Do you think PS3 and PC multiplats should be cheaper than 360's.

Stay with me on this.

From what I've seen the PS3 is capable of better graphics than the 360. It takes more "tricks" but it is possible. The PC is of coarse more powerful than both.

Eventhough they are both more capable, multiplats are usually of less quality than exclusives on the respective platforms. It's as if the 360 gets it's good graphics, then very little is done to boost them on the PS3 and PC.

So basically, 360 owners are getting their game respectively and PS3 and PC owners are being held back.

So wouldn't it be fair that they cost less?

In the case of PC games being cheaper 90% of the time anyway lets say, for arguments sake, that thats not the case.

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

The PC versions are always better than the 360 though yet they are always cheaper too for the most part :?. A lot of multi's are worse on the PS3 but it isn't significant enough to start charging different, this is one of the few places were a slightly blurry texture is something worth getting a little too "excited" for.

I think that games should be cheaper in general. $60 is a pretty hefty sum.meetroid8

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

BPoole96

Stay with me on this.

From what I've seen the PS3 is capable of better graphics than the 360. It takes more "tricks" but it is possible. The PC is of coarse more powerful than both.

Eventhough they are both more capable, multiplats are usually of less quality than exclusives on the respective platforms. It's as if the 360 gets it's good graphics, then very little is done to boost them on the PS3 and PC.

So basically, 360 owners are getting their game respectively and PS3 and PC owners are being held back.

So wouldn't it be fair that they cost less?

In the case of PC games being cheaper 90% of the time anyway lets say, for arguments sake, that thats not the case.

sure friend, that would be okay with it

Your PC is coarse?

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

BPoole96

So, I'm not imagining things... that's good to know :D

me no understand

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

BPoole96

I think games on 360 that feature online play should be cheaper than their ps3/pc counterparts, after all you don't get the whole game out of the box.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

GreenGoblin2099

So, I'm not imagining things... that's good to know :D

Your PC is coarse?

-Unreal-

Edit: oops....but I'm too lazy to fix it.

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

I would like games to be cheaper in general. A new release in the UK costs £40. I would love to see new releases retail at £30 but I doubt that will happen. :(

PC games are already cheaper than console ones. Console wise, that could make sense if PS3 was actually more powerfull than 360 but it´s not the case.

No, ps3 games should cost more a DVD is cheaper to produce then a blu-ray.Fightingfan

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

BPoole96

Seems like it

*yawn*

No, ps3 games should cost more a DVD is cheaper to produce then a blu-ray.Fightingfan

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

Tezcatlipoca666

Seems like it

*yawn*

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read. A PC is only as powerful as what you put in it. There's no set SKU for a PC for people to all look at it and go, "Dur, they all look the same!" Whereas on a 360 or a PS3 the experience will amount to be the same regardless of gamer.

Second of all, why is it that people try and make the 360 seem like some insanely under-powered machine? The differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 are so minor that I just can't help but wonder how the hatred people have for one system over another can be justified with ridiculous topics like this.

It's almost as ridiculous as people blaming the Xbox for why they didn't like FF13. The games are so similar it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, Uncharted looks nice, but it doesn't look that much better than a good-looking 360 game. The PS3 is a year younger the Xbox, naturally it's a bit better looking. :roll:

I'm calling BS on you, straight up.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]No, ps3 games should cost more a DVD is cheaper to produce then a blu-ray.IronBass

The game is on the medium... you're right about the price but the blu-ray disk is part of the product, as is the plasic case it comes in.

lol PC games are always cheaper. They sell for £25 on PC and £38 or more on console in the UK.

The game is on the medium... you're right about the price but the blu-ray disk is part of the product, as is the plasic case it comes in.Storm_Marine

When you buy (any kind of) software, you're not paying for the medium, but for the actualcontent.

Example, BioShock 2 (just to name a game).

Both the 360 and PS3 version are exactly the same game. Same graphics, same gameplay, same game lenght, same MP.

They're exactly the same content. Why should the PS3 version cost more? Because it comes on a BR?

Basically you would be paying for the privilege of having it on a BR disc, which is ridiculous.

PC games are already cheaper than console ones. Console wise, that could make sense if PS3 was actually more powerfull than 360 but it´s not the case.

PAL360

The only way it would make sense would be if games were priced according to content, but they aren't. It's just a fixed price. 2 games on the same platform can be at completely different levels quality wise, yet they'll both still cost the same at release.

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

Is this a 360 is holding back the PS3's true potential thread in disguise?

DudeNtheRoom

Seems like it

*yawn*

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]The game is on the medium... you're right about the price but the blu-ray disk is part of the product, as is the plasic case it comes in.IronBass

When you buy (any kind of) software, you're not paying for the medium, but for the actualcontent.

Example, BioShock 2 (just to name a game).

Both the 360 and PS3 version are exactly the same game. Same graphics, same gameplay, same game lenght, same MP.

They're exactly the same content. Why should the PS3 version cost more? Because it comes on a BR?

Basically you would be paying for the privilege of having it on a BR disc, which is ridiculous.

I think you're paying for what you're paying for, which can be alot of things. This is an absurd thing to discuss, so later. O_O

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read. A PC is only as powerful as what you put in it. There's no set SKU for a PC for people to all look at it and go, "Dur, they all look the same!" Whereas on a 360 or a PS3 the experience will amount to be the same regardless of gamer.

Second of all, why is it that people try and make the 360 seem like some insanely under-powered machine? The differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 are so minor that I just can't help but wonder how the hatred people have for one system over another can be justified with ridiculous topics like this.

It's almost as ridiculous as people blaming the Xbox for why they didn't like FF13. The games are so similar it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, Uncharted looks nice, but it doesn't look that much better than a good-looking 360 game. The PS3 is a year younger the Xbox, naturally it's a bit better looking. :roll:

I'm calling BS on you, straight up.

NeonNinja

Exactly. I can't believe that people still believe this nonsense about the PS3 being more powerful than the 360. It's been proven time & time again that both the 360 & the PS3 are very equal to each other in specs. The only reason why exclusives on PS3 looks so much better than exclusives on 360 is because that the developers of Sony's have more talent & experience in hardware than what the developers of Microsoft's that does.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read. A PC is only as powerful as what you put in it. There's no set SKU for a PC for people to all look at it and go, "Dur, they all look the same!" Whereas on a 360 or a PS3 the experience will amount to be the same regardless of gamer.

Second of all, why is it that people try and make the 360 seem like some insanely under-powered machine? The differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 are so minor that I just can't help but wonder how the hatred people have for one system over another can be justified with ridiculous topics like this.

It's almost as ridiculous as people blaming the Xbox for why they didn't like FF13. The games are so similar it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, Uncharted looks nice, but it doesn't look that much better than a good-looking 360 game. The PS3 is a year younger the Xbox, naturally it's a bit better looking. :roll:

I'm calling BS on you, straight up.

Exactly. I can't believe that people still believe this nonsense about the PS3 being more powerful than the 360. It's been proven time & time again that both the 360 & the PS3 are very equal to each other in specs. The only reason why exclusives on PS3 looks so much better than exclusives on 360 is because that the developers of Sony's have more talent & experience in hardware than what the developers of Microsoft's that does.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read. A PC is only as powerful as what you put in it. There's no set SKU for a PC for people to all look at it and go, "Dur, they all look the same!" Whereas on a 360 or a PS3 the experience will amount to be the same regardless of gamer.

Second of all, why is it that people try and make the 360 seem like some insanely under-powered machine? The differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 are so minor that I just can't help but wonder how the hatred people have for one system over another can be justified with ridiculous topics like this.

It's almost as ridiculous as people blaming the Xbox for why they didn't like FF13. The games are so similar it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, Uncharted looks nice, but it doesn't look that much better than a good-looking 360 game. The PS3 is a year younger the Xbox, naturally it's a bit better looking. :roll:

I'm calling BS on you, straight up.

DudeNtheRoom

Exactly. I can't believe that people still believe this nonsense about the PS3 being more powerful than the 360. It's been proven time & time again that both the 360 & the PS3 are very equal to each other in specs. The only reason why exclusives on PS3 looks so much better than exclusives on 360 is because that the developers of Sony's have more talent & experience in hardware than what the developers of Microsoft's that does.

I have an example. I defended FF13 when ppl said the PS3 version was better. I said it hardly had any difference whatsoever. BUT, that means that the PS3 gamers are getting the shaft b/c their console is capable of more.

Dude, the PS3 "being extremely powerful than 360" is just a myth. I don't have to be an Xbox fanboy to know about that; as a matter of fact, I own both a 360 & a PS3. The differences between the 360 & PS3 aren't THAT huge like the differences like N64 & Sega Saturn being more powerful than PS1, or Xbox being extremely powerful than PS2, or PSP being more powerful than DS, or the PSP2 being more powerful than the 3DS.

Plus I didn't say I was calling BS, it was NeonNinja that said that, & I was just agreeing on what he said. And I'll say this again: The only reason why exclusives on PS3 looks so much better than exclusives on 360 is because that the developers of Sony's have more talent & experience in hardware than what the developers of Microsoft's that does.

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"][QUOTE="garland51"]

Exactly. I can't believe that people still believe this nonsense about the PS3 being more powerful than the 360. It's been proven time & time again that both the 360 & the PS3 are very equal to each other in specs. The only reason why exclusives on PS3 looks so much better than exclusives on 360 is because that the developers of Sony's have more talent & experience in hardware than what the developers of Microsoft's that does.

I have an example. I defended FF13 when ppl said the PS3 version was better. I said it hardly had any difference whatsoever. BUT, that means that the PS3 gamers are getting the shaft b/c their console is capable of more.

Dude, the PS3 "being extremely powerful than 360" is just a myth. I don't have to be an Xbox fanboy to know about that; as a matter of fact, I own both a 360 & a PS3. The differences between the 360 & PS3 aren't THAT huge like the differences like N64 & Sega Saturn being more powerful than PS1, or Xbox being extremely powerful than PS2, or PSP being more powerful than DS, or the PSP2 being more powerful than the 3DS.

Plus I didn't say I was calling BS, it was NeonNinja that said that, & I was just agreeing on what he said.

No... PS3 multiplats shouldn't be cheaper because they're marginally worse. It doesn't work that way. And the PC version is almost always better. And just because a few PS3 games look better than 360 games doesn't really mean the PS3 is graphically superior. It means Sony's devs put more effort into making good looking games. vashkey

[QUOTE="vashkey"]No... PS3 multiplats shouldn't be cheaper because they're marginally worse. It doesn't work that way. And the PC version is almost always better. And just because a few PS3 games look better than 360 games doesn't really mean the PS3 is graphically superior. It means Sony's devs put more effort into making good looking games. DudeNtheRoom

Alan Wake is a xbox 360 exclusive and was worked on for like 4 years.....how long do they need?

That's because it was being done on PC first, then it was cancelled for the 360. That's why it took so long.

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"][QUOTE="vashkey"]No... PS3 multiplats shouldn't be cheaper because they're marginally worse. It doesn't work that way. And the PC version is almost always better. And just because a few PS3 games look better than 360 games doesn't really mean the PS3 is graphically superior. It means Sony's devs put more effort into making good looking games. garland51

Alan Wake is a xbox 360 exclusive and was worked on for like 4 years.....how long do they need?

That's because it was being done on PC first, then it was cancelled for the 360. That's why it took so long.

Alan Wake is a xbox 360 exclusive and was worked on for like 4 years.....how long do they need?DudeNtheRoom

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read. A PC is only as powerful as what you put in it. There's no set SKU for a PC for people to all look at it and go, "Dur, they all look the same!" Whereas on a 360 or a PS3 the experience will amount to be the same regardless of gamer.

Second of all, why is it that people try and make the 360 seem like some insanely under-powered machine? The differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 are so minor that I just can't help but wonder how the hatred people have for one system over another can be justified with ridiculous topics like this.

It's almost as ridiculous as people blaming the Xbox for why they didn't like FF13. The games are so similar it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, Uncharted looks nice, but it doesn't look that much better than a good-looking 360 game. The PS3 is a year younger the Xbox, naturally it's a bit better looking. :roll:

I'm calling BS on you, straight up.

DudeNtheRoom

Exactly. I can't believe that people still believe this nonsense about the PS3 being more powerful than the 360. It's been proven time & time again that both the 360 & the PS3 are very equal to each other in specs. The only reason why exclusives on PS3 looks so much better than exclusives on 360 is because that the developers of Sony's have more talent & experience in hardware than what the developers of Microsoft's that does.

Respond to me, not to him. I call BS on this topic because you KNOW IT'S BS. You even acknowledge that the consoles have almost the same specs, and exclusives on PS3 and 360 look almost the same. There isn't some crazy difference barring rush jobs/ports.

Also, I love how you just backed off of the PC argument. So, should PC players have to pay varying prices based on their system specs since those can be all over the place? My PC is awesome, it can handle Crysis on maximum settings, should I pay more than someone who can only run it at Medium? Your argument is ridiculous and you know it. This topic holds no weight.

Or maybe PC gamers shouldn't have to pay for Portal 2 since if you buy the PS3 version you get a free copy of the PC version. Yeah, maybe it should be a free download for PC gamers. Maybe Xbox 360 gamers shouldn't have had to pay $60 for Dead Space 2 because it was missing the bells and whistles of the PS3 version. These are all ridiculous scenarios and you know it. Games cost $50 to $60, that's the set price. You ask the question as if you want some legitimate discussion. The reason people get mad at topics like this isn't because you want a discussion, it's because when you try and pass it off as legitimate you're insulting their intelligence.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"] How are you calling BS? BS on what? I asked a question. It doesn't matter if the consoles have almost the same specs. You can say that until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that exclusives on the PS3 look great compared to exclusives on the 360. I call BS on you that you're just a xbox fanboy. I have an example. I defended FF13 when ppl said the PS3 version was better. I said it hardly had any difference whatsoever. BUT, that means that the PS3 gamers are getting the shaft b/c their console is capable of more. DudeNtheRoom

Respond to me, not to him. I call BS on this topic because you KNOW IT'S BS. You even acknowledge that the consoles have almost the same specs, and exclusives on PS3 and 360 look almost the same. There isn't some crazy difference barring rush jobs/ports.

Also, I love how you just backed off of the PC argument. So, should PC players have to pay varying prices based on their system specs since those can be all over the place? My PC is awesome, it can handle Crysis on maximum settings, should I pay more than someone who can only run it at Medium? Your argument is ridiculous and you know it. This topic holds no weight.

Or maybe PC gamers shouldn't have to pay for Portal 2 since if you buy the PS3 version you get a free copy of the PC version. Yeah, maybe it should be a free download for PC gamers. Maybe Xbox 360 gamers shouldn't have had to pay $60 for Dead Space 2 because it was missing the bells and whistles of the PS3 version. These are all ridiculous scenarios and you know it. Games cost $50 to $60, that's the set price. You ask the question as if you want some legitimate discussion. The reason people get mad at topics like this isn't because you want a discussion, it's because when you try and pass it off as legitimate you're insulting their intelligence.

As for the fact that I "held back" on the PC, it's b/c no one was arguing about the PC being equal to the 360.....seriously, can you keep up?

As for the dum argument of PC settings: it's not even the same thing. PC developers maximize the graphics just as much as the minimize them. THATS WHY THEY HAVE SETTINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

With consoles you are stuck with what they give you.

Do you think before you post?

Are you mad? At me? That's cute.

The first line was a grammatical error, I meant to split that sentence into two, but hit a comma and kept it as one so I can understand your confusion there. You say system specs are almost the same and so I say the games look really freaking close, but somehow according to you PS3 games are magically better looking by miles. That's blind fanboyism.

Also, you claim to hold back the PC argument because no one mentioned it, but when you quoted me one of the first things I did was criticize your stance on PCs. Can you keep up?

You claim that with consoles you are stuck with what they give you, but due to the PS3's godlike performance the games are clearly being held back by the laggard Xbox 360. Now you're saying the same argument can't be made for the varying performances of PC's?

You can toss insults with each of your posts sunshine, it doesn't change the fact that you have only posted this topic as a way to glorify your console of choice.

I would rather my PC games be $60, but the console players have to personally pay me $10 each time I buy a game.

I agree man, the lead platform should cost the most.. anyone that gets ports should pay less.

Stay with me on this.

From what I've seen the PS3 is capable of better graphics than the 360. It takes more "tricks" but it is possible. The PC is of coarse more powerful than both.

Eventhough they are both more capable, multiplats are usually of less quality than exclusives on the respective platforms. It's as if the 360 gets it's good graphics, then very little is done to boost them on the PS3 and PC.

So basically, 360 owners are getting their game respectively and PS3 and PC owners are being held back.

So wouldn't it be fair that they cost less?

In the case of PC games being cheaper 90% of the time anyway lets say, for arguments sake, that thats not the case.

DudeNtheRoom

No when it comes to the PS3, yes when it comes to PC's.

Since it's neither cheaper nor easier to develop a game on the PS3 when compared to the X360 there's no reason why it should be cheaper. The reason PC games should (and tend to be) cheaper, has nothing to do with the graphical quality and everything to do with Sony or Microsoft taking part of the profits from each game sold. That cost is passed onto the consumer. That's why you normally pay $10 more for a console game.

If the 360 is holding the pc back then why does Star Wars The Old Republic look like a ps2 game?

If the 360 is holding the pc back then why does Star Wars The Old Republic look like a ps2 game?

dc337

Compared to which console MMO? :)