Michael-5 said:
mantlepiecek said:
Michael-5 said:
d21lewis said:
I will post one more thing before I let this whole argument die:
Xbox 360 exclusive FPS franchises:
-Halo -Left 4 Dead
-Uhh......
(and if we're just talking shooters, we could toss in Gears of War)
PS3 Exclusive FPS Franchises:
-Resistance
-Killzone
-M.A,G.
-(and if we're talking shooters, we could arguably toss in Socom and Uncharted)
And that's it. I'm done. |
Yea, I'm done too, but I just want to populate that list.
Wow damn, you are right. People here just label 360 due to the mass success of Halo and Gears. Just because Killzone and Resistance aren't as good/popular, doesn't change the demograph.
|
It does. Demographic is the audience. Even with more no. of fps franchises, we buy less.
|
Maybe PS3 is just lacking good FPS's, and maybe 360 is lacking good Action Adventure games? I'm sure if Halo was a PS3 exclusive it would still outsell Killzone and Resistance combined x 2. I bet InFamous would match sales on 360 too.
It's not so much of what people buy, it's what developers make. MP games generally sell better on 360 then PS3, regardless of genre. If Sony made more quality FPS's, up to the quality of Halo and Gears, they would sell more. Simple as that.
|
remember quality is an opinion of how a game looks, fills, and plays.
i find it funny how i personaly hate every halo except reacg and most halo fans around me say reach is the worst.
quality can be proven but only for the games we actualy know suck, but not games that get low sells.
as a owner or back catalog of every sony ps3 ip except lair and white night chronicals that should tell you only 2 games that sony published suck'd. lair still sounds cool and i may pick it up in the end.
in the end its all about appeal. if you change the word from quality to appeal then u'd be right as rain.
