Lost Planet confirmed for PS3, but does anyone care?

[Final-Fan]

HappySquirrel said:
You (probably) shouldn't do a direct comparison of the systems with aligned launches on a worldwide basis to make any conclusions. The PS3 has 3 regions it can sell in (remember most third parties are regional) as compared to two for the XBox 360, the XBox 360 lived in 'the shadow' of the PS3 (and was bashed for being too expensive by Sony fans) until E3 2006, the XBox 360 was supply limited through a large portion of 2006 whereas the PS3 has been readily available since soon after launch, the PS3 has had a 1 Million unit boost from their launch in Europe, and the PS3 is much later to market meaning it has to catch up.

It's true that the PS3 and 360 have had very different early lives, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the PS3 has had a big sales advantage due to a much smaller period of shortage. All I have to go on are imprecise memories but I recall that the 360 was out of "shortage" status by March at the latest, which I would not characterize as "a large portion" of the year. PS3 was in shortage status until January IIRC. Also, Europe didn't get the PS3 AT ALL until the following March, which is one hell of a shortage compared to the 360 launching only ten days later there compared to the US. (18 days later in Japan, but who cares?)

Finally, you can't assume that developers will choose to release a game to the PC, XBox 360 and PS3; the PS3 has a very different architecture, different APIs (XBox 360 and Windows XP/Vista have most games developed in DirectX), and has a much smaller userbase and is selling far slower in the regions where PC games sell well.

I honestly have no idea if this is true, but I do want to know. Evidence plz?

On top of that the PC gaming market is both growing and shrinking, small budget "casual" games with graphics similar to Wii games have been steadily growing for about a decade whilst big budget "Hard-core" games with high end graphics have been steadily shrinking for about a decade; the general consensus is that people don't see the value in spending $500 for a graphics card to play the same games anymore.

Really? I thought that the graphics were much more simplistic than that in the exploding casual genre for PC. As for the graphics card argument, I think it's true that graphics are hitting diminishing returns on PC much harder than on consoles, but the "$500" remark is not as true; unless you INSIST on being able to play the absolutely newest, most graphically demanding game in existence (currently Crysis AFAIK) and at the highest possible settings, a $150 card can do wonders nowadays. And that is partially because having psychotically demanding games seems to be a kind of badge of honor among certain developers.