By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
evolution_1ne on 13 September 2010
Edit Thread
Michael-5 said:
evolution_1ne said:
Michael-5 said:
jarrod said:
CGI-Quality said:

You still have yet to learn that a mega franchise isn't what kept Sony going all this time. It's always just been about qthe quantity of titles to play and the variety it brings. PS3 is no different and GT5 will be the icing on the cake, not the lacking, "mega-hit" after thought.

I dunno... variety was certainly instrumental in the rise of PS1, and PS2 maintaing that growth, but games Like Final Fantasy VII or Grand Theft Auto III were events in the history of the medium.  PS3 really hasn't had anything remotely similar to that, no singular killer app that really drives the platform and sets the tone for the generation, and at the same time we've seen PS3 fumble massively with the brand and legacy.  No single console has ever lost as much marketshare, userbase or money as PS3 has... if PS3 had a FFVII or GTA3 already, maybe things would've turned out differently?

Exactly! You also should realize that within a year of it's EMEAA and Americas launch, PS2 had GTA III, FF X, GT3, ICO, and Twisted Metal Black all exclusive. 3 killer games and two well received exclusives to boost. PS3 only had Resistance at launch, a couple underdeveloped low rated games as well (Liar, Heavenly Sword, etc), and in 2008 all it really got was Uncharted which really wasn't that spectacular. PS3 has it's share of great games, but nothing killer yet, and it hurts.


oh please the ps3 lost market share, lost money and userbase ONLY because it launched at 600 dollars, if it was affordable at launch all the good but not great games you keep saying just doesn't have it would be mega franchises, price and ONLY price hurt the ps3 this gen.

X-Box 360 launched for $400, and it did fine, I know it's still a difference of $200, but do you really think thats the only reason PS3 sales didn't pick up? I mean PS2's were also selling for several hundred dollars at launch due to limited productions initially, so it wasn't really that different.

I mean you don't think the lack of quality titles in 2007 affected sales? Maybe HD DVD competing with Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray being put onto the market too early? However didn't a lot of people buy a PS3 since it could be used as a cheap Blu-Ray player? I know a few people who bought a PS3 in 2007 for the sole purpose of movies, and still have no games.

Are you really that nieve to beleive that the price was the only reason for it's slow pick up? I mean the 3 big reasons why people buy a PS3 now (In Americas) is Games, Blu-Ray, and Price. Why ignore games near launch?

You have to blaime games at the start. PS3 did not have the initial software linup the PS2 had, and compeditors had a better lineup (360 had Gears of War, Halo 3, Lost Planet, Oblivion (timed), Halo, Bioshock(timed), Mass Effect, Project gotham Racing 3 and 4, Forza Motorsport 2, Dead or Alive 4, Prey, Battlestations: Midway, Condemned, Fight Night Round 3 (timed), GRAW 1-2, Ace Combat 6 and many other exclusives just by the end of 2007. PS3 only had Uncharted, Resistance, Folklore, Warhawk, Virtua Fighter 5 (timed) and Motorstorm by then. I honestly off the top of my head cannot think of any other 8/10 or greater exclusive for PS3 in 2007 or prior.

Also multiplatform games looked noticably better on the 360 then the PS3 back then (look at ProStreet, Madden, Assassin's Creed, CoD 3 & 4, Burnout Paradise, etc) despite PS3 claiming superior power.

Not only was PS3 overpriced, but in 2007 it was an inferior platform, never has a Sony platform been inferior gamewise to it's compeditors, especially at launch.


so you think if the ps3 was 300 dollars like every other playstation at launch it would have done anything similar???

no sir 600 dollars and 600 dollars alone was the reason, as for lauch line up's see ps2 vs dreamcast laucnh line-ups. also check the price for both.....

ps3 claiming superior power.... uhhh it is more powerful, developers not knowing how to program it though...yeah me thinks that was the multiplat problem, and also lol at your 360 line up list, how long was it on the market compared to the ps3...........yeah, nice try though.

but I'm pretty sure if the ps3 was 300 at lauch it would have raped fucking face with the same games it had. but the ps3 could never be 300 at launch for obvious reasons so it suffered. claiming it was the games is just something fanboys tell themselves so they can sleep at night. especially those who say it was the games over the price.

question you think the 360 with it's FAR superior line up would still be ahead of the ps3 if it was 300 at launch?

you do know if you align launches of the 2 consoles ps3 is ahead right, and thats with a crappy launch line up compared to 360 games at the time, and costing 200-100 dollars more than the 360 this entire generation, just food for thought.