Michael-5 said:
A lot of these 360 timed exclusives were early games that were released in 2006-2007 when the PS3 was very expensive and it's fate was unsure. Games like Lost Planet, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion were launched only when the PS3 was a couple months old, it would have been very difficult to make these game multi-platoform from day 1, and if PS3 did turn out to be a complete failure, then they would developers waste their time working with PS3' complex cell processors? Very few modern 3rd party games go multiplatform. The only 2 I can think of are FFXIII and ME2, so thats 1 for PS3 and 360. This timed exclusive thing only applied to old 360 games, mainly because the PS3's fate was unsure, and developing for it was hard. You can list examples of MS buying timed exclusives, or limited edition bundles, but Sony does the same. Madden NFL 2011, Dead Space, Black Ops, Medal of Honor, Dead Rising 2, etc. Almost every new game now has some limted edition special only available on one console because Sony or MS paid for it to be that way. This isn't a 1 sided thing, stop making it look like one. As for the rest, your just getting insulting, and thats not called for. Online Play, Acheivements/Trophies, Arcade Games, Home Button, the option to buy the console without a hard-drive, allowing to have save games on USB's, HD gaming. Microsoft did it all first, yes at first reliability was terrible, but HDMI models only showed a 2.5% failure rate (compare that to PS3's 1.2% and Nintendo's 0.2%), and I'm sure the Slim models are better. You know before MS, Sony first made unreliable consoles? I never had a broken Nintendo or Sega, or have met anyone who has. Both my PS1 and PS2 broke around the time a successor console came in. Coincidence, or planed obselence? Please leave insults out of this, neither the PS3 nor the 360 are perfect. You know before this generation, a post $300 console was just crazy. $400 on the 360, okay, but $600 on the PS3? Common.. |
Games like Devil may cry, tomb raider and resident evil I suspect were paid to go multiplat, there are probably more of course there is no actual proof of this either way, and I don't really care as much as them paying for games to not go to ps3, and yes they both pay for exclusive content and whatever but it seems like MS forced Sony into it, and even if we call them equally at fault with that Sony has never paid for a game to not be released on 360 and lied about it for a year as for the rest the only one I can give you credit for is the trophies/achievements, not having a harddrive was just MSes way to undercut the price, and then they turn around and sell a harddrive for a ton and make co-op impossible without it and the saving on usb was just to make the no harddrive bearable and yes MS was first to do the rest but they would have been done anyways and the only reason MS did it first was to get a jump on the competition and the put out a console with a massive failrate (I've seen 2 separate unrelated things saying the launch failrate was 68%) and they were also first (and only) to charge for online without giving any extra service
Yes Sony made the first less reliable console but even at their worst I didn't see anything even nearing 20% MS over doubled that with it's failrate, and yes neither are perfect but 360 is far more flawed
