| DMeisterJ said: Dizzy... too much spin. It's not unrealistic to ask for something extra for a port. When Third parties make PS3 games come out later, Sony should make them pay somehow. Extra modes or improvements give incentive for people to buy a game later, rather than buy it cheap on the 360 if they were the same. It's called making sure that the game doesn't flop for penny-pinching consumers. Cause if the game then flopped, the blame would be on sony, not the porting of an old game to the PS3 with no content. I don't see what the problem is. |
Are you serious? "Sony should make them pay somehow?" Sony has cost third parties millions of dollars in extra development costs due to making a system that is difficult to develop for and fraught with bottle-necks. At the end of the day, if third parties believe their game is good enough to be bought on the PS3 after other versions have already come out (say for example, the difference between Bioshock and Alone in the Dark), why should Sony force them to incur even MORE costs than they already have due to the console manufacturer's poor strategy?
Overwhelmingly, any extras included on PS3 versions of game's arn't announced until AFTER the Xbox 360 and PC versions are released (in many cases the PS3 version itself isn't announced), so you're incentive announcement falls flat. It IS Sony's fault that small and mid-sized developers struggle to maintain PS3 development cycles versus the other two platforms, developers and consumers (who lose games when developers cannot afford to produce extras) shouldn't be forced to lose out even more to save Sony's pride.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
