PS3 picking up sales

[JKKDARK]

Don't forget the PS3 is Blue-Ray technology.

And the PC Engine had CD-ROM technology! The games and price are over any technology.

[BlackKnight]

What problem do you have with the Wii? It's selling extremely a lot better than the 360 and the crappy PS3.

 

If you buy a 360, unless you're pretty well off you're likely to stick with the 360 for most of this generation, and not buy both until they're really cheap (many years from now). Same goes for the PS3.\

 

If you get a Wii however, you're still pretty likely to buy either a 360 or a PS3 at some point. Just for that reason I don't think it affects the balance so much.

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

Domination = bad. Real bad. Stupid really.

 

The concept that you my friends should grasp is assimilation. Get both, hell, all 3. It does cost like hell but the advantages of being able to access all the exclusives and choosing the version you like from the multi-platformers beats anything. This is great news. Competition = win. Once the PS3 sorts out it's interweb access, I sure hope it will force the 360 into makings its free.

[General Plot]

I knew sooner or later it would catch on.

[BlackKnight]

Why is it bad to have 2 competing next-gen movie formats but not to have 2 next-gen game formats?

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

Because we're talking about games, not movies.

 

Movies run the same and we get the same deal, quality-wise, feature-wise, etc. no matter which format we use.

 

Because each console is a different experience.

 

Because movies will run on just about any player. Games will not.

 

And games > movies. For movies we just want to see it quick and hassle free. We actually have high expectations from the games we buy.

 

Because the movie industry is in decline, while gaming is only getting larger.

 

And I suppose because of a lot of other more relevant reasons I really can't think about.

 

Sure, it would be great to use only one system for all the games out there, but we'd get milked into oblivion because of no competition.

[BlackKnight]

Because we're talking about games, not movies.

So what? You buy discs with media content and machines to play them on. They seem pretty similar to me.

 

Movies run the same and we get the same deal, quality-wise, feature-wise, etc. no matter which format we use.

Untrue. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray vary on basic picture quality, number of sound channels and kinds of audio compression used.

 

Because each console is a different experience.

Experience being defined solely by the games for it. It's not different to say that the 2 video formats are different experiences because a big action movie studio publishes for one and not the other. One could be the blockbuster platform and the other the drama one. In theory.

 

Because movies will run on just about any player. Games will not.

? My Casino Royale BD-ROM won't play on my standalone Toshiba HD-DVD player.

 

And games > movies. For movies we just want to see it quick and hassle free. We actually have high expectations from the games we buy.

That really isn't relevant.

 

Just a thought- Might that possibly because of games' high price tags? A single platform gives developers a larger market to work with, rather than one divided into different camps. A larger market means increased overall revenue and the possibility for lower price points at retail.

 

Because the movie industry is in decline, while gaming is only getting larger.

And yet the gaming market is still not even comparable to movies in terms of mainstream adoption. Minor decline on one one and slight growth on the other doesn't do much in bridging sales across the 2.

 

And I suppose because of a lot of other more relevant reasons I really can't think about.

I can't really think of any.

 

Sure, it would be great to use only one system for all the games out there, but we'd get milked into oblivion because of no competition.

You're making the key mistake of confusing competition on the hardware end with the software. Creatively if there is a larger single market to work with, developers are more free to try new ideas. In terms of sales there is a lesser push for more franchise sequels and licensed games because the larger installed base can support the higher level of risk. If anything I think there'd be less milking going on.

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

I love the way you completely skewered me here. I wish I'd have put more thought in my previous post... sigh... I don't really know and I'll grab all 3 consoles anyway in the end, so I don't really care about who has what and which is better or other nonsense. Collectors never do anyway.

 

One thing though, I was referring to console options in my last line. For instance, the 360 Live thingie costs, and I, for instance, have an aversion to almost anything that requires me to shelve money from my pocket. The PS3 is attractive here because its thingie is free. I wasn't talking about games and whatnot. Also, PS3 will support a mouse and keyboard, so yet again, another attractive reason to grab it. 360 should keep up and introduce their own keyboard and so far. I can finally play FPS games without bursting some blood vessels because of the crappy controller being utterly and gigantically crap for those kinda games, and I can finally play all the great fighting games the way they were supposed to be played, with a great keyboard.

[Lucandrake]

Microsoft want's to make it "fair" for console gamers hence their lack of keyboard/mouse intro (or else it would've sprang up with Halo 2 in Xbox).

 

Also, most of the godly games (aside nintendo) originaly came from 3rd party publishers, again software, not hardware. So the way I see it.

 

In order to get all good games, right now you need a 360/PS3/Wii.

 

But if either Sony or Microsoft owned the market, the only thing a consumer would need (to get the same amount of games) would be a W/e / Wii.

 

Besides, if either Microsoft or Sony stops making hardware, they'll probably end up like Sega, on it's old competetions system, so again, it's a win for the consumer if of them dominate the freaking market already.

[Fatal Rose]

If VF5R is a PS3 exclusive then I am going to buy a PS3. I don't care about consoles, I care about games.

[GodPigeon]

If VF5R is a PS3 exclusive then I am going to buy a PS3. I don't care about consoles, I care about games.

Yes, Walk into the light of teh Holy PS3

 

If it comes out, i will by the game and you will help me learn to play, Yes?

I tried VF4 and i was kinda sucky at it =\

[Inky]

I have one word to describe what happens when one company dominates the market..

 

VISTA.

 

if mac was more prolific imagine how much better vista would have had to be to compete. if only MS or Sony own the market there is no reason for the hardware to innovate itself. just like if Only ATI or Nvidia were in graphics there would be no reason for pushing the limits of graphics cards. you need competition to get change and innovation. both on the hardware and software levels. Imagine if all games were made by EA?

 

Competition is GOOD. thats whats wrong with this softie world we live in now. we aren't teaching kids to be competitive, with all these trophies for participation and no losers little leagues.

[BlackKnight]

I'll say it again. We play games. As long as there's competition amongst game developers there will be good games.

 

All 2 formats do is split the audience and market. Which is bad. Case in point- why should I have to buy a PS3 and a 360 to play VF5R and Lost Odyssey? Why I can't I just buy one machine and get all the games I want? Why should I have to shell out for 2 monstrous purchases that do essentially the same thing?

 

2 gaming formats just sucks.. period. Why was the PS2 the bestselling console ever with the best library of games ever? Think about that one.

[Inky]

I'll say it again. We play games. As long as there's competition amongst game developers there will be good games.

 

All 2 formats do is split the audience and market. Which is bad. Case in point- why should I have to buy a PS3 and a 360 to play VF5R and Lost Odyssey? Why I can't I just buy one machine and get all the games I want? Why should I have to shell out for 2 monstrous purchases that do essentially the same thing?

 

2 gaming formats just sucks.. period. Why was the PS2 the bestselling console ever with the best library of games ever? Think about that one.

I don't see where you are going with the ps2 reference. it had the dreamcast and xbox to compete with.

 

and like I said one hardware maker means stagnate hardware development. if the 360 was the only console in town this generation, there next upcoming machine would be nowhere as much a leap forward as if they had to worry about what sony and nintendo were up to. and hardware dictates how complex, innovative, and real are games are. if there is only one hardware platform we have to eat what ever they are serving with no complaints.

[Lucandrake]

damn it your all mixing up opinions and crap that tend to go off topic!

 

If one person is talking about hardware, the other one goes off into software, then one person is talking about business, while the other one again software!