Ps3 is more supported by Sony recently than the Xbox 360 by Microsoft, but why the difference seems so enormous on this list?

IMO

1) first 3 years of the PS3 were terrible, I remember some friends told me that their ps3 where only collecting dust or used as a Blu-ray player only. Then of course, Sony had to have a an awesome end with the ps3.

2) Many games on that list target mainly japanese customers which devs don't even care to only think of releasing the game for the 360 unless ms paycheck got involved (which ms are not doing since 2008 or so, for japanese support).

3) Xbox 360 has a lot of great console exlusive that are also on PC, but they are not listed here. You can argue whether or not it is of great value for the 360, but in fact, sony and microsoft support their products the same way. Sony have a lot of first party studio dedicated to their gaming products (Playstation), while Microsoft has a lot of studios that are dedicated to their gaming product (windows, xbox).

4) Xbox 360 first 4-5 years were magnificient and I still play alot of game from this time so even if Ms is actualy pushing kinect and I do not own a kinect I still enjoy the console and it's awesome library. (I think this is the main reason why Ms have been able to push Kinect this way while sony was unable with the Move)

5) 4 MLB seriously? and GT5 was supposed to be release years before 2010. So if the purpose of the list were really to show support for MS and Sony on their products after the release of their motion control, GT5 should not be there as well as any other delayed game that was supposed to hit before 2010.


But yeah, ps3 still rocks lately compared to xbox 360 but this list is just too biased to call it a fair comparison between Sony and MS.

Lol

I think your sig is perfect for this kind of response.

You mean announced... Neither console is released at the moment so neither have any exclusives, but both still have exclusives to announce

Two things about this graph...

1) It is misleading. This graph pits Xbox 360 and PS3 side-by-side with no mention of PC games, and then goes on to omit a number of games (at least on the Xbox side), presumably because PC versions became available later on. I'm noticing Fable 3 and Alan Wake right now, and there may be others, on either side. In a console vs. console comparison, Microsoft's offerings are more robust than this graph is indicating.

2) Even when we add console exclusives to the Xbox side, there are still clearly more controller-based exclusives on the PS3 side, and many of them are unquestionably high quality games. So why have I not switched over to PS3 as my main console? Because there are a couple of issues that a large quantity of games is not able to solve:

a) Money. Just because Sony puts out more 1st party games doesn't mean I have the money to buy them all, AND still buy the 3rd-party games that I want. Sometimes a 3rd-party game will take priority for me over any 1st-party game that is available at the time. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be buying any more 1st-party games if I were a PS3 owner.

b) Appeal of the games. Many of Sony's high-quality games simply don't appeal to me, or else don't have as strong an appeal as some of Microsoft's games. Out of all those controller-based games on the Sony side, only about 4 or so are games I'd actually be interested in buying (Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, LittleBigPlanet 2, Heavy Rain), and I'd still rather have Halo: Reach and Halo 4 than any of those four PS3 exclusives. And it's not just Halo; Fable 3 and Alan Wake appeal to me more than God of War 3, even though God of War has more impressive visuals and got a better Metacritic score.

Of course it exists. Doesn't matter which side of the table states it. When MS said they had a bunch of exclusives coming at E3 we believed them didn't we? Sony is going to have twenty first party exclusives in the first year. Thirty are in development for the first two years though.

I think this only proves that Sony support their consoles with great exclusives for the entirety of the gen unlike Nintendo who let their consoles die after 4-5 years and Microsoft was not able to keep pumping core games after kinect, I hope they change that in the next gen.

So what everyone is saying, is that it's unfair to start at 2010 because the past ~4 years have been extremely bad for 360.

Reddit user is right. There is a reason why Sony caught up and why it's holding momentum going into the next generation.

I think your sig is perfect for giving me an erection.

Didn't expect the PS Move games to be more than the Core 360 games.