Ps3 and Xbox 360

Gilgamesh

can just say that the marketing guys at sony sure are worth their money

smokingman

Gilgamesh wrote:

can just say that the marketing guys at sony sure are worth their money

Just wish Nintendo poached some of them....or got any marketing people really for that matter....

petes

Games, games thats what it will come down to. Btw Revolution will kick all arses.*gets coat*.

Gilgamesh

petes wrote:

Games, games thats what it will come down to. Btw Revolution will kick all arses.*gets coat*.

/me chases petes down the street waving big stick.

pat kenny

Tekken 6
Gran Turismo 5
Metal Gear solid 4
Resident evil 100000
Splinter Cell 4
Silent Hill 5
Fifa 2007,2008,2009,2010
Need for speed underground 3 or is it 4
Final Fantasy 12 ( I'm not complaining hugly about this one )
Grand Theft auto 6
Tomb Raider 9: the legend of the nude cheat

I cant think of any more games but I asume we'll see all these except maybe under different names.
Its a bit depressing really.

Ri_Nollaig

does anyone know if they will be backwards compatibile? but the main thing i hate about console is the price of the games! 60euro for a new release and they never seem to go down in price

Ciaran500

There only €40-€45 if you shop online.

dearg_doom

Retr0gamer wrote:

I thought my Ps1 would have visuals surpassing the special effects in Terminator 2 and that the emotion engine in my PS2 would give the characters in game real emotions.

Lesson: Sony are the most successful bull****ters in the world.

lol, not only that, but the EmotionEngine was going to react to your emotion and change the gameplay accordingly:rolleyes:

in fairness I'm taking a lot of these rumors with a healthy pinch of salt until I actually have the things under my telly, no games system has ever lived up to it's hype before it's release. But we still love them...

BloodBath

in fairness I'm taking a lot of these rumors with a healthy pinch of salt until I actually have the things under my telly, no games system has ever lived up to it's hype before it's release. But we still love them...

I disagree. Going from a megadrive or snes to a playstation or n64 was a huge leap at the time. I remember getting my ps1 the day before it's release because I kept wrecking the guys head in the shop and he agreed to give it to me. Got myself wipeout, toshinden and ridge racer and nearly wet myself when I went home and turned it on.


BloodBath

Retr0gamer

They were huge leaps but they didn't live up to the hype he marketing monkeys were brewing up.

jesus_thats_gre

The games are what should be the determing factor in how well a console does.. Sadly this is not the case anymore..

BloodBath

How so Jesus? The ps1 and 2 were the biggest sellers out of the last 2 gens of consoles. Both had the widest selecetion of games attracting a broader market. Games are still the determing factor.


BloodBath

madrab

BloodBath wrote:

I disagree. Going from a megadrive or snes to a playstation or n64 was a huge leap at the time. I remember getting my ps1 the day before it's release because I kept wrecking the guys head in the shop and he agreed to give it to me. Got myself wipeout, toshinden and ridge racer and nearly wet myself when I went home and turned it on.


BloodBath

i went from a nes and a c64 to a playstation now theres a jump :-)

*apologises for once again turning this into a retro discussion*

hal9000

more like a wider selection of mediocrity!

Retr0gamer

hal9000 wrote:

more like a wider selection of mediocrity!

True there was far more mediocre titles on the playstations. However the PS1 an awful lot of fantastic games and in my opinion is only beaten on the amount of quality titles by the Snes and matched by the Sega Saturn (if you live in japan and speak japanese :rolleyes: ). In the current generation The Gc in my opinion has the most quality but the PS2 really isn't far behind. It's the success of the xbox that has me scratching my head. Nothing but Halo for a year and a half and after that Panzer Dragoon Orta, Ninja Gaiden and a few uninteresting racing games (for me anyway). There are plenty more now but it really was a long drougth of quality.

hal9000

yah got the xbox a few weeks after it launched and after halo & DOA3 there wasnt much and i was worried that it was going to tank, but after the crap that was the first gen of games, it got much better! cant say ive been dissapointed but its all down to personal taste and good developers

TerrorFirmer

It's the success of the xbox that has me scratching my head. Nothing but Halo for a year and a half and after that Panzer Dragoon Orta, Ninja Gaiden and a few uninteresting racing games

True, but for action junkies like me, we were happy to hammer away on multi format affairs that were the same as their Ps2 counterparts, with added visual sheen.

A large portion of the market, like myself, isn't greatly interested in shining pinacles of originality or the particular sort of games that warrant the purchase of another console (RPGs, Racing Sims, etc), although I do aknowledge their greatness occassionally.

jesus_thats_gre

BloodBath wrote:

How so Jesus? The ps1 and 2 were the biggest sellers out of the last 2 gens of consoles. Both had the widest selecetion of games attracting a broader market. Games are still the determing factor.


BloodBath

That was certainly true in the case of the PS1.. However, the PS2 did not succeed on the back of its games catalogue.. The PS2's success can be attributed to marketing and one of the best brand names in the world.

When you have celebrities pointing at an Xbox and calling it a Playstation, what hope do you have? How many relations has bought Jimmy a Playstation because they recognise the brand name of both Sony and Playstation.

The Dreamcast and the N64/GC all had more impressive game catalogues at launch than the PS2 yet the PS2 still bet them in sales..

The PS2 now has a massive catalogue of crap games and sequels with very little originality.

Don't fool yourself Bloodbath. I have also seen some of your arguments with regards to Nintendo on another thread and can genuinely say you are flogging a dead donkey with that argument. I tend to agree with you on most things, but not this one.

monument

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

The games are what should be the determing factor in how well a console does.. Sadly this is not the case anymore..

Quite simply the games are.

The way you’re talking it sounds as if SCE sells a home computer, they don’t they sell a games console and the market it by marketing the games.

One or two good games and then practical nothing at all just won’t cut it. I’d be a lot happier playing 100s of good games, then a few amazing games.

hal9000 wrote:

more like a wider selection of mediocrity!

Distinct from the Xbox's lesser selection of mediocrity?

The Xbox is just like the PlayStation, both have ‘exclusives’ or ‘delays’ (the PS2 seams to have more of the important ones), both have the multi-format game, both play DVDs etc... Multiplayer is an attraction for the Xbox, and a wider selection (and sometimes just that one ‘great’ game of narrow appeal) is an attraction for the PS2.

If anyone wants to argue along the lines of ‘the bunch of games I love are what should be the determining factor’, that’s fine. But that does not mean games are not the determining factor. The GTA fanatic, driving sim fanatic, stealth game fanatic etc might just not want what’s on offer on the Xbox, or Gamecube.

Of course marketing, or simply put ‘telling people about your game’, is going to be a determining factor in what games people want. Your marketing is going to fail if you put everything into your AAA titles and what amounts to nothing into your smaller ones.

BloodBath

That was certainly true in the case of the PS1.. However, the PS2 did not succeed on the back of its games catalogue.. The PS2's success can be attributed to marketing and one of the best brand names in the world.

When you have celebrities pointing at an Xbox and calling it a Playstation, what hope do you have? How many relations has bought Jimmy a Playstation because they recognise the brand name of both Sony and Playstation.

The Dreamcast and the N64/GC all had more impressive game catalogues at launch than the PS2 yet the PS2 still bet them in sales..

The PS2 now has a massive catalogue of crap games and sequels with very little originality.

Don't fool yourself Bloodbath. I have also seen some of your arguments with regards to Nintendo on another thread and can genuinely say you are flogging a dead donkey with that argument. I tend to agree with you on most things, but not this one.

The fact of the matter is, it has the largest catalougue of games, whether you consider it to be crap or not. Fans of a certain genre of game might love a game that only got an average rating from mags, sites, ect. I'm talking about the overall market. Nintendo captures smaller areas of the market compared to sony. It's not all about the name. Jesus Nintendos name is huge but it hasn't stopped relatively poor sales in europe and the US. I think most kids are clued up enough these days to tell there parents what they want. They don't just get a random console as a surprise. I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. This is how it is. It's all about a target market and third party backing. Sony captures a wider area of the market than Nintendo. Not to mention other factors that would influence people especially younger teens, kids. I'm talking about the dvd and backwards compatability capabilitys of the ps2. Despite any arguements against it this was a major factor that helped sales. Nintendo didn't learn from their n64 mistake. Microsoft took too long getting off the ground and the early selection of games was pretty slim. You see the average joe doesn't always want quality. They want quantity so they have the choice of what they play. Sony has captured some great exclusive rights. GTA, MGS, GT, FF to name just four. Two of which used to be exclusive Nintendo titles. They lost both MGS and FF because of the N64 as far as I remember. FF7 originally started production on the N64 but was moved to the playstation as they realised they were going to limit themselves completely by trying to fit the game on a cartridge. Now i'm not saying that the PS1 or 2 were better consoles, although I do think the PS1 was but from a business point of view they both successfully captured the majority market and this was because of the huge selection of games. I'm not asking you to agree with me but what i'm saying is a lot closer to the truth than your delusions that the fact sony was written on it and how it was marketed is the reason why it sold although it did help.


BloodBath

steviec

BloodBath wrote:

The fact of the matter is, it has the largest catalougue of games, whether you consider it to be crap or not. Fans of a certain genre of game might love a game that only got an average rating from mags, sites, ect. I'm talking about the overall market. Nintendo captures smaller areas of the market compared to sony. It's not all about the name. Jesus Nintendos name is huge but it hasn't stopped relatively poor sales in europe and the US. I think most kids are clued up enough these days to tell there parents what they want. They don't just get a random console as a surprise. I'm not fooling myself or anyone else. This is how it is. It's all about a target market and third party backing. Sony captures a wider area of the market than Nintendo. Not to mention other factors that would influence people especially younger teens, kids. I'm talking about the dvd and backwards compatability capabilitys of the ps2. Despite any arguements against it this was a major factor that helped sales. Nintendo didn't learn from their n64 mistake. Microsoft took too long getting off the ground and the early selection of games was pretty slim. You see the average joe doesn't always want quality. They want quantity so they have the choice of what they play. Sony has captured some great exclusive rights. GTA, MGS, GT, FF to name just four. Two of which used to be exclusive Nintendo titles. They lost both MGS and FF because of the N64 as far as I remember. FF7 originally started production on the N64 but was moved to the playstation as they realised they were going to limit themselves completely by trying to fit the game on a cartridge. Now i'm not saying that the PS1 or 2 were better consoles, although I do think the PS1 was but from a business point of view they both successfully captured the majority market and this was because of the huge selection of games. I'm not asking you to agree with me but what i'm saying is a lot closer to the truth than your delusions that the fact sony was written on it and how it was marketed is the reason why it sold although it did help.


BloodBath

That's so true. Most games buyers are relatively smart. Eg. Jade Empire went straight to number one last week without any sort of brand name and no advertising that I've noticed, because people know it's a great game. The Playstation has been the dominant console for the last two generations because it's had the best games. Yes it had more crap games than anyone else. It also has more average games than any other console. And more good games than any other console. And at least as many truly great games(in my opinion more, but that's because I hate Halo and never got into either Metroid Prime or Zelda, it's mainly AV games that keep my gamecube going!) as any other console, with enough variety for everyone. In terms of marketing, I'd have said there's far more X-Box marketing than Playstation, although the X-Box is of course a lot newer. It will be interesting to see when the positions are reversed at the next generation.

Retr0gamer

steviec wrote:

That's so true. Most games buyers are relatively smart. Eg. Jade Empire went straight to number one last week.

So most gamers being smart is the explaination for the dominance of NFSU of the charts for the last few weeks. Jade Empire only did well because it was made by Bioware and they are only now successful because they made a great Star Wars games. If KOTOR was by any other name it would have sold about 10 copies like the rest of Biowares games. Don't fool yourself, give a game enough hype and it will go straight to the top of the chart despite how bad it is. An extreme case expample would be Goldeneye Rogue agent.

madrab

i have to disagree with retro on this

i dont think the average joe is able to discern who made what game, and unless it says it on the pack (which i havent seen) i doubt they would be able to make a connection between kotot and jade empire

steviec

Retr0gamer wrote:

So most gamers being smart is the explaination for the dominance of NFSU of the charts for the last few weeks. Jade Empire only did well because it was made by Bioware and they are only now successful because they made a great Star Wars games. If KOTOR was by any other name it would have sold about 10 copies like the rest of Biowares games. Don't fool yourself, give a game enough hype and it will go straight to the top of the chart despite how bad it is. An extreme case expample would be Goldeneye Rogue agent.

Ok NFSU isn't the best game around but it's gotten above average reviews and belongs to a very popular genre, and there's a lot of people who like the car customisation etc. (I enjoyed the first one, not enough to get the second mind you) With regard to Bioware, KOTOR sold based on it being a fantastic game, there's no shortage of Star Wars games that have done badly. I don't think Bioware have underperformed in their older games either really, Planescape:Torment certainly deserved better, but their other games were always successful.

Retr0gamer

steviec wrote:

With regard to Bioware, KOTOR sold based on it being a fantastic game, there's no shortage of Star Wars games that have done badly. I don't think Bioware have underperformed in their older games either really, Planescape:Torment certainly deserved better, but their other games were always successful.

You have to admit that the star wars license brought what is a very nerdy niche Dungeons and Dragons game to a much bigger market. The Bioware titles seem to be successful but the sales figures for most of their games tell a different story.

jesus_thats_gre

The PS1 was a success because of its games..

The PS2 was success because of the PS brandname and intelligent marketing.

BloodBath

The PS1 was a success because of its games..

The PS2 was success because of the PS brandname and intelligent marketing.

Nice come back.


BloodBath

TerrorFirmer

BloodBath wrote:

Nice come back.


BloodBath

True to a large extent though to be honest

jesus_thats_gre

I can't go into it futher because I don't have enough marketing bull**** bingo terms...

The PS1 launched with ground breaking title in terms of gameplay, sound and graphics.. Wipeout, Destruction Derby, Ridge Racer and Tekken were all amazing games..

When the PS2 launched it didn't even take advantage of DVDs as the storage medium for the first handful of games and nearly all the games worth mentioning were out and out sequels. The DVD point is not big deal in itself admitedly but its sort of significant because every launch title was basically a 3rd or 4th sequel of thr PS1 launch games, i.e. the same game with improved textures.

BloodBath

That's typical fanboy BS tbh. Nintendos line up is the usaual array of sequels as well as the odd original title. New mario, new mariokart, new mario party, new metroid, new zelda, pikmin 2, RE4, paper mario 2. Practically every good game on the GC is a sequel. Sequels aren't necessarily a bad thing.


BloodBath