Microsoft Doesn't Want Sony's Sloppy Seconds

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I'm no expert, but that doesn't exactly sound like a good business strategy to me. In fact, it sounds more like sour grapes than anything else, though I could certainly be wrong.

Zenn3k:

I dunno what 3D Dot Game Heros is, but if its some "3D" title, I'll pass...since I can't see in 3D (1 working eyeball).

Oh lolz. Not the one-working-eye part, but the 3D part. Not only is 3D Dot Game Heroes not 3D, it's 8-bit graphics. It's kind of like PS3's version of old school Zelda.

Despite what MS says officially, I fail to see how this policy does anything positive.
The only consistent outcome of this is that the X360 will either lose games or game content that appear in other consoles, with the benefit of the X360 release possibly being earlier than its counterparts. So essentially, they've traded earlier release dates for a smaller library. Given that the X360 is almost completely dependent on third party support (I can only name three MS owned developers; Lionhead, 343 Industries, and Rare) I don't see how this is in any way a good policy.

SendMeNoodz84:
Good thing about having every console: Things like this don't matter.

Pretty much this. Not to mention almost all of my gaming happens on the PC now days. Though I usually get games on my PS3 before the 360, if only because I don't like paying for Live.

I can understand why they're doing this, though its the wrong way of going about it.

Grey Carter:

A representative from a publisher, who wishes to remain anonymous, lest he/she face Microsoft's biblical wrath, disagreed. Talking to Eurogamer, they said, "Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."

I like that part, it has weight.

Ha, an MS employee calls bollox on MS. I'm pretty sure he/she/it/they/the collective/the anonymous isn't the only one who feels this way about their workplace.

Joseph375:
Call me a fanboy, but Microsoft seem like dicks more and more everyday.

Proprietary Hard Drives, Banning Steam support, Banning EVE support, not adding an internet browser, increasing the price for internet, something that everyone else has for free, and now this?

It's like they are trying everything they can to prevent me from buying a 360.

Can I call you fanboy for not doing your research at least on a part of this? Proprietary hard drives are a non-issue with the Slim if you have even a modicum of computer know-how; yes it is a bigger pain in the ass than the simple nature of the PS3's near plug-and-play design but its not exactly hard to: buy a 2.5" form factor Hard Drive, connect it to your computer through SATA, load the appropriate software to make it an XBOX readable device, and plug it in to said XBOX. It takes ten minutes at most. You don't even need a case for the thing unless you are obsessive compulsive.

Steam and EVE are non-issues for me, as they are for the computer, so no comment... and I'm still not sure why people want internet browsers on a console but to each their own. As for XBOX-Live not being free, I'd weigh that against what is pretty good support/features for a price that is non-existent if you know how to shop around.

Mimsofthedawg:
The thing is though, when you look at the accumulative price of an Xbox 360 (All the extra components that you had to buy, Xbox live membership, etc.) it actually cost around $850! What a coincidence, huh?

People talked like the PS3 costing $500+ was a bad thing, but in reality, it was still overall cheaper than the 360 was.

Are we talking old XBOX or the Slim? The old one was a veritable piece of garbage that was overly closed off and hard to handle, but I'd dare you to say the same for the Slim with a straight face. Also tell me how you managed to spend 850$ on an XBOX, hell even the old one I can't fathom how you wracked up that sort of price.

-------

For the OT: This has been the case since forever, its not really news and just seems to paint MS in an unnecessary dark hue for something that has existed in their business model since... forever. What they say isn't bad, not good either, but its understandable if one takes a step back: If you never strive to put pressure for equal games, priority release, or anything, you're never going to get anything first or even in the best working order. They didn't say that they will reject all games, only that they have the right to do so. That seems fine, I'd rather they have the ability to reject crap games than make the console a border-less dumping ground for cheap re-releases.

It comes off as childish and in some ways it is but from a business standpoint its strong arming, and its a viable and perfectly effective tactic... but it can backfire on you just as easily as it can succeed. MS spent the first few years of XBOX360's life span buying up exclusives to try and attract an RPG base but that ended up failing as most of the good games were never reachable because of Sony IP or Sony partnerships; this seems to be a partial extension of that whole fiasco: We're not buying/porting/accepting anymore mediocre games.

airrazor7:

Grey Carter:

A representative from a publisher, who wishes to remain anonymous, lest he/she face Microsoft's biblical wrath, disagreed. Talking to Eurogamer, they said, "Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."

I like that part, it has weight.

Ha, an MS employee calls bollox on MS. I'm pretty sure he/she/it/they/the collective/the anonymous isn't the only one who feels this way about their workplace.

Publisher does not equal Microsoft Employee, it could be any 3rd party publisher representative, more likely a big one(Ubisoft, EA, or Activision).

Venats:

Joseph375:
Call me a fanboy, but Microsoft seem like dicks more and more everyday.

Proprietary Hard Drives, Banning Steam support, Banning EVE support, not adding an internet browser, increasing the price for internet, something that everyone else has for free, and now this?

It's like they are trying everything they can to prevent me from buying a 360.

Can I call you fanboy for not doing your research at least on a part of this? Proprietary hard drives are a non-issue with the Slim if you have even a modicum of computer know-how; yes it is a bigger pain in the ass than the simple nature of the PS3's near plug-and-play design but its not exactly hard to: buy a 2.5" form factor Hard Drive, connect it to your computer through SATA, load the appropriate software to make it an XBOX readable device, and plug it in to said XBOX. It takes ten minutes at most. You don't even need a case for the thing unless you are obsessive compulsive.

Steam and EVE are non-issues for me, as they are for the computer, so no comment... and I'm still not sure why people want internet browsers on a console but to each their own. As for XBOX-Live not being free, I'd weigh that against what is pretty good support/features for a price that is non-existent if you know how to shop around.

Mimsofthedawg:
The thing is though, when you look at the accumulative price of an Xbox 360 (All the extra components that you had to buy, Xbox live membership, etc.) it actually cost around $850! What a coincidence, huh?

People talked like the PS3 costing $500+ was a bad thing, but in reality, it was still overall cheaper than the 360 was.

Are we talking old XBOX or the Slim? The old one was a veritable piece of garbage that was overly closed off and hard to handle, but I'd dare you to say the same for the Slim with a straight face. Also tell me how you managed to spend 850$ on an XBOX, hell even the old one I can't fathom how you wracked up that sort of price.

-------

For the OT: This has been the case since forever, its not really news and just seems to paint MS in an unnecessary dark hue for something that has existed in their business model since... forever. What they say isn't bad, not good either, but its understandable if one takes a step back: If you never strive to put pressure for equal games, priority release, or anything, you're never going to get anything first or even in the best working order. They didn't say that they will reject all games, only that they have the right to do so. That seems fine, I'd rather they have the ability to reject crap games than make the console a border-less dumping ground for cheap re-releases.

It comes off as childish and in some ways it is but from a business standpoint its strong arming, and its a viable and perfectly effective tactic... but it can backfire on you just as easily as it can succeed. MS spent the first few years of XBOX360's life span buying up exclusives to try and attract an RPG base but that ended up failing as most of the good games were never reachable because of Sony IP or Sony partnerships; this seems to be a partial extension of that whole fiasco: We're not buying/porting/accepting anymore mediocre games.

Between buying HD components, an wireless internet adapter, an acceptable harddrive, the Xbox 360 elite, and gold membership, it costs about $820 actually. The point is, to obtain similar capabilities that the PS3 had included in the price, the 360 was actually more expensive.

I agree, the Slim is a lot less expensive, but before the argument was "It's less expensive than the PS3 (which was a lie) AND it has more games!" Now the argument is "It's less expensive than the PS3 and it has more games! (which is a lie)"

EDIT: Oh, and the other components also include things like wireless controllers, batteries for those controllers/recharge docking bays, etc. All in all, the miscellaneous expenses that are shoved onto the consumer during the initial purchase and after means the 360 was far more expensive... it actually STILL is more expensive, even with the slim, but the margin is far smaller.

"I don't want that chocolate bar! Timmy touched it, I WANT MY OWN CHOCOLATE BAR!!!" - This is basically all I heard.

But I agree with Microsofts statement in fact I think the heads of the gaming department of Microsoft should take it a step further! They should only breathe Microsoft only air, if even one Sony employee has breathed that air first then they should hold their breath and let it pass by.

Mimsofthedawg:
Between buying HD components, an wireless internet adapter, an acceptable harddrive, the Xbox 360 elite, and gold membership, it costs about $820 actually. The point is, to obtain similar capabilities that the PS3 had included in the price, the 360 was actually more expensive.

I agree, the Slim is a lot less expensive, but before the argument was "It's less expensive than the PS3 (which was a lie) AND it has more games!" Now the argument is "It's less expensive than the PS3 and it has more games! (which is a lie)"

EDIT: Oh, and the other components also include things like wireless controllers, batteries for those controllers/recharge docking bays, etc. All in all, the miscellaneous expenses that are shoved onto the consumer during the initial purchase and after means the 360 was far more expensive... it actually STILL is more expensive, even with the slim, but the margin is far smaller.

You really didn't have to quote that whole thing...

As of today, I'd still argue that the XBOX (slim) is cheaper by a considerable 100$ margin to its PS3 counterpart. But, for the old XBOX, you do have a valid point in that it was a pain in the ass to upgrade without shelling out a pretty penny or learning how to use google. (Specifically, the hard drives of the old XBOX were overpriced junk but, given a little research, it wasn't THAT hard to pop open an old hard drive's case and put in a new one without paying for MS's proprietary junk.) But, iirc, the original XBOX and PS3 had about a hundred or so dollar difference which just about covered/converged if you *paid* for a full hard drive for the XBOX and Live... was/is like 50$ a year.

Still, I can't find 850$... for either console. 850$ is what I spend on computer parts.

As for the edit; that hardly counts and if you want to make that an argument then I'd argue that the Wii costs 700$ in parts too, which is a rather absurd argument. Controllers cost more, wireless controllers cost more so, that seems natural. So they didn't give you a docking station, I don't think 10$ in batteries every 6-months is a game breaker.

Baldr:

airrazor7:

Grey Carter:

A representative from a publisher, who wishes to remain anonymous, lest he/she face Microsoft's biblical wrath, disagreed. Talking to Eurogamer, they said, "Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."

I like that part, it has weight.

Ha, an MS employee calls bollox on MS. I'm pretty sure he/she/it/they/the collective/the anonymous isn't the only one who feels this way about their workplace.

Publisher does not equal Microsoft Employee, it could be any 3rd party publisher representative, more likely a big one(Ubisoft, EA, or Activision).

Ah, probably true. I think I was too caught up in the humor of the situation I mentioned to consider that. Thanks for ruining my humorous ignorance (joking).

On a more serious note, and to lightly debate, I doubt they're from a big publisher if they want to remain anonymous. Two of the publishers you mentioned are EA and Activision. They pay their reps to belittle others on a regular basis so if the person was from either of those I doubt they would feel the need to remain hidden.

in short: "Fuck our customers"

I wonder what will happen in the next generation?

Wasn't microsoft doing the same thing as song is now?

TimeLord:
So that means Ratchet and Clank will never come to 360?

Fine with me Microsoft. I'll keep my PS3 nice and safe just so I can play the best 3rd person, funny, over the top, super fun, platformers ever made.
Yes that may seem like fanboyism but if you two won't play nice I'll just have to separate my consoles into opposite rooms! I think next firmware update for the Xbox will eject dirt out of the disc drive at the player if they mention Playstation games in the same room.

I think that wouldn't happen anyway as Sony, not Insomniac, own the IP for R&C so if there's to be new ones they'll either have to be PS exclusives by Insomniac or by another studio for Sony but never on an MS platform but I take your point and feel MS are being babies over this one.

This is simply childish and does not make sense in any aspect whatsoever.

They do realize that they are cutting themselves off from a lot of potential sales by maintaining this policy, right?

airrazor7:

Baldr:

airrazor7:

I like that part, it has weight.

Ha, an MS employee calls bollox on MS. I'm pretty sure he/she/it/they/the collective/the anonymous isn't the only one who feels this way about their workplace.

Publisher does not equal Microsoft Employee, it could be any 3rd party publisher representative, more likely a big one(Ubisoft, EA, or Activision).

Ah, probably true. I think I was too caught up in the humor of the situation I mentioned to consider that. Thanks for ruining my humorous ignorance (joking).

On a more serious note, and to lightly debate, I doubt they're from a big publisher if they want to remain anonymous. Two of the publishers you mentioned are EA and Activision. They pay their reps to belittle others on a regular basis so if the person was from either of those I doubt they would feel the need to remain hidden.

Yeah, it ok to belittle the competition, but in most cases Microsoft is not the competition, it the publishing partner of the companies, and you don't want to belittle your business partner, it not good for business.

Baldr:
Actually I like this policy and hope that Sony and Nintendo take it too. It is kinda bogus that some games get special content and features on some consoles and other don't and that practice has to stop. No matter what your console, you should have have the same sort of content for a third party game.

Pah.

That's what laptop manufacturers said about proprietary charger heads too I bet.

It's not 'being fair to the players', it's dicking around. Stop glorifying it.

Let me put it simply, MS. More than half of your customers do not have a PS3 or Wii. Many of them have at least one friend who does. Said friend will expose them to (at the time) exclusive titles that they will like. Releasing afterwards, especially with Xbox exclusive content just to make other console owners feel inadequate with their copies... not a bad thing.

double post... woops :p

Venats:

Mimsofthedawg:
Between buying HD components, an wireless internet adapter, an acceptable harddrive, the Xbox 360 elite, and gold membership, it costs about $820 actually. The point is, to obtain similar capabilities that the PS3 had included in the price, the 360 was actually more expensive.

I agree, the Slim is a lot less expensive, but before the argument was "It's less expensive than the PS3 (which was a lie) AND it has more games!" Now the argument is "It's less expensive than the PS3 and it has more games! (which is a lie)"

EDIT: Oh, and the other components also include things like wireless controllers, batteries for those controllers/recharge docking bays, etc. All in all, the miscellaneous expenses that are shoved onto the consumer during the initial purchase and after means the 360 was far more expensive... it actually STILL is more expensive, even with the slim, but the margin is far smaller.

You really didn't have to quote that whole thing...

As of today, I'd still argue that the XBOX (slim) is cheaper by a considerable 100$ margin to its PS3 counterpart. But, for the old XBOX, you do have a valid point in that it was a pain in the ass to upgrade without shelling out a pretty penny or learning how to use google. (Specifically, the hard drives of the old XBOX were overpriced junk but, given a little research, it wasn't THAT hard to pop open an old hard drive's case and put in a new one without paying for MS's proprietary junk.) But, iirc, the original XBOX and PS3 had about a hundred or so dollar difference which just about covered/converged if you *paid* for a full hard drive for the XBOX and Live... was/is like 50$ a year.

Still, I can't find 850$... for either console. 850$ is what I spend on computer parts.

As for the edit; that hardly counts and if you want to make that an argument then I'd argue that the Wii costs 700$ in parts too, which is a rather absurd argument. Controllers cost more, wireless controllers cost more so, that seems natural. So they didn't give you a docking station, I don't think 10$ in batteries every 6-months is a game breaker.

So you're saying that an extra $250 is a weak argument? The fact that you had to invest a couple hundred dollars MORE into the Xbox 360 for what the PS3 gave you for free is irrelevant? I think that's rather absurd logic.

It's like buying a car and saying, "I'm not going to care about fuel economy!" when in reality, buying a fuel efficient car can pay for another car in savings over time.

TimeLord:
So that means Ratchet and Clank will never come to 360?

Fine with me Microsoft. I'll keep my PS3 nice and safe just so I can play the best 3rd person, funny, over the top, super fun, platformers ever made.
Yes that may seem like fanboyism but if you two won't play nice I'll just have to separate my consoles into opposite rooms! I think next firmware update for the Xbox will eject dirt out of the disc drive at the player if they mention Playstation games in the same room.

Actually I wouldn't say that's fanboyism. The Xbox is clearly lacking platformers unless you count Xbox Live Arcade.

Wont change anything, like what happened with Mortal Kombat or any other big franchise that gamers will actually want - Microsoft wont care caus it will make them more money than excluding it.

It pretty much guarantees that no system will get an early release though. Any company that misses out on one console's market is going to take a big hit, so this will ensure they don't play favorites

Microsoft.

You're doing it wrong.

GonzoGamer:
Jeez, why is everyone being such pricks?
Gamestop taking premiums out of new games. Sony releasing another overpriced and (sure to be) undersupported machine to the suckers. Every publisher is looking for a way to screw over consumers who buy used. Now MS is denying their own consumers games like they were denying them a working console for the first few years the 360 existed.

These idiots make me wonder why I even bother playing games anymore.

The recent events that are screwing us over more often are because of one thing every business strives for: Money and it's sadly what drives them from their second purpose: Design of a product that gives the customer value for their money.

I am totally against getting screwed out of my wallet because i like to save money and not blow tons of cash for a product that can easily be fair priced and also see the true value of a product for it's worth and effort but these days the game industry has just gotten lazy and is obviously running out of fresh innovative ideas so they resort to simple measures such as:

1)Copy+paste a game adding little difference to save on the developement process and in turn save money.

2) Bring back an old idea from the past and slightly refine the idea and make it out to be revolutionary.

3) Put together game merchandise that is cost effective and jack up the price of the merchandise.

4) Limit the ownership of some games or cut them short in an attempt to force you to want more.

5) Deliberately hack certain segments of games to pieces to sell them as supposed "DLC" even under claims that the idea came after the game was released.

6) Create supposed "free to play" games but hack out most of the "free" and instead charge the customer in order to get the full enjoyment of the game.

7) Last but not least the idea to charge more money from you even though the game is an obvious wreck.

Those points listed above (and if iv'e missed out any please do add more to the table) are what i tend to see more these days when it comes to games and i feel everyday that some of my favorite companies just don't care anymore and just want to take the easy route and not take it slow when making a game instead of resorting to shoving a new game on the shelves every year.

I want to care and take pride in any game company i purchase from but i can't exactly do that when i feel let down knowing at the end of the day the company doesn't care what it makes as long as it get's your money.

I wonder if this would count as anti-competition practices... hmmmm
That said, I'm a socialist and own a PS3 (as well as a PC)and would prefer it if games on all platforms had the same features.

And what was that about he PS3 being overpriced? It is more powerful then the XBOX 360 and can also play Blu-rays and is cheaper then all (at time of purchase for me) Blu-ray players. But anyways I game mostly on my laptop :P

Do I really need to say anything other than FINAL FANTASY or METAL GEAR SOLID? Seriously ... Idiots.

sephiroth1991:
I have come to a conclusion that Sony is bad with its customers, Microsoft are dicks to there's and Nintendo are Customer's Bitches. Well that my opinion. Its a shame that Xbox gamers don't get a chance to play Sony's games.

I do! I own both machines lol.

If I were microsoft I'd chuck money at developers to make the titles better when they hit 360, this announcement sounds like their going down the nintendo route and self distructing.

God help me I like my ps3 but I dread a sony dominated marketplace.

Huh, there's probably a better policy for dealing with cross console games. But this seems ok(ish). It puts the burden on the developers to decide before making the game, whether or not to release on both consoles. Rather them deciding halfway, staggering the release, and making a potentially buggy or trimmed down version for the Xbox. It's one of the reasons that staggered console ports for PC are often pathetic. Ubisoft I'm looking at you >:|

The big problem is obviously that some games never make it and the consumer with only one console gets irritated and the console maker + game developer gets less money. I guess they're hoping to change the way developers release games for the better, by enforcing a strict policy.

Still annoying though.

Tanfastic:
How can MS get any games from Sony when the PS3 has no games?

In all seriousness though I find this simply stupid, I HATE how games being made have more content for some consoles than others (IE PS3s ME2... in fact it mostly happens with PS3 *cough*LA Noire *cough*) and I cannot stand this war for the better system (system side all PS3 has over Xbox is the blue ray. Xbox has the better motion activity, kinect. Can we stop this now?) imo xbox is more fun simply due to exclusives and the controller, but that doesn't mean I don't play the PS3 when I have the option to. They need to cool it with this thing and release games for xbox and stop trying to out due Sony when they both are equally beating Nintendo and its 49 out of 50 games being gimmicky and casual.

probably the reason why the PS3 gets more on-disc stuff is because of Blu-ray, ME2 was on 2 discs for the 360 but only 1 for PS3 so there's that done with and also the whole 'extra content' PS3 gamers got for Mass Effect 2 was compensation for getting the game a year later than everyone else and missing out on the original mass Effect (hell, if I bought it at retail today for the 360 and bought All additional bonus DLC the PS3 gamers got I'd still have saved money) /rant.

Zenn3k:

Treblaine:

Zenn3k:
Doesn't bother me, there isn't a single Sony exclusive I'm interested in playing.

Really? Not a single one?

Not even Uncharted? Infamous? Resistance or Killzone? God of War? 3D Dot Game heroes?

You do like games... right? I hope you aren't just saying you aren't interested in the sense of "Interested, but not interested enough to invest in another system" kind of interested.

Killzone, no, its another bland boring shooter title.

I played the First God of War, the others look like basically the exact same game, button mash, timed boss events.

There are other games that play exactly like Infamous, so its like I've already played it.

Resistance, another shooter.

Uncharted maybe, however honestly I never bothered to look that much into it and what it has to offer, since I don't own a PS3.

I dunno what 3D Dot Game Heros is, but if its some "3D" title, I'll pass...since I can't see in 3D (1 working eyeball).

Mostly yeah, not interested enough to invest in another system kinda interested. The ONLY exclusive thats ever even sorta really interested me was MGS4, and I've gone this long without it, I'll survive somehow. :)

no it's not that kinds of 3D, it's the GOOD type of 3D as in how Mario 64 was a 3D game while Super Mario Bros 3 was a 2D game. It's a 3D world though with no lenticular bullshit. It's actually a charming homage classic classic Zelda games (the top-down 2D type). Check it out, if that sort of thing interests you... just don't dismiss it by the name.

If you liked Gears of War I really recommend Uncharted, it does the same kind of thing but in a much more dynamic way with I think much better pacing, it's got such great set pieces and likeable characters. But you do have somewhat of a self made circular-exclusion:
-you don't own a PS3 so why would you bother looking into whether Uncharted (or other games) were good.
-if you don't know of any good games for PS3 (because you haven't looked) then why even consider getting a PS3.?
-No PS3, so no games interest.
-no games interest, so no PS3.

There really isn't any game like Infamous out there on the market, it's quite superficial the comparison with Prototype that just happened to be released in the same time. They are very different kinds of games. But I can't tell you this, you have to actually look into this yourself because you will never see what you don't want to look at.

But I'm no PS3 evangelist, if I'm going to encourage you to get any system it'll be a decent gaming PC. It's just the PS3 is the best of the bunch when it comes to consoles.

The Random One:
Yeah, the community took the words right out of my mouth. Childish. They are robbing their consumers of games (and through that robbing themselves of money) in exchange for benefits that are shaky at best and nonexistant at worst.

I'd even say getting games later is good, since when a game is released later on another console it tends to get all sort of nifty extras.

Treblaine:

Zenn3k:
Doesn't bother me, there isn't a single Sony exclusive I'm interested in playing.

Really? Not a single one?

Not even Uncharted? Infamous? Resistance or Killzone? God of War? 3D Dot Game heroes?

You do like games... right? I hope you aren't just saying you aren't interested in the sense of "Interested, but not interested enough to invest in another system" kind of interested.

While it does bother me that MS is doing that, it's because I might lose out on some exclusive that comes down the line. I too have no interest on any current Sony exclusive, not even Male Tomb Raider, Electric Parkour Attack, Gray Future Shooter XX or Gray Future Shooter XXI.

3D Dot Game Heroes looks hilarious and I'm happy enough that it exists.

To be perfectly honest I did kind of get interested on Motorstorm for a while, but FUEL cured that from me.

So you're not interested in "Gray Future Shooter XX", are you dissing 'Killzone' or 'Gears of War' with that characterisation? Is "Gray Future Shooter XXI" supposed to be Halo Reach?

How do you dismiss the Resistance games?

I don't know why you would dismiss "Electric Parkour Attack" you describe it in a pretty fun way. And it is a fun game.

Male tomb Raider? You clearly haven't played Uncharted, it plays a lot more like Gears of War only with a lot more verticality and more dynamic close combat. Just LOOK at the games, they are amazing.

Hmm, happy that a game exists but don't want to actually play it. What an odd stance for a "gamer" to take, it's much less a "gamer" and more an admirer.

PS: Fuel is a fraction of what Motorstorm is. This isn't about "curing" you interest in games, this is about going after what you WANT and not letting platform loyalty get in the way. I was always a Playstation man but is still got a 360 to play Halo 3-ODST-Reach and Gears 2.

Batsamaritan:

sephiroth1991:
I have come to a conclusion that Sony is bad with its customers, Microsoft are dicks to there's and Nintendo are Customer's Bitches. Well that my opinion. Its a shame that Xbox gamers don't get a chance to play Sony's games.

I do! I own both machines lol.

If I were microsoft I'd chuck money at developers to make the titles better when they hit 360, this announcement sounds like their going down the nintendo route and self distructing.

God help me I like my ps3 but I dread a sony dominated marketplace.

so you hated the last gen when the PS2 owned the marketplace

So now we know why the 360 version of Witcher 2 has been delayed / isn't going to happen....

"must have at least feature and content parity"

I bet it is only vs other consoles as PC versions of multiformat games generally have more features, higher res, 3d ect. Also things like 64 player multiplayer maps vs 24 for BF3, I would have thought would have fallen in this category....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here