By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DongHungLong on 05 March 2008
Edit Thread
Bodhesatva said:
starcraft said:

Only rumours on both counts.

Essentially Crysis comes to the PS3 in the Northern Hemisphere's winter, to follow on the Xbox 360 sometime after.

Furthermore, Gameguru and PSX claim that Bioshock 2 will remain Xbox 360 exclusive like it's fantastic predecessor, indicating that Microsoft probably shelled out money for said exclusivity.

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/2679.html

I just love this logic.

Crysis a timed exclusive for the PS3? Alright. Sounds possible.
Bioshock 2 a 360 exclusive? Clearly an MS moneyhat!

Or more directly: why do they instantly pull out the moneyhat accusations for the Bioshock 2 rumor, but no similar rumors accompany a timed exclusivity for Crysis? Because MS is such an enormously succesful company, I feel they get the raw end of the stick when it comes to financial accusations. Whenever they secure a major exlusive, there is instantly talk about moneyhatting, while any announced PS3/Wii exclusives are seen as business as usual -- deserved spoils of war.

The 360 is still selling substantially more software on than the PS3, for goodness sakes.


I just love your logic...

Bioshock was clearly going to come to the PS3 and something happened. They even founds of references to the PS3 within its files. PS3 is pulling its weight in software sales for IP's that are high profile anymore especially in every place that isn't the US. Everyones argument about PS3 games staying exclusive to the PS3 is the fact that "360's install base means extra revenue" well the PS3 is at that point where its "install base means extra revenue" especially with a title that is again high profile.  So "WHAT" exactly happened if it wasn't a moneyhat?