[QUOTE="Terran499"]

Gamepro is running a report from 8-bit that claims MS knew the 360 had serious problems and EPECTED a high failure rate. The reason, to beat Sony.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=157748#comment_1144933

This source is the same source that said Bungie waS LEAVING ms A WEEK BEFORE THEY ANNOUCED IT.

CarnageHeart

I wonder what the defect rate was for the PS2? Mine died a couple years after I bought it and Sony fixed it for free outside of warranty, so I suspect like MS, they shipped units knowing there was a problem.

Unfortunately, there is little reason for hardware companies to be reluctant to release such systems. Its nearly impossible for gamers to ignore the systems with the most attractive libraries (two years in is someone going to trade in their entire library because their system broke down?).

On the bright side, maybe complaints and lawsuits and suchlike help. Sony is the original offender, but they made sure that the PSP and PS3 were rock-solid.

well I know there was a small failure rate for the PS2, it was nothing compaired to the 360.

I don't think this is news. QAing a new console is a pretty exhastive process and there's no way it could ship WITHOUT them being aware of these things beforehand. In the console world if something goes wrong chances are the manufacturing corperation knows about it but decided it was an acceptable fail rate given thier business goals. Uberbadassmufuh

well its true that all consoles do have a problem or two when they initally ship, but the 360 was a disaster. I read an article that said the average console has a 5-7% failure rate. The 360 had a 30-33% rate.

Gamepro is running a report from 8-bit that claims MS knew the 360 had serious problems and EPECTED a high failure rate. The reason, to beat Sony.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=157748#comment_1144933

This source is the same source that said Bungie waS LEAVING ms A WEEK BEFORE THEY ANNOUCED IT.

Soorry to come in so late, but it looks like you are still posting o here goes: 10: The war doesn't need to end becuase said advanategs for gaming are non-existant, yet. The best looking and soundig agme out there, is to my mind, COD4, which plays just as well off a DVD as it does on Blu Ray. In fact I hope this whole war goes on so that neither format wins (I think this is Microsofts plan actualy) and in a few years everything will be straight to hard disk. Physical formats are going to be a thing of the past, its too late to be bringing out new ones. 9: Why would someone go to all the trouble of creating the code just to give it to you, when they can give you editing tools (e.g. Little Big Planet)to do everything you would with the code that would be of benefit to them? 8: Some of your other points may betray this, but I agree in general. I have no problem with people holding whatever opinion they want (we all have different tastes), so long as they can justify it. 7: Indeed, as a european gamer this is really pisses me off, especialy when it's Ninendo I'm dealing with. I'd have thought the economies of scale would be worth it just to have one version, and games like Halo 3 show the scattered realease is pointless. 6: Agree to the general sentiment 5: That sounds like a complaint against Sony's ununified online, and I agree, it's bad. 4: Just be a smart consumer. This will allways happen, some games look better before release (Lair) and others better after it (COD4) 3: Smart publishers follow the money. Clearly the PS3 isn't exactly a goldmine for many 3rd partys right now, wheras the 360 is a big money maker for them 2: That's due to the PS3's installed base, there are more people buying far more content on the 360 so obviously it will get more conent 1: This is where you sound like a fanboy. I know it can frustarting if you would actualy buy for the PS3 some games that are 360, but devs/ publisher will g where the money is as I said before. Clearly for the majority of publishers, the money is on the 360 and Wii right now. Plus it sounds as if, for you, its okay to have PS3 exclusives, but not 360 ones. Now where is the logic in that (other than fanboy logic)?. To be clear I lie exclsives where appropriate (Mario, Halo). The games can be much better due to better console utilisation, and they give each platforn a distinct flavour.hair001

10: It will soon though

7: Exactly

4: Well 1. some people arn't (luckily I am), and 2. with the adledged price of game, you'd figure this wouldn't happen

3: True that they follow money, but still, theres like 8 million PS3s and even if only 1/4 bought a game, thats 120 million dollars.

2: Its true that the 360 base is larger, but if u a bunch of the content is free things, like demos and trailers.

1: Its true I did loose it and fall into the fanboy section. But if you read the news, its like the Ps3 is loosing exclusives, DMC, Ace Combat, Armored Core, GTA, but the Sony people arn't getting anything in return.

[QUOTE="Terran499"]

[QUOTE="Nagalux"]Impressive post;)metro2692

Thanks. I tried to keep it neutral. Its from a Sony perspective but it can easily be a MS perspective.

you know all those problems with modern gaming was the exact reason why for the first time in my life i bought a xbox 360; straying away from my traditional sony purchasing (i have ps1,2,nd PSP). the ps3 has gotten into this "red zone" if you ask me where developers neglect what the system can do. even an EA designer claimed (and i quote) "games are much more easier to develop on the 360 than the PS3" which is an utter rediculous statement. the whole purpose of multiplatform games is to bring a great experience of the game to each and every sytem, in its own productive way. this is the problem withthe sport games I.E. NBA Live 08, where the 360 version is suppose to be the Mother of the game, while the PS3 vers. has bugs and glitches, and PLEASE don't let me speak about the Wii and PSP vers.

now im not a fanboy of any of the systems, each one looks promising with advantages and capabilities, BUT i bought a 360 because of the major neglect towards the PS3. it shouldnt be about what system can get the job done in 5 days and BS a port to the inferior hardware, but to get the job done in a year where you created this amazing game on both 360 and PS3, and you know that the job on making it was worth the time.

but a abolutely great post man, it shows a very edumacated perspective of a Sony-friendly gamer, without badmouthing MS.

Your 360 hasn't got red ring fever has it? But anyway, its true that some devs havn't still took full advantage of the PS3. I've read interviews where the devs say its easier to mk a game for the PS3 THEN port it to PS3. But still since theres 4 million more 360s than PS3s, the 360 is still going to be priorty. But by the end of next year, tht will change.

[QUOTE="Terran499"][QUOTE="brett-anderson"]

In the early days simultaneous gameplay was the magic word, if that was not possible the game was practically rated as outdated junk say -20 points deducted of the final rating, in the late nineties it was all about multiplaying and since 2000's games must all be played on-line. On-line, give me a break will ya? What is wrong with solo play? Is that a foul word or something, can't a game be enjoyed without mulitplayer or online features ..oh gawd..

nopalversion

Trye. There is nothing wrong with a single player game. The main reason I believe some people complain when there isn't multiplayer is some single player stories are too short. Look at Black. Black was fun as hell, but once u beat the single-player, thats it. All you can do is go back and do it again.

MUltiplayer is always welcome, on the other hand. Gives tou a reason to keep playing a game you loved. Still, dedicated multiplayer titles are always going to be more accomplished.

True multiplayer games are now usually more sucessful. the main reason multiplatyer gets so much focus is because of replay value and the price of games. In this day and age, if your paying 60 bucks for a game, you want to get your money out of it. One of my favorite PS2 games was Black. It was fun as hell, but the only problem it had was there was no off or online multiplayer. Now I'm not saying that to be great you need multiplayer, but with Black, after you beat the last level, you didn't get anything but unlimite dammo, but as far as replay goes, there was nothing else.

In the early days simultaneous gameplay was the magic word, if that was not possible the game was practically rated as outdated junk say -20 points deducted of the final rating, in the late nineties it was all about multiplaying and since 2000's games must all be played on-line. On-line, give me a break will ya? What is wrong with solo play? Is that a foul word or something, can't a game be enjoyed without mulitplayer or online features ..oh gawd..

brett-anderson

Trye. There is nothing wrong with a single player game. The main reason I believe some people complain when there isn't multiplayer is some single player stories are too short. Look at Black. Black was fun as hell, but once u beat the single-player, thats it. All you can do is go back and do it again.

[QUOTE="Terran499"][QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"][QUOTE="Terran499"]

Heres something that just came out from the developer of Postal 2. In an interview he talks about something that I talked about and he made the SAME POINT I did. Heres the lnk.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/12/11/postal-2s-vince-desi-talks-manhunt-2-game-censorship-politics/

He talks about why they need to do away with AO and he has the same point I do. Heres what he said

If the ESRB gives your game a AO rating, you're not going to be in any store in America, period. You can call it anything you want, but that's the bottom line. Where's Barak Obama? I'd love to hear his views on the video game industry. He's the only person running for President that speaks with a straight tongue, and I'm a conservative libertarian...

Desi also raises the popular connotation of "Adults Only" and how that affects its application as a video game rating.

AO translates to PORN for a lot of people... I'm not against sex in video games; we just need to have a more accurate rating system. What's AO today should really be M, and then just have a new rating called X, and that should be for 18 and over only...

AtomicTangerine

I hate to break this to you... But AO does equal porn 99 times out of 100. Sure, Wal-Mart won't carry those games, but they don't have too many hardcore NC-17 movies either. Once there is a game that gets an AO rating that doesn't suck, then we can talk about how it's destroying our freedom and all that, but at the moment it's just stopping you from buying your ball-sucking games at Wal-Mart.

Yes I no the few games that do get AO do have porn. I mean Manhunt 2 was the most recent that wasn't porn, of course no one cares about it. My point is, lets don't wait for a great game to be rated AO before action is taking.

Yeah, but it did have a scene where you cut a guy's balls off. It's more violent than sexual, but it does involve the parts of the anatomy that gets a game an AO rating.

True it did. I will admit its a good example of a game, WITH the conent, that should be AO cause I'm a guy, and I don't wanna see some guy get castrated.

Heres a great example by what I mean by open source. Sega has released a tool that any developer can pay a small fee for any it makes lip sinqing veryeasy and acurate.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/12/new-sega-tool-automates-3d-lip- syncing

I cant say i completely agree but you do make a lot of good points.skatatay

Well I try to hit the big problems. Yes there ARE other problems, but these are the main ones.