|
They're not really. Console makers will always pay to have their own first-party developers at hand(Sony Computer Entertainment America, for example), and will always shell out money to exclusive rights. Why? Because most of the time what really sells a console is what games it's offering. Do you think PS3 would have sold at all if it weren't for games like MGS:4 in its early years? Sometimes people really have to have that one game on a console, and may just buy the entire console for it. They know this. It would be financial suicide for consoles to just forget about exclusive titles, especially when consoles like the PS3 and 360 offer a very similar experience. And even if they're not, when they're even remotely the same, developers will dumb down the game to work on the least powerful console and the more powerful console ends up with the same exact game anyways, regardless of being capable of much more(360 and PS3 are good examples of this, where PS3 usually gets games that look horrible compared to games like MGS4 or God of War 3, because games are made to be playable on the 360).
|
of course Sony has Soe and Microsoft has Microsoft games.
I was talking about the third party exclusives who originally pledged their loyalty to the Ps3 but then went multi console..im guessing Sony didn't pay them off enough?
@above sorry I misunderstood what you meant by bottlenecking I retract what I said earlier :p
But also you can't say Valve hasn't profited by putting their games on consoles.
|
The new Metal Gear Solid has now been confirmed for both consoles now..
|
Yes thank you for restating the point that was being made
|
and Final Fantasy 13 was announced for 360 greatly but was superior on the PS3 due to quality (whereas the 360 version had 3 discs). The same will apply for Final Fantasy 13-2 (Hope it doesn't)...
|
um no, Square made previous Final Fantasy games for the previous Playstations so it makes sense that they would continue with the PS3, quality has nothing to do with it.
And expand range of content? what type of content? movies? shows? weather? other things that aren't related to games?
I only bought my PS3 so it can play games.. If i needed to do any of that, i have a laptop.. so pretty much that expanded range of content is kinda pointless.. Unless you come up with a situation where someone has a PS3/360 and no computer...
|
Does it hurt to have the extra stuff available? No not really, the consoles are powerful machines and can offer many other things besides gaming.
I have a laptop, windows phone, and iPod yet I still play my Xbox almost every day..again, the extra content is a commodity, its not needed yet its nice to have available.
Speaking of which, PS3 has a browser... 360 doesn't...
That makes the PS3 special in some way according to what you're saying now right?
|
I never said anything about a web browser..and a web browser isnt "content" its a utility.
But even that supports my argument, a web browser isnt needed but its nice to have, right?
You dont need to justify why you got a PS3, I don't care. I'm glad you're in love with your PS3 and its games.
|
Why do i need all this random garbage im never gonna use? They're completely 100% optional but they're not needed at all
|
Exactly, its optional. Whats wrong with that?
if you want a straight up, bare bones online gaming service go play games on your PC