[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="todd2r"]So now metacritic matters on GS? Cause U3 only got a 9 here, just in case anyone forgot. NeonNinja

OK.

But what's the point if Uncharted 3 scores less than Gears 3 on GameRankings, but scores more on Metacritic? What's the difference in reviews that they filter? At the end of the day, GR and MC are sites with random guys trying to figure out who is recognized, so we end up right where we started.

And again, highest rated exclusive is a 3DS game, people. Not a PS3 or 360 game.

As for GR vs MC... Since they aren't being used for anything official, like flops/metagame spreadsheets... it doesn't really matter. Use whichever you prefer. Or use GS. There's no rule. You might say "Game X is higher than Y on GS!" And I might say, "yeah, but Y has a higher MC!" and Joe whoever can say "but they're the same on GR!" and we're all right. I'm pretty sure the industry (publishers and such) tend to pay more attention to the MC than they do GR or any singular site, but they're all valid for discussion here.

Whats the 3ds game you're referring to, btw? I thought people were trying to claim SS was the highest (with its 4 whole reviews).

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] Why thank you :oops:Giancar

It's like your thing. Anyone else does it just feels weird and not right.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]Isn't it 360's second highest scoring exclusive after Gears?

I bet it sells TONS this Holiday. It would be cool to have a Kinect remake of Follow That Bird, or Elmo in Grouchland. Only catering to the HardcoreNuck81

That said, yeah, it is pretty funny that in the past two years, there's only been 2 360 exclusives that scored higher...

So now metacritic matters on GS? Cause U3 only got a 9 here, just in case anyone forgot. todd2r

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

I'd say less than half, at any given time, considering how the mostly kill them off, or canibalize them and turn them into Mii-clothing sweatshops and such... Sony has a ton of studios that regularly put out AA+ games... MS has... Turn10. And... that's about it. Bungie is gone, Gears isn't first party... I suppose 343, but they haven't proven themselves yet. Other than Gears/Halo/Forza, pretty much all the AA+ in the past 2 years are Kinect games, and mostly third party. So, yeah, you hit the nail on the head, lack of studios is indeed the reason for the lack of exclusives... To me, as a gamer, they are the same thing. It doesn't matter if the problem is lack of games, or if the lack of games is just a symptom, and the problem is lack of studios... either way, even if they didn't have plenty to throw around already, MS is pulling in plenty from Live fees, so there's no excuse for them to not invest some of that in building their first party up. Therefore, as a gamer, their lack of first party devs does not excuse their lack of exclusives.

waltefmoney

And you also missed the point(or ignored it). Even if all the things you said are true, the two systems are still even in quality exclusives. So either Sony's first party isn't that good and keep releasing sub AAE games or the difference in exclusives really isn't that big.

360 being tied (for the moment) doesn't indicate Sony's first party is "not that good" it mostly has to do with an extra year to release games (which is 20% longer, at this stage), and also benefits them by gaining a few third party exclusives that were exclusive only because the PS3 wasn't out, or they didn't have long enough with the dev kits (in the same way a lot of 360's numerical advantage in multiplats results from PS2 games that got 360 ports but not PS3, simply because the 360 was out a year earlier), and more recently, a few third party Kinect games (3/4 AAE Kinect games are not first party. The one that is, only is because MS bought the dev after the game came came out).

If MS had as many and/or as good of first party studios, would they have more AAE+ games in 6 years vs 5? Yeah, I should hope so. I didn't pick PS3 because it had more good exclusives. At the time I got it, it didn't, obviously (Jan 07). But I knew Sony had a history of having a better first party, releasing more new IPs, investing in building up developer's, etc., so I predicted that by the end of the two systems' respective life cycles, PS3 would have more, and probably a LOT more that catered to my tastes. MS could have proven me wrong, but rather than invest the truckloads of Live revenue in aquiring/building studios, they use it to fund half a million dollar Kinect media campaign, secure timed exclusive DLC deals, and things of that nature to give a temporary advantage. It's good business... but is of no value to me as a gamer, resulting in me feeling quite confident that I made the right choice (for me).

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"] he is SW answer to Tolkien.racing1750

It's refreshing to know that some people on this forum can sit back and make a fair unbiased post. If most on here had your maturity then SW's would be a much better place to post in.

I would also like to point out, in terms of hardware failure, that if my xbox 360 slim failed, I would purchase another xbox 360. If my ps3 slim failed, I would mark it as a loss and move on with my life. The fact that so many people are willing to rebuy a faulty system rather than sell their games and get the competitor's system says at least a little bit for the experience on xbox 360 being an enjoyable one, despite the myriad problems it has.

xLittlekillx

[QUOTE="racing1750"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Its a given here that everyone will use generalizations about the other fan-groups, and credit what a few say to the entire faction... I know I'm guilty of it, from time to time, as well, so while I don't think most cows say things like "360 has only sold more because of how many 360 owners had to re-buy out of warranty RRoDs," I'm not going to try to act like there aren't cows who do say it... Personally, I focus more on how PS3, while being more expensive the entire time, has sold something like 11 million more, worldwide, in the 20 fiscal quarters it's been released than the 360 did in the same time. When people are analyzing and comparing product sales succcess, its almost always done with launch-aligned sales graphs.

As for software, I haven't paid any attention at all to BF3, what's so big about the sales numbers? What are the numbers, what's the source, and are they worldwide, or just US? Its funny you say something about cows using "assumptions that have no sourced backing" right after saying 360 "sells more software," since there is no source to confirm that, at least in regards to total worldwide software...

Now, as I implied earlier, I don't really throw around the "360 numbers are inflated because of re-buys" excuse, but with regards to your question that "doesn't that just show how much they like the console?" and your anecdotes about your firend who bought another 360 because he loves it so much and wanted the new model, but waited to replace his broken PS3 because he only gets it for exclusives... Everyone's story is different. Here's an anecdote to go along with yours.

My sister and brother-in-law just bought a second 360. They initially got a 360 instead of a PS3 based purely on the base model price being cheaper. Then when they realized they needed an HDD, and saw how much a MS charged for them, they said they wish they'd gotten a PS3 instead. They ended up getting a second-hand 20gb HDD from a friend. Then they found out they couldn't use Netflix without Gold, which they use exclusively for tv watching, since they don't have cable and over-air service is terrible where they live (they don't do a lot of online gaming, so they basically have to get Gold JUST for Netflix). They REALLY hate that. When they got a RRoD, they went 3 weeks with no entertainment (no gaming, no dvd player, no netflix), but the replacement was free, at least. Then a few months ago, the dvd drive completely failed, out of warranty. So after saving up (playing nothing but arcade titles), they went out and bought a new 360 for $300... complaining about how they'd rather have a PS3 all the way to the register. But since that would mean having to rebuy all their games that they regularly play (and restart them again...), including Rock Band 1, 2, 3, and Beatles, along with instruments, and all their DLC, and all that would cost way too much, they basically had no choice.

Personally, I don't think I owe Sony my loyalty because they were dominant during the PS1/2 gens... I picked a PS3 at launch because, for me, it was the better system, and was the safer bet for being better in the long haul. Factoring in the cost and features that I was interested in, a 360, with similar capabilities and features, would have cost more... upgrading the HDD was limited and way overpriced, wifi at the time cost extra, rechargable battery packs cost extra, guessing on at least 5 years, Live would have added $250, which turned out to be a lowball estimate, since the 360 went past 5 years, and the cost of Live went up, an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies cost extra, and I was betting on BR anyway, which turns out to have been right... and then there were all these early reports about faulty hardware floating around. Add to that the fact that Sony had a much better record for creating new firt party IPs, so even if third party exclusives seemed like they were going to be less common, chances are by the end of the gen, PS3 would have gotten more/better exclusives. Lems like to act like cows are just blindly loyal to Sony for no reason because of the PS2 domination (see, that's me doing the generalization thing too), but don't waqnt to accept that some people picked PS3, even back when it was $600, based on actually comparing and making predictions (which turned out right, as it turns out) about games, price and features.

Also, inb4 Allthishate complains about my reply being a wall of text. If it's too long or difficult for you to read, you don't have to read it, or respond to it.

sts106mat

Thumbs up for that post Ian. One of the few posters on here that can make a educated and non fanboyish post ;)

Well thank you for making an educated reply, bringing up some valued points. As to the BF3 numbers, someone earlier in this thread posted them, and they are worldwide. If you do some research, you will find that the majority of mulriplats sold better on 360, and some of them were originally PS3 exclusives (GTA 4 for example) This is why i bring up that point. With regards to your friends, I completely agree. IMO, the 360 is the console you want if you spend most of your entertainment time playing games. If you love online gaming and play daily, I would highly recommend a 360, but in your friends case I would have recommended the PS3. If you dont use the features of Xbox Live other than Netflix, there is no reason to own a 360. It would be a waste. However, If you are like me, and use most of Lives features daily (I literally use party chat every time my xbox is on) then that would be the best choice imo.Plagueless

The problem with doing research on software sales comparisons is that there just aren't any real sources out there. Periodically, a games publisher will announce sales when the game hits a milestone (1 million, 5 million, etc.) but they may or may not announce platform splits. We have trackers like NPD and Media Create, but these have a number of problems. For one thing... they are basically fancy guesses. Trackers track a number of retailers in a market, and then extrapolate data for the rest, to determine an educated guess about sell through in that market. Eh, I guess it's better than VGChartz, but it's still just a guess. Secondly, we don't have worldwide trackers. NPD is just the US. Mediate Create is Japan. Every now and then, we get data from the EU. What about Asia, Africa, S America, the rest of N America, and Europe for those times when there isn't up-to date info floating around from EU? As much as many people like to think America = the whole world, it doesn't, nor does America + Japan. Third, NPD doesn't release split-platform software numbers anymore. As I understand it, they may say 1 million copies of a game sold this month... and then someone applies the month's US software tie ratio for the PS3 and 360 to that game... but that's not really reliable. What if the game in question actually sold higher on PS3 that month, but 360 had a higher US tie ratio that month because the Halo remake came out or something? Applying the above maths will result in guesses that show the 360 version selling more. And then, on top of all that... trackers are only tracking the top 20 games. So a game that never reaches the top 20, even if it sells a steady amount for years, and eventually passes many other games that sold great and were in the top 5 for a month or two... but then dropped off to nothing, won't have any data at all. The only thing that leaves is VGChartz, widely viewed as a joke here, or when the platform holders release tie ratio or sales totals. In MS' case, they do that every month... using NPD report data, so its only for US, and prone to all the otherflaws I listed about using trackers. For Sony and MS, they list worldwide software totals alongside hardware in their fiscal reports, which would be ideal for actually answering the question of which sells more software, if MS did the same. As it stands, it will never be provable one way or the other, but it still gets taken for granted all the time around here that 360 sells more software.

As for my sister and bro-in-law... yeah, they totally screwed the pooch getting a 360. For their needs, PS3 would have been better, but the majority of purchasers aren't as informed as people that live on video gaming forums, and see 2 fairly comparable products, one of which has a lower base price. For some people, 360 is better. As I said before, when I bought my PS3, I compared price and features, and a 360 would've cost me more (and ultimately been a losing bet, since, as I guessed it would, BR beat HDDVD and PS3 wound up with more exclusives I like), but that's not the case for everyone. If wifi wasn't a factor, if you don't buy movies, or care enough to get them in HD (or didn't have an HD tv), if you were a die-hard Halo fan (nothing wrong with that, either), or if Live's features (ie, CGC) outweigh its extra cost... then sure. 360 might have been the better choice, and I'm not trying to imply that any of those are wrong or invalid... Basically, especially at launch, PS3 had a higher base cost, but it included all of the premium features that 360 either lacked, or charged extra for. If you just wanted games, and either didn't play online, or didn't mind paying for that as a seperate annual cost, 360 was a great console. Now, in some ways, they are even closer... the 360 has brought a lot of feature parity to the table, but still lumps a lot of those into their paid service, and still lacks BR, but PS3 has brought it's base price to basically the same (still more than the lowest 360... which has no HDD, but less than the more comparable 360). So now, more than ever, it comes down largely to which exclusives you prefer... Unfortunately, MS' current approach is to put out nothing else but casual and kids games, while cutting off the 80%or so of their market that haven't bought Kinect, and giving them 1-2 games a year, so IMO, the PS3 is considerably better for the core gamer at this point.

But yeah, thanks for actually reading my post, instead of just making a comment about walls of text, tl/dr, or asking for cliff notes. I know my posts ca get a little long-winded sometimes, but it's not like some of these walls with no capitalization, no punctuation, terrible spelling and grammer, and no coherent thought process. People act like they want to have something resembing intelligent debate, but then they act like it's too hard to read anything longer than one or two sentences. One or two sentences are grand... if you're just maing a remark, or going for some ownage or something like that... but if you're trying to discuss something with someone with thought out arguments, sometimes it's just not sufficient to explain your reasoning. So kudos to you, sir, for being able to read, and not whining about having to do it on a message board. (Seriously, does that not make anyone else go :? ?)

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

it has almost the same number of high scoring exclusives as the ps3 does. :?

waltefmoney

It's actually the exact same number.. with almost half the amount of quality first party studios.