MARCUSDJACKSON said:
jarrod said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
jarrod said:
KillerMan said:
jarrod said:
I actually agree with you Puggs, passing NES in 2011 and (if handled right) GBA eventually seems really doable for 360. Microsoft's done a fantastic job this gen imo.
|
Though Sony completely screwing up PS3 launch also helped greatly. Still of course they also have done great job.
|
To be fair, if 360 hadn't existed, PS3 would be in an even worse position now. PS3 really did ride 360's coattails and get a ton of ports upfront, and the sustained "HD platform" ensured software support kept coming in the face of Wiimageddon. If 360 wasn't around, how much 3rd party support do you think PS3 would be seeing today?
|
considering the way 3rd parties suport the Wii now PS3 would be in a better position, but still not passing Wii.
|
lol, no. For example without 360, there'd be no MT Framework (as there'd have been no need at Capcom for a cross-console multi-thread engine/toolset), Dead Rising would've been a PS2 game as originally intended (Lost Planet too maybe) and after RE4 Wii's projection busting sales, RE5 likely would've been a Wii game. And that's just Capcom's engine, imagine how UE3 would've turned out without 360 driving the console push and the ramifications that'd bring for the hundreds of developers who licensed it.
Honestly, without 360 to lay the HD groundwork, PS3 would've seen a fraction the support it saw and continues to see. More likely developers would've held off next gen as long as possible and just doubled down on PS2, eventually (and more easily) transitioning to Wii when they couldn't hold out ay longer.
|
so ur saying Sony could have waited 1 or 2 yrs long then they already had to release PS3 and had a more succeeful laungch at a more reasonable price point and maybe even had the games you just mentiond as exclusive launch titles, and taking less of a loss on PS3, and PS2 would have still continued to sell like it was selling i guse while getting any game launched on Wii as multi plattform titles if not them staying exclusive to PS2. the diff between Wii and PS2 is motion controles.
i think i agree with that. long story short is that ur saying Sony would have had more time to wait if there was no MS or 360, and Sony would still be on top taking a loss, but not as big as the one they where taking.
specutation isn't an argument srry.
|
No, I'm saying fewer 3rd parties would've bet on "HD" before the generation even started. I'm sure PS3 would've still seen some choice support and a lot of upfront commitments (stuff like MGS4, FFXIII, etc), but the advantages in support and technology that 360 laid the groundwork for wouldn't have been there, and that would've had devastating effects on PS3 overall given it's own market stumbles early on. It's not like PS3 would still have the same library it does now, only exclusive... a ton of the "HD games" more likely would've ended up on PS2, Wii, the handhelds or PC only instead.
PS3's first year also would've looked a lot more like 360's first year (ie: relatively empty with lots of upscaled PS2/Xbox ports). Without 360, I also doubt a lot of traditionally PC devs (Bioware, Infinity Ward, Bethesda, id, Epic, Valve, etc, etc) would've waded quite so far into the console space either.
