By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Khuutra said:
JamesCizuz said:

"The gaps to large!"

Are you serious? 68 weeks on the market, it's also on the PC. Most people who wanted it, bought it. Most people who had a 360 and PS3 or a PC that could run it, would already have it for the 360 or 360 so why pick it up when it comes out for the PS3 when they already have it? People wanting it now will look at both, 360 version being 30$ cheaper. God sometimes you people make me want to kill myself.

Timed exclusives, or exclusives that later become multiplatform will always do worse on the platform it comes on next.

Oh, and I should'nt be saying exclusive, bioshock was always multiplatform.

Again, Resident Evil 4 stands as a stalwart counter to this argument. It has to do with markets, and the shooter market on the PS3 just doesn't compare to that of the 360.

 

Point out where in the arguement I said the shooter market is better on the PS3 then the 360.

I never said that.

Maybe you should re-read what I said.

30% of PS3 owners have a 360. If they had a 360 when bioshock came out and never got it then, then why wouldn't they get it for 360 now since they have one and it would be the cheaper version?

 

Oh, and wow, you found one game as a counter. To bad that was bait I left for you. Everyone knows you don't go into a arguement in this style with one exception. Exceptions always exist. I could bring up the fact that burnout paradice sold more on 360 then ps3, even though 360 is known for racing and has a larger atache rate, or that UT3 sold better on PS3 then 360. Exceptions exist, but who cares? My arguement remains the same and is right.