mw2 takes a dump on ps3 on national tv. video here. haha

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

Kyrtos213 wrote:

Exodus2021 wrote:

I heard that sony delayed MAG because it couldn't compete toe-to-toe with this game.

I'm pretty sure that was just rumors. The beta went live not too long ago, so I'm not surprised they're releasing it next year. Gives them good time to tweak according to the feedback from the beta. I don't mind though, I'll be plenty occupied with Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare 2 for the PC if I ever get around to buying it.

Do you even have an Xbox 360? I mean all you seem to want to do is argue on and on and on.

This is a Xbox fan forum, if your here to prop up the PS3 you have wondered into the wrong jungle my friend.

In this forum members are encouraged to show their love for 360 and since we can't stand PS3 fanboys all members are encouraged to use language to piss them off. "Taking a shit on PS3" is meant to be provocative, but the basic statement is valid. Activision puts priority on 360 games becuase that is where their audience is in force.

Why do you even bother trying to subvert? You say the only thing that matters to you is that the game is on both. Well you're right about that, it's on both. That argument is over. Move on, you've posted a ton of comments on it and nobody is backing down. The Xbox Republic consensus is that Activision should just make it exclusive to 360. We'd love that idea and no amount of argument from you is going to change that.

I mean at some point you're just beating a dead horse. Go find another horse to abuse, meaning another forum, if you don't want to support the home team.

If you look back through the posts, we were actually having a good conversation about networking and stuff. That post was just at the end to recap what I was saying in my original post. Xbox forum or not, the thread title is ridiculous.

I brought conversation, and people enjoyed it...what more can you ask?

I'm sorry I'm not pro-360, because it would make for boring threads..."Isn't 360 awesome!?" "Yeah, it is!" /thread

It's either an intelligent forum, full of conversation, or just people are just wacking off to the 360 together. It's not like I'm trolling or anything, I'm trying to add some decent conversation topics to the forum. People can defend their console and I have no problem with that, so long as they use rational logic.

And while you may think (for some reason) that the idea is not absurd, I think that hoping a company will voluntarily lose money so that some people can claim they have an exclusive game is ridiculous. Would you ask for Microsoft to mail everyone who bought a 360 a $5 bill? That's pretty much what you're asking of Infinity Ward.

I'll go back to what I said originally, I do this to kill some time and to practice debating. It can also lead to interesting conversations. I do it here because there's no PS3 fanboys around here. Whenever I talk on another forum, PS3 fanboys always take my words and shove them in the faces of others, and the conversation turns into a shit storm.

At least here, I can argue by myself and know that the argument is under control (on my side, at least).

If the point of this forum is to make people feel better about owning a 360, then they aren't having enough fun with it themselves. You shouldn't need a forum with another random guy over the internet to convince you that you like your console. If this forum is for conversation involving the Xbox360, then I'm perfectly suited here, because I offer good conversation involving the Xbox360 with no trolling.

Unless you're saying that this forum is one giant self-esteem booster (which would be unbelievably lame), then I don't see why I shouldn't post here.

Kyrtos213 wrote:

343_Guilty_Spark wrote:

Kyrtos213 wrote:

Exodus2021 wrote:

I heard that sony delayed MAG because it couldn't compete toe-to-toe with this game.

I'm pretty sure that was just rumors. The beta went live not too long ago, so I'm not surprised they're releasing it next year. Gives them good time to tweak according to the feedback from the beta. I don't mind though, I'll be plenty occupied with Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare 2 for the PC if I ever get around to buying it.

Do you even have an Xbox 360? I mean all you seem to want to do is argue on and on and on.

This is a Xbox fan forum, if your here to prop up the PS3 you have wondered into the wrong jungle my friend.

In this forum members are encouraged to show their love for 360 and since we can't stand PS3 fanboys all members are encouraged to use language to piss them off. "Taking a shit on PS3" is meant to be provocative, but the basic statement is valid. Activision puts priority on 360 games becuase that is where their audience is in force.

Why do you even bother trying to subvert? You say the only thing that matters to you is that the game is on both. Well you're right about that, it's on both. That argument is over. Move on, you've posted a ton of comments on it and nobody is backing down. The Xbox Republic consensus is that Activision should just make it exclusive to 360. We'd love that idea and no amount of argument from you is going to change that.

I mean at some point you're just beating a dead horse. Go find another horse to abuse, meaning another forum, if you don't want to support the home team.

If you look back through the posts, we were actually having a good conversation about networking and stuff. That post was just at the end to recap what I was saying in my original post. Xbox forum or not, the thread title is ridiculous.

I brought conversation, and people enjoyed it...what more can you ask?

I'm sorry I'm not pro-360, because it would make for boring threads..."Isn't 360 awesome!?" "Yeah, it is!" /thread

It's either an intelligent forum, full of conversation, or just people are just wacking off to the 360 together. It's not like I'm trolling or anything, I'm trying to add some decent conversation topics to the forum. People can defend their console and I have no problem with that, so long as they use rational logic.

And while you may think (for some reason) that the idea is not absurd, I think that hoping a company will voluntarily lose money so that some people can claim they have an exclusive game is ridiculous. Would you ask for Microsoft to mail everyone who bought a 360 a $5 bill? That's pretty much what you're asking of Infinity Ward.

I'll go back to what I said originally, I do this to kill some time and to practice debating. It can also lead to interesting conversations. I do it here because there's no PS3 fanboys around here. Whenever I talk on another forum, PS3 fanboys always take my words and shove them in the faces of others, and the conversation turns into a shit storm.

At least here, I can argue by myself and know that the argument is under control (on my side, at least).

If the point of this forum is to make people feel better about owning a 360, then they aren't having enough fun with it themselves. You shouldn't need a forum with another random guy over the internet to convince you that you like your console. If this forum is for conversation involving the Xbox360, then I'm perfectly suited here, because I offer good conversation involving the Xbox360 with no trolling.

Unless you're saying that this forum is one giant self-esteem booster (which would be unbelievably lame), then I don't see why I shouldn't post here.

no its usually discussing games and what naught but we have to be on our gaurd to often decent conversations turns into TR3Y4L1F3 but until you do that your a refreshing breeze in my book

@Kyrtos213

Why would anyone want to argue? It's unpleasant and only necessary to defend a point being attacked. Why are you attacking Xbox fans' opinions on an Xbox forum. I find it hard to believe you just want to practice debating. Why would you need to do that?

You don't sit in the bleachers in the home team section and boo/hiss at the home team. If you're going to do that go sit in the visitors section. It has nothing to do with self-esteem or making anyone feel better about buying anything. As you know PS3 fanboys are the worst and they make all other forums unbearable.

This is a PS3 Fanboy free zone. It's a base of operations against them.

If all you're going to do is be a contrarian then I don't see the point. It's one thing to play devils advocate but if you really aren't an Xbox fan then this isn't a place for you. You can be however an Xbox fan who see's it's shortcomings. Unlike PS3 fans we discuss the 360's faults. But that doesn't mean we want to argue with you just for argument's sake. It just wastes everyone's time.

BTW, we don't have a visitors section here.

I lol everytime an xbox owner suggests that MW2 is an xbox exclusive due to it getting more sales on the 360. When the 360 has more users as of right now, and it has less games than the ps3. When I say games I mean "good games". People are buying this game because they have NOTHING to play. While the PS3 owners are either broke after buying uncharted or to busy enjoying other games.

MasterChef wrote:

I lol everytime an xbox owner suggests that MW2 is an xbox exclusive due to it getting more sales on the 360. When the 360 has more users as of right now, and it has less games than the ps3. When I say games I mean "good games". People are buying this game because they have NOTHING to play. While the PS3 owners are either broke after buying uncharted or to busy enjoying other games.

Krytos213 this is what you have got mistaken for.

People like him

MasterChef wrote:

I lol everytime an xbox owner suggests that MW2 is an xbox exclusive due to it getting more sales on the 360. When the 360 has more users as of right now

only 25% more xbox 360 owners than the PS3, in america twice as much. But even with that having 3 times as many preorders for the xbox 360 version of MW2 than the PS3 version is just fucking sad.

Quote :

and it has less games than the ps3.

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Quote :

When I say games I mean "good games". People are buying this game because they have NOTHING to play. While the PS3 owners are either broke after buying uncharted or to busy enjoying other games.

last time i checked the top 2 selling games on the PS3 are muliplats. The PS3 only has 1 game that has sold over 5 million copies while the xbox 360 has 6. the truth of the matter is the xbox 360 has far better and higher acclaimed games with a user base who actually likes to play them, while on the PS3 the majority of the user base is made up of movie watchers and the minority who are actual gamers don't seem to want to spend the money on the games the system provides.

The guy at 1:27 was a PS3 fanboy haha
Great vid!

Netbevit wrote:

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Lol -- What? Do you even know what a AAA title is? I'm guessing you think it's a 90+ rating on a site like metacritic, right? LOL It's not. AAA title is dependent on the amount of money put into the game's development. It has nothing to do with review ratings. I think you need to get educated on the gaming industry.

AAA Title = Budget and Production Values.

Is this the type of FUD garbage that you guys are spreading? Lol

you do know the whole complete phrase is AAA-RATING, right? if you think it is solely based on budget then you are a moron.

http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/05/26/what-are-aaa-titles/

Quote :

PS: To the idiot who made the topic. Modern Warfare 2 didn't crap on the PS3. Microsoft did. Do you know who paid for that commercial? Microsoft. Please educate yourself like the idiot above on how the gaming industry works.

o yes, and it was microsoft who paid them to only show gameplay running off the xbox 360 hardware as well, right? at events, during interviews, and just all the videos they put out they seem to be swimming in M$ money because all they seem to do is show the xbox 360 version of the game. why is sony so dumb not to invest in the game as well? would it really be that much money to create a MW2 bundle just like M$?

CannibalShinobi wrote:

Netbevit wrote:

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Lol -- What? Do you even know what a AAA title is? I'm guessing you think it's a 90+ rating on a site like metacritic, right? LOL It's not. AAA title is dependent on the amount of money put into the game's development. It has nothing to do with review ratings. I think you need to get educated on the gaming industry.

AAA Title = Budget and Production Values.

Is this the type of FUD garbage that you guys are spreading? Lol

you do know the whole complete phrase is AAA-RATING, right? if you think it is solely based on budget then you are a moron.

http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/05/26/what-are-aaa-titles/

Quote :

PS: To the idiot who made the topic. Modern Warfare 2 didn't crap on the PS3. Microsoft did. Do you know who paid for that commercial? Microsoft. Please educate yourself like the idiot above on how the gaming industry works.

o yes, and it was microsoft who paid them to only show gameplay running off the xbox 360 hardware as well, right? at events, during interviews, and just all the videos they put out they seem to be swimming in M$ money because all they seem to do is show the xbox 360 version of the game. why is sony so dumb not to invest in the game as well? would it really be that much money to create a MW2 bundle just like M$?

Call it stupid on Sony's part if you want, but it's what they're doing.

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

Sony may have not done that, but they are investing the majority of their money in first party developers.

While you ridicule Sony for not investing more in multiplatform developers, I could flip the argument around and ridicule Microsoft for not investing more in first party development teams.

Kyrtos213 wrote:

Call it stupid on Sony's part if you want, but it's what they're doing.

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

Sony may have not done that, but they are investing the majority of their money in first party developers.

While you ridicule Sony for not investing more in multiplatform developers, I could flip the argument around and ridicule Microsoft for not investing more in first party development teams.

hmm, last time i checked M$ recently created a game studio dedicated purely to the production of their flagship first party title.

i'm just surprised sony doesn't invest in multiplat games more than they do since their top 2 selling games are multiplat and soon top 3.

Quote :

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

and like i said before it seems they are also paying them to show nothing but the xbox 360 version of the game at events and interviews.

Kyrtos213 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

Netbevit wrote:

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Lol -- What? Do you even know what a AAA title is? I'm guessing you think it's a 90+ rating on a site like metacritic, right? LOL It's not. AAA title is dependent on the amount of money put into the game's development. It has nothing to do with review ratings. I think you need to get educated on the gaming industry.

AAA Title = Budget and Production Values.

Is this the type of FUD garbage that you guys are spreading? Lol

you do know the whole complete phrase is AAA-RATING, right? if you think it is solely based on budget then you are a moron.

http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/05/26/what-are-aaa-titles/

Quote :

PS: To the idiot who made the topic. Modern Warfare 2 didn't crap on the PS3. Microsoft did. Do you know who paid for that commercial? Microsoft. Please educate yourself like the idiot above on how the gaming industry works.

o yes, and it was microsoft who paid them to only show gameplay running off the xbox 360 hardware as well, right? at events, during interviews, and just all the videos they put out they seem to be swimming in M$ money because all they seem to do is show the xbox 360 version of the game. why is sony so dumb not to invest in the game as well? would it really be that much money to create a MW2 bundle just like M$?

Call it stupid on Sony's part if you want, but it's what they're doing.

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

Sony may have not done that, but they are investing the majority of their money in first party developers.

While you ridicule Sony for not investing more in multiplatform developers, I could flip the argument around and ridicule Microsoft for not investing more in first party development teams.

kyrtos213,why are you here if all you want to do is argue?

Arbiteris wrote:

Kyrtos213 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

Netbevit wrote:

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Lol -- What? Do you even know what a AAA title is? I'm guessing you think it's a 90+ rating on a site like metacritic, right? LOL It's not. AAA title is dependent on the amount of money put into the game's development. It has nothing to do with review ratings. I think you need to get educated on the gaming industry.

AAA Title = Budget and Production Values.

Is this the type of FUD garbage that you guys are spreading? Lol

you do know the whole complete phrase is AAA-RATING, right? if you think it is solely based on budget then you are a moron.

http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/05/26/what-are-aaa-titles/

Quote :

PS: To the idiot who made the topic. Modern Warfare 2 didn't crap on the PS3. Microsoft did. Do you know who paid for that commercial? Microsoft. Please educate yourself like the idiot above on how the gaming industry works.

o yes, and it was microsoft who paid them to only show gameplay running off the xbox 360 hardware as well, right? at events, during interviews, and just all the videos they put out they seem to be swimming in M$ money because all they seem to do is show the xbox 360 version of the game. why is sony so dumb not to invest in the game as well? would it really be that much money to create a MW2 bundle just like M$?

Call it stupid on Sony's part if you want, but it's what they're doing.

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

Sony may have not done that, but they are investing the majority of their money in first party developers.

While you ridicule Sony for not investing more in multiplatform developers, I could flip the argument around and ridicule Microsoft for not investing more in first party development teams.

kyrtos213,why are you here if all you want to do is argue?

Because hes a Sony fanboy stealth troll who's purpose is to defend his PS3.

Arbiteris wrote:

Kyrtos213 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

Netbevit wrote:

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Lol -- What? Do you even know what a AAA title is? I'm guessing you think it's a 90+ rating on a site like metacritic, right? LOL It's not. AAA title is dependent on the amount of money put into the game's development. It has nothing to do with review ratings. I think you need to get educated on the gaming industry.

AAA Title = Budget and Production Values.

Is this the type of FUD garbage that you guys are spreading? Lol

you do know the whole complete phrase is AAA-RATING, right? if you think it is solely based on budget then you are a moron.

http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/05/26/what-are-aaa-titles/

Quote :

PS: To the idiot who made the topic. Modern Warfare 2 didn't crap on the PS3. Microsoft did. Do you know who paid for that commercial? Microsoft. Please educate yourself like the idiot above on how the gaming industry works.

o yes, and it was microsoft who paid them to only show gameplay running off the xbox 360 hardware as well, right? at events, during interviews, and just all the videos they put out they seem to be swimming in M$ money because all they seem to do is show the xbox 360 version of the game. why is sony so dumb not to invest in the game as well? would it really be that much money to create a MW2 bundle just like M$?

Call it stupid on Sony's part if you want, but it's what they're doing.

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

Sony may have not done that, but they are investing the majority of their money in first party developers.

While you ridicule Sony for not investing more in multiplatform developers, I could flip the argument around and ridicule Microsoft for not investing more in first party development teams.

kyrtos213,why are you here if all you want to do is argue?

Because it's so easy...Threads on these forums consist of some of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

I'm not here to defend anything...I'm here to argue against horribly thought out points. I would do the same thing if somebody said Modern Warfare 2 takes a dump on Xbox360...because it doesn't.

It doesn't take a dump on anything.

CannibalShinobi wrote:

hmm, last time i checked M$ recently created a game studio dedicated purely to the production of their flagship first party title.

i'm just surprised sony doesn't invest in multiplat games more than they do since their top 2 selling games are multiplat and soon top 3.

This is exactly my point. Can you list say, 5 first party development studios owned by Microsoft?

There might be the odd one here or there, but I've seen multiplatform advertisements with the PS3 logo at the end.

When I said "investing more", I meant several studios, producing totally separate games...I didn't mean one studio working on their flagship title.

So yes, Sony isn't focusing very hard on multiplatform games, but at the same time, Microsoft's main goal is not to secure first party developers.

Microsoft's main is to continue beating sony over all... they are trying to come up with new ways to have "better" 360's... such as the modern warfare 2 with the 250GB HDD + MW2

Jesus Christ, so what if I don't have my mouth on Microsoft's cock?

I'm not here spewing "tr3y for life!" or anything idiotic like that...

Do you just not like me because I'm pointing out how stupid people seem when you examine their arguments to a closer degree?

kyrtos123 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

hmm, last time i checked M$ recently created a game studio dedicated purely to the production of their flagship first party title.

i'm just surprised sony doesn't invest in multiplat games more than they do since their top 2 selling games are multiplat and soon top 3.

This is exactly my point. Can you list say, 5 first party development studios owned by Microsoft?

There might be the odd one here or there, but I've seen multiplatform advertisements with the PS3 logo at the end.

When I said "investing more", I meant several studios, producing totally separate games...I didn't mean one studio working on their flagship title.

So yes, Sony isn't focusing very hard on multiplatform games, but at the same time, Microsoft's main goal is not to secure first party developers.

o yes, because focusing on first party developers really worked well last generation.

the console with the most third party support is the one that comes out up on top. this is how the PS2 won last generation, microsoft realized that and decided that was the right road to go and apparently they were correct. just look at the PS3's sales numbers, why put a lot of money in creating 1st party content with 5+ years of development only to sell less than 2 million copies? that's just not smart business.

Quote :

Do you just not like me because I'm pointing out how stupid people seem when you examine their arguments to a closer degree?

how ironic, because yours don't seem that well founded either.

CannibalShinobi wrote:

kyrtos123 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

hmm, last time i checked M$ recently created a game studio dedicated purely to the production of their flagship first party title.

i'm just surprised sony doesn't invest in multiplat games more than they do since their top 2 selling games are multiplat and soon top 3.

This is exactly my point. Can you list say, 5 first party development studios owned by Microsoft?

There might be the odd one here or there, but I've seen multiplatform advertisements with the PS3 logo at the end.

When I said "investing more", I meant several studios, producing totally separate games...I didn't mean one studio working on their flagship title.

So yes, Sony isn't focusing very hard on multiplatform games, but at the same time, Microsoft's main goal is not to secure first party developers.

o yes, because focusing on first party developers really worked well last generation.

the console with the most third party support is the one that comes out up on top. this is how the PS2 won last generation, microsoft realized that and decided that was the right road to go and apparently they were correct. just look at the PS3's sales numbers, why put a lot of money in creating 1st party content with 5+ years of development only to sell less than 2 million copies? that's just not smart business.

Quote :

Do you just not like me because I'm pointing out how stupid people seem when you examine their arguments to a closer degree?

how ironic, because yours don't seem that well founded either.

Well, Sony makes more money on every copy of Uncharted 2 sold than Modern Warfare sold, but that's not my point.

I'm not saying that it's a good or bad strategy...you can look, I never did. I simply said that it's what they're doing. Hell, I'm not complaining, because as a result, the PS3 gets more exclusive titles with a higher production value.

I mean, look at most multiplatform games...then look at a game like Uncharted 2. I'm not here to brag about graphics or anything like that, but I'm saying that you can see the difference when a game is built around the Cell architecture, and not just ported. When a multiplatform game gets ported to the PS3, it is rarely recreated and optimized for use of the Cell.

Sony knows this; it's a fault the PS3 has with multiplatform games (although, if CE3 can live up to its promises, we might see better production value from games ported to the PS3). Perhaps this might be one justification of why Sony is focusing more on first party developed games. Another might be they're trying to make up for money not gained from offering a free online service. Microsoft may spend $50 million to secure GTA IV DLC, but they make $500+ million a year from XBL alone. They're gaining enough money from XBL that they've got money to throw around for things like that.

I'm not saying Sony has a better strategy than Microsoft, but it's not like Microsoft's getting all teh first partay teams. Each strategy has its benefits and its flaws. Clearly, though, Microsoft's gets off to a much quicker start.

But apparently I keep getting banned because I'm "not saying anything good about the 360". *To Admin* Can you quote me where I outright say that the PS3 is better than the Xbox360, or that it has a major advantage? I haven't exactly been spreading word like the PS3 is the God of all consoles...it isn't. It has its faults, just like the X360, however it's not exactly common to find people outright bashing the X360 around here. If it was more common, I would probably compliment the X360 more.

But I refuse to lie through my teeth if I say something just to appease forum users. Call me old fashioned, but I value my opinion more than that.

I've explained what I do: I argue.
I've explained why I'm here: No PS3 fanboys.

Putting 2 and 2 together, you can see that I would generally argue against Xbox360 fan(usually -boys).

The 360 has a better social service (mic, XBL, etc.).
It almost always has the superior (albeit very slightly) multiplatform games.
It's easier to develop for, so developers tend to favor it more.
Usually gets timed/exclusive DLC whenever possible.

There, I said some good things about the Xbox360. But seriously, when would I use those points in an argument when I'm in a giant Xbox fan club?

kyrtos132 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

kyrtos123 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

hmm, last time i checked M$ recently created a game studio dedicated purely to the production of their flagship first party title.

i'm just surprised sony doesn't invest in multiplat games more than they do since their top 2 selling games are multiplat and soon top 3.

This is exactly my point. Can you list say, 5 first party development studios owned by Microsoft?

There might be the odd one here or there, but I've seen multiplatform advertisements with the PS3 logo at the end.

When I said "investing more", I meant several studios, producing totally separate games...I didn't mean one studio working on their flagship title.

So yes, Sony isn't focusing very hard on multiplatform games, but at the same time, Microsoft's main goal is not to secure first party developers.

o yes, because focusing on first party developers really worked well last generation.

the console with the most third party support is the one that comes out up on top. this is how the PS2 won last generation, microsoft realized that and decided that was the right road to go and apparently they were correct. just look at the PS3's sales numbers, why put a lot of money in creating 1st party content with 5+ years of development only to sell less than 2 million copies? that's just not smart business.

Quote :

Do you just not like me because I'm pointing out how stupid people seem when you examine their arguments to a closer degree?

how ironic, because yours don't seem that well founded either.

Well, Sony makes more money on every copy of Uncharted 2 sold than Modern Warfare sold, but that's not my point.

I'm not saying that it's a good or bad strategy...you can look, I never did. I simply said that it's what they're doing. Hell, I'm not complaining, because as a result, the PS3 gets more exclusive titles with a higher production value.

I mean, look at most multiplatform games...then look at a game like Uncharted 2. I'm not here to brag about graphics or anything like that, but I'm saying that you can see the difference when a game is built around the Cell architecture, and not just ported. When a multiplatform game gets ported to the PS3, it is rarely recreated and optimized for use of the Cell.

Sony knows this; it's a fault the PS3 has with multiplatform games (although, if CE3 can live up to its promises, we might see better production value from games ported to the PS3). Perhaps this might be one justification of why Sony is focusing more on first party developed games. Another might be they're trying to make up for money not gained from offering a free online service. Microsoft may spend $50 million to secure GTA IV DLC, but they make $500+ million a year from XBL alone. They're gaining enough money from XBL that they've got money to throw around for things like that.

I'm not saying Sony has a better strategy than Microsoft, but it's not like Microsoft's getting all teh first partay teams. Each strategy has its benefits and its flaws. Clearly, though, Microsoft's gets off to a much quicker start.

But apparently I keep getting banned because I'm "not saying anything good about the 360". *To Admin* Can you quote me where I outright say that the PS3 is better than the Xbox360, or that it has a major advantage? I haven't exactly been spreading word like the PS3 is the God of all consoles...it isn't. It has its faults, just like the X360, however it's not exactly common to find people outright bashing the X360 around here. If it was more common, I would probably compliment the X360 more.

But I refuse to lie through my teeth if I say something just to appease forum users. Call me old fashioned, but I value my opinion more than that.

I've explained what I do: I argue.
I've explained why I'm here: No PS3 fanboys.

Putting 2 and 2 together, you can see that I would generally argue against Xbox360 fan(usually -boys).

The 360 has a better social service (mic, XBL, etc.).
It almost always has the superior (albeit very slightly) multiplatform games.
It's easier to develop for, so developers tend to favor it more.
Usually gets timed/exclusive DLC whenever possible.

There, I said some good things about the Xbox360. But seriously, when would I use those points in an argument when I'm in a giant Xbox fan club?

Listing a few token niceties about the Xbox 360 doesn't change the fact that you are here to oppose everyone. We don't need contrarian people like you raining on our parade. If you want to argue go somewhere else because this is an Xbox 360 fan forum for... wait for it... XBOX 360 FANS. I know, it's hard to believe, it's not like you couldn't tell from the giant logo at the top of the website.

kyrtos132 wrote:

It almost always has the superior (albeit very slightly) multiplatform games.

I certainly wouldn't call it slight. The differences are extremely noticable. I always chuckle when Sony fanboys say that because I know right then that they haven't played both versions of these games. Me personally I buy the 360 version and rent the PS3 version (for trophies) and 95% of the time the PS3 version looks and even sometimes plays noticably worse. Not to mention comparison sites like Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry finding the PS3 versions inferior 9 times out of 10.

kyrtos132 wrote:

Well, Sony makes more money on every copy of Uncharted 2 sold than Modern Warfare sold, but that's not my point.

how much money do you think went into the development of games like uncharted and killzone? those games have far longer development times than conventional games, hell if GT5 doesn't sell over 4 million copies sony is most likely going to loose a lot of money on the project.

Quote :

I'm not saying that it's a good or bad strategy...you can look, I never did. I simply said that it's what they're doing. Hell, I'm not complaining, because as a result, the PS3 gets more exclusive titles with a higher production value.

the opinions of the critics and the masses who buy the games contradicts that idea. nintendo did the same thing with mario galaxy, the highest rated game of this generation. but the difference between sony and nintendo is the fact that nintendos first party games actually sale while multiplats dominate sonys game sales charts.

Quote :

I mean, look at most multiplatform games...then look at a game like Uncharted 2. I'm not here to brag about graphics or anything like that, but I'm saying that you can see the difference when a game is built around the Cell architecture, and not just ported. When a multiplatform game gets ported to the PS3, it is rarely recreated and optimized for use of the Cell.

here you sound like you think the cell is something special when it's not, people who have worked on both CPUs sitting in both consoles have stated that. and why would they want to optimize the game for the cell? look at games like uncharted, killzone, and GT5. how long have these games been in development? almost twice as long as the conventional game. why wait 5+ years for devs to optimize games for the cell? it's pointless wasting of time just for for some better lighting and particle effects in a couple of levels.

Quote :

Sony knows this; it's a fault the PS3 has with multiplatform games (although, if CE3 can live up to its promises, we might see better production value from games ported to the PS3). Perhaps this might be one justification of why Sony is focusing more on first party developed games. Another might be they're trying to make up for money not gained from offering a free online service. Microsoft may spend $50 million to secure GTA IV DLC, but they make $500+ million a year from XBL alone. They're gaining enough money from XBL that they've got money to throw around for things like that.

$500 million a year? are you kidding me? well let me point out that instead of charging the gamers sony charges the developers. M$ charges a the gamers a flat rate for the bandwidth and the xbox live and game servers that are provided to every developer making a game that has online features, while sony charges developers 16 cents for 1gb of bandwidth used by that developers content and rents out servers to them as well for online games. sony might not have the same support for their online system due to their business model but they are far from loosing money on the PSN. and when you look at the big picture M$ is making no where near as much as you claim they are.

Quote :

I'm not saying Sony has a better strategy than Microsoft, but it's not like Microsoft's getting all teh first partay teams. Each strategy has its benefits and its flaws. Clearly, though, Microsoft's gets off to a much quicker start.

M$ just learned the lessons from last generation, be the first ones out with the most 3rd party support and the best online services and you will do great. while sony on the other hand was far too ignorant thinking that 100 million people would just buy the $600 PS3 because of the name alone. sony should have just kept to their strategy from last gen, if so i might be owning a PS3 right now instead of a xbox 360.

You guys are saying that MW2 should be a 360 exclusive. what the fuck????? seriously MW2 is going to sell millions just because teh 360 version is out-pre-ordering the ps3 version by a lot isn't going to make IW not make a ps3 version you know why??? BECUASE IT MAKES A SHITLOAD OF MONEY. if i was a big publisher fuck excluisives i would make multi-plats they sell more. and IW and Activision do a good job in porting games

killaz wrote:

You guys are saying that MW2 should be a 360 exclusive. what the fuck????? seriously MW2 is going to sell millions just because teh 360 version is out-pre-ordering the ps3 version by a lot isn't going to make IW not make a ps3 version you know why??? BECUASE IT MAKES A SHITLOAD OF MONEY. if i was a big publisher fuck excluisives i would make multi-plats they sell more. and IW and Activision do a good job in porting games

actually it's more along the point of: why waste money and time porting the game over to the PS3 and renting the online servers from sony?

kyrtos123 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Kyrtos213 wrote:

CannibalShinobi wrote:

Netbevit wrote:

*cough* lie *cough* xbox 360 has more AAA, AA, and A than the PS3, now that's the truth.

Lol -- What? Do you even know what a AAA title is? I'm guessing you think it's a 90+ rating on a site like metacritic, right? LOL It's not. AAA title is dependent on the amount of money put into the game's development. It has nothing to do with review ratings. I think you need to get educated on the gaming industry.

AAA Title = Budget and Production Values.

Is this the type of FUD garbage that you guys are spreading? Lol

you do know the whole complete phrase is AAA-RATING, right? if you think it is solely based on budget then you are a moron.

http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/05/26/what-are-aaa-titles/

Quote :

PS: To the idiot who made the topic. Modern Warfare 2 didn't crap on the PS3. Microsoft did. Do you know who paid for that commercial? Microsoft. Please educate yourself like the idiot above on how the gaming industry works.

o yes, and it was microsoft who paid them to only show gameplay running off the xbox 360 hardware as well, right? at events, during interviews, and just all the videos they put out they seem to be swimming in M$ money because all they seem to do is show the xbox 360 version of the game. why is sony so dumb not to invest in the game as well? would it really be that much money to create a MW2 bundle just like M$?

Call it stupid on Sony's part if you want, but it's what they're doing.

Microsoft paid for the timed DLC, they paid for the bundle, they paid for the logo at the end of the video...

Sony may have not done that, but they are investing the majority of their money in first party developers.

While you ridicule Sony for not investing more in multiplatform developers, I could flip the argument around and ridicule Microsoft for not investing more in first party development teams.

kyrtos213,why are you here if all you want to do is argue?

Because it's so easy...Threads on these forums consist of some of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

I'm not here to defend anything...I'm here to argue against horribly thought out points. I would do the same thing if somebody said Modern Warfare 2 takes a dump on Xbox360...because it doesn't.

It doesn't take a dump on anything.

Im not going to ban you but you do sound like a stealth troll.You say your not defending anything but you argue every time someone says something.Its a 360 forum and you have to expect fanboyism.DUH.And then once i question younyou say that you would stick up for 360 and you wouldnt side on anything.This is a friendly forum.If all you want to do is argue then gtfo.

Master_Chief wrote:

kyrtos132 wrote:

It almost always has the superior (albeit very slightly) multiplatform games.

I certainly wouldn't call it slight. The differences are extremely noticable. I always chuckle when Sony fanboys say that because I know right then that they haven't played both versions of these games. Me personally I buy the 360 version and rent the PS3 version (for trophies) and 95% of the time the PS3 version looks and even sometimes plays noticably worse. Not to mention comparison sites like Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry finding the PS3 versions inferior 9 times out of 10.

lol Trophies. Dumbest idea ever.