wanted him to win because he was the good guy. Then later on you had Steve Austin and the Rock. Both great wrestlers and fitting champions. Both had equal fan bases. Then.......I don't know what happens after that, I stopped watching wresting because it got stupid. Thats an awesome analogy.....I liked em both ;). I own ps3 and 360 too .
You never know that Sony has something up its sleeve, because there so quiet. I mean seriously, they lost Ace Combat, Devil May Cry 4 and 1/2 more titles but there so quiet. There not doing anything. Maybe they are doing something? I mean its just a guess or a theory..
Yes it does suck, and it pisses me off. It means we paid 600 bucks for nothing, actually. DMC was a big thing for me, and now, I could just play it on a 360, cause it's cheaper.SoulessEssence
but not everyoen is you, peopel want ot get online and not have to pay $80 a year to do so. people want to watch hi def mopvies and not pay an extra $199 for an ad on that wont even output the full resolution. yeah see, so your actually getting more for equal or less price plus the same games . Just cause you dont wnat certain features doenst mean other people dont.
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="Acid08"]Losing exclusives is never good. Alyxm1
But it is GOING to happen until Sony or MS starts buying 3rd parties, or paying them off. There is too much money to be lost by being single-platform. The PS1 had a lot of exclusives because they outsold the N64 by a landslide and the development cost on a cartridge was prohibitive for them. The PS2 had a lot of exclusives because they outsold the Xbox by about four gazillion to one so it was easy for developers to ignore the Xbox market. The potential profits were too small to justify the costs involved with porting a game over. Now BOTH systems are selling incredibly well. It's impossible to say which is selling better. The 360 has more units, but they started a year earlier. The PS3 has fewer units out, but they are selling FASTER than the 360 did at this stage of its life. Imagine YOU are a developer. Could you afford to ignore either of these markets? No freaking way. You won't see MS or Sony paying for many exclusives either. No game is worth the price that developers would require for them to afford to ignore one market or the other. MS ALREADY BOUGHT OUT 3rd partys devs. they really want to hurt sony, they really do... I mean good lord, but heh not gona happen, Sony will release the 20gb version for the more casual gamers, which is still better then preium version of the MS second white console. I can see buying out soem of those 3rd party companies comign abck to bite them in the ass.
Log in to comment