Originally posted by BackFire
PS3 is just an expensive blu-ray player at this point.
Actualy, here it's the cheapest Blue-ray player.
Whenever you enter a shop and asking for prices on blue-ray players, they suggest a PS3, usualy saying something along the lines "Thsi way you get the cheapest blue-ray player, and you can also play games if you would like to".
Originally posted by Kazenji
Meh it all really depends on what your after
Yeah and I'm after great games.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Ummmmm but that was'nt the point how much the system, Was'nt it more what good games that system has and my point is theres more then just MGS4 on it.
No, it doesn't.
Originally posted by Kazenji
MGS4
Chances are, they'll make a special edition version or just port it to the 360.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Hevenly Sword
A 4 hour game that was more of a movie then a game. Heck that sequel was cancelled.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Resistance: Fall of Man
Oh a standard shooter. Microsoft doesn't have any of those! *cough*Halo*cough*. Both the 360 and Wii have much better shooters that try new things; BioShock and Metroid Prime 3 come to mind.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Big whoop. You know that game was just so *yawns* amazing
Originally posted by Kazenji
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
Oh a platformer. Oh no...what will Nintendo or Microsoft do against this platformer!? I know Nintendo will make a much better platformer and one of the greatest games of all time in the form of Super Mario Galaxy and Microsoft will just take another exclusive game from Sony.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Yeah and I'm after great games.No, it doesn't.
Chances are, they'll make a special edition version or just port it to the 360.
A 4 hour game that was more of a movie then a game. Heck that sequel was cancelled.
Oh a standard shooter. Microsoft doesn't have any of those! *cough*Halo*cough*. Both the 360 and Wii have much better shooters that try new things; BioShock and Metroid Prime 3 come to mind.
Big whoop. You know that game was just so *yawns* amazing
Oh a platformer. Oh no...what will Nintendo or Microsoft do against this platformer!? I know Nintendo will make a much better platformer and one of the greatest games of all time in the form of Super Mario Galaxy and Microsoft will just take another exclusive game from Sony.
first of all, MGS4 is a ps3 exclusive, and it would take about 8 discs on 360 to be able to play MGS4 properly, one of the few games to scratch the surface of what the PS3 is able to do, also:
Konami representative dismissed the rumor and re-confirmed MGS 4: Guns of the Patriots as a PlayStation 3 exclusive. "For the record, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is a PlayStation 3 exclusive and there are no plans to develop an Xbox 360 version of the game," said Konami’s official.
Other exclusive games in the future:
Little Big Planet
Socom: Confrontation
Resistance 2
MotorStorm: Pacific Rift
DC Universe Online
Killzone 2
inFAMOUS
MAG
God of War 3
With a solid lineup of PS3 games coming in the near future as well as next year, the PS3 has great first party games. PS3 is already getting, and has gotten some of the 360 exclusives, like BioShock, Lost Planet, Eternal Sonata...half the games that come out are also available on PC, not a true exclusive.
There is hope for the PS3, a man once told me, the night is always darkest before the dawn, and the dawn will come. There is a bright future for PS3, it has already outsold the Xbox 360 in Europe and Japan. Just because more third party exclusive titles have become multiplatform, doesnt mean the end of the world, games are still being released on PS3, the FF brand name has appeared on Nintendo long before Microsoft, the shame is, if FFXIII was developed specifically for the ps3 and took advantage of the blu ray tech, it would make for a far greater game than one made for a standard 4.7gb disc.
Apparently not. Having games that take up a lot of space is not a good thing, considering how good compression techniques are and are continuing to get.
And the fact of the matter, it doesn't really matter how many exclusives Microsoft loses - if you can even call it that, considering that the examples you pointed out are ports that are coming out or have come out long after it originally came out for the 360. The point is, many many more people own a 360 than a PS3. No one is going to buy a 360 and then get annoyed when a game they liked suddenly ends up on the PS3 later. But if you buy a PS3 for a game and it ends up also coming out on the cheaper console?
Yeah, people get mad about that.
How many people do you think were holding out on buying a PS3 simply for Final Fantasy XIII? How many of those people do you think now have absolutely no need or reason to ever buy one?
I'd guess it's a fairly large number.
Originally posted by Peach
Apparently not. Having games that take up a lot of space is not a good thing, considering how good compression techniques are and are continuing to get.And the fact of the matter, it doesn't really matter how many exclusives Microsoft loses - if you can even call it that, considering that the examples you pointed out are ports that are coming out or have come out long after it originally came out for the 360. The point is, many many more people own a 360 than a PS3. No one is going to buy a 360 and then get annoyed when a game they liked suddenly ends up on the PS3 later. But if you buy a PS3 for a game and it ends up also coming out on the cheaper console?
Yeah, people get mad about that.
How many people do you think were holding out on buying a PS3 simply for Final Fantasy XIII? How many of those people do you think now have absolutely no need or reason to ever buy one?
I'd guess it's a fairly large number.
Compression can compromise quality, among other things, imagine if Mass Effect was developed specifically for the PS3. It would be far more expansive than what it is now.
On another note all the people i knew that bought a PS3 did not buy it for FFXIII. Rpg players make up a small percentage of the gaming crowd.
Sure, FFXIII was one reason to buy a PS3, when it appeared to be exclusive previously, but it isnt the only reason. You could simply just spend $100 more for a system that is superior from a technical standpoint, or you could spend it on a cheaper one, that is related to the word Failure. PS3 and Xbox 360 offer a similar experience, except i believe the PS3 has a better future, with better games in the pipeline, id take littlebigplanet over viva pinata, killzone 2 over gears2.
no one is gonna buy an xbox 360 and get annoyed when an exclusive goes multiplatform cuz they have no exclusive titles that are worth thinking about besides Halo, which is overrated, and i know what im talking about cuz i bought it on launch day and stopped a bit after that. The only reason the xbox 360 has a slight edge at the moment, is cuz developers like Epic who develop for 360 are lazy. But as developers become more familiar with PS3, games will get better, like take for example currently, multiplatform titles are better on ps3, for example COD4, Burnout and Oblivion.
am i the only person in these forums that will defend the ps3? is there no one else? honestly.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
Compression can compromise quality, among other things, imagine if Mass Effect was developed specifically for the PS3. It would be far more expansive than what it is now.On another note all the people i knew that bought a PS3 did not buy it for FFXIII. Rpg players make up a small percentage of the gaming crowd.
Sure, FFXIII was one reason to buy a PS3, when it appeared to be exclusive previously, but it isnt the only reason. You could simply just spend $100 more for a system that is superior from a technical standpoint, or you could spend it on a cheaper one, that is related to the word Failure. PS3 and Xbox 360 offer a similar experience, except i believe the PS3 has a better future, with better games in the pipeline, id take littlebigplanet over viva pinata, killzone 2 over gears2.
no one is gonna buy an xbox 360 and get annoyed when an exclusive goes multiplatform cuz they have no exclusive titles that are worth thinking about besides Halo, which is overrated, and i know what im talking about cuz i bought it on launch day and stopped a bit after that. The only reason the xbox 360 has a slight edge at the moment, is cuz developers like Epic who develop for 360 are lazy. But as developers become more familiar with PS3, games will get better, like take for example currently, multiplatform titles are better on ps3, for example COD4, Burnout and Oblivion.
am i the only person in these forums that will defend the ps3? is there no one else? honestly.
Killzone 2 over Gears 2? That's nuts.
The original Killzone was one of the most derivative and generic shooters ever created. Uneventful in every way. The only thing carrying the sequel is the (admittedly) incredible graphics. Everything else has a 'been there done that' vibe, nothing new at all. Killzone 2 will be next year's "Haze". A hyped game that comes out and only the fanboys will care. And the graphics whores. The game will be nothing special, though.
The original Gears had a unique style, new type of gameplay, and the sequel is actually adding more new features, rather than just adding more levels. I'm very impressed that Epic is actually putting fourth the effort with Gears 2 to actually expand the game, rather than just pull a Halo and just do the same thing over and over again.
Mark my words, Gears 2 will be infinitely better than Killzone 2. Hell, Gears 1 will be infinitely better than Killzone 2.
And your regurgitation of the Sony talking points aside, at this point in time, the "technical superiority" of the PS3 is nothing but myth. In practice the graphics on both systems are nearly identical. On some games the PS3 version looks better, on others the 360 version looks better. It's a moot point. Both systems have their "holy shit that looks amazing" game. PS3 has Killzone 2. 360 has Gears 2.
And your charge of epic being lazy is nothing but bunk. If Epic were lazy why did they make UTIII for the PS3 before the 360? Why did they make it at all?
Fact is, Epic is going to make games for the 360 because here in the states, where their primary audience is, the userbase of the 360 is simply bigger. And the system is both cheaper and more efficient to develop for. That's not laziness, that's simple practicality. They'll spend less money, and make more money when developing for the 360.
Originally posted by BackFire
Killzone 2 over Gears 2? That's nuts.The original Killzone was one of the most derivative and generic shooters ever created. Uneventful in every way. The only thing carrying the sequel is the (admittedly) incredible graphics. Everything else has a 'been there done that' vibe, nothing new at all. Killzone 2 will be next year's "Haze". A hyped game that comes out and only the fanboys will care. And the graphics whores. The game will be nothing special, though.
The original Gears had a unique style, new type of gameplay, and the sequel is actually adding more new features, rather than just adding more levels. I'm very impressed that Epic is actually putting fourth the effort with Gears 2 to actually expand the game, rather than just pull a Halo and just do the same thing over and over again.
Mark my words, Gears 2 will be infinitely better than Killzone 2. Hell, Gears 1 will be infinitely better than Killzone 2.
And your regurgitation of the Sony talking points aside, at this point in time, the "technical superiority" of the PS3 is nothing but myth. In practice the graphics on both systems are nearly identical. On some games the PS3 version looks better, on others the 360 version looks better. It's a moot point. Both systems have their "holy shit that looks amazing" game. PS3 has Killzone 2. 360 has Gears 2.
And your charge of epic being lazy is nothing but bunk. If Epic were lazy why did they make UTIII for the PS3 before the 360? Why did they make it at all?
Fact is, Epic is going to make games for the 360 because here in the states, where their primary audience is, the userbase of the 360 is simply bigger. And the system is both cheaper and more efficient to develop for. That's not laziness, that's simple practicality. They'll spend less money, and make more money when developing for the 360.
k we'll see
Gears 1 is hardly original, taken gameplay mechanics, such as the cover system for titles like RE4 and Kill.Switch. Not that unique. You have to take into consideration not everyone liked Gears 1's gameplay, a defensive shooter, and the sticky cover system.
Killzone doesnt appear to bring anything new to the table besides it's graphics, but that doesnt necessarily mean thats a bad thing, if its a solid game, itll do well. You dont need to reinvent the wheel if its not broken. What next gen does Gears2 offer? probably the same, solid shooter, for that audience group, like we've seen before. Fable 2? maybe the trees will grow like the last time they said that.
You also cant blame Haze, it was dev. by a third party, and unfortunately it failed. Its like judging the wii, based on the game Chicken Shoot.
and i wouldnt doubt that they would make UT3 better on 360. and Why does capcom port Dead Rising to the wii, but not to ps3? The Xbox 360's architecture for development is similar to a PCs so its easy, so we have lazy developers, like Valve, who needs to be pushed (by EA) to make a ps3 version of orange box. Generally speaking, they'd rather not work as hard or bother with the trouble of understanding new technology. unlike Konami and Naughty Dog for example.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
k we'll seeGears 1 is hardly original, taken gameplay mechanics, such as the cover system for titles like RE4 and Kill.Switch. Not that unique. You have to take into consideration not everyone liked Gears 1's gameplay, a defensive shooter, and the sticky cover system.
Killzone doesnt appear to bring anything new to the table besides it's graphics, but that doesnt necessarily mean thats a bad thing, if its a solid game, itll do well. You dont need to reinvent the wheel if its not broken. What next gen does Gears2 offer? probably the same, solid shooter, for that audience group, like we've seen before. Fable 2? maybe the trees will grow like the last time they said that.
You also cant blame Haze, it was dev. by a third party, and unfortunately it failed. Its like judging the wii, based on the game Chicken Shoot.
and i wouldnt doubt that they would make UT3 better on 360. and Why does capcom port Dead Rising to the wii, but not to ps3? The Xbox 360's architecture for development is similar to a PCs so its easy, so we have lazy developers, like Valve, who needs to be pushed (by EA) to make a ps3 version of orange box. Generally speaking, they'd rather not work as hard or bother with the trouble of understanding new technology. unlike Konami and Naughty Dog for example.
What cover system from RE4 are you talking about? There is none. The only thing Gears has in common with RE4 is the camera placement.
The cover system in GOW was evolutionary, not revolutionary. They way they kept the game fast paced and exciting, while still employing the cover system was very unique and new. Of course not everyone liked Gears 1, no game in existence is liked by everyone. If that's your benchmark for success then the PS3 is a failure along with every single thing ever made.
And yes, Killzone having nothing special but the graphics is a very very bad thing. Especially if it's being toted as a reason to buy a $400 piece of hardware. If I'm going to shell out that kind of money for a game, then that game better be more than just a generic shooter with a pretty face.
I can't blame Haze for what? I wasn't blaming Haze for anything. Just saying that Killzone will be next year's Haze. A game with a lot of hype that ends in disappointment. I wasn't judging the PS3 on Haze, christ, read carefully next time.
And it's fascinating how you're attempting to spin the poor and unpractical design of the PS3 into some kind of attack on devs who don't want to waste time working on something that's needlessly complicated. It's Sony's fault for making their system so unfriendly to developers. This is just another sign of their over confidence and arrogance. They thought that they didn't need to make their system friendly to devs simply because of their brand name. And now it's backfiring on them when the 360 can be designed on more easily, for less money, and with a larger user base. All the spin in the world aside, that is a positive for the 360 no matter how you cut it. And it's also a negative for the PS3. If there are big name companies out there like Valve who don't want to make games for your system because it's obnoxious and overly complicated/expensive, that is soley the fault of Sony for not making their system more practical to design for. It's also a huge problem since The Orange Box was one of the best games of last year, and the PS3 version was borderline unplayable, apparently. Again, that's not laziness on the part of the developers, that's just them being practical. What do you want them to do? Waste time developing for a system that offers no actual benefits? Crazy talk.
Originally posted by BackFire
What cover system from RE4 are you talking about? There is none. The only thing Gears has in common with RE4 is the camera placement.The cover system in GOW was evolutionary, not revolutionary. They way they kept the game fast paced and exciting, while still employing the cover system was very unique and new. Of course not everyone liked Gears 1, no game in existence is liked by everyone. If that's your benchmark for success then the PS3 is a failure along with every single thing ever made.
And yes, Killzone having nothing special but the graphics is a very very bad thing. Especially if it's being toted as a reason to buy a $400 piece of hardware. If I'm going to shell out that kind of money for a game, then that game better be more than just a generic shooter with a pretty face.
I can't blame Haze for what? I wasn't blaming Haze for anything. Just saying that Killzone will be next year's Haze. A game with a lot of hype that ends in disappointment. I wasn't judging the PS3 on Haze, christ, read carefully next time.
And it's fascinating how you're attempting to spin the poor and unpractical design of the PS3 into some kind of attack on devs who don't want to waste time working on something that's needlessly complicated. It's Sony's fault for making their system so unfriendly to developers. This is just another sign of their over confidence and arrogance. They thought that they didn't need to make their system friendly to devs simply because of their brand name. And now it's backfiring on them when the 360 can be designed on more easily, for less money, and with a larger user base. All the spin in the world aside, that is a positive for the 360 no matter how you cut it. And it's also a negative for the PS3. If there are big name companies out there like Valve who don't want to make games for your system because it's obnoxious and overly complicated/expensive, that is soley the fault of Sony for not making their system more practical to design for. It's also a huge problem since The Orange Box was one of the best games of last year, and the PS3 version was borderline unplayable, apparently. Again, that's not laziness on the part of the developers, that's just them being practical. What do you want them to do? Waste time developing for a system that offers no actual benefits? Crazy talk.
what do i want from developers? its only recently that developers actually care about PS3 to make multiplatform titles equal. But i want developers to actually take advantage of the PS3's power. MGS4 scratched the surface of PS3 capabilities. Multi plat. games are made for both 360 and PS3, no not really, they're made for 360, which is a bummer, cuz you can only fit so much on a dvd game disc, or otherwise have multi discs, something i havent heard of since, legend of dragoon on psone. Like i said before, if games like Mass Effect were specifically made to take advantage of the PS3 tech. it would be far more expansive than what it is right now.
EA recently saw a 969% profits in PS3 software between April and June, i only hope EA moves to push more equal quality games of multi plat. and pave the way for all third party and remaining exclusive third party titles to realize that PS3 can sell software.
I didnt read a lot lot on Killzone 2, but looking into anything other than the graphics, Killzone 2 has its own 'unique' FP cover system, high def most immerseive cinematic gameplay to on any console, and Sixaxis.
Im not a lobbyist for the PS3, so i wont spin anything for you. The Xbox 360 is basically a PS2 with better graphics. Forget what i said about developers, if they wanna go easy and not bother with new technology, so be it, i was just under the impression that programmers were supposed to be constantly learning new code languages, apps, etc.
I will defend the PS3's "poor and unpractical design" and argue that the xbox 360 is designed poorly. Not only suffering wide spread technical problems, high rate of failure, and unreliability synonymous with the Xbox 360's brand name, but that even the interface is designed poorly, it was "not their smartest moment", so poorly that they had to redesign the dashboard, i just hope by the time i finished writing this, no one's 360 flat lines on us. New technology will grow.
Developers will take advantage of PS3's power when the user base warrants it. It's up to Sony to get the system out to enough people so that the user base can compete with the 360's. Till that happens, it is monstrously illogical to blame developers for not wanting to waste money developing for a platform that is more complicated and more expensive and has a smaller user base than the platform that is popular, easy to develop for and has a good user base.
And Killzone's cover system isn't unique. It's Gears' cover system but from a first person perspective. The other bits aren't unique either. A lot of games have high def cinematic gameplay, and sixaxis is used by other games, usually poorly from what I hear.
It's not that they haven't learned how to code for the PS3, what a silly accusation, it's simply that the effort isn't worth the payoff for most devs. It's simple logic. Pay less money and spend less time making a game with a larger user base, vs paying more money and spending more time making a game with a smaller user base. Again, the fault of this situation falls entirely on Sony for making their system so unfriendly to develop for.
The 360's obviously shortcomings are no secret. The failure rates were unacceptable. Hence why they actually went and expanded the warranty to an unprecedented 3 years. They actually fixed their mistake. Sony has not. Sony just continues to sit there with their fingers plugged into their ears saying "we're the best we're the best we're sony we're the best everyone else sucks". Some believe it, apparently.
And the 360 interface is fine. I've never ever heard anyone else say that the interface is problematic. It's widely accepted that the interface is superior to the PS3's. As is the online functionality.
Originally posted by BackFire
What cover system from RE4 are you talking about? There is none. The only thing Gears has in common with RE4 is the camera placement.The cover system in GOW was evolutionary, not revolutionary. They way they kept the game fast paced and exciting, while still employing the cover system was very unique and new. Of course not everyone liked Gears 1, no game in existence is liked by everyone. If that's your benchmark for success then the PS3 is a failure along with every single thing ever made.
And yes, Killzone having nothing special but the graphics is a very very bad thing. Especially if it's being toted as a reason to buy a $400 piece of hardware. If I'm going to shell out that kind of money for a game, then that game better be more than just a generic shooter with a pretty face.
I can't blame Haze for what? I wasn't blaming Haze for anything. Just saying that Killzone will be next year's Haze. A game with a lot of hype that ends in disappointment. I wasn't judging the PS3 on Haze, christ, read carefully next time.
And it's fascinating how you're attempting to spin the poor and unpractical design of the PS3 into some kind of attack on devs who don't want to waste time working on something that's needlessly complicated. It's Sony's fault for making their system so unfriendly to developers. This is just another sign of their over confidence and arrogance. They thought that they didn't need to make their system friendly to devs simply because of their brand name. And now it's backfiring on them when the 360 can be designed on more easily, for less money, and with a larger user base. All the spin in the world aside, that is a positive for the 360 no matter how you cut it. And it's also a negative for the PS3. If there are big name companies out there like Valve who don't want to make games for your system because it's obnoxious and overly complicated/expensive, that is soley the fault of Sony for not making their system more practical to design for. It's also a huge problem since The Orange Box was one of the best games of last year, and the PS3 version was borderline unplayable, apparently. Again, that's not laziness on the part of the developers, that's just them being practical. What do you want them to do? Waste time developing for a system that offers no actual benefits? Crazy talk.
If a company like Valve thinks a system is too over complicated is saying something about that system. For a company based on some of the best developing tech minds in the industry, let alone creative minds is really showcasing why the PS3 is not doing as well as the PS2 last generation.
If I had some extra cash I would pick up an PS3 because I'm a huge fan of gaming and I love to play all of them, but in terms of games, the 360 has anything beat. Its cheaper, multiplatform games look identical to the PS3 version and there is more exclusives (including timed exclusives). The Wii though, not enough games. We can tote how it has the 1st party games buts that it.
The 360 is this generation of the PS2. Quality software with quality of hardware. The only thing that's against it is that the Wii is outperforming expectations.
Originally posted by BackFire
Developers will take advantage of PS3's power when the user base warrants it. It's up to Sony to get the system out to enough people so that the user base can compete with the 360's. Till that happens, it is monstrously illogical to blame developers for not wanting to waste money developing for a platform that is more complicated and more expensive and has a smaller user base than the platform that is popular, easy to develop for and has a good user base.And Killzone's cover system isn't unique. It's Gears' cover system but from a first person perspective. The other bits aren't unique either. A lot of games have high def cinematic gameplay, and sixaxis is used by other games, usually poorly from what I hear.
It's not that they haven't learned how to code for the PS3, what a silly accusation, it's simply that the effort isn't worth the payoff for most devs. It's simple logic. Pay less money and spend less time making a game with a larger user base, vs paying more money and spending more time making a game with a smaller user base. Again, the fault of this situation falls entirely on Sony for making their system so unfriendly to develop for.
The 360's obviously shortcomings are no secret. The failure rates were unacceptable. Hence why they actually went and expanded the warranty to an unprecedented 3 years. They actually fixed their mistake. Sony has not. Sony just continues to sit there with their fingers plugged into their ears saying "we're the best we're the best we're sony we're the best everyone else sucks". Some believe it, apparently.
And the 360 interface is fine. I've never ever heard anyone else say that the interface is problematic. It's widely accepted that the interface is superior to the PS3's. As is the online functionality.
i just took a quote from Killzone 2, and thats what it said, i guess it may be more evolutionary than revolutionary. Im not sure if im a sheltered gamer, but I cant think of any FPS with a cover sytem that allows players to take cover behind objects, in FP, and maybe Killzone 2's cover system IS different enough to warrant the title unique. I have only see videos, not enough to make a proper judgement on how unique itll play like
Its simple logic, spend less time and money developing for a system that has a larger user base. However i believe that sometimes, you gotta spend money to make it, ultimately, the payoff may be more. Sony appears to be twiddling their thumbs, but they have been doing work, and definately been catching up.
The 360 interface is over complicated and can be a turnoff for casual gamers, with the simplicity of wii channels. Its all about choice and preference when it comes to system interface. I prefer XMB, because it is simple, user friendly and it works, it is free of clutter, while the xbox 360 dash, is cluttered and has advertisements that take up space too. Microsoft felt that the dash was not their smartest move, so they redesigned it, a bit of a Cover Flow vibe.
Sony's online is free, only few can refuse an offer like that. Obviously i cant argue that PSN meets XBL in terms of video content, but i enjoy not having to pay $59.99 every 12 monthes to play online, and not hoping that my system will not fail in between that time period.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Yeah and I'm after great games.No, it doesn't.
Chances are, they'll make a special edition version or just port it to the 360.
A 4 hour game that was more of a movie then a game. Heck that sequel was cancelled.
Oh a standard shooter. Microsoft doesn't have any of those! *cough*Halo*cough*. Both the 360 and Wii have much better shooters that try new things; BioShock and Metroid Prime 3 come to mind.
Big whoop. You know that game was just so *yawns* amazing
Oh a platformer. Oh no...what will Nintendo or Microsoft do against this platformer!? I know Nintendo will make a much better platformer and one of the greatest games of all time in the form of Super Mario Galaxy and Microsoft will just take another exclusive game from Sony.
🙄 🙄 🙄
Wow you sound so much like a fanboy
Budding game designer to the rescue!
You accusing the developers of being lazy is disgusting. Seriously. You have no idea what actually goes into making a game.
Developers prefer the 360 because the development platform was built specifically to integrate well with Windows, which of course is industry leader for game development of any kind. What this means for developers is they don't have to convert files and change code back and forth into the dev. platform to test it out, removing the dangers of code corruption during conversion and making it much easier to find and fix problems in the code.
The PS3, however, with its much-toted but ultimately maligned Cell Processor, requires conversion, and to make things worse, stores information differently. This increases the danger of something getting corrupted, and makes bad code harder to find as you have to figure out where it's being stored.
This is not laziness, this is simple practicality. Developers are not going to opt for a harder, buggier job when they can achieve virtually identical results using a much easier platform. It reduces man-hours of work and overall development time - both of which reduce the cost of development.
Here, let's do it in a proof!
Xbox 360 = Less work
Less work = Less time
Less time = Less cost
Less cost = More profit
Therefore:
Xbox 360 = More profit.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
i enjoy not having to pay $59.99 every 12 monthes to play online, and not hoping that my system will not fail in between that time period.
5 dollars a month really isn't all that much money. And I geuss they can afford to make it free, considering that extra 180 dollars you saved went into paying for the six hundred dollar console in the first place. ermm
And when my cousin broke my 360 I got a new one the next day.
The next day. 😐
It's actually $50 for a year, not $60. And if you buy an actual card for it (as opposed to paying with a credit card on your system), it's $50 for 13 months. Less than $4/month.
PSN may be free, but how often are people on it? I have several friends with both a PS3 and 360, and they're forever complaining about how no one is ever playing on PSN.