A crumbling tower: Sony lays siege to the 360's weak spots

[Shadowblind]

makingmusic476 said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

Kyros said:

it fails to see that 360 has a much broader library, and more quality exclusives

I had this discussion once and while it is still true that the 360 has a bigger library than the PS3 the advantage is melting fast(in relative terms) and most of the titles are first-year games of questionable quality. (And some pearls like Halo3, Mass Effects and Bioshock of course )

 

I believe I'm the one who had this discussion. If I recall, we both presented very excellent arguments for our perspective sides.

I feel it loses something in the telling, however.

If one was so inclined to rehash such an argument, I would simply point them to my posting history, as reopening such a well argued point would be nothing short of redundancy.

Were I to search ZenfoldorVGI's posting history, I think it would be best to start by searching for the term "Geometry Wars" about two months back, and they will eventually come upon a large list of games not available on the PS3, that are available on the 360. The reading of the thread containing those comments would be the best bet to find well argued expression on both sides.

Now, as for the argument that the PS3's library is catching up, in a way, I agree. Soon, the sheer number of available games for both consoles will make the absolute number of those older non-PS3 games seem to be only a small percentage of those available. However, this advantage is actually a magicians trick of scaling. Its number should remain fairly absolute. I feel the PS3 and 360 are recieving games not available on a competing home console at a nearly identical rate, or perhaps the 360 is even getting games slightly faster.

I normally don't agree with using metacritic or gamerankings to prove library, and I'm not doing so here. Instead I'm only putting it up for consideration that I feel it is very unlikely that the PS3 will ever catch the 360 in percieved advantage based on metacriric or gamerankings, respecitively, on the front of sheer avaialble games above "x" percentage score. That's a fairly common assumption that this article fails to mention, despite its assertion that MS is losing in the games race due to PS3 exclusives, which is by and fact, absolutely ludicrious.

I thinik it's inevitable that the ps3's library will surpass the 360's in terms of exclusives (even though this is a very subjective argument).

The majority of Sony's exclusives come from it's own first parties.  The majority of the 360's exclusives come from third parties, many of which go multiplat after any exclusivity contracts have ended (like Eternal Sonata and Bioshock).

While MS does have some first and second parties, they have actually been getting weaker in this regard over the past year.  BioWare was bought by EA, Bizarre has been bought by Activision, and Team Ninja is now defunct (though MS only published Ninja Gaiden II for Team Ninja, they were Xbox exclusive for all intents and purposes).  All the while Sony continues to grow their own first parties, as shown through their aquisition of Evolution Studios early last year.

Things are not looking so rosey on the MS side of things.

 

 Right now, I could say the exact same thing on the opposite side. microsoft is probably saving more money by getting thrid parties it seems then using first parties to make games. therefore they can easily pay for more 3rd party games.

When i see any evidence of this "inevitability", I'll let you all know. until then, I tend not to leave things like this up to chance.