Braid for Ps3

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"] And they're making up for it with a much larger first party.

pyromaniac223

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.

Sony's first party is good and all, but not better than the PS2 era. The difference? PS2 had tons of third party exclusives. And the PS2 was $299 (eventually $199). Sony is asking us $399 and it won't even bother to keep FFXIII and Tekken 6 for the system exclusive.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[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

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.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[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

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.

[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.

My thought exactly. That's one of the main reasons I prefer Sony over MS.

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"]

[QUOTE="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.

AHUGECAT

Sony's first party is good and all, but not better than the PS2 era. The difference? PS2 had tons of third party exclusives. And the PS2 was $299 (eventually $199). Sony is asking us $399 and it won't even bother to keep FFXIII and Tekken 6 for the system exclusive.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"] Fine, that's your opinion. I am among many others when I say that Sony's first party is fantastic.

pyromaniac223

Sony's first party is good and all, but not better than the PS2 era. The difference? PS2 had tons of third party exclusives. And the PS2 was $299 (eventually $199). Sony is asking us $399 and it won't even bother to keep FFXIII and Tekken 6 for the system exclusive.

Sony's first party this gen is only OK - Uncharted, Infamous, and whatever else Sony has (dunno really) would've been just a couple good games on the PS2. Sony's first party is actually weaker this gen cause they still can't get their games out on time. Still no Gran Turismo 5? Gran Turismo 3 on the PS2 was out like within a year of the PS2!

Third party exclusives are dead because the PlayStation brand is dead.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

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.

river_rat3117

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.

Gears of War sold well

Left 4 Dead sold well

Even LittleBigPlanet sold well

Resistance 2 sold worse than Resistance

MotorStorm PR sold worse than Motorstorm

Sales as I said do not mean a game is better, but it's clear that Sony doesn't have anything to "wow" gamers - it had MGS4 and that's it.

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

Sony's first party is good and all, but not better than the PS2 era. The difference? PS2 had tons of third party exclusives. And the PS2 was $299 (eventually $199). Sony is asking us $399 and it won't even bother to keep FFXIII and Tekken 6 for the system exclusive.

AHUGECAT

Sony's first party this gen is only OK - Uncharted, Infamous, and whatever else Sony has (dunno really) would've been just a couple good games on the PS2. Sony's first party is actually weaker this gen cause they still can't get their games out on time. Still no Gran Turismo 5? Gran Turismo 3 on the PS2 was out like within a year of the PS2!

Third party exclusives are dead because the PlayStation brand is dead.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="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.

AHUGECAT

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.

ACtually sony already said they LET GAT4 go multiplat so they can get THE Agent from rockstar. I think thats a fair trade. Still get GTA4 while getting a new and exclusive ip.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

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.

finalfantasy94

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.

ACtually sony already said they LET GAT4 go multiplat so they can get THE Agent from rockstar. I think thats a fair trade. Still get GTA4 while getting a new and exclusive ip.

Sony never said that, and if they did, it's marketing BS. GTA is a far more important IP than Agent.

... speaks the truth.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[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

ACtually sony already said they LET GAT4 go multiplat so they can get THE Agent from rockstar. I think thats a fair trade. Still get GTA4 while getting a new and exclusive ip.

Sony never said that, and if they did, it's marketing BS. GTA is a far more important IP than Agent.

They did and of course you would say its BS. *sigh* Your a fanboy why am I even trying.

They did and of course you would say its BS. *sigh* Your a fanboy why am I even trying.

finalfantasy94

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

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

btw, when is mgs4 coming out for 360?

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]They did and of course you would say its BS. *sigh* Your a fanboy why am I even trying.

AHUGECAT

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]They did and of course you would say its BS. *sigh* Your a fanboy why am I even trying.

AHUGECAT

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]They did and of course you would say its BS. *sigh* Your a fanboy why am I even trying.

finalfantasy94

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.

If I was a fanboy would I have played the PS3 games I reviewed? No, I would have just made up scores.

A HUGE CAT A HUGE FANBOY

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

AHUGECAT

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.

If I was a fanboy would I have played the PS3 games I reviewed? No, I would have just made up scores.

Actually yea. Just cause you played them doesint negate your fanboyism. You can look at games with a bias still. Which is what you did. The scores say it all. Im all for opinoin,but those are clreay fanboy scores and opinions you are giving. Like I have always said if you a fanboy you have no merit on anything. So yea im just going to stop since you will deny your fanboyism because i guess your afriad of people not taking you serious,but guess what noone does or ever will.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

AHUGECAT

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.

If I was a fanboy would I have played the PS3 games I reviewed? No, I would have just made up scores.

Even Big Rigs is better than Gran Turismo 5 because GT5 is still just a dream. Reality > Dreams.

AHUGECAT

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.

finalfantasy94

If I was a fanboy would I have played the PS3 games I reviewed? No, I would have just made up scores.

Actually yea. Just cause you played them doesint negate your fanboyism. You can look at games with a bias still. Which is what you did. The scores say it all. Im all for opinoin,but those are clreay fanboy scores and opinions you are giving. Like I have always said if you a fanboy you have no merit on anything. So yea im just going to stop since you will deny your fanboyism because i guess your afriad of people not taking you serious,but guess what noone does or ever will.

Sony mistakes this gen:

1. $599 starting price, only $399 now
2. Lost so many exclusives
3. Games get delayed left and right
4. Multiplats are almost always better on the 360
5. Not as many people play on PSN as Xbox LIVE
6. XBLA is better than PSNA
7. 360 shooters and RPGs are better than PS3 shooters and RPGs

and so much more

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]Even Big Rigs is better than Gran Turismo 5 because GT5 is still just a dream. Reality > Dreams.

chapnzaba

I like how you take it completely out of context.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

If I was a fanboy would I have played the PS3 games I reviewed? No, I would have just made up scores.

AHUGECAT

Actually yea. Just cause you played them doesint negate your fanboyism. You can look at games with a bias still. Which is what you did. The scores say it all. Im all for opinoin,but those are clreay fanboy scores and opinions you are giving. Like I have always said if you a fanboy you have no merit on anything. So yea im just going to stop since you will deny your fanboyism because i guess your afriad of people not taking you serious,but guess what noone does or ever will.

Sony mistakes this gen:

1. $599 starting price, only $399 now
2. Lost so many exclusives
3. Games get delayed left and right
4. Multiplats are almost always better on the 360
5. Not as many people play on PSN as Xbox LIVE
6. XBLA is better than PSNA
7. 360 shooters and RPGs are better than PS3 shooters and RPGs

and so much more

2. It wasn't their fault they lost exclusives, really. It was inevitable with the huge development costs.

3. conceded

4. So utterly negligible that to list this as an advantage smacks of straw grasping

5. Doesn't matter as long as there are full games, which there are.

6. Your opinion

7. Your opinion.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

Actually yea. Just cause you played them doesint negate your fanboyism. You can look at games with a bias still. Which is what you did. The scores say it all. Im all for opinoin,but those are clreay fanboy scores and opinions you are giving. Like I have always said if you a fanboy you have no merit on anything. So yea im just going to stop since you will deny your fanboyism because i guess your afriad of people not taking you serious,but guess what noone does or ever will.

pyromaniac223

Sony mistakes this gen:

1. $599 starting price, only $399 now
2. Lost so many exclusives
3. Games get delayed left and right
4. Multiplats are almost always better on the 360
5. Not as many people play on PSN as Xbox LIVE
6. XBLA is better than PSNA
7. 360 shooters and RPGs are better than PS3 shooters and RPGs

and so much more

1. Yes.

2. Yes it is, because of their high price, delays, and complicated architecture. In fact, Rockstar and Ubisoft BEGGED Sony to make GTAIV and Assassin's Creed exclusive to the PS3 (at least for a while), but Sony had to refuse cause they were bleeding money from the PS3.

3. Yes.

4. It's true, from Orange Box to Fallout 3 to GTAIV most of the time the 360 version is better.

5. Yes it does matter, because it's about longetivity as well. Halo 3 HAS 156,000 players online right now and it's a 2 year old game. PS3 games are ghost towns within the first 6 months.

6. It is better.

7. Whatr I said is also true because the 360 has flagship shooters and t he PS3 does not.

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Sony mistakes this gen:

1. $599 starting price, only $399 now
2. Lost so many exclusives
3. Games get delayed left and right
4. Multiplats are almost always better on the 360
5. Not as many people play on PSN as Xbox LIVE
6. XBLA is better than PSNA
7. 360 shooters and RPGs are better than PS3 shooters and RPGs

and so much more

AHUGECAT

1. Yes.

2. Yes it is, because of their high price, delays, and complicated architecture. In fact, Rockstar and Ubisoft BEGGED Sony to make GTAIV and Assassin's Creed exclusive to the PS3 (at least for a while), but Sony had to refuse cause they were bleeding money from the PS3.

3. Yes.

4. It's true, from Orange Box to Fallout 3 to GTAIV most of the time the 360 version is better.

5. Yes it does matter, because it's about longetivity as well. Halo 3 HAS 156,000 players online right now and it's a 2 year old game. PS3 games are ghost towns within the first 6 months.

6. It is better.

7. Whatr I said is also true because the 360 has flagship shooters and t he PS3 does not.

GTAIV is better on the 360? That's news to me.

2. No, it was high development costs. If it were JUST the fact of the PS3 architecture being complicated, then we would see a lot of third party 360 exclusives, which we aren't.

4. I guess a few extra pixels makes a game better. Face it, the differences are so utterly minuscule, they literally have no impact on the game.

5. PS3 games have enough longevity to satisfy most people. Honestly, you don't need a million people on a game years after release because even a fraction of that would allow for consistently full games.

6. Sorry, you don't get to decide what is good and what is bad.

7. See 6.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"] 1. obviously a mistake 2. It wasn't their fault they lost exclusives, really. It was inevitable with the huge development costs. 3. conceded 4. So utterly negligible that to list this as an advantage smacks of straw grasping 5. Doesn't matter as long as there are full games, which there are. 6. Your opinion 7. Your opinion.

tok1879

1. Yes.

2. Yes it is, because of their high price, delays, and complicated architecture. In fact, Rockstar and Ubisoft BEGGED Sony to make GTAIV and Assassin's Creed exclusive to the PS3 (at least for a while), but Sony had to refuse cause they were bleeding money from the PS3.

3. Yes.

4. It's true, from Orange Box to Fallout 3 to GTAIV most of the time the 360 version is better.

5. Yes it does matter, because it's about longetivity as well. Halo 3 HAS 156,000 players online right now and it's a 2 year old game. PS3 games are ghost towns within the first 6 months.

6. It is better.

7. Whatr I said is also true because the 360 has flagship shooters and t he PS3 does not.

GTAIV is better on the 360? That's news to me.

Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony. Nuff said.

LOL AHUGECAT more like AHUGEMORON, seriously you still have yet to show proof you even have a PS3 to me and a bunch of people until then you know nothing.Solid_Max13

PSN ID = 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?

AHUGECAT

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]They did and of course you would say its BS. *sigh* Your a fanboy why am I even trying.

finalfantasy94

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.

[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?

Rza_rectah

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Agent won't even have half the influence or sales GTA had. Agent won't be a system seller either like GTA. The reason Sony went for Agent is because they could afford it (not that high profile).

And I am not a fanboy.

ROFL im sorry but that is the bigggest BS you have ever said and thats saying something. Everyone knows you are a fanboy.