Braid for Ps3

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220704

Yup.

Beat it last year. Listen, Sony, if you're going to "steal" exclusives, at least do it on time? Hasn't Microsoft taught you a lesson with Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy or Tekken?

I'm pretty sure the devs willingly put it on PS3, but it only came after because of the extra dev time needed to do so AHUGECAT. Sony isn't giving 3rd parties cheques anymore.. sorry, they have gone beyond that phase and I'm generally glad they did. That way a console can be defined by new exclusive IPS and we don't have to worry about our favourite series being exclusive to one consoles over and over.

Beat it last year. Listen, Sony, if you're going to "steal" exclusives, at least do it on time? Hasn't Microsoft taught you a lesson with Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy or Tekken?

AHUGECAT

Last I heard the developers wanted it on PS3, the game may not appeal to you but Im sure for those who havent played it on XBL would be glad to hear this news.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Beat it last year. Listen, Sony, if you're going to "steal" exclusives, at least do it on time? Hasn't Microsoft taught you a lesson with Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy or Tekken?

Swift_Boss_A

Last I heard the developers wanted it on PS3, the game may not appeal to you but Im sure for those who havent played it on XBL would be glad to hear this news.

No I beat the game, I liked it. It's just Sony needs to be more aggressive.

I'm pretty sure the devs willingly put it on PS3, but it only came after because of the extra dev time needed to do so AHUGECAT. Sony isn't giving 3rd parties cheques anymore.. sorry, they have gone beyond that phase and I'm generally glad they did. That way a console can be defined by new exclusive IPS and we don't have to worry about our favourite series being exclusive to one consoles over and over.

Espada12

The reason Sony doesn't have the checks for 3rd parties is because they don't have the money because of the PS3's ridiculously high manufacturing costs and R&D. What made the PS2 so great was the third party IPs like Tekken, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, etc. etc. Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Infamous.... they just aren't top-tier. Sony really needs to start getting the killer aps out.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'm pretty sure the devs willingly put it on PS3, but it only came after because of the extra dev time needed to do so AHUGECAT. Sony isn't giving 3rd parties cheques anymore.. sorry, they have gone beyond that phase and I'm generally glad they did. That way a console can be defined by new exclusive IPS and we don't have to worry about our favourite series being exclusive to one consoles over and over.

AHUGECAT

The reason Sony doesn't have the checks for 3rd parties is because they don't have the money because of the PS3's ridiculously high manufacturing costs and R&D. What made the PS2 so great was the third party IPs like Tekken, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, etc. etc. Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Infamous.... they just aren't top-tier. Sony really needs to start getting the killer aps out.

Yea but all those IPs are still on the PS3 with the new ones included... so it looks more like a win scenario for cows and I'm sure if sony can fund games like killzone thier pockets are deep enough to write 3rd parties cheques. They just don't want to.

Cool. Way late, but its a great game that PS3 only owners should pick up.SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'm pretty sure the devs willingly put it on PS3, but it only came after because of the extra dev time needed to do so AHUGECAT. Sony isn't giving 3rd parties cheques anymore.. sorry, they have gone beyond that phase and I'm generally glad they did. That way a console can be defined by new exclusive IPS and we don't have to worry about our favourite series being exclusive to one consoles over and over.

Espada12

The reason Sony doesn't have the checks for 3rd parties is because they don't have the money because of the PS3's ridiculously high manufacturing costs and R&D. What made the PS2 so great was the third party IPs like Tekken, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, etc. etc. Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Infamous.... they just aren't top-tier. Sony really needs to start getting the killer aps out.

Yea but all those IPs are still on the PS3 with the new ones included... so it looks more like a win scenario for cows and I'm sure if sony can fund games like killzone thier pockets are deep enough to write 3rd parties cheques. They just don't want to.

Killzone 2 wouldn't have been big as a hit as GTA or FF exclusivity would've been. The reason Sony couldn't do it is because they couldn't afford to. Imagine PS3's 2007 title list like this:

- Metal Gear Solid 4
- Grand Theft Auto IV
- Uncharted
- Assassin's Creed
- R&C F: Tools of Destruction
- Devil May Cry 4

Would've sold a billion gajillion PS3's but the PS3 was too expensive to make and manufacturer. Sony couldn't afford a killer-app list like it could with the PS2 because even though the PS2 manufacturing costs were high, they weren't murder.

Sony would prefer to fund games like GTA and Final Fantasy over low-sellers like Uncharted, Infamous or Killzone 2. Games like Uncharted and Infamous are the type of games that makes a great console a klassic (purposely misspelled), but games like GTA, Final Fantasy and Assassin's Creed makes the console the greatest.

Was never interested in this game.

@AHUGECAT:

Your posts are hilarious. I honestly looked at all the posts you've ever made for a good laugh.

Beat it last year. Listen, Sony, if you're going to "steal" exclusives, at least do it on time? Hasn't Microsoft taught you a lesson with Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy or Tekken?

AHUGECAT

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Cool. Way late, but its a great game that PS3 only owners should pick up.Bigboi500

Killzone 2 wouldn't have been big as a hit as GTA or FF exclusivity would've been. The reason Sony couldn't do it is because they couldn't afford to. Imagine PS3's 2007 title list like this:

- Metal Gear Solid 4
- Grand Theft Auto IV
- Uncharted
- Assassin's Creed
- R&C F: Tools of Destruction
- Devil May Cry 4

Would've sold a billion gajillion PS3's but the PS3 was too expensive to make and manufacturer. Sony couldn't afford a killer-app list like it could with the PS2 because even though the PS2 manufacturing costs were high, they weren't murder.

Sony would prefer to fund games like GTA and Final Fantasy over low-sellers like Uncharted, Infamous or Killzone 2. Games like Uncharted and Infamous are the type of games that makes a great console a klassic (purposely misspelled), but games like GTA, Final Fantasy and Assassin's Creed makes the console the greatest.

AHUGECAT

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Killzone 2 wouldn't have been big as a hit as GTA or FF exclusivity would've been. The reason Sony couldn't do it is because they couldn't afford to. Imagine PS3's 2007 title list like this:

- Metal Gear Solid 4
- Grand Theft Auto IV
- Uncharted
- Assassin's Creed
- R&C F: Tools of Destruction
- Devil May Cry 4

Would've sold a billion gajillion PS3's but the PS3 was too expensive to make and manufacturer. Sony couldn't afford a killer-app list like it could with the PS2 because even though the PS2 manufacturing costs were high, they weren't murder.

Sony would prefer to fund games like GTA and Final Fantasy over low-sellers like Uncharted, Infamous or Killzone 2. Games like Uncharted and Infamous are the type of games that makes a great console a klassic (purposely misspelled), but games like GTA, Final Fantasy and Assassin's Creed makes the console the greatest.

Espada12

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Killzone 2 wouldn't have been big as a hit as GTA or FF exclusivity would've been. The reason Sony couldn't do it is because they couldn't afford to. Imagine PS3's 2007 title list like this:

- Metal Gear Solid 4
- Grand Theft Auto IV
- Uncharted
- Assassin's Creed
- R&C F: Tools of Destruction
- Devil May Cry 4

Would've sold a billion gajillion PS3's but the PS3 was too expensive to make and manufacturer. Sony couldn't afford a killer-app list like it could with the PS2 because even though the PS2 manufacturing costs were high, they weren't murder.

Sony would prefer to fund games like GTA and Final Fantasy over low-sellers like Uncharted, Infamous or Killzone 2. Games like Uncharted and Infamous are the type of games that makes a great console a klassic (purposely misspelled), but games like GTA, Final Fantasy and Assassin's Creed makes the console the greatest.

AHUGECAT

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

I dunno why you mentioned those.. all those are on PS3. You can still play them along with Uncharted and Infamous.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

Espada12

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

I dunno why you mentioned those.. all those are on PS3. You can still play them along with Uncharted and Infamous.

But I can play them on the 360, and then I get achievements for them and even some DLC. It's not worth $399 to play Uncharted or Infamous. Sony need sa killer app like the PS2 had GTAIII and PS1 had Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy VII.

Didn't i already play and complete this game like a year or so ago? Hm yes..yes i did.

Way to miss the boat sony. Can't even get 360 quality arcade titles on time.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Killzone 2 wouldn't have been big as a hit as GTA or FF exclusivity would've been. The reason Sony couldn't do it is because they couldn't afford to. Imagine PS3's 2007 title list like this:

- Metal Gear Solid 4
- Grand Theft Auto IV
- Uncharted
- Assassin's Creed
- R&C F: Tools of Destruction
- Devil May Cry 4

Would've sold a billion gajillion PS3's but the PS3 was too expensive to make and manufacturer. Sony couldn't afford a killer-app list like it could with the PS2 because even though the PS2 manufacturing costs were high, they weren't murder.

Sony would prefer to fund games like GTA and Final Fantasy over low-sellers like Uncharted, Infamous or Killzone 2. Games like Uncharted and Infamous are the type of games that makes a great console a klassic (purposely misspelled), but games like GTA, Final Fantasy and Assassin's Creed makes the console the greatest.

AHUGECAT

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

Did you notice that all the games you mentioned are sequels and you prefere them on new IPs thats the main idea Sony is trying to establish a new IPs to match the 3rd party great games and make a system sellers in the future having a first part system seller is better than 3rd party system seller Sony is searching for another GT and thats a good plan since seems not just Sony losing 3rd party exclusives but also 360 is losing them the age of 3rd party exclsives is over now all the big hits 3rd party games are multiplats now or going to be multiplats sooner or later.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

Kashiwaba

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

Did you notice that all the games you mentioned are sequels and you prefere them on new IPs thats the main idea Sony is trying to establish a new IPs to match the 3rd party great games and make a system sellers in the future having a first part system seller is better than 3rd party system seller Sony is searching for another GT and thats a good plan since seems not just Sony losing 3rd party exclusives but also 360 is losing them the age of 3rd party exclsives is over now all the big hits 3rd party games are multiplats now or going to be multiplats sooner or later.

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

AHUGECAT

Did you notice that all the games you mentioned are sequels and you prefere them on new IPs thats the main idea Sony is trying to establish a new IPs to match the 3rd party great games and make a system sellers in the future having a first part system seller is better than 3rd party system seller Sony is searching for another GT and thats a good plan since seems not just Sony losing 3rd party exclusives but also 360 is losing them the age of 3rd party exclsives is over now all the big hits 3rd party games are multiplats now or going to be multiplats sooner or later.

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/agent/index.html

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

Did you notice that all the games you mentioned are sequels and you prefere them on new IPs thats the main idea Sony is trying to establish a new IPs to match the 3rd party great games and make a system sellers in the future having a first part system seller is better than 3rd party system seller Sony is searching for another GT and thats a good plan since seems not just Sony losing 3rd party exclusives but also 360 is losing them the age of 3rd party exclsives is over now all the big hits 3rd party games are multiplats now or going to be multiplats sooner or later.

PvtGump8

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/agent/index.html

What about it?

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

AHUGECAT

Did you notice that all the games you mentioned are sequels and you prefere them on new IPs thats the main idea Sony is trying to establish a new IPs to match the 3rd party great games and make a system sellers in the future having a first part system seller is better than 3rd party system seller Sony is searching for another GT and thats a good plan since seems not just Sony losing 3rd party exclusives but also 360 is losing them the age of 3rd party exclsives is over now all the big hits 3rd party games are multiplats now or going to be multiplats sooner or later.

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

So a 3rd party game going multiplat means its going to MS? even MS is losing its 3rd party exclusives but its unnoticed because the original Xbox 3rd party support was crap so noone care about what they lost but PS2 3rd party support was great so losing it now made a huge impact but they got to go over that with first party support that goes for 360 too the only thing saving 360 arse is it was released earlier and its too cheap but once PS3 price goes lower 360 will start suffering cuz the only decent first party games they got are Halo and Gears of war so people will chose the console with good 1st party support and got all the multiplats on a console that plays multiplats with a very bad 1st party support.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

Did you notice that all the games you mentioned are sequels and you prefere them on new IPs thats the main idea Sony is trying to establish a new IPs to match the 3rd party great games and make a system sellers in the future having a first part system seller is better than 3rd party system seller Sony is searching for another GT and thats a good plan since seems not just Sony losing 3rd party exclusives but also 360 is losing them the age of 3rd party exclsives is over now all the big hits 3rd party games are multiplats now or going to be multiplats sooner or later.

Kashiwaba

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

So a 3rd party game going multiplat means its going to MS? even MS is losing its 3rd party exclusives but its unnoticed because the original Xbox 3rd party support was crap so noone care about what they lost but PS2 3rd party support was great so losing it now made a huge impact but they got to go over that with first party support that goes for 360 too the only thing saving 360 arse is it was released earlier and its too cheap but once PS3 price goes lower 360 will start suffering cuz the only decent first party games they got are Halo and Gears of war so people will chose the console with good 1st party support and got all the multiplats on a console that plays multiplats with a very bad 1st party support.

Uh Microsoft first/second party games blow the PS3's first/second party games out of the water....... Halo 3, Gears of War 2 and Fable II destroy anything Sony has put out.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

AHUGECAT

So a 3rd party game going multiplat means its going to MS? even MS is losing its 3rd party exclusives but its unnoticed because the original Xbox 3rd party support was crap so noone care about what they lost but PS2 3rd party support was great so losing it now made a huge impact but they got to go over that with first party support that goes for 360 too the only thing saving 360 arse is it was released earlier and its too cheap but once PS3 price goes lower 360 will start suffering cuz the only decent first party games they got are Halo and Gears of war so people will chose the console with good 1st party support and got all the multiplats on a console that plays multiplats with a very bad 1st party support.

Uh Microsoft first/second party games blow the PS3's first/second party games out of the water....... Halo 3, Gears of War 2 and Fable II destroy anything Sony has put out.

So for anyone who hasn't had access to a 360 or PC in the past year and a half gets to play it. Cool.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Sony is going for new IPs because that's all it has. Sony didn't go for too many new IPs (unless it had to like with SOCOM or Jak and Daxter) for the PS2 generation because it didn't make sense. This generation all the third parties have basically went to Microsoft and Sony has nothing.

The PS3 has no game that's worth paying $399 for.

AHUGECAT

So a 3rd party game going multiplat means its going to MS? even MS is losing its 3rd party exclusives but its unnoticed because the original Xbox 3rd party support was crap so noone care about what they lost but PS2 3rd party support was great so losing it now made a huge impact but they got to go over that with first party support that goes for 360 too the only thing saving 360 arse is it was released earlier and its too cheap but once PS3 price goes lower 360 will start suffering cuz the only decent first party games they got are Halo and Gears of war so people will chose the console with good 1st party support and got all the multiplats on a console that plays multiplats with a very bad 1st party support.

Uh Microsoft first/second party games blow the PS3's first/second party games out of the water....... Halo 3, Gears of War 2 and Fable II destroy anything Sony has put out.

only 3 big games while Sony got GOW, GT, uncharted, infamous, Demon's souls, Wild arms and many others.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Beat it last year. Listen, Sony, if you're going to "steal" exclusives, at least do it on time? Hasn't Microsoft taught you a lesson with Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy or Tekken?

Swift_Boss_A

Last I heard the developers wanted it on PS3, the game may not appeal to you but Im sure for those who havent played it on XBL would be glad to hear this news.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

So a 3rd party game going multiplat means its going to MS? even MS is losing its 3rd party exclusives but its unnoticed because the original Xbox 3rd party support was crap so noone care about what they lost but PS2 3rd party support was great so losing it now made a huge impact but they got to go over that with first party support that goes for 360 too the only thing saving 360 arse is it was released earlier and its too cheap but once PS3 price goes lower 360 will start suffering cuz the only decent first party games they got are Halo and Gears of war so people will chose the console with good 1st party support and got all the multiplats on a console that plays multiplats with a very bad 1st party support.

Kashiwaba

Uh Microsoft first/second party games blow the PS3's first/second party games out of the water....... Halo 3, Gears of War 2 and Fable II destroy anything Sony has put out.

only 3 big games while Sony got GOW, GT, uncharted, infamous, Demon's souls, Wild arms and many others.

God of War isn't out yet

Gran Turismo isn't out yet. Forza is better.

Uncharted isn't out yet. Fable II is better.

Infamous is pretty good (though I have only played it for an hour so I cannot give a proper review), but MS has Crackdown.

Demon's Souls isn't out in the USA yet, Wild ARMS isn't out, but MS has Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. etc.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Uh Microsoft first/second party games blow the PS3's first/second party games out of the water....... Halo 3, Gears of War 2 and Fable II destroy anything Sony has put out.

AHUGECAT

only 3 big games while Sony got GOW, GT, uncharted, infamous, Demon's souls, Wild arms and many others.

God of War isn't out yet

Gran Turismo isn't out yet. Forza is better.

Uncharted isn't out yet. Fable II is better.

Infamous is pretty good (though I have only played it for an hour so I cannot give a proper review), but MS has Crackdown.

Demon's Souls isn't out in the USA yet, Wild ARMS isn't out, but MS has Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. etc.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

only 3 big games while Sony got GOW, GT, uncharted, infamous, Demon's souls, Wild arms and many others.

pyromaniac223

God of War isn't out yet

Gran Turismo isn't out yet. Forza is better.

Uncharted isn't out yet. Fable II is better.

Infamous is pretty good (though I have only played it for an hour so I cannot give a proper review), but MS has Crackdown.

Demon's Souls isn't out in the USA yet, Wild ARMS isn't out, but MS has Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. etc.

I can say they are worse because they do not exist yet. Even Big Rigs is better than Gran Turismo 5 because GT5 is still just a dream. Reality > Dreams.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Uh Microsoft first/second party games blow the PS3's first/second party games out of the water....... Halo 3, Gears of War 2 and Fable II destroy anything Sony has put out.

AHUGECAT

only 3 big games while Sony got GOW, GT, uncharted, infamous, Demon's souls, Wild arms and many others.

God of War isn't out yet

Gran Turismo isn't out yet. Forza is better.

Uncharted isn't out yet. Fable II is better.

Infamous is pretty good (though I have only played it for an hour so I cannot give a proper review), but MS has Crackdown.

Demon's Souls isn't out in the USA yet, Wild ARMS isn't out, but MS has Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. etc.

Out or not out iam showing you what Sony can still offer and about Forza > GT thats your own opinion I find GT>>>>>>>Forza.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

only 3 big games while Sony got GOW, GT, uncharted, infamous, Demon's souls, Wild arms and many others.

Kashiwaba

God of War isn't out yet

Gran Turismo isn't out yet. Forza is better.

Uncharted isn't out yet. Fable II is better.

Infamous is pretty good (though I have only played it for an hour so I cannot give a proper review), but MS has Crackdown.

Demon's Souls isn't out in the USA yet, Wild ARMS isn't out, but MS has Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. etc.

Out or not out iam showing you what Sony can still offer and about Forza > GT thats your own opinion I find GT>>>>>>>Forza.

Sony can't offer what isn't out. And Forza is better than GT in every possible way - GT has NOTHING going for it, heck might as well call it Gran Bumper Car Racing.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

God of War isn't out yet

Gran Turismo isn't out yet. Forza is better.

Uncharted isn't out yet. Fable II is better.

Infamous is pretty good (though I have only played it for an hour so I cannot give a proper review), but MS has Crackdown.

Demon's Souls isn't out in the USA yet, Wild ARMS isn't out, but MS has Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. etc.

AHUGECAT

Out or not out iam showing you what Sony can still offer and about Forza > GT thats your own opinion I find GT>>>>>>>Forza.

Sony can't offer what isn't out. And Forza is better than GT in every possible way - GT has NOTHING going for it, heck might as well call it Gran Bumper Car Racing.

Meh this is pointless keep believing in whatever makes you happy.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

Out or not out iam showing you what Sony can still offer and about Forza > GT thats your own opinion I find GT>>>>>>>Forza.

Sony can't offer what isn't out. And Forza is better than GT in every possible way - GT has NOTHING going for it, heck might as well call it Gran Bumper Car Racing.

Meh this is pointless keep believing in whatever makes you happy.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Sony can't offer what isn't out. And Forza is better than GT in every possible way - GT has NOTHING going for it, heck might as well call it Gran Bumper Car Racing.

tman93

Meh this is pointless keep believing in whatever makes you happy.

After being betrayed by Sony this generation, I became a massive 360 fanboy.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Killzone 2 wouldn't have been big as a hit as GTA or FF exclusivity would've been. The reason Sony couldn't do it is because they couldn't afford to. Imagine PS3's 2007 title list like this:

- Metal Gear Solid 4
- Grand Theft Auto IV
- Uncharted
- Assassin's Creed
- R&C F: Tools of Destruction
- Devil May Cry 4

Would've sold a billion gajillion PS3's but the PS3 was too expensive to make and manufacturer. Sony couldn't afford a killer-app list like it could with the PS2 because even though the PS2 manufacturing costs were high, they weren't murder.

Sony would prefer to fund games like GTA and Final Fantasy over low-sellers like Uncharted, Infamous or Killzone 2. Games like Uncharted and Infamous are the type of games that makes a great console a klassic (purposely misspelled), but games like GTA, Final Fantasy and Assassin's Creed makes the console the greatest.

AHUGECAT

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

/facepalm

Bundle's are created to sell systems not games. Only high quality popular exclusives are chosen for bundle e.g. games that are system sellers.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

They can afford to, the thing is they don't want to be handing other people money when they can give it to the devs they own. You want to know something with the list? Every game on it is avaliable on PS3, the same cannot be said about the 360 from that list. Not paying for exclusivity and developing your own IP is better for gamers and for sony. I'm pretty sure last gen sony wasn't paying for exclusivity either, it was just defaulted to them for having the most successful console ever.

skektek

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

/facepalm

Bundle's are created to sell systems not games. Only high quality popular exclusives are chosen for bundle e.g. games that are system sellers.

Uh no, bundles are created to sell systems but Uncharted was selling real bad before Sony bundled it. Look at MotorStorm for another example - first one sold over 3 million but the second hasn't even cracked a million. The difference? The first one was bundled.

Sony needs to start securing exclusives.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

AHUGECAT

/facepalm

Bundle's are created to sell systems not games. Only high quality popular exclusives are chosen for bundle e.g. games that are system sellers.

Uh no, bundles are created to sell systems but Uncharted was selling real bad before Sony bundled it. Look at MotorStorm for another example - first one sold over 3 million but the second hasn't even cracked a million. The difference? The first one was bundled.

Sony needs to start securing exclusives.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

/facepalm

Bundle's are created to sell systems not games. Only high quality popular exclusives are chosen for bundle e.g. games that are system sellers.

pyromaniac223

Uh no, bundles are created to sell systems but Uncharted was selling real bad before Sony bundled it. Look at MotorStorm for another example - first one sold over 3 million but the second hasn't even cracked a million. The difference? The first one was bundled.

Sony needs to start securing exclusives.

Sony has lost:

- GTA (40+ million GTA's sold on the PS2
- Final Fantasy (15+ million FF's sold on the PS2)
- Devil May Cry (7+ million DMC's sold on the PS2)
- Assassin's Creed (8+ million AC sold on 360/PS3)
- Tekken (11+ million Tekken's sold on the PS2)
- Virtua Fighter 5 (360 got online)
- Katamari, Ace Combat, Guitar Hero, WWE SDvsRAW, and so much more

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Uh no, bundles are created to sell systems but Uncharted was selling real bad before Sony bundled it. Look at MotorStorm for another example - first one sold over 3 million but the second hasn't even cracked a million. The difference? The first one was bundled.

Sony needs to start securing exclusives.

AHUGECAT

Sony has lost:

- GTA (40+ million GTA's sold on the PS2
- Final Fantasy (15+ million FF's sold on the PS2)
- Devil May Cry (7+ million DMC's sold on the PS2)
- Assassin's Creed (8+ million AC sold on 360/PS3)
- Tekken (11+ million Tekken's sold on the PS2)
- Virtua Fighter 5 (360 got online)
- Katamari, Ace Combat, Guitar Hero, WWE SDvsRAW, and so much more

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Actually, paying for exclusivity is better - I'd rather be playing Final Fantasy XIII, Devil May Cry 4 and GTAIV rather than Uncharted or Infamous, and people agree considering Uncharted was selling so bad Sony had to bundle it. Not that sales matter to us but it does to Sony - the reason is simple - Sony can't afford to pay for top-tier exclusives. It would do so in a heart beat if it could. GTA would've helped the PS3 sell millions alone. And Sony did pay for much exclusivity last gen like GTA.

Sony shot themselves in the foot with the R&D and manufacturing prices of the PS3. Sony decided to try and shove their crap technology down our throats (like Blu-ray and Cell) rather than the successor to the PS2.

AHUGECAT

/facepalm

Bundle's are created to sell systems not games. Only high quality popular exclusives are chosen for bundle e.g. games that are system sellers.

Uh no, bundles are created to sell systems but Uncharted was selling real bad before Sony bundled it. Look at MotorStorm for another example - first one sold over 3 million but the second hasn't even cracked a million. The difference? The first one was bundled.

Sony needs to start securing exclusives.

Why would Sony cannibalize Uncharted's (or any historically popular exclusive) sales by bundling the game when it was in it's sales prime? It is the same formula for any bundle (excluding Collector's type bundles): include a high quality popularly established exclusive title to entice new customers.

Sony is doing better than securing exclusives, its creating exclusives. I would rather see money being spent to create new content then being burned in a bidding war for pissing rights.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"] They've already done that bud. Just because they aren't out yet doesn't mean they aren't secure.pyromaniac223

Sony has lost:

- GTA (40+ million GTA's sold on the PS2
- Final Fantasy (15+ million FF's sold on the PS2)
- Devil May Cry (7+ million DMC's sold on the PS2)
- Assassin's Creed (8+ million AC sold on 360/PS3)
- Tekken (11+ million Tekken's sold on the PS2)
- Virtua Fighter 5 (360 got online)
- Katamari, Ace Combat, Guitar Hero, WWE SDvsRAW, and so much more

No, they aren't making up for it. Sony's first party is crap and they always delay their games, I'd rather have GTAIV or Final Fantasy exclusive than some crap Sony first party game. The PS3 just isn't worth $399 - in fact, I'd say it isn't even worth $150.

See, the difference between Sony and Nintendo is that when Nintendo lost their third party support to Sony, Nintendo had Zelda, Mario, Star Fox, RARE, etc. etc. to fall back on. Sony has nothing.

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Sony has lost:

- GTA (40+ million GTA's sold on the PS2
- Final Fantasy (15+ million FF's sold on the PS2)
- Devil May Cry (7+ million DMC's sold on the PS2)
- Assassin's Creed (8+ million AC sold on 360/PS3)
- Tekken (11+ million Tekken's sold on the PS2)
- Virtua Fighter 5 (360 got online)
- Katamari, Ace Combat, Guitar Hero, WWE SDvsRAW, and so much more

AHUGECAT

No, they aren't making up for it. Sony's first party is crap and they always delay their games, I'd rather have GTAIV or Final Fantasy exclusive than some crap Sony first party game. The PS3 just isn't worth $399 - in fact, I'd say it isn't even worth $150.

See, the difference between Sony and Nintendo is that when Nintendo lost their third party support to Sony, Nintendo had Zelda, Mario, Star Fox, RARE, etc. etc. to fall back on. Sony has nothing.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

/facepalm

Bundle's are created to sell systems not games. Only high quality popular exclusives are chosen for bundle e.g. games that are system sellers.

skektek

Uh no, bundles are created to sell systems but Uncharted was selling real bad before Sony bundled it. Look at MotorStorm for another example - first one sold over 3 million but the second hasn't even cracked a million. The difference? The first one was bundled.

Sony needs to start securing exclusives.

Why would Sony cannibalize Uncharted's (or any historically popular exclusive) sales by bundling the game when it was in it's sales prime? It is the same formula for any bundle (excluding Collector's type bundles): include a high quality popularly established exclusive title to entice new customers.

Sony is doing better than securing exclusives, its creating exclusives. I would rather see money being spent to create new content then being burned in a bidding war for pissing rights.

What I am saying is that Uncharted wasn't selling that well until it was bundled - Uncharted is not killer ap material.

Grand Theft Auto IV - 13 million sales
Assassin's Creed - 8 million sales
Devil May Cry 4 - 4 million sales
Final Fantasy XII - 5 million sales

Sales don't make a good game, but sometimes when a game sells that many there is a reason. If Sony is going to create exclusives they better create the best exclusives on the planet cause they are asking $399 for their PS3 when they only asked $299 (eventually $199) for the PS2 and that system had Final Fantasy, GTA (for a while), Tekken, Devil May Cry, Guitar Hero (for a while), all to itself.