| Mad55 said: what only using ff 13 and resonance of fate isnt fair as there are other jrpgs that are multiplat thatsold better on the 360 than the ps3. You may say some were late ports to the ps3 but i feel that if people want it theyll get it. and i chose those games because he was talking as if ps3 jrpgs sell just all great on the ps3 when all of them dont. and just because a creator of a series makes a new franchise doesnt mean people are gonna flock to it. and your asking me why dont i bring out games like demon souls and valkyrie chronicles because its known that they sold good im trying to prove to him that there are good selling rpgs on the 360 and that players appreciate them and that the ps3 isnt just the only place jrpgs should be. |
It's not "some were late ports" it's "all were late ports". You don't find it telling about year old ports that the only two multiplat jRPGs that sold on both consoles at the same time sold significantly better on PS3 while late ports tend to sell worse? Of course people will lose interest after a year (I'm guilty of that myself for SO4) and multiple console owners will obviously go with 360 over PS3. It's an obvious advantage to get a timed exclusive as far as sales go, to deny that is ridiculous.
Now I agree with your last sentence, but you certainly aren't going about proving it the correct way. Here I'll help:
"I admit that jRPGs do as a trend sell better on PS3 than on 360 but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a fanbase for jRPGs on the 360 as seen for games like LO, TLR, and BD, and even multiplats sell reasonable amounts." Now you won't be making filacious arguments about how late ports don't affect sales or one sidedly talking about dissapointing sales of these games on one console but not the other. It's just a true statement.
...
