The fact remains that Killzone 2 is the best looking game ever released on a console, and the 360 has nothing that comes close (except Gears of War 2)

This, too. And IGN used to be evil demons from hell when they gave Wii Music a 5/10, and then they gave The Conduit an 8.6 and they are suddenly almighty reviewers and the only ones worth trusting anymore.

the ps3 boys do the same thing.

killzone 2 review from edge - http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=59691

infamous from eurogamer - http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=73306

infamous gets a 60 = http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=74077

@bm, crysis and gears of war. there is no giant leap like we were lead to belive.

This thread is proof his article speaks truth. I've never seen the leader in 3rd place. I bought a PS3 and like it, but couldn't see spending more than $300 for it. At $599? It would have still been on the shelf.

Folks in here defending Sony and the PS3 will never see the errors of the console. They blame the consumers for not seeing the value in the system. They blame developers like Valve who are too lazy to make a superior, PS3 version of multiplats - and even grin devilishly when a timed 360 exclusive hits the PS3.

Looking for positive PS3 news? How about PS3 news? Most of it is bad and if you want pro-Sony, pro-PS3 news, get an RSS feed to your propaganda of choice. It's in 3rd place, and will doggone near take buying MS to stop the momentum the 360 has. The Wii proved it can overcome a year headstart. The PS3 hasn't and I seriously, IMHO, doubt it ever will overcome the 360.

Activision should make good on their threat - and see how bad Sony begs them to come back.

OP: Excellent post. I enjoyed reading it. You would think Sony would have learned their lesson on arrogance. They haven't.

I already conceded to Crysis because it's on the PC (even though the CryEngine runs better on PS3 than 360, but that's another story)

But Gears of War???? I lol'd

@madskillz

I see the error in the PS3. It was too expensive. Plain and simple. Had it launched at $400, then the hype behind it would have carried it to infinity and beyond. But at $600 and the same games as the 360, not that many people would've wanted it. That much is obvious. It's not a matter of "blaming the consumers for not seeing the value". They only don't buy the console because it's too much money. A fair analogy, not that many people own Ferrari's, but many own a Honda Accord. Why? It's cheaper. Both things go from point A to point B. They both need oil checks, tune ups, tire changes, etc...but the Ferrari is more expensive. And many people know why it's more expensive...but they still don't buy it because it costs more. There are advantages to owning a Ferrari over an Accord, but to some, they don't want to pay that much to get it. Now if the Ferrari was $20,000, or at least at price parity with the Accord, what car do you think more people would buy?

And the thing with Valve isn't a matter of blaming. They are supposed to be "the greatest developers in the world" (as hailed by 360 fans)....but when it comes to the PS3, they simply say "this is too hard, I don't wanna do it". Not because "we won't make any money in this investment, so it isn't wise" (for example, not putting Modern Warfare on the Wii because Activision doesn't believe the demographic is there for that game) but because "it's too hard" and "too difficult". So much for being great developers huh? And the only reason, and I mean ONLY reason PS3 fans "grin devilishly" when a 360 game comes to the PS3 is because this ENTIRE generation has been nothing but M$ going "look guys, we get these Playstation games too, you can come play our system now" and now the mass public thinks that it's pointless to get a PS3 because "that game is just going to end up on the 360 anyway". They have brainwashed a lot of people into thinking that, so now, despite having INCREDIBLE games come out from the 1st party and still getting great 3rd party exclusives, the loss of things like GTA, Final Fantasy, DMC, etc outweigh everything else because they were big, established franchises. And many people think to broad. Since GTA went to the 360....the PS3 "has no games" to some still. Maybe not on this forum, but I remember when I bought GTAIV, I was at the midnight launch, and I heard some townie saying "there's no point in buying a PS3. It has the same games as the 360, but it is more expensive". Any smart person would know that the PS3 has a lot of unique and great games that distinguish it from everything else.

But anyway, it's Sony's turn with getting the games from the 360. It's only going to be a matter of time before people start looking at the 360 and saying "it's just going to end up on the Playstation anyway". But I guess it won't happen that fast because the 360 was the underdog, getting all the big names from the German Shepard that ran the yard. But now that the PS3 is in last place, it's the underdog taking all the big names...because if I recall correctly, the PS3 has the 360's highest rated exclusive: Bioshock

And let Activision make good on their threat. Lose the potential sales from 22M PS3 owners, 120+ million PS2 owners, and 50M PSP owners...that'd be smart

/rant

I think fellow members may be a little rash in their fervor to discount the threat from Activision as being so much hot air. The more I contemplate it the more I see that it is a very real option. More to the point it might actually be the best move. Especially in the long term for the company. More to the point this is exactly how you would go about doing it. Give Sony forewarning publicly so that you can say we gave them a chance. Then when they do not salvage the situation you have full justifiability for your actions.

I read the same argument a dozen times in this thread. The threat is empty there is no way they would walk away from that much money. Short term absolutely they would lose some capitol, but companies do not think just in those terms. They have to position themselves long term. In that sense they would actually probably generate more profit by doing so. They reduce their development costs, reduce their turnaround, and limit their exposure to manufacturer exclusivity.

Here is where the common consensus is stumbling. Torpedoing the console is not the same as torpedoing the users of that console. Were Activision to pull the plug the console probably would not last another eight months. Once that happens do those users just stop playing games, or even stop playing your games. Most users are not vengeful fanatics. We know this, because of this console generation they drift where the wind blows them.

Within a year over ninety percent of the PS3 gamers would have purchased another console. Nothing more then a blip really, and Activision does a spectacular job of cutting costs. Plus they actually curtail competition against them. Imagine the losses that Sony software would eat on the way down. Sony is actually a big software player, and at some level is direct competition far more so then Microsoft or even Nintendo.

I think we should be far more concerned about these comments. You should not avert your eyes to omens. There is a basis for Activision following through on these threats. That alone begs the question is it smart for Sony to tempt fate. On the flip side Activision doesn't even have to kill the console. All they need to do is undermine it, and oddly enough comments like this are a first step in the process.

Bottom line is that this is a real option, and shouldn't be labeled as an empty threat. This could be the prelude to Sony being cold cocked. Could even be the last mistake in the console market they would ever make. Never write off threats. There is always the chance that they are the real deal.

Does Cry Engine 3 run better on PS3? All I heard was that in some areas the PS3 version ran better, animation bla bla bla, and some areas the 360 ran better, things like shaders etc.

Your Ferrari analogy is flawed, because people would still buy more Accords at $20k than Ferraris at $20k. Ferraris are unreliable, they cost a lot to insure and maintain and the car itself isn't special if everyone can buy one, also the Ferrari is completely impractical with no boot space, seating for two etc. Furthermore it would chew through at least twice as much gas. Lastly the PS3 is no ferrari, at best its a V6 optioned Camry, people who want absolute performance don't buy PS3s they are slow and mediocre compared to what you can buy when money is no object.

Tell me what incredible games has the PS3 had that set the market ablaze with envy? Aside from Metal Gear Sold 4 I can't think of a single one that was exclusive to the PS3. The Xbox 360 has had Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Halo 3 exclusives two 5M+ sellers and one which almost hit 10M. MGS4 hasn't hit 5M copies sold, and you can measure the impact on the market by units moved. Move units and you've moved the market, move critics without that market support and all you get is a critics circle jerk. The really big games which have moved units have all been multiplat so yes Sony has failed here thus far.

As for Valve, they make games for two platforms already. They have their main PC platform and their Xbox 360 side business. Should I now go and say how Sucker Punch, Insomniac, Kojima productions are lazy because they only target one platform instead of two? If you want to talk about how Valve took cheap shots at the PS3, fine but how long is the list of exclusive developers for the PS3 who have also talked smack? So they've looked at the architecture and decided that its not worth the trouble for them, so what? At least its better than developers who've never touched a 360 development kit saying 'only possible on the PS3'.

It doesn't matter if Xbox 360 games come to the PS3 a year later. The damage is already done if any damage was to be done and since you're a late adopter you're paying $60 when someone could get the same game on the 360 for half to a third of the price. Also those games have a habit of disappearing quickly and never dropping in price because they don't sell. Its paper support, the reality is very different. Those games like GTA IV, Assassins Creed etc were all tipped to be great games to help the PS3 defeat the Xbox 360. People remember those stupid statements and then the payback is reaped. Remember GTAIV is a 5M+ selling game on both platforms, of course people will remember its lost exclusivity as a crippling blow to the PS3, because it WAS.

http://www.psu.com/Crytek--CryEngine-3-will-run-slightly-better-on-PS3-News--a006807-p0.php

I can guarantee you that if money was no object, the PS3 would be outselling the 360 (evidenced by when the PS3 got it's price cut to $400 and was outselling the 360) and that there'd be nothing but high end cars on the road and never some mid-70s beater you bought from some redneck's backyard.

The PS3 doesn't need a 5M+ seller to have a good game. Valkyria Chronicles sold 500k. Mario and Sonic sold 6M. Mario and Sonic is the best game, confirmed?

And once again with the knock on Insomniac and Sucker Punch. What part of "2nd party" don't you get. What part of "Sony funds our games" don't you get. They've built a lasting relationship after many, many years of working together. As for Kojima, #1 he's already stated that with MGS4, he had a vision for the game. A vision that he knew he wouldn't meet on the 360 (being the perfectionist that he is)...and even didn't meet on the PS3. But the PS3 had the most going for that vision, which is why he made it for the PS3. Kojima still has a little thing called honor and dignity, and doesn't go back on his word. Valve? "The PS3 is too hard". End of story for them.

As for developers saying "only possible on PS3". Some of that is hogwash, yes. But most of the time, true. There are some things that can only be done with a Quad Core extreme, as opposed to some cheap AMD processor. But since a dev only works on the Quad...they don't know what they're talking about, and it's just gibberish?

And I never said those games weren't a big loss. What I said is that the majority of people see that since a game like GTAIV went multi, the PS3 is pointless. "How many exclusives will the PS3 lose?" is always the game. Some people even have it in their sigs on this site. But when it's the other way around, and the 360 lost exclusivity of Bioshock, ToV, Dead Rising, Lost Planet, Eternal Sonata, etc...it gets overlooked. A great game is a great game, and it doesn't matter when it comes out. If it's available to the consumer, how is "the PS3 has no games" relevant (I know that people don't say this on this site, but I'm talking about irl). I've even had a friend tell me that the PS3 is a "terrible system for gaming" because of the way things have gone for the 360. That wasn't because the PS3 is actually a terrible gaming system, but because of the stigma of lost exclusives (and price isn't helping either). Now the 360 losing exclusives is always downplayed or damage controlled....

Based off what, so in your immense knowledge of Cryengine 3 you didn't know that the majority of shots in the video were for the Xbox 360, that the shots for the PS3 were using bilinear texture filtering, lower quality reflections and infact all the heavy physics were done on the Xbox 360 version of the engine. The engine itself is lead on the 360 and you're going by some offhanded non definitive comment as proof?

Money is no object? A recent survey put the PS3 as more popular relative to our given market share amongst the poorer households and the Xbox 360 was more popular amongst the richer households. Your concept = blown away.

Valkyria Chronicles may as well not exist for the good it did the PS3 platform. I didn't say Mario and Sonic were better by whatever crazy method you probably use, its better from a market perspective. More people want M+S than they do VC, its a fact. It doesn't matter how much you or your friends prefer VC over M+S they are market fundamentals.

They are 2nd party, they only work on the single platform. Valve works on two, so its perfectly reasonable for them to not work on the PS3 if it means lowering the quality of their work. Furthermore Valve has built a relationship with Microsoft yada yada yada. So 1. Don't criticise them for what they say about the PS3, because the list of PS3 developers who have talked smack is staggering. 2. Don't criticise them for only working on two platforms because theres a longer list of PS3 developers who only work on one platform. 3. Don't call them idiots, because they are better developers than 95% of Sony's stable of 1st party developers. How many games does Sony have with their macho large development teams that have sold over 5M copies?

Most of the time only on the PS3 is true? How about never. Its just semantics in saying that an engine is optimised in such a way that would be impractical on the Xbox 360, it doesn't mean that it could not be done using alternative methods. I know of no software made today which wouldn't run on a dual core AMD but would run on a quad core, not one example exists.

When GTAIV went multiplatform it was an 11M+ selling series which went day and date on the Xbox 360, hell it even ran with higher resolution and framerate along with having exclusive content. Losing exclusivity a year after the fact is meaningless, the games barely sell and any impact of the series has already been made. Bioshock 2 and Lost Planet 2? Any impact they had was in the first iteration which was exclusive at the time. Theres a very good reason to overlook those because it doesn't matter if they hit the PS3. Its not just lost exclusives, most people only game on one system and the Xbox 360 still has a lead on high performing exclusive content so yes it does still exist.

In all likelihood, they never will. You can spin it any way you want, but there are just no good news about the PS3.