Real marketing > Internet hype

Euphoria14 said: We are fake gamers. We buy our PS3's for BluRay only. We like to hype, not play. etc... I am just surprised at how many times we see a "Sony fails at this", "PS3 fans this", "PS3 is doomed", etc. thread yet where are all the anti-MS threads at? Where is the "Star Ocean 4 is a flop" threads? What makes this worse is that everyone seems to think the PS3 fans are the worst. The biggest crime they commit is hyping their games.

We have to keep in mind that this is mainly an american site, and these days, after the PS2 domination, most americans who are hardcore gamers, went for the Xbox 360 as their console of choice.

So we have american hardcore gamers promoting their console, often times in a fanboyish manner, which even happens to be a creation of their own country. This results in the constant hate and bashing we see toward Sony and the PlayStation brand these days. As I have said before though, it's hypocritical since just a mere 2 or 3 years ago they probably would have been drooling over anything PS2 related.

People in general have selective and short term memory only if it provides them with a sense of comfort.

As opposed to all the stupidity Sony has pulled like "last-gen = rumble," $600 price tag, "power of teh cell," and no BC-skus.

No, I don't think people need help from old-fashioned nationalism to be negative about Sony.  Sony gives them plenty of reasons on its own.

Blu Ray perhaps. Maybe 15% of PS3 owners mainly use the machine as a movie player and attach rate becomes smaller.

Also, Little Big planet is a type of game that sells over a long period of time.

And Killzone 2 was kinda late to the game, being released 2.5 years after Gears of wars. In that long time there have been so many other shooters to choose from for PS3 owners already.

Uncharted has so many shooter elements that it can be categorized as a shooter. Same for GTA and to some degree MGS as well.

Sony has provided them with plenty of reasons for that, I agree. But that is in the past and the company has taken quite a few steps to distance itself from that arrogant stance of 2/3 years ago.

What you have now, is the beating of a dead horse by a gang of rabid fanboys that don't know how to stop or even recognize that they should because things have changed. The detail here is, the horse is not dead, but rather just limping and in recovery of the wound.

Only people who consider that game a "shooter" are the uninformed. Sorry no offense.

Find me a gaming site that has it classfied under "3rd Person Shooter" and not "Action/Adventure".

^this. I don't know how many times we have to reiterate the same thing again and again....

Generalizing the population of one subset of consumers to a related, but different other subset, without hard facts to support that generalization, is a fallacy of debate...a logic flaw that may support your argument, but honestly makes it no stronger.

IF the top 10 games for the 360 were 90% shooters and 20% shooters for the PS3, maybe you'd have an argument. A 60%-50% split is hardly definitive evidence though, particularly as Killzone 2 will probably be a top 10 PS3 game soon enough.

In fact, a larger install base, by definition lends itself to more diversity, while the smaller one would tend to be more homegeneous, good reasons why the PS2 had such a diverse install base (and the original XBOX had such a "shooter" centric one).

It's all my fault. I have a PS3 and I didn't buy those two games but to be fair I never hyped them either.