Battle of the Next-Generation Consoles

Started by Bardock42110 pages
Originally posted by quanchi112
That isn't always indicative of anything though. I see it as it came out first and there are lots of pro shooters fans out there which the xbox caters to.

I absolutely agree that it doesn't need to be indicative of what was discussed here. But I'd be interested what all factors you think are the reason for it. And if you think that may change and why.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I absolutely agree that it doesn't need to be indicative of what was discussed here. But I'd be interested what all factors you think are the reason for it. And if you think that may change and why.
Being first helps, halo helps, gears of war helps, it's online play helps.

To me it's always been two fold for what I like.

1.Exclusives
2.Power.

Why do you think Sony doesn't produce exclusives that are as appealing to a mass market?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think Sony doesn't produce exclusives that are as appealing to a mass market?
I think gow is very appealing to the mass market. It's just not a team thing or online concept like something like Halo which is much more interactive.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I think gow is very appealing to the mass market. It's just not a team thing or online concept like something like Halo which is much more interactive.

Interestingly, God of War 3 racked up 2,993,713 sales over 20 weeks. Halo: Reach sold 4,867,876 units in 2 weeks.

Hm.

Ironically dispite being a critical success God of War 3 was a commercial failure/flop. It had a budget of 44 million dollars and it become below its budget.

this mirrors The Sands of time prince of persia being critically a success and being a flop as well and the sequal resulted in making it more edgy.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Interestingly, God of War 3 racked up 2,993,713 sales over 20 weeks. Halo: Reach sold 4,867,876 units in 2 weeks.

Hm.

Another fun fact - GoW3 has been consistently on sale since about a month after release. I honestly cannot remember last time it was full price. It simply did not sell near as well as they had hoped it would.

(Also, I worked release days for both GoW3 and Halo Reach. The sales between the two games are not comparable.)

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Interestingly, God of War 3 racked up 2,993,713 sales over 20 weeks. Halo: Reach sold 4,867,876 units in 2 weeks.

Hm.

Because it's more interactive and you can go play with your friends.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Because it's more interactive and you can go play with your friends.

So obviously it's got a better grasp of what people want right now. You can't argue that 360 games aren't far more successful; it's a statement of empirical fact that they are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think then that the PS3 sells worse than the 360?

Different factors...

Pricing, promotion, marketing, gaming trends, etc.

But if people actually took the time to compare the consoles, the PS3 has a better variety of exclusives and better graphics.

Name me an exclusive that is NOT FPS that is worth buying for the 360.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon

Name me an exclusive that is NOT FPS that is worth buying for the 360.

Saints Row.

Lost Odyssey.

That game was so much better than Final Fantasy XIII in every way.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Name me an exclusive that is NOT FPS that is worth buying for the 360.

Fable 2?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Different factors...

Pricing, promotion, marketing, gaming trends, etc.

But if people actually took the time to compare the consoles, the PS3 has a better variety of exclusives and better graphics.

Name me an exclusive that is NOT FPS that is worth buying for the 360.

Alan Wake
Dead or Alive 4
Dead Rising
Fable 2
Beautiful Katamari

Not sure why it has to not be an FPS, seems like a silly stipulation. What exclusives do you think are worth buying on the PS3?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alan Wake
Dead or Alive 4
Dead Rising
Fable 2
Beautiful Katamari

Not sure why it has to not be an FPS, seems like a silly stipulation. What exclusives do you think are worth buying on the PS3?

I find the stipulation that it just has to be an exclusive even sillier.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I find the stipulation that it just has to be an exclusive even sillier.

Well, I can understand the exclusive point. If your mom only buys you one console, exclusives are a pretty big factor in making a good decision (including FPSs)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I can understand the exclusive point. If your mom only buys you one console, exclusives are a pretty big factor in making a good decision (including FPSs)

True, but some people just tend to give the exclusive point so much meaning as if multiplatforms don't even exist. It's like "hey, your platform doesn't have game X, ergo it sucks so much lolz."

Originally posted by General Kaliero
So obviously it's got a better grasp of what people want right now. You can't argue that 360 games aren't far more successful; it's a statement of empirical fact that they are.
It is more successful overall but I enjoy the ps3. More powerful and I favor those exclusives by far. I do like the fable series though. Like I said though even with ports like castle why need two discs when the ps3 does it on one. I don't like fps games but they do well due to them being team type things and not solo quests.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure why it has to not be an FPS, seems like a silly stipulation. What exclusives do you think are worth buying on the PS3?

Because he wouldn't have a point otherwise, I imagine.

Though even with that stipulation, his point isn't really valid, as you just demonstrated.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
True, but some people just tend to give the exclusive point so much meaning as if multiplatforms don't even exist. It's like "hey, your platform doesn't have game X, ergo it sucks so much lolz."

Well the main reason for that, I think, is that multiplatform games are pretty much always developed for 360 first and then ported to the PS3, and comparisons have shown time and time again that graphical differences between the systems on those games are negligible to the point of being almost nonexistent. So for someone who thinks that graphics are the only determinant of game quality, they have to rely on their consoles exclusives to show apparent "superiority."

Originally posted by quanchi112
It is more successful overall but I enjoy the ps3. More powerful and I favor those exclusives by far. I do like the fable series though. Like I said though even with ports like castle why need two discs when the ps3 does it on one. I don't like fps games but they do well due to them being team type things and not solo quests.

Why is having multiple discs a bad thing? It doesn't increase the cost of the game for the buyer, it makes players feel like they received more game for their buck, and if the game is done well switching the disc happens right after a dramatic story event. Tales of Symphonia on the Gamecube, Lost Odyssey, and sometimes even the PS1 era FFs used dramatic disc swaps to great effect.