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

And this is my main point. It's not that one console is inferior to the other. It's that developers have to spend the time to do it right on both and almost always one ends up being slight to greatly off compared to the other. Id rather my X360 or PS3 game were even just 5% or 10% better for not having the team waste their time making a 5% or 10% inferior game on the other system.

Yes, but isn't that very selfish to those poor 1 system only owners who just want to get a chance to play the AAA title, or to Square, who probably needs the money for Verses, or to gaming in general, which will miss out on a generation defining title, because it's lost to exclusive obscurity?

Isn't it?

To me you are just arguing that there should only be one console because if all games are on all systems then there is no need to have more than one system. People choose a console for a reason, one of those reasons is because of the exclusive games that can be had on the system. Unless they can do it right (multi-plat) they shouldn't do it at all. People who only bought the PS3 made a choice and that choice means not being able to play Halo 3. It's the choice they made. X360 owners are better for it because the studio was able to focus all its time on making a great game. 

Is Square gonna make up for the time and money that they spent making the X360 version? How many people would have bought the PS3 version if FFXIII was an exclusive? How many people are going to buy the X360 version? How much did they have to cut out of the game because they had to split resources between the two version? 



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.