the reason it's weak is because the main game is already out exclusive dlc = fucked up idea. That goes for both sides of the pond. But i understand why rockstar did it.. hell of a lot of money.

@stovo

I will actually treat you like you were a serious poster. The consoles are not equal on all things. However the different strengths and weaknesses cancel one another out in the grand scheme of things. Yes you could make a game that could only play on one of the consoles, and not the other. So yes there are 360 exclusive games the PS3 would have no hope of playing. All that game needs to do is use something the 360 excels at, and the PS3 utterly fails at.

Further more Sony is no less guilty of purchasing exclusives then Microsoft. Do you honestly think that Sony wasn't blackmailed by Konami into buying exclusivity. That would be rather naive of you I would think. That developer came into E3 07 talking serious smack about how Sony fucked up. Suddenly after the conference all smiles, and Sony talking about securing exclusives. Sony got owned in their most desperate hour. You have to give Konami props for that.

In the same way you have to give Microsoft props. They nailed Take 2 in its most desperate hour. Despite the success of GTA IV the developer still had financial problems. The game went over budget, and was delayed to a bad launch window. So the timing was perfect, and with Sony blowing their wad on Metal Gear Solid 4. Well I guess it depends which you really had to have the most, because you were only going to get one. Sony had no chance of securing both.

My advice is for you to sell that PS3, and buy a 360 with the main game so you can get these great expansions. Unless titles like GT5, GoW 3, and KZ2 are more important to you then this.

@ Legend11

Because they are more similar in architecture. The XBox was like a cut down PC and was being developed for as such, the PS2's architecture was far more exotic and you couldn't do with straight PC ports without yielding bad results (too different).

The PS3 is much more powerful than the 360, but are similar.

Let me give you a simple example, in 1993 the Amiga CD32 was released. This game console vs the Amiga 500 or Amiga 1000 (from 1985-1987) had much more RAM, an incredible amount of storage (700 MB CDs vs 880 KB diskettes), over 4 times faster CPU, 16.7 million vs 4096 colours, etc.

Sadly many CD32 games were straight ports of the Amiga 500 originals, so some were using only like 1/700th of available disc space for example, a few games were updated to be a bit more colourful (like James Pond 2: Robocod, Alien Breed: Tower Assault, Zool 2, The Chaos Engine, etc), but in reality these games at their core were all designed around the Amiga 500's basic capabilities just like nearly all 360/PS3 multi-platform games today are build around the 360 (note for instance dev comments with regard to the recently released Tomb Raider: Underworld, they said they build the game around what the 360 can handle and wouldn't be able to beat Uncharted: Drake's Fortune graphically).

There were some semi CD32 exclusive games which demonstrated much better potential, like Super Stardust, Banshee or Liberation. But those too were cut down compared to what was actually possible, this because the Amiga 1200 from 1992 was similarly specced but did not come with a CD drive by default, so these games were made smaller to still be able to fit on diskettes as well.

The PS3 vs 360 situation is a bit different though, despite their similarities, there are some crucial differences which can cause problems doing straight ports, like for instance DVD and Blu-Ray optimisation require very different care (but Blu-Ray is better, especially in combination with a default harddrive for caching).

Not a lot of difference should be expected from the bulk of future multi-platform games, the main differences will be in the exclusives like is already the case.

On topic:

I consider the idea to be a bad thing for consumers. Rockstar was already planning to create PS3 downloadable content, but Microsoft paid them off to not do it. Technically as every PS3 comes with a harddrive by default and the average PS3 owner has a much bigger storage capacity as well as much better options to upgrade to extremely big harddrives, technically it just makes more sense to have downloadable content like this on the PS3 rather than on the 360.

I understand Rockstar when they lack funding and Microsoft is swimming in cash. But overall I consider this to be a bad approach, basically bribing developers to not support their consumers like they originally intended.

MikeB said: On topic: I consider the idea to be a bad thing for consumers. Rockstar was already planning to create PS3 downloadable content, but Microsoft paid them off to not do it. Technically as every PS3 comes with a harddrive by default and the average PS3 owner has a much bigger storage capacity as well as much better options to upgrade to extremely big harddrives, technically it just makes more sense to have downloadable content like this on the PS3 rather than on the 360. I understand Rockstar when they lack funding and Microsoft is swimming in cash. But overall I consider this to be a bad approach, basically bribing developers to not support their consumers like they originally intended.

You may not like it.

We all however live in and support a capitalist society. Its just life.

 

good for microsoft and 360 fans to say haha but bad for rockstar because less sales and less profit

green_box said: stovo said: Lol no PS3 just has blu ray and more CPU power needed for these games   ??????????????????????'...

 

 Proof that some PS3 fanboys are biased fanatics.

16 year old from Essex ... wondered why you sounded so *cough* ..

The reason is 50 million dollars Microsoft PAID Rockstar to make the DLC for. Sony isn't shelling out so they get nout, stop bitchin and get a 360 if you want it that bad.

@ everyone Im not trying to be biased I am merely stating facts. I know I prefer PS3 and own one, but I am being as unbiased as I can. For example saying PS3 has more CPU and blu ray is not biased its a fact. I do admit that the 360 and PS3 has roughly equal graphics but in CPU the PS3 is far more powerful. Its just life get over it. Also some good points have come up but wheres the proof. (Like Sony bribing Konami). The proof Ican give you for my facts is look in any game shop and ask or just search on the net. Honestly I posted on the Microsoft section, as a PS3 owner, because the topic was about the 360 primarely. I didnt excpect this much ignorance from some of you. Yes its fine to own and like a 360 more but you need to look at facts and not your opinion.

Legend11 said: stovo said: What are your views? I think it suck as I own only PS3 and there is no reason why not to put on PS3. I feel the same way about MGS4 and Heavy Rain.  It's good to see that we agree in matters like this.

I can see where you're going with the first one, but why? Kojima wanted to make a game for the PS3 because he wanted it to be specialised. The quality of an exclusive on the PS3 is far higher than that of a multiplat, on average. If he made it on 360, he would have to spend another year developing it, and nobody would buy it!

I have no idea where you're coming from with Heavy Rain, though. Sony owns the rights to that game, Sony is funding the development, how could it end up on 360? It's like Gears of War.

OT: I think it's pathetic, really. Exclusive DLC is lame, what's even lamer is when people say it's a full game. Do you hear us calling BioShock Challenge Rooms a game?