Darth Tigris said:
theprof00 said:
Darth Tigris said:
theprof00 said:
Cobretti2 said:
I never said anything about the console sales. Just the fact that he thinks it is over looked.
Who is exactly over looking it? THe companies that are pretty much in Microsoft's pockets?
So multi platform games start out on the 360? big deal. They are still great games. Instead of looking at review scores because it got HALF a less point how about you just enjoy them like I do and play the game.
Your mentally already hating the game because it got 9 instead of a 9.5.
Honestly you guys need to just accept it. or how about you stop playing your PS3 for 3months and go get a Wii and enjoy the VAST AWESOMENESS that 3rd parties put on Wii haha. Then when you return to the PS3 you will NOT think the same. a multi platform game with a score 0.5 less out of 10 that the 360 will be great to you.
|
Just stop.
Look at Bayonetta on ps3 one month ago. Your argument is so flawed and you are trivializing a VERY "big deal".
|
I'm still trying to understand the problem. This isn't 2007. The PS3 not only has a ton of exclusives that Sony negotiated or bought the devs outright, but it also gets a huge number of multiplatform titles that are available on the 360. And, with the rare exception (Bayonetta and ...), they are usually identical and have been for the last couple of years.
So basically when we hear PS3 fans complaining about not having games on their console or not having every single multiplatform game be equal or superior, it sounds like the rich kid complaining that his mom bought him a black Porsche instead of a red one ...
|
The only reason you still lack enlightenment is because you think this is the only reason, but even in your justification there are flaws. Bayonetta, half life 2, fallout 3. Those are 2 GOTYs and a AAA game doing very very poorly on the ps3. You say, it's like a matter of car color, but I'm sorry, it really really really isn't.
Continuing on my point, it's not just about what console is the lead platform or which looks ever slightly better. It's about the number of games that come to the system, it's about selling as many as possible so that costs go down which trickles down to the customer in a price drop. It's about more income for exclusive developers to make more AAA quality games that we enjoy. Every ps3 fan should care about how many ps3s are sold, and so should every other console owning gamer.
|
I think you misunderstood my car analogy. ITS A FREAKIN' PORSCHE!!!!!!!!! Instead of looking at what the PS3 doesn't have, how about enjoying what it does? If those 3 games never came to the PS3, it would still have a fantastic lineup of games. You sound like a big whiner. Not saying you are but that's what you're portraying here and, frankly, its not very flattering.
I agree about console sales, though, and even MORE about software sales and online revenue (PSN would've been better if they copied XBL more and just charged for it; SCE would be raking in more money). An informed console owner should want the manufacturerer of their console(s) to be profitable more than anything, even install base.
|
haha it's utterly hilarious how you say that I sound like a whiner because I spent 60$ on a piece of shit half life 2 port. Your solution: Don't play those GOTY games! Brilliant.
And no, profitability is not the name of the game. Sustainability is.
