Microsoft Claims 360 Growth is Coming at Sony's Expense

[Jumplion]

Sony is a year behind and games seem to take longer to get on the shelves. And for me who is an instant gratification impatient type gamer this doesn't work.

Okay, I get that te PS3 doesn't have games tha you want, fine, I don't care about that, play whatever you want to play, I respect that. But I realy don't get this statement, how is Sony a "year" behind? Last I checked they get most if not all multiplatform games the same day the 360/Pc/Wii version gets them unless it's a timed exclusive. Could you please clarify how Sony is "behind"?

 

[Ago Iterum]

Isn't this whole thread stating the obvious?

 

[squid5580]

Sony is a year behind and games seem to take longer to get on the shelves. And for me who is an instant gratification impatient type gamer this doesn't work.

Okay, I get that te PS3 doesn't have games tha you want, fine, I don't care about that, play whatever you want to play, I respect that. But I realy don't get this statement, how is Sony a "year" behind? Last I checked they get most if not all multiplatform games the same day the 360/Pc/Wii version gets them unless it's a timed exclusive. Could you please clarify how Sony is "behind"?

Just the simple fact that MS had around a year to build thier library before Sony entered the ring. That is a pretty big deal when you think about it. You can go to your local EB and find the same game for both but 1 will be older and cheaper. Sure the PS3 version may have more bells and whistles (or just be fixed like Alone in the Dark). I was in no way referring to the technical aspects of either console since I know that if you put the specs side by side it is like comparing the USS Enterprise to a Ford Taurus.

Once Sony starts getting the exclusives other than the 5 it has that appeal to me I will fork out the loot to buy one. I just can't justify spending 3-5 bills on another console when I can spend that money on games that are on both.

* And Blu Ray has no appeal to me right now since I am still far behind in TV technology. I don't see the point of watching a Blu Ray movie on my crappy SD TV.

 

[rated pg]

Now if they can fix the RROD problems for good...

Also didnt know that Final Fantasy was going for the Xbobx 360 to.

It's called 4th generation (Jasper) 360s, you should look into it. Don' worry, you're only about 8 months behind the times.

 

[oliveira8]

Now if they can fix the RROD problems for good...

Also didnt know that Final Fantasy was going for the Xbobx 360 to.

It's called 4th generation (Jasper) 360s, you should look into it. Don' worry, you're only about 8 months behind the times.

Yup. If they didnt release a broken console in the first place you would even hear about it the first time now would you?

 

[Fizzlewinks]

Ah if only they weren't losing to the wii then they would be able to say something.

The Wii hardly even counts in the console race. It appeals do a whole different kind of audience whereas the ps3 and xbox target the same. And as a Wii owner, I know that the Wii sales mean nothing because once it's purchased it's used for a month then rarely ever again. I've seen this with all my friends and relatives that own a wii and I'm sure it's like that for the majority of owners. And the WiiFit..what a fucking joke.

 

[ratix2]

tenmar:

microsoft has never been a "technology" company in the sense that i believe your speaking in. microsoft has never made any electronic components or any hardware. the xbox and 360 were both designed by outside engineering firms. microsoft is, has been and will continue to be the largest software engineering firm in the world. microsoft operating systems accounts for 94% of the computers in the entire world and the majority of ms's revenue comes from its os business, the xbox is pretty much just a side project.

also i have to ask how microsoft can have a monolopy on pc gaming? direct x is there yes, but so is opengl, CUDA and unlike the xbox where microsoft doesent have any competition in regards to their own console (aka, no alternative to xbox live for the 360), with the pc there are literally dozens of competiting services. also pc games dont HAVE to use gfw LIVE, or even gfw. theres no way for microsoft to obtain a monolopy on pc gaming due to so much competition in that area.

 

[Jumplion]

Sony is a year behind and games seem to take longer to get on the shelves. And for me who is an instant gratification impatient type gamer this doesn't work.

Okay, I get that te PS3 doesn't have games tha you want, fine, I don't care about that, play whatever you want to play, I respect that. But I realy don't get this statement, how is Sony a "year" behind? Last I checked they get most if not all multiplatform games the same day the 360/Pc/Wii version gets them unless it's a timed exclusive. Could you please clarify how Sony is "behind"?

Just the simple fact that MS had around a year to build thier library before Sony entered the ring. That is a pretty big deal when you think about it. You can go to your local EB and find the same game for both but 1 will be older and cheaper. Sure the PS3 version may have more bells and whistles (or just be fixed like Alone in the Dark). I was in no way referring to the technical aspects of either console since I know that if you put the specs side by side it is like comparing the USS Enterprise to a Ford Taurus.

Once Sony starts getting the exclusives other than the 5 it has that appeal to me I will fork out the loot to buy one. I just can't justify spending 3-5 bills on another console when I can spend that money on games that are on both.

* And Blu Ray has no appeal to me right now since I am still far behind in TV technology. I don't see the point of watching a Blu Ray movie on my crappy SD TV.

Alright, I'll give you that, but I still don't see how Sony is "behind" just because they're a year late, just like the Wii. I don't see you going around saying "The wii is behind!" or whatever. And please don't confuse exclusives that interest you to overall exclusives. As plenty of people have listed already, there are plenty of PS3 exclusives out and coming out this year. But I will give you kudos for actually saying that they personally interest you rather than saying that those are the only exclusives worth it.

The problem is, when people talk about the 360 they associate it with overall games, but when they talk about the PS3 they only associate it with exclusives that it has. How is it fair that people list games on both PC and 360 but they only list Ps3 only games for it? If it's on PC, it's not exclusive.

Blech, I'm ranting.

 

[squid5580]

Sony is a year behind and games seem to take longer to get on the shelves. And for me who is an instant gratification impatient type gamer this doesn't work.

Okay, I get that te PS3 doesn't have games tha you want, fine, I don't care about that, play whatever you want to play, I respect that. But I realy don't get this statement, how is Sony a "year" behind? Last I checked they get most if not all multiplatform games the same day the 360/Pc/Wii version gets them unless it's a timed exclusive. Could you please clarify how Sony is "behind"?

Just the simple fact that MS had around a year to build thier library before Sony entered the ring. That is a pretty big deal when you think about it. You can go to your local EB and find the same game for both but 1 will be older and cheaper. Sure the PS3 version may have more bells and whistles (or just be fixed like Alone in the Dark). I was in no way referring to the technical aspects of either console since I know that if you put the specs side by side it is like comparing the USS Enterprise to a Ford Taurus.

Once Sony starts getting the exclusives other than the 5 it has that appeal to me I will fork out the loot to buy one. I just can't justify spending 3-5 bills on another console when I can spend that money on games that are on both.

* And Blu Ray has no appeal to me right now since I am still far behind in TV technology. I don't see the point of watching a Blu Ray movie on my crappy SD TV.

Alright, I'll give you that, but I still don't see how Sony is "behind" just because they're a year late, just like the Wii. I don't see you going around saying "The wii is behind!" or whatever. And please don't confuse exclusives that interest you to overall exclusives. As plenty of people have listed already, there are plenty of PS3 exclusives out and coming out this year. But I will give you kudos for actually saying that they personally interest you rather than saying that those are the only exclusives worth it.

The problem is, when people talk about the 360 they associate it with overall games, but when they talk about the PS3 they only associate it with exclusives that it has. How is it fair that people list games on both PC and 360 but they only list Ps3 only games for it? If it's on PC, it's not exclusive.

Blech, I'm ranting.

Ok "behind" was the wrong word to use. I should have used late or another word. The reason why I talk about the PS3 exclusive as a reason not to buy it is because of the reason I already stated. It would cost me another 3-5 hundred bucks to buy one. I already own a 360 so I don't need to buy one. And without having games that I can't pick up for the 360 it becomes hard to justify the purchase. I don't care about the graphical differences of the multi games and I have no interest in buying any game twice. The bottom line is I can either buy a PS3 or I can buy 4 or 5 new full priced games. And since I am on the "games not the hardware matter" side of the debate I would much rather have the games.

I am also not a fan of PC gaming in general so if it goes on the PC and 360 it really doesn't matter to me.

 

[scotth266]

Now if they can fix the RROD problems for good...

Also didnt know that Final Fantasy was going for the Xbobx 360 to.

The FF thing is old news, but good news for me (as a 360 owner and a fan of FF from my old PS2).

But yeah, this dude is a PR man for MS. Hence the slagging of Sony. Still, what he says is perfectly valid, and is only getting more so now that consumers are being more frugal.
Am I pleased about this? A little. Consoles need to be more like the Wii and 360: focusing on providing a better gameplay experience and making smaller upgrades over time. The PS3 was a big jump in tech and price, a beast ahead of its time. Hopefully the next round, Sony will realize this and make a console that accomodates that line of thought.

 

[NeedAUserName]

*Wipes tear from eye*

There's no need to tell it like it is! But he's right, out of the six of my friends (all owning/owned a PS2) I am the only one who bought a PS3, all the others opted for either a Wii or an xBox 360. Although there's still people buying consoles for the first time in this generation, and presumably the opposite is happening too, albeit not on the same scale, there must be some xBox owners who saw the light (controversial )and joined the ranks of the PS3onites.

 

[joystickjunki3]

He is relentless. Although I do remember Sony doing stuff like this to SEGA a little over 10 years ago, so I guess it's fine.

No other way around again, SEGA was really bitter back then they took pot-shots at everyone.

Sony's doing that too to an extent, but MS is pulling a 1997-Sony right now. And that was my point: what goes around, comes around.

 

[Bat Vader]

I want both consoles.

 

[Vern]

There is wisdom to his words. Last generation I owned a PS2 and a Gamecube, thought the XBOX was a pointless waste of space since the PS2 could pretty much match in as far as graphics and it had more games I wanted to play. When it came time to upgrade, the outlandish price of the PS3 and the fact that most games that were coming out that I wanted to play were available for both the PS3 and the 360. Add in the almost negligible difference in graphics between the two, and I opted for the 360. I've had it for about a year and a half and I haven't had any problems. I did get some red rings once, but it was during an ice storm and the power cut out. Other than that, works fine.