We have already seen from DMC4 that games that have their roots in PS2 exclusivity sell better (relative to userbase) on the PS3.  Whilst I don't think MGS4 would sell poorly on the 360 were it too hit the console on a similar date to the PS3 version (which, clearly, is not going to happen) it would not sell nearly as well as the PS3 version, relative to userbase.

It is all relative of course, but you cannot possibly think that Gears 2 would sell better on the PS3 relative to userbase than it will on the Xbox 360, given the PS3 didn't see the original?  Why do Sony fans regularly (and with validity) claim that GTAIV will attract many PS2 upgraders relative to the 360, if not in recognition of this concept?

As for the second quote, we already discussed it.  Remember, you (somewhat belatedely) acknowledged that sarcasm doesn't represent the unswerving and hardened opinion of a poster, particularly when that sarcasm is nothing more than a response to sarcasm.

Apparently, even switching threads is no longer necessary for you to abandon context and try to paint my posting history in a unrepresentative light.  Even if I hadn't been sarcastic, you would still have completely missed the point of what I was saying (the irony of course, is that you haven't missed anything, your simply being devious and difficult).  I merely used sarcasm and hyperbole to pass comment on the currently widely acknowledged state of the PS3 library relative to the 360 library.  Certainly it should be acknowledged that the 360 had an extra year to accumulate said library, but that does little to change the status quo. 

Sigh, we are never going to agree, so we can just stop I guess.

No, I don't think Gears would sell as well on the PS3, and I don't think Bioshock 2 will either. That's entirely different then saying it won't sell well. It will sell millions on the PS3. Gears 3 will sell millions on the PS3 (although less then it will sell on the 360). They will sell well.

As for sarcasm, I don't think you were being sarcastic. When your sarcastic, you usually say the opposite of what you really mean. Like if you said. "Ok Mr Mafoo, your right.. you are always right...", that would be sarcasm. Stating something you actually believe to be true is something else entirely.

I don't thnk anyone called you out because they are too busy arguing with fanboy starcraft (hey, love ya guy, you argue against the masses like I try to do in the Nintendo forums), but this thread was about an IGN article, not EGM. 1up.com is EGM. Anyway, EGM is often right with their rumors and have twice predicted that Bioshock would eventually end up PS3. I have heard nothing about exclusivity to the 360 so I'm not surprised that IGN is now pedicting the same. Good news for PS3 owners. I stll plan to play it on PC, though.

I just have a problem with your DMC4 argument.

It didn't sell better relative to the userbase, it outsold the 360 version despite it's userbase.  A system with 6.5 million more consoles sold than the other one, was outsold by the other one.  So it wasn't relative, it was actual.

BioShock coming to the PS3 would sell only as well as it sold on the XBOX 360, at max, but most likely less.  But it doesn't change the fact that the game would sell because it's a good game, that PS3 owners should play, and has the DLC, which would be great, especially at a smaller price tag (~$40).

I don't see why this wouldn't happen.  

yep

if this comes out this fall, maybe ps3 will see something like a box set come out, for like $89... i'd grab it in a heartbeat!

@starcraft, your reasoning is off :starcraft said:
If Bioshock 2 comes the the PS3, it won't sell very well, because it is HIGHLY unlikely that the first game will come to the PS3.

In any case, we have conflicting rumours of equal (and rather weak) strength concerning whether Bioshock 2 will be exclusive.


1st, if they change the base code for bioshock 2 for the ps3 then applying that to the first one would be very easy to do. also, it would not sell poorly even without the first one, unless somehow 2K doesn't make the game good enough to stand on its own merit, which is doubtful. that would've been like saying GTAIII will sell poorly on the PS2 because GTA2 wasn't on that system.

I don't know if this has been posted, I didn't read all the posts as it seems to be 1 big argument.

http://www.ps3center.net/story-1234-2K-Games-Says-No-BioShock-for-PS3.html

Its from November last year.

A moderator over at the Official 2K Games forum over at 2KGames.com has come out and stated that there will be no PS3 version of BioShock.

He was very straight forward with the way he addressed the situation.

The post on the forums stated ’Please don’t tell me you made an account just for this question ... There will be no PS3 version of BioShock. It has been explained time and time again."

I don't know if I'd recommend bringing it out this fall.  I'd probably wait until next year during the dead of winter.  The ps3 has too many good games coming this fall and it will probably get overlooked.

Another thread trolled by Starcraft. Just fuck off man and stop turning every thread into 360 vs PS3. And yes, you did start it by talking about how diverse the 360's game library is WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC.