By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - X360 outselling PS3 despite having fewer exclusive games

Stats87 on 17 April 2009

FACT

If some guy walked into a store today and bought either a PS3 or 360, he would have enough games to last him the entire generation and probably would never get to play them all anyway.

FACT, this thread and any others like it are stupid



Around the Network
nightsurge on 17 April 2009
ocnkng said:
CMoney said:
FACT - Consumers DO NOT CARE if a console came out a year earlier - they just want the games and game quality!!!!

Do you think people refused to buy a ps2 because it came out a year before xbox?

History is your friend, it will spare you embarassment in the future.

 

Hmm so you are keeping yourself busy by playing some of the AA games of Xbox from 2006? Good for you my friend.

BTW the other day I went to sell some of my old Xbox 360 games in the store and they paid me $2 for Crackdown coz its almost 'worthless' coz its too old.

 

That's why you NEVER go to a store to trade your games.  They give you horrible resale value.  Sell it on eBay or Craigslist.

Crackdown was such a fun game, btw!

Also, I think you quoted the wrong person.... unless i'm missing something he mentioned nothing of playing AAA games.



GameAnalyser on 17 April 2009
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:
nightsurge said:
@Game Anaylser

What 3rd party exclusivity did they drop deliberately? They have had more 3rd party support with very few 3rd party exclusives this whole generation.

They dropped it because they saw how the 3rd party games were almost always selling much better on the 360 and that the only games that sold well on PS3 were first party titles.

 

 

How do u account for sales of Street fighter iv, Resident Evil 5, NFs undercover released in last 4-5 months after stating that highlighted portion...killzone 2 and MGs4 did their job well..we are to expect more exclusives like those

RE5 is historically a Sony console franchise.  RE5 on the 360 is set to pass the sales of the PS3 version within the next 2 months.  That's sad for Sony.

Street Fighter IV is one game that I really don't see as something all important.  Need for Speed Undercover sales are about equal.  Soooo.. of the last 4 months, 1 game sold more, 1 tied, and one game sold more but will have that switch within the next few months thanks to long legs in America for RE5.

Now how bad would it look if I gathered all the games that sold lots more on 360?

 

 

why is SF iv not important, since it is not ur type of game? Well u can't ignore the fanbase it's got.

The future iterations still would thus mean more for both consoles. NFS undercover almost tied despite ps3 getting the lazier port of the game. And if Re5 had grossed about two times the way it did with Cod:WAW then i would've considered it instead of the fact that it would go past ps3 no's within few months.

There is no point of gathering all the games since the most of the games u would post would be those multiplatforms that received advantage from user-base in America outnumbering ps3 by 2:1



nightsurge on 17 April 2009
GameAnalyser said:

 

why is SF iv not important, since it is not ur type of game? Well u can't ignore the fanbase it's got.

The future iterations still would thus mean more for both consoles. NFS undercover almost tied despite ps3 getting the lazier port of the game. And if Re5 had grossed about two times the way it did with Cod:WAW then i would've considered it instead of the fact that it would go past ps3 no's within few months.

There is no point of gathering all the games since the most of the games u would post would be those multiplatforms that received advantage from user-base in America outnumbering ps3 by 2:1

And RE5 and SF4 have no advantage in Japan where it is 3:1 in favor of PS3?  So those count but my list wouldn't... I see.

 



Jordahn on 17 April 2009
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:
nightsurge said:
@Game Anaylser

What 3rd party exclusivity did they drop deliberately? They have had more 3rd party support with very few 3rd party exclusives this whole generation.

They dropped it because they saw how the 3rd party games were almost always selling much better on the 360 and that the only games that sold well on PS3 were first party titles.

 

 

How do u account for sales of Street fighter iv, Resident Evil 5, NFs undercover released in last 4-5 months after stating that highlighted portion...killzone 2 and MGs4 did their job well..we are to expect more exclusives like those

RE5 is historically a Sony console franchise.  RE5 on the 360 is set to pass the sales of the PS3 version within the next 2 months.  That's sad for Sony.

Street Fighter IV is one game that I really don't see as something all important.  Need for Speed Undercover sales are about equal.  Soooo.. of the last 4 months, 1 game sold more, 1 tied, and one game sold more but will have that switch within the next few months thanks to long legs in America for RE5.

Now how bad would it look if I gathered all the games that sold lots more on 360?

Now you're just making excuses like a SONY fanboy while also using personal opinion and bias to support such a non-gaming fanboy point of view.  And so what if RE5 sells more on the 360?  You'd thing that since the 360 has a larger userbase than the PS3 while RE has also been on Nintendo hardware.  Only fanboys care how "bad" a console looks by its software sales.  3rd parties have been doing very well on both the 360 and the PS3.  This is good for console makers, good for developers, and good for gamers.  Bad for fanboys such as you who just want to slam the PS3 with no good reason.

Not making excuses.  Stating facts.  I did not add any personal opinion in there besides the fact that I don't see SF4 as important (which I don't because I've never liked fighting games).  Sure I add in some flavor with the last sentence, but that is what drives this site.

I'm not being fanboy.  I don't state downright 100% ridiculous claims or jump on all PS3 threads to bash them.

 

So is this a fact...

"That's sad for Sony."

Yes.

...and...

"Now how bad would it look if I gathered..."

See bolded above

These are NOT facts.  These are fanboy impressions.

Here is a fact.  PS3 hardware sales are roughly 75% of 360 sales.  A reasonable impression from that fact that if 3rd party multiplatform sales on the PS3 is roughly average of 75% of 360 3rd party multiplatform sales, then things would seem to be logical and in line with its userbase.  And as long as the platform are being supported (which they are) and the software developers are profitting (which I hope), this also serves the users of both platformers.  It's SAD that you fail to acknowledge and express this as most informed gamers would.

No one was ever debating this fact, though.  I was only commenting on the topics at hand.

:)

Obviously if it's profitable for the developer, they aren't going to stop developing for both systems, and obviously that benefits us all.  I was merely stating that your profits or chances of profit are better on the 360 if by chance you are a third party and want to develop for just one console.

 

No you weren't.  You were finding excuses to interject fanboy negativity but you're now backtracking after voices of reason
are proving you wrong.  Who do you think you are fooling in claiming that personal comments constitutes as fact?

 



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Around the Network
nightsurge on 17 April 2009
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:
nightsurge said:
@Game Anaylser

What 3rd party exclusivity did they drop deliberately? They have had more 3rd party support with very few 3rd party exclusives this whole generation.

They dropped it because they saw how the 3rd party games were almost always selling much better on the 360 and that the only games that sold well on PS3 were first party titles.

 

 

How do u account for sales of Street fighter iv, Resident Evil 5, NFs undercover released in last 4-5 months after stating that highlighted portion...killzone 2 and MGs4 did their job well..we are to expect more exclusives like those

RE5 is historically a Sony console franchise.  RE5 on the 360 is set to pass the sales of the PS3 version within the next 2 months.  That's sad for Sony.

Street Fighter IV is one game that I really don't see as something all important.  Need for Speed Undercover sales are about equal.  Soooo.. of the last 4 months, 1 game sold more, 1 tied, and one game sold more but will have that switch within the next few months thanks to long legs in America for RE5.

Now how bad would it look if I gathered all the games that sold lots more on 360?

Now you're just making excuses like a SONY fanboy while also using personal opinion and bias to support such a non-gaming fanboy point of view.  And so what if RE5 sells more on the 360?  You'd thing that since the 360 has a larger userbase than the PS3 while RE has also been on Nintendo hardware.  Only fanboys care how "bad" a console looks by its software sales.  3rd parties have been doing very well on both the 360 and the PS3.  This is good for console makers, good for developers, and good for gamers.  Bad for fanboys such as you who just want to slam the PS3 with no good reason.

Not making excuses.  Stating facts.  I did not add any personal opinion in there besides the fact that I don't see SF4 as important (which I don't because I've never liked fighting games).  Sure I add in some flavor with the last sentence, but that is what drives this site.

I'm not being fanboy.  I don't state downright 100% ridiculous claims or jump on all PS3 threads to bash them.

 

So is this a fact...

"That's sad for Sony."

Yes.

...and...

"Now how bad would it look if I gathered..."

See bolded above

These are NOT facts.  These are fanboy impressions.

Here is a fact.  PS3 hardware sales are roughly 75% of 360 sales.  A reasonable impression from that fact that if 3rd party multiplatform sales on the PS3 is roughly average of 75% of 360 3rd party multiplatform sales, then things would seem to be logical and in line with its userbase.  And as long as the platform are being supported (which they are) and the software developers are profitting (which I hope), this also serves the users of both platformers.  It's SAD that you fail to acknowledge and express this as most informed gamers would.

No one was ever debating this fact, though.  I was only commenting on the topics at hand.

:)

Obviously if it's profitable for the developer, they aren't going to stop developing for both systems, and obviously that benefits us all.  I was merely stating that your profits or chances of profit are better on the 360 if by chance you are a third party and want to develop for just one console.

 

No you weren't.  You were finding excuses to interject fanboy negativity but you're now backtracking after voices of reason
are proving you wrong.  Who do you think you are fooling in claiming that personal comments constitutes as fact?

 

I didn't.  I claimed facts were facts.  Is it not "sad" for Sony when a game from their console history does better on a new console like GTA4 did, and RE5 will follow soon?

Also, I don't think you've relized yet that a question cannot be a fact because it asks a question and is not a statement....

Why are you so upset?  All these attempts of trying to call me a fanboy must have triggered your inner fanboy rage center or something

 



Jordahn on 17 April 2009
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:

 

why is SF iv not important, since it is not ur type of game? Well u can't ignore the fanbase it's got.

The future iterations still would thus mean more for both consoles. NFS undercover almost tied despite ps3 getting the lazier port of the game. And if Re5 had grossed about two times the way it did with Cod:WAW then i would've considered it instead of the fact that it would go past ps3 no's within few months.

There is no point of gathering all the games since the most of the games u would post would be those multiplatforms that received advantage from user-base in America outnumbering ps3 by 2:1

And RE5 and SF4 have no advantage in Japan where it is 3:1 in favor of PS3?  So those count but my list wouldn't... I see.

 

 

Not the point.  But the issue here is that you are cherry picking just your personal preferences.  Just because you "really don't see as something all important" doens't mean that that title didn't "sold well" on the PS3.  See where your biasness gets in the way?



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

nightsurge on 17 April 2009
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:

 

why is SF iv not important, since it is not ur type of game? Well u can't ignore the fanbase it's got.

The future iterations still would thus mean more for both consoles. NFS undercover almost tied despite ps3 getting the lazier port of the game. And if Re5 had grossed about two times the way it did with Cod:WAW then i would've considered it instead of the fact that it would go past ps3 no's within few months.

There is no point of gathering all the games since the most of the games u would post would be those multiplatforms that received advantage from user-base in America outnumbering ps3 by 2:1

And RE5 and SF4 have no advantage in Japan where it is 3:1 in favor of PS3?  So those count but my list wouldn't... I see.

 

 

Not the point.  But the issue here is that you are cherry picking just your personal preferences.  Just because you "really don't see as something all important" doens't mean that that title didn't "sold well" on the PS3.  See where your biasness gets in the way?

I'm cherry picking?  I believe it was you two whom brought up these limited recent examples.  I am merely commenting on it.  And having a personal opinion does not make me bias or a fanboy.

To the bolded:  You left out the critical word "I" from that quote.  I am allowed to have this opinion.  I never once stated it was the opinion of others, or that because of my opinion everyone else had to also believe the way I did.

 



Jordahn on 17 April 2009
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
Jordahn said:
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:
nightsurge said:
@Game Anaylser

What 3rd party exclusivity did they drop deliberately? They have had more 3rd party support with very few 3rd party exclusives this whole generation.

They dropped it because they saw how the 3rd party games were almost always selling much better on the 360 and that the only games that sold well on PS3 were first party titles.

 

 

How do u account for sales of Street fighter iv, Resident Evil 5, NFs undercover released in last 4-5 months after stating that highlighted portion...killzone 2 and MGs4 did their job well..we are to expect more exclusives like those

RE5 is historically a Sony console franchise.  RE5 on the 360 is set to pass the sales of the PS3 version within the next 2 months.  That's sad for Sony.

Street Fighter IV is one game that I really don't see as something all important.  Need for Speed Undercover sales are about equal.  Soooo.. of the last 4 months, 1 game sold more, 1 tied, and one game sold more but will have that switch within the next few months thanks to long legs in America for RE5.

Now how bad would it look if I gathered all the games that sold lots more on 360?

Now you're just making excuses like a SONY fanboy while also using personal opinion and bias to support such a non-gaming fanboy point of view.  And so what if RE5 sells more on the 360?  You'd thing that since the 360 has a larger userbase than the PS3 while RE has also been on Nintendo hardware.  Only fanboys care how "bad" a console looks by its software sales.  3rd parties have been doing very well on both the 360 and the PS3.  This is good for console makers, good for developers, and good for gamers.  Bad for fanboys such as you who just want to slam the PS3 with no good reason.

Not making excuses.  Stating facts.  I did not add any personal opinion in there besides the fact that I don't see SF4 as important (which I don't because I've never liked fighting games).  Sure I add in some flavor with the last sentence, but that is what drives this site.

I'm not being fanboy.  I don't state downright 100% ridiculous claims or jump on all PS3 threads to bash them.

 

So is this a fact...

"That's sad for Sony."

Yes.

...and...

"Now how bad would it look if I gathered..."

See bolded above

These are NOT facts.  These are fanboy impressions.

Here is a fact.  PS3 hardware sales are roughly 75% of 360 sales.  A reasonable impression from that fact that if 3rd party multiplatform sales on the PS3 is roughly average of 75% of 360 3rd party multiplatform sales, then things would seem to be logical and in line with its userbase.  And as long as the platform are being supported (which they are) and the software developers are profitting (which I hope), this also serves the users of both platformers.  It's SAD that you fail to acknowledge and express this as most informed gamers would.

No one was ever debating this fact, though.  I was only commenting on the topics at hand.

:)

Obviously if it's profitable for the developer, they aren't going to stop developing for both systems, and obviously that benefits us all.  I was merely stating that your profits or chances of profit are better on the 360 if by chance you are a third party and want to develop for just one console.

 

No you weren't.  You were finding excuses to interject fanboy negativity but you're now backtracking after voices of reason
are proving you wrong.  Who do you think you are fooling in claiming that personal comments constitutes as fact?

 

I didn't.  I claimed facts were facts.  Is it not "sad" for Sony when a game from their console history does better on a new console like GTA4 did?

Why are you so upset?  All these attempts of trying to call me a fanboy must have triggered your inner fanboy rage center or something

 

 

Ohhhh...  Now you want to try to paint the false picture that I'm upset just because I make points that you cannot successfully counter argue.  In fact you may not have noticed that several times I did a smiley face to show that I wasn't upset.  No, it's not sad for a franchise to sell better on one console than another regardless of history as I have already given you the logic of a larger userbase.  Why would this be an issue for gamers as long as the gamers have access to the game and the developer keeps making them while the console makes still gives a viable option?

;)



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

GameAnalyser on 17 April 2009
nightsurge said:
GameAnalyser said:

 

why is SF iv not important, since it is not ur type of game? Well u can't ignore the fanbase it's got.

The future iterations still would thus mean more for both consoles. NFS undercover almost tied despite ps3 getting the lazier port of the game. And if Re5 had grossed about two times the way it did with Cod:WAW then i would've considered it instead of the fact that it would go past ps3 no's within few months.

There is no point of gathering all the games since the most of the games u would post would be those multiplatforms that received advantage from user-base in America outnumbering ps3 by 2:1

And RE5 and SF4 have no advantage in Japan where it is 3:1 in favor of PS3?  So those count but my list wouldn't... I see.

 As we both have to agree now that 360 h/w sales in Japan had faired poorly since 2005 launch and Japanese userbase advantage can't be compared with the larger and wider userbase in America, the gamers there are with different taste. What happened to Star Ocean 4 sales from SE...