Since I own all consoles and I play most games  I reply. (im not a Sony gamer in the sense that I only play sony consoles)

Simple answer I would not buy those games.  I actually wait for most games no matter how good they are to hit something like 40  because 60 is to much IMHO. If they are on PC  I usually avoid the console version because console versions feel so "restricted" (mods etc)

I would not buy old games for my new system either unless they have the price the competitions version has.

And I totally ignore every game no matter what (Assassins Creed 3 for example) when the devs cant be bothered to have at least 30 frames per second. Its not okay to have crap like 22 fps  or games like Castlevania Lords of Shadow that sometimes hits 14 fps on 360. Single dips below 30 are okay but when there is complete areas that are below 30 fps  its a crap game.

I usually only buy exclusives anyway or niche titles (artistic, innovative etc)    most third party games are way to mainstreamy they are completely generic and since there are to many of those and they will drop in price anyway I just dont buy them since there is no hurry to do so.


For me old or inferior ports(on better hardware)  or games with bad framerate are a no-go.  Every game that gets alot of DLC also is because I know a GOTY edition will come out so I will wait to pick that up. (if no goty comes out within 2 years  I get the game for cheap.)

I am a person that wants gaming to be something special and I hate that it became mainstream. Chances are big that if a game gets a commercial I never would play it. (and Activision EA and Ubisoft games are very rare in my collection for any system)  Im more of a SNES era gamer most stuff I own is Japanese.

If the PS4 got very poor third party support, I'd be pretty angry at SONY for not throwing their weight around and doing all they can to make their platform the best it can be. Just as I mostly blame SONY for the Vita's situation now.

So you're saying that the PS3 only had lackluster ports in its first year on the market? Did the PS3 get the 3rd game of a 6th gen trilogy while the GC/PS2/XB got the trilogy?

The problem with this question is that the PS4 and the Wii U are fundamentally different with regard to intent.

 The PS4 is designed to be a console that attracts third-party publishers and developers. It was created with ease of development in mind. They gave it the horsepower that developers were asking for, to at least bring it on par with the closest competition, if not exceed that level. They increased the RAM available by a significant amount. They changed the architecture to stream-line the development process in order to attract studios looking for a platform and to ensure that ports suffer no loss of quality. Sony (and Microsoft) bend over backwards to MAKE SURE their consoles fit the needs and desires of publishers and developers. Nintendo makes the device they want to make for their own vision then asks outside developers to work around that vision. Now, I'm not saying Nintendo's approach is wrong, just that it's not the same as how the other two manufacturers operate.

So now, what are you asking exactly? Are you posing a hypothetical situation where none of that is true, and Sony instead created something like the Wii U? While Nintendo produced something closer to the PS4?

I think the difference you would see is that a lot of Sony fans would feel betrayed by Sony and would switch over to Nintendo or Microsoft. Rather than complain about third-party developers, they would be angry that Sony had changed their focus. Sure, a few loyalists would say "I had third-party games anyway" or simply blame the publishers and developers, but most would hold Sony accountable for not doing everything they possibly could in order to attract those publishers and developers.

I'm not sure that's the answer you're looking for but I think that's probably how things would play out.

Support sony till the bitter end, just like I did with SEGA! My love will go on.

It happened with the PS3. It happened with PSP. Its happening with Vita.

I bought a 360 to go along with my PS3. Best of both worlds. Broaden your horizons.

 Nope the cell made it hard for devs to figure out the PS3's architecture and sometimes the development came out a bit worse or better than the 360 depending on the developer. The problem was all Kutaragi's fault trying to make the PS3 so powerful it hampered the development process for multiplats yet the exclusives came out so good. The PS4 is rectifying this problem and bridging the gaps Sony had with third party. I don't understand what you mean about a third game of a sixth gen trilogy though.

So you're not saying that the PS3 only had lackluster ports in its first year on the market and that the PS3 did not get the 3rd game of a 6th gen trilogy while the GC/PS2/XB got the trilogy?

So you're basically saying that the U and the PS3 have nothing in common in this regard?

What third game?

I'm referring to Mass Effect 3.