DongHungLong said:
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? |
You realize I'm not actually arguing that BioShock wasn't moneyhatted, correct? I agree, it likely was, which makes almost all of this post moot.
But why isn't the same suspicion raised about Crysis? Crysis is a PC game, with very similar architecture to the 360. A 360 version is rumored to be in the works, but it's released later on, which makes no sense... unless there was money involved.
Again, I'm not arguing that Bioshock wasn't moneyhatted. That's irrelevant. When the 360 gets a significant exclusive, it's automatically assumed to be a moneyhat. So I'm asking this question: given that the PS3 actually has a lower install base and sells less software, why don't we assume the same for the PS3?
Because Sony is magical and everyone wants to give them exclusives out of the kindness of their hearts?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">







