Jay520 said:
Mr Khan said:
Jay520 said:
The PS3 didn't take a beating for releasing a year late. It took a beating because of the high price, lack of good games (compared to other systems), and difficulty to develop for.
|
Aye, and that last one was a loss due to their late release. If they had released concurrently, PS3 would have had third party parity with 360 from the beginning, or very soon after. Instead, with this comparatively easier system that they had a whole extra year to learn about, 360 was able to hold the 3rd party edge for quite some time. 360's large lead in sales also crippled PS3 in that many brands that were known for being PS brands, even early on like GTA or Devil May Cry, went multiplat
PS3 launching a year earlier would've come with its own problems, but it would've solved the early software problems that plagued PS3
|
I thought the PS3 was difficult to develop for because of some cell or something while the 360 had similar architecture to the PS2. The PS3 was difficult to develop for because Sony made it that way. correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about tech.
If Sony makes the PS4 similar to the PS3 then the first party will make good games because they're used to the PS3.
As for the Brands, The PS4 won't lose many exclusives because nearly all of the exclusives on the PS3 were owned by Sony. unlike the PS2 where the biggest exclusives were 3rd party.
|
Yes, but the PS2 was known to be comparatively difficult to develop for in its time. What put it over the Xbox and GameCube was its extra time on the market. Given time, developers could have overcome that initial difficulty (remember that the earliest 360 titles were rather lacklustre as well, compared to the kinds of games that routinely come out now) in a manner more similar to the 360. They have overcome that difficulty, but in that gap of third party software, the 360 became the go-to console for both developers and gamers
Time is the critical component.
