| oniyide said: @brendude 2. between you and me, i agree with this and that is how it should be. but lets be real we know there are people out there that dont think like that. How many threads in the past have you read on just this website where people cry and moan about a game not coming to their console of choice. Should they be denied because they have only 1 console?? Some people might not be able to afford more than one console hell some peopel might just be tight wads 3i dont think ME2 is a good example it was a late port and it was full price and i doubt it cost 5 mil to make. As for ME3 all evidence seems to point that the game was being developed with PC PS360 at the same time. 4. exactly, but 3rd parties dont |
2. Yeah I know what you mean, I bought an XBOX 360 to play Gears, a game that suits the console. Same for Nintendo, I bought a Wii to play Mario Galaxy, a game that suits the console. And lastly, I bought a PS3 to play MGS4, a game that suits the console.
The type of people I hate most on the internet, are the people that complain about a game not being on their console. If I buy all three consoles for exclusives, why shouldn't they? If those exclusive games are suited for that platform then there is no excuse. The worst of the bunch are the vicious XBOX 360 JRPG fanboys who believe that every JRPG released should be on their console, despite being one of the worst selling consoles of all time in Japan.
3. I think there was no need to put ME2 on the PS3, it was a major flop in my opinion, if people wanted to play Mass Effect they would have bought an XBOX 360 or just played it on PC. Luckily it wasn't being developed simulataneously, but think of how the long term Mass Effect fans will feel if the PS3 version of ME3 flops, especially after the recent announcement of it being delayed until 2012.
4. So basically, there isn't any incentive for a third party to make exclusives for a system...
