There is a reason third parties make exclusives for PS3 and not for 360

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. There is a reason that even in today's date of multiplatform development, a third party will make exclusive games for the PS3, but not the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 simply isn't as powerful, it's just a more limited console.

This is proven by the fact that even multiplatform games like Assassin's Creed Revelartions and Battlefield 3 have more content and better versions on PS3.

The power of the Cell and Blu Ray combine to give us the most powerful and most flexible console ever. This means we get the most and the best games ever.

Go Playstation :cool:

You really have nothing better to do? Two sh!tty threads about your great Playstation in like 10 minutes? Don't you have games to be playing?

Their the same in terms of graphics.

Could you name them, please? I can think of MGS4, Valkyria Chronicles, and lots of random Japanese RPGs/fighters that may or may not get localised. Is that it, or is there need Playstation Domination Education Continuation? :Dlocopatho

Stop posting.charizard1605

Their the same in terms of graphics.

super600

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Could you name them, please? I can think of MGS4, Valkyria Chronicles, and lots of random Japanese RPGs/fighters that may or may not get localised. Is that it, or is there need Playstation Domination Education Continuation? :Dcrippled_ram

They're practically equal in terms of power, as has been suggested by three developers who've worked with both consoles.

Whereas one is the chief architect of the CPUs in both consoles - Dave Shippy.

And the two others are John Carmack of iD Software and Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights. I kind of have faith in them in this question, with good reason (a primary one being that they are all independent)...

They established this years ago, yet cows are still raving on about how PS3 is far more powerful. Got to give credit to Sony for one thing (apart from the PS3 - a fantastic gaming console), and that is brainwashing.

I mean, when the lead designer behind the Cell/Xenon tells the world that the consoles are fairly equal in terms of power; and cows call him a liar or refuse to listen to his reasoning..you just KNOW that Sony did something right :lol:

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. crippled_ram

so I guess that's why the SNES had more exclusives then the Neo-Geo

and why the PS2 had more exclusives then the xbox

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"][QUOTE="locopatho"]Could you name them, please? I can think of MGS4, Valkyria Chronicles, and lots of random Japanese RPGs/fighters that may or may not get localised. Is that it, or is there need Playstation Domination Education Continuation? :Dlocopatho

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="crippled_ram"] There are: Ni No Kuni Metal Gear Solid 4 Valkyria Chronicles Final Fantasy Versus XIII Agentcrippled_ram

They're practically equal in terms of power, as has been suggested by three developers who've worked with both consoles.

Whereas one is the chief architecht of the CPUs in both consoles - Dave Shippy.

And the two others are John Carmack of iD Software and Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights. I kind of have faith in them in this question, with good reason...

They established this years ago, yet cows are still raving on about how PS3 is far more powerful. Got to give credit to Sony for one thing (apart from the PS3 - a fantastic gaming console), and that is brainwashing.

I mean, when the lead designer behind the Cell/Xenon tells the world that the consoles are fairly equal in terms of power; and cows call him a liar..you just KNOW that Sony did something right :lol:

ToScA-

This.

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. rilpas

so I guess that's why the SNES had more exclusives then the Neo-Geo

and why the PS2 had more exclusives then the xbox

I like how none of this is proven :lol:

Be quiet TC.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. crippled_ram

so I guess that's why the SNES had more exclusives then the Neo-Geo

and why the PS2 had more exclusives then the xbox

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Could you name them, please? I can think of MGS4, Valkyria Chronicles, and lots of random Japanese RPGs/fighters that may or may not get localised. Is that it, or is there need Playstation Domination Education Continuation? :Dcrippled_ram

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. crippled_ram

so I guess that's why the SNES had more exclusives then the Neo-Geo

and why the PS2 had more exclusives then the xbox

There is really not much difference between the PS3 and 360 in terms of power. They both do pretty much the same thing, and it all comes down to who is making the games. PS3 is better at garnering exclusives, however, because Sony is much better at handling third party relations. Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives as long as the newest version of Call of Duty sells the most on their system, which is why they have sunk so much money into getting DLC a month early instead of getting exclusive games, or even exclusive content. They also have been focusing on non-gaming features like watching sports on the Xbox 360, because these extra features require an Xbox Live Gold account that you have to pay for (even for the services that do not cost an additional fee to use on PS3, like Netflix).

MS's current strategy will make for a poor legacy for the system, but it is making them lots of money, and given how much money they lost on the original Xbox just to get their foot in the door, I imagine that money is a lot more important to them right now than looking good. If the 360 was all about showing off their corporate might and they didn't care how much money they lost (as was the case with the original Xbox), they wouldn't have closed most of their first party studios for not being profitable enough. Methinks Bill Gates decided it was time for the Xbox division to either sink or swim, and that unfortunately meant that they had to stop spending money on cool stuff like exclusives and put it towards things that would be more immediately profitable, like Kinect, non-gaming services that require a frivolous subscription fee, and early access to DLC. They made the Xbox brand profitable at the cost of giving Sony the edge in game selection.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. crippled_ram

so I guess that's why the SNES had more exclusives then the Neo-Geo

and why the PS2 had more exclusives then the xbox

I hope you're trolling

There is really not much difference between the PS3 and 360 in terms of power. They both do pretty much the same thing, and it all comes down to who is making the games. PS3 is better at garnering exclusives, however, because Sony is much better at handling third party relations. Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives as long as the newest version of Call of Duty sells the most on their system, which is why they have sunk so much money into getting DLC a month early instead of getting exclusive games, or even exclusive content. They also have been focusing on non-gaming features like watching sports on the Xbox 360, because these extra features require an Xbox Live Gold account that you have to pay for (even for the services that do not cost an additional fee to use on PS3, like Netflix).

MS's current strategy will make for a poor legacy for the system, but it is making them lots of money, and given how much money they lost on the original Xbox just to get their foot in the door, I imagine that money is a lot more important to them right now than looking good. If the 360 was all about showing off their corporate might and they didn't care how much money they lost (as was the case with the original Xbox), they wouldn't have closed most of their first party studios for not being profitable enough. Methinks Bill Gates decided it was time for the Xbox division to either sink or swim, and that unfortunately meant that they had to stop spending money on cool stuff like exclusives and put it towards things that would be more immediately profitable, like Kinect, non-gaming services that require a frivolous subscription fee, and early access to DLC. They made the Xbox brand profitable at the cost of giving Sony the edge in game selection.

Timstuff

Cows are trying to have it both ways. They bash 360 for its lack of exclusive games, yet somehow "expect" Microsoft to invest in exlusive talented devs who get the best out of the system (in terms of eye candy, technology and whatnot); all the while bashing Microsoft for instead going all in in the Kinect-market. Give me a break..

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

so I guess that's why the SNES had more exclusives then the Neo-Geo

and why the PS2 had more exclusives then the xbox

rilpas

I hope you're trolling

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"] Well, PS2 was about equally as powerful as the Xbox in the real world. The Xbox's power advantage was all theoretical, it didn't amount to anything.

crippled_ram

I hope you're trolling

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

I hope you're trolling

rilpas

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"] It's true. Look at the PS2 and Xbox versions of MGS2 for proof.

crippled_ram

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

ToScA-

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"] Well, PS2 was about equally as powerful as the Xbox in the real world. The Xbox's power advantage was all theoretical, it didn't amount to anything.

crippled_ram

I hope you're trolling

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"] It's true. Look at the PS2 and Xbox versions of MGS2 for proof.

crippled_ram

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

and this alone proves you're wrong

MGS2 isn't on the XBOX.Kaszilla

[QUOTE="ToScA-"][QUOTE="crippled_ram"] I am not trolling, it's true.

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

crippled_ram

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"] It's true. Look at the PS2 and Xbox versions of MGS2 for proof.

crippled_ram

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. There is a reason that even in today's date of multiplatform development, a third party will make exclusive games for the PS3, but not the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 simply isn't as powerful, it's just a more limited console.

This is proven by the fact that even multiplatform games like Assassin's Creed Revelartions and Battlefield 3 have more content and better versions on PS3.

The power of the Cell and Blu Ray combine to give us the most powerful and most flexible console ever. This means we get the most and the best games ever.

Go Playstation :cool:

crippled_ram

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

I hope you're trolling

delta3074

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

oh, so you ARE trolling

meh, 5/10 had me going the first time but you quickly lost me

Timstuff

Gotta say, I love the lame damage control. Every time you can't come up with a counter argument, the other guy is obviously trolling. Bravo.

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"]

And that's because the PS3 has more power than the 360, and thus, more tools to afford a developer. There is a reason that even in today's date of multiplatform development, a third party will make exclusive games for the PS3, but not the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 simply isn't as powerful, it's just a more limited console.

This is proven by the fact that even multiplatform games like Assassin's Creed Revelartions and Battlefield 3 have more content and better versions on PS3.

The power of the Cell and Blu Ray combine to give us the most powerful and most flexible console ever. This means we get the most and the best games ever.

Go Playstation :cool:

spiderluck

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="crippled_ram"] It's true. Look at the PS2 and Xbox versions of MGS2 for proof.

crippled_ram

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"] Well, PS2 was about equally as powerful as the Xbox in the real world. The Xbox's power advantage was all theoretical, it didn't amount to anything.

crippled_ram

I hope you're trolling

I didn't know the PS2 ran MGS2 in 480p... Oh wait it doesn't.

Their the same in terms of graphics.

super600