Because it's not yet at the point where you're looking for the needle in the haystack, and compared to the rather sparse current PS3 lineup, it's an advantageso now having more titles is not always a good thing, but one of the main reasons to get a 360 over PS3(currently), is more titles.........
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rockstar explains why PS3 is better.
- Thread starter Coded-Dude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Wii is not good for smaller developers, the cost of getting games on the platform is excessive for what most of them want to do. The PC and 360 are great due to the zero licensing fee for the PC, and the Xbox Live Arcade on the 360 (which requires minimal financial investment). Wii games require a 'proper' studio with thousands (if not millions) behind the whole process, including a team of people who know the industry. It just doesn't happen like that.
The PlayStation platforms don't 'win' in any particular quality, there are such a small amount of titles on the PS3 that there isn't an 'acceptable' average, only a handful of titles (five or less) are exclusive to the PS3 and out now, Fall of Man, F1, Motorstorm, Untold Legends...that's me done. The others are on the 360. Some multi-platform titles are rated higher simply because they're on the PS3, and the reviewers are happy to see them hit their desks early.Yep, you can look at average reviews of games for each current platform, and PlayStation actually wins in overall quality. While the 360 and WIi have more games, the PS3 games are getting higher ratings on a per game basis. Its true that the HD platforms are far more costly, and I think that is good and bad. It usually makes the smaller devs more focused on producing something of good quality that will actually sell so they can make their money back. The big companies are always gonna make ports and played out, rehashed versions of something that already sold(just to make a buck), but that doesn't mean you have to buy it. Although I am interested in titles like Army of Two, a new IP EA is trying out(i know, EA and NEW IP sound like oxymorons).
You clearly haven't an idea about EA then. They have many different divisions, but constantly back new IP and have developments going on all the time. The Sims, the Sim brand in general, Battlefield started with them too, Katamari Damacy was released on PS2 by them which no one expected. They're not just generic publisher number 113.
Since most games are terrible-
More 3rd party games= bad. More games to look through to find a gem.
More diverse games= good.
More 1st party games (all consoles)= good. very very good.
I've always said that. The Amiga had games in the abundance. NES ports, arcade ports, even Mega Drive ports. It could run anything, was cheap to develop for and had a huge public domain scene so you had to search like a mad lepper to find the Turricans or Lemmings. Just look at the GBA too
More third-party games = good, actually. More games can't be a bad thing, just like more music isn't. You don't have to play them all, it'd be pretty hard to conceive trying to do so. You pick the games that are suited to your tastes - simply because you don't like Barbie's Horse-riding doesn't mean it's bad for the console, marketplace or you. It's giving everyone something to play rather than restricting a specific console to a generic teenage boy's gunz-n-gutz type game. "More diverse games" - there's so many ways to intepret that it's untrue, being a bit more clear would help.
More first-party games, yeah, great. Except, first-party Sony ones have never been fantastic, and there is no real difference between third and first party, it's strange to suggest first-party games are in some way superior.
Pshhhh. Sony Computer Entertainment spawned both ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. That makes them like unto GODS as far as I'm concerned. I can't think of a single other first party title that comes CLOSE to that level of quality, from anyone. (And now Team ICO is making TWO new games for the PS3, which means it's next on my "list of consoles to buy.")
Lol, oh sorry Adamo. I'll take my experience of game deving for PC and consoles and go fly a kite with it.
A Wii dev kit is a mighty mighty small fraction of what a PS3 or 360 kit is. Back during the "revolution" phase we had numerous seminars from reps of Nintendo talking about how they'd give us all pretty remuneration breaks for small devs to work on their system, in some cases free dev kits and guides etc.
Anyways, I lost myself. After you take into account fees for a couple of games you're still saving money than buying a PS3/360 dev kit... obviously depending on license. Plus the whole money you save whilst making the game (I take it you didn't know a publishing firm released figures a while ago citing the extended dev time and heightened dev cost of producing for a PS3/360?).
The license itself has dropped significantly from Gamecube days (at least in Europe), even if you add AiLive ontop of that you're still paying less than the G5 required for a 360 game Sony pulled in devs originally with large storage spaces and lower license fee's. Since space isn't much an issue these days and Nintendo offers an overall cheaper production experience...
Killmoms - you don't find Metroid or Zelda quality filled? I give you Mario, yea, he's whored out. But them classics?
A Wii dev kit is a mighty mighty small fraction of what a PS3 or 360 kit is. Back during the "revolution" phase we had numerous seminars from reps of Nintendo talking about how they'd give us all pretty remuneration breaks for small devs to work on their system, in some cases free dev kits and guides etc.
Anyways, I lost myself. After you take into account fees for a couple of games you're still saving money than buying a PS3/360 dev kit... obviously depending on license. Plus the whole money you save whilst making the game (I take it you didn't know a publishing firm released figures a while ago citing the extended dev time and heightened dev cost of producing for a PS3/360?).
The license itself has dropped significantly from Gamecube days (at least in Europe), even if you add AiLive ontop of that you're still paying less than the G5 required for a 360 game
Sony pulled in devs originally with large storage spaces and lower license fee's. Since space isn't much an issue these days and Nintendo offers an overall cheaper production experience...Killmoms - you don't find Metroid or Zelda quality filled? I give you Mario, yea, he's whored out. But them classics?
It's not that I find them lacking in quality. They just don't speak to me on a gut-level like the other titles I mentioned do. Fumito Ueda is one of the few auteurs of the game industry, and his titles have such a consistency of vision and high level of artistryqualities I have yet to find in such abundance in any other title that I've played.
^ What are your feelings about Okami?
Regardless, I hear where you're coming from. Metroid doesn't have it.
Regardless, I hear where you're coming from. Metroid doesn't have it.
Rockstar rep says 'complete experience' only on 360
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=20070725111542242077&releaseId=20060313153735796095
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=20070725111542242077&releaseId=20060313153735796095
OH NOES
an extra disc/downloads filled with exclusives that the Ps3 won't have?
WHAT WILL I DO??? zOMG
an extra disc/downloads filled with exclusives that the Ps3 won't have?
WHAT WILL I DO??? zOMG
who ****ing cares.....PS3 will be getting Rockstar love soon enough.
(and they won't be whining about having to compromise anything to support 360 as well)
(and they won't be whining about having to compromise anything to support 360 as well)
The only difference is Episodic content - that is all this PR douche meant when he said "complete experience."
I don't understand why this is such a big deal, as things like this(episodic content) are gonna go back and forth and back and forth throughout this gen(more than likely)
As stated by Phil, they have a great relationship with Rockstar and have some things in the works.
We'll be getting some of this "exclusive" love soon enough. In the meantime, enjoy your content(if you have a 360)
MS paid 50 million for this.......so yes R*'s pr guy is gonna stroke that ego.
I don't understand why this is such a big deal, as things like this(episodic content) are gonna go back and forth and back and forth throughout this gen(more than likely)
As stated by Phil, they have a great relationship with Rockstar and have some things in the works.
We'll be getting some of this "exclusive" love soon enough. In the meantime, enjoy your content(if you have a 360)
MS paid 50 million for this.......so yes R*'s pr guy is gonna stroke that ego.
I think you will have a hard time convincing the local tool shed here of anything positive for the PS3. Let em stay jaded, & mis-informed in their dream land it makes it all the more fun to be able to say "I told you so" later.
Ed
who ****ing cares.....PS3 will be getting Rockstar love soon enough.
(and they won't be whining about having to compromise anything to support 360 as well)
rockstar is not going to have any exclusives for any consoles, it's not profitable enough.
All the consoles will have to rely on 1st party exclusives this generation, but considering that the 360 has games similar to the PS3 exclusives in almost all instances, i'll stick with the cheaper option.
Um, what?
I don't see Rockstars Table Tennis on the PS3, I just see semi-updated, quick buck games (GTA PSP, Manhunt 2) on other systems.
Steve Jobless you really appear / come of as a 'fanboy' because your arguments lack any real logic or rational reasoning.
Rockstar are releasing Bully on the 360 and Wii... So would you care to explain why no PS3 version ?