Maynard_Tool said:
Where did I get that from lets see.....
For you it didnt matter that they lost billions, as long as they had third party support.... which they ALREADY HAD. But wait.... all that third party support was exclusive for the ps2 on the last gen, but it doesnt matter if the ps3 lost a few exclusives right? Yes, I guess that was Sony´s plan all along. Lost market share but got MORE support? Are you high, they didnt get more support on the ps3 that the one they already had on the Ps2. Remember, back at the ps2 they got the most support from third parties I can actually remember right now. So going by your logic....Sony is fine with losing marketshare (which they bragged with the ps2, but suddendly is not important with the ps3, right?) losing billions, and losing exclusive games which helped the ps2 destroyed the competition. It makes so much sense right now, I was blind a minute ago, but I can see the light now. Oh thank you lord and now for your question, difference between ps2 and ps3; Well ps2 had all the third party exclusives which helped it become the leader market by a LOT. They didnt cause Sony to lose billions, so Sony was doing great financially too. It was welcomed between gamers and non gamers; just a few things to point out
|
viva los cherry picking
most 3rd parties hated the ps3 from the start, many of the major one's often rejected it completely
and I never said they were ok with it, I'm comparing the ps3 to it's competitors, you see in gaming, market share would determine your performance and how your supported right, except this gen, that has been proven to be bullshit (see Nintendo wii's 30 million unit lead that most the industry didn't give a single fuck about)
What did Sony show this gen: you don't need market share nor do you need massive billions to effect your business, to Sony that stuff was icing on the cake, remember they made the ps3! they knew it had no chance of penetrating the market like the ps2, they knew it was going to lose a lot of money, and they knew it was going to be hard to develop for yet they still did it. I mean I find it baffling how people keep bringing up the loses as some profound thing that was totally unexpected, "OMG you guys guess what I just figureded out, consoles sold at a missive loss.....lose money O_O *and the crowd goes "NOOO WAY! REALLY"*!!!
you can only judge a console based on what it could realistically and logically do, and under those circumstances the ps3 did amazing, it's a console that cost 600 dollars and is still here, currently leading the home console market, and received a ton of support, what more could you ask for?
you guys just have to accept that Sony was fine with that, but then how could the ps3 be a failure, forums would be baron wastelands (except for Sony fans) you'd have nothing to look forward to....except the next 2D Mario lol
"and now for your question, difference between ps2 and ps3; 1. Well ps2 had all the third party exclusives which helped it become the leader market by a LOT. 2. They didnt cause Sony to lose billions, so Sony was doing great financially too. 3.It was welcomed between gamers and non gamers; just a few things to point out"
1. the ps3 also had and still gets 3rd party exclusives so who care if it's market leader or not, that won't change the game at all so why does it matter
2. you got me there it didn't lose money, ps3 still got a ton of support regardless but that's true...
3. lol it's ironic becasue casual games on ps2 did no better than they did on ps3, but there's a deeper meaning behind why you said that isn't it, I feel sorry for you guys man, really I do
