Yeah the PS3 brand is tarnished badly. The PS1 and PS2 were amazing consoles, but the PS3 is....not.

Undying said: Yeah the PS3 brand is tarnished badly. The PS1 and PS2 were amazing consoles, but the PS3 is....not.

I highly doubt you're qualified to rate the ps3 console.

 

I think the sony brand is still stronger than the microsoft brand tbh

Microsoft Discussion ?

RAZurrection said: Past and present. Doesn't matter now, all people will know is that by the end of this gen, if the game is multiplatform it will run better on Xbox consoles (a 10 year truth) , it's all in word of mouth. There's really no logical reason to buy the PS3 version because it's inferior, thus there's really no reason to buy a PS3 for a multiplatform game when it will run better on the cheaper Xbox. Not really, there isn't a PS3 exclusive as "big" as Assassins Creed, GTAIV or CoD4 or CoD: WaW, let alone numerous enough to really make a difference. And there's the crux of problem, people buy 360s for exclusives and multiplatform games, PS3 only for exclusives. Xbox 360 has replaced the PS3 as the "go to" console for HD games, there's no distinction whether it's exclusive or not. PS3 is the console to get for HD games that aren't on 360, which are few. You can only take the PS3 tech so far before it hits the wall, you can't pour a 5 gallon game into 4 gallons of hardware without losing something. Meanwhile Xbox 360 owners can play RE5 at full graphics power and play Gears of War 2, PGR4 and Halo 3. WereKitten said: Because i can't do that on the 360, it makes the PS3 100% worthwhile, you see But you can't play those 360 games on PS3 or a superior copy of RE5, so since the 360 can that makes it 200% worthwhile and at costing haf the price of a PS3, really makes it 400% worthwhile. WereKitten said: And for my $400 I got wireless, HDD, free online gaming and a top-tier Blu-Ray player, so it was also cost-effective against building up the setup I wanted on a 360. Perhaps for you, but then you don't speak for everyone, if you did PS3 exclusives would sell systems, but they don't, not nearly as well as the annual CoD sells Xbox's. The market knows what it wants and most of the time, it isn't exclusive to PS3. WereKitten said: As you see, what is worthwhile and what is redundant is all a matter of perspective. If you have an extremely narrow view, if you look at the broadly - like the market does - Uncharted 2 won't mean **** next to the best version of Madden 2010. WereKitten said: By the way, I'd be curious to know how exactly half of PS3's exclusives could be considered terrible. The only one that comes to mind is Lair, really.   Easy, take every PS3 exclusive currently out. (Retail games only) Arrange them by aggregate review score/sales (sales more favourably) Remove the bottom 50%, they are worthless. The next 40% are forgettable The remaining 10% are the only games that could affect console sales.

There are so many things wrong or not on the point with your comments, that I am at loss for words. You mix up game quality and game sales. You mix up my personal example with general considerations.

I brought my own case forth as an example against your assumption that exclusives are a minor part of the PS3 library. In _my_  case the exclusives setup plus the hardware features were what made the 360 100% redundant. That's why I said that it's all a matter of perspectives.

But the multiplatform offer is exactly as strong as the 360's: if you really think that the average customer is going to enter a shop and decide to buy a 360 instead of a PS3 because in the Eurogamer comparison the shadows were better in RE5, you've lost touch with what really pushes sales.

As for what the market wants, I seem to remember that last year the PS3 was outselling the 360 up to the point of the price cut. Playing RE5 "at full power" - this makes me smile - wasn't enticing enough, it seems.

With your 4 gallons example, are you really trying to say that you think that Capcom's multiplatform engine doesn't perform as well on the PS3 because it maxed out the hardware? Instead of, say, because of relying on a subset of the SDK and not optimizing for the strongly parallelized hardware?

I seem to remember that the RE4 port to the PC had really poor lighting. I suppose that the PC hardware couldn't handle the software that the GC could? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

And i don't want to go through the list of PS3 exclusives, because you're just plain wrong with your evaluation. In your view if something is not a system seller, then it is "worthless" or "forgettable". Except that for the majority of people no single game will ever be a system seller, but each exclusive addition to the library tips the scale a little or adds mindshare, until they decide to buy.

 

WereKitten said: There are so many things wrong or not on the point with your comments, that I am at loss for words. You mix up game quality and game sales.

They're the only 2 factors for a game that will move systems, high accolade or high sales, games with high scores don't always sell lots, but a game that sells lots ...it doesn't matter what it scores.

You mix up my personal example with general consderations.

You didn't seem to have a problem emphasising that people buy PS3's mostly for the exclusives, despite the fact it's best selling game is available on multiple systems.

I brought my own case forth as an example against your assumption that exclusives are a minor part of the PS3 library.

Actually that's a fact not an assumption, mathmatically speaking, a vast, vast majority of the PS3's library isn't exclusive, likewise a very small part of it's library, single digit percentage is exclusive. In the overall history of the product, a vast majority of the games sold for it will not be exclusive either.

In _my_  case the exclusives setup plus the hardware features were what made the 360 100% redundant.

Good for you, I can accept that's the case for you a a few others as well, but the sales show that's not really a widespread view is it?

But the multiplatform offer is exactly as strong as the 360's

Perhaps in number, but certainly not quality, or the buy in price for that matter.

if you really think that the average customer is going to enter a shop and decide to buy a 360 instead of a PS3 because in the Eurogamer comparison the shadows were better in RE5

Well give it some credit, it's not just shadows, it's the aliasing, the lower frame rate, muddy textures. Why not? They tend to judge their purchases on reviews, who would really want to pay double the odds for a console with the inferior version?

you've lost touch with what really pushes sales.

Games. Sell. Consoles.
Specifically, a multi-platform game will sell more consoles than a exclusive can..or a number of exclusive for that matter.

As for what the market wants, I seem to remember that last year the PS3 was outselling the 360 up to the point of the price cut.

I seem to remember the 360 outsells the PS3 every year they've both been out.

With your 4 gallons example, are you really trying to say that you think that Capcom's multiplatform engine doesn't perform as well on the PS3 because it maxed out the hardware? Instead of, say, because of relying on a subset of the SDK and not optimizing for the strongly parallelized hardware?

It's certainly reached its limitations, these limitations not limited to Capcom games, these games not limited to games not designed with PS3 in mind. Such a common problem would indicate that the problem is due to inadquacies with the hardware.

I seem to remember that the RE4 port to the PC had really poor lighting. I suppose that the PC hardware couldn't handle the software that the GC could? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Not really, usually to get equivical performence of a console on a PC you usually require a higher spec, look at Assassins Creed or GTAIV.

And i don't want to go through the list of PS3 exclusives, because you're just plain wrong with your evaluation.

You don't have to that's just how it is. It's not just limited to PS3, it's the same with 360 as well. Mathmatically speaking, over 90% of their library aren't exclusive and less than 5% of those that are are actually relevant in selling the system. Halo 3, totally. Viva Pinata? No chance.

Except that for the majority of people no single game will ever be a system seller

It's almost like 100% of the library is the decider. So imagine how favourable it would be to a console that has a 9/10 chance of the game will be multiplatform and you have the best version.

but each exclusive addition to the library tips the scale a little or adds mindshare, until they decide to buy.

And why does it have to be exclusive? It's just as likely to be the best version of a multiplatform game.

 

Sony has great games as of late and honestly the only thing that ruined the Playstation name was the price. If they released at $300 and offered a "premium" unit at $400 they would have been a lot better off. They should have waited to release the PS3, much like MS should have waited so we didn't get the RROD.

Microsoft hit them hard with great games and a lower price. It was too hard to resist for most people.

The best thing to happen to the 360 was game, not tarnishing the PS3 however. If you compare the variety of games on the 360 versus XBox It's no contest. Sure, XBox has some great originals like Oddworld and KOTOR, but overall the 360 has a lot more variety and is a much better system then the XBox was (outside of quality hardware) and Microsoft did a lot of things right this gen and they certainly deserve second place this round.

Playstation isnt really tarnshed IMO. and M$ definatly didnt do it. If anything SONY did it to themselves. But i think PS3 will begin to turn this around this year and both consoles will end up selling very close unit wise

Your arguments are more muddy than RE5's textures on the PS3.

Basically in all the points you keep hammering on the "best version of multiplayer games" nail, but really that has no impact on your average customer and really not even on me, unless the difference is glaring.

RE5 comes out, it is reviewed on all the magazines and the websites in both the 360 and PS3 version. It is given its rating, screenshots and videos are shown. In the reviews there is no such thing as "we give 84% to the PS3 version and 86% to the 360 because of the shadows and quincunx AA". It looks good, it is given a 9.5 in graphics - that's the amount of detail the average reader needs.

Later on someone makes a side to side comparison to spot the differences. Graphic obsessive, geeks and fanboys are the target for this comparison. I read it, you read it. A great clamour is made over details that are negligible if you just try for yourself and play the game on its own, with no other version on the side. Egos are stroked, feathers are ruffled.

Meanwhile most people will have bought RE5 or chosen a console for all different reasons.

Marketing sells. Media mindshare sells. A lower price tag sells. The exclusives sell. The headstart the 360 had and its more active online community sell, because one could want to play multiplayers game with his/her friends.

I was clear enough to say when I was taking my personal case as an example for a certain demographic. Maybe you should do the same instead of generalizing your nitpicking to quality and quality to sales.

PS

On the PC/PS3 hardware issue: and why do you think that you need higher specced PCs? Is there a magic dust that makes console hardware more performant? Or it might be the case that those PC games are coded with scarce optimization, basically relying on the fact that hardware is wildly variable but can be upgraded.

Same is with multiplatform engines and the consoles. Poor optimization versus a given platfrom will make the hardware choke, exactly as even PCs that are much more powerful in brute terms than a 360, chocked on GTAIV. As long as a multiplatform has not the same technical proficiency as the best exclusive games, it means that there's still room for optimization.

And let's face it, games like Uncharted and KZ2 proved that multiplatform engines have a long way to catch up on the PS3.