maplelord93
Banned
Completely forgot about that, thanks.It was ported to PC a couple years later, so by the list's logic they aren't counting it.
Completely forgot about that, thanks.It was ported to PC a couple years later, so by the list's logic they aren't counting it.
And wasn't White Knight Chronicles released at the beginning of the generation?Wasn't Fable 3 released in 2010?
The list is extremely biased. It's missing all of the exclusive shmups on the 360. The argument I've heard for that is that they're also in arcades, but going by that logic a lot of the PS3 exclusive games shouldn't be there because they're also on the Vita. There's also a no Japan-only rule which is complete BS.
This thread just reminds me why PC + Nintendo combo is the best. The list is bare on both sides.
If you include titles that are also released on vita, then you have to include titles released PC since it's part of MS.
Can't fault MS for doing what it did with Xbox 360. They got the hardcore to jump in early with lots of exclusives (like me), then slowed down exclusives to just Halo, Gears, Forza while they went after the Kinect pot of gold. Half way through this gen I switched to PS3 when Sony was firing exclusive after exclusive, no regrets. MS seems to be doing the same thing with Xbox One, lets see if they can maintain a strong stable of exclusive software for the entirety of that console's life. With Sony, there is no worry, you know they will stay committed.
Now let's see 2005-2009
I won't be absolutely certain about this. Sony already made PS+ mandatory for multiplayer because they saw an opportunity to announce this in the midst of Xbox One fiasco. It's always what corporations think they could capitalize without facing any notable backlash.
This exclusive list war doesn't include console exclusives. You know, the bulk of fighting games and hack and slash etc.
Although the latter is slowly making its way to PC and that's a good thing.
depends on what you mean by fault. if it means "complain and not get suckered into buying an xbone" then i can fault them.
Alright lets make proper parameters for this, but is it Windows/Xbox/MAC or just Windows/Xbox because otherwise Witcher is out. See, it get really complicated very fast.
What the hell is a "console exclusive"?
Just saw this on reddit and thought it was an interesting perspective on exclusive games and a reason why this particular user is getting a PS4 over an Xbone
Now let's see 2005-2009
If you include titles that are also released on vita, then you have to include titles released PC since it's part of MS.
PC isn't a console. And if we go with console exclusives that are also found on the PC then DCUO etc will be added too. Makes more sense to just sticking to console titles.
Completely forgot about that, thanks.
Vita isn't a console either.
Actually, it is a console not just a home console.
A handheld game console.
I think it should be "games available on PS3 but not on 360" vs "games available on 360 but not on PS3". Basically a comparison of the console exclusives.
PSN and XBLA games should also be included.
Actually, it is a console not just a home console.
A handheld game console.
Vita isn't a console either.
It's also missing the 2012 GoTY Journey, which is a PSN title. Goes both ways. It's not entirely accurate, sure, but it's reflective of the current state of first party support.
95% of those games are completely forgettable. Who actually cares about all the shovelware or trash like Massive Action Game.
This seems reasonable and important. It doesn't make a difference one way or another if that actually shifts the balance, but if the "ecosystem" argument is being made on Sony's behalf, then titles published often by Microsoft itself on PC, let alone on a Microsoft operating system shouldn't be held against it if we're being consistent (particularly when the gap between releases is measured in years). If we're bothering to prop up the comparison, it should be done accurately. If the reaction to bad information is "make your own if it matters so much," then it's obvious this isn't done sincerely.
If our attitude toward gaming is that any company should be "punished" in terms of public perception for making a title more widely available, I want nothing to do with the discussion.
Kind of a flawed comparison then, no? If this list isn't counting games available on PC it shouldn't count games available on Vita either.
The fine print at the bottom even says "The game has not at any point been released on any other platform."
I'd like to see a list without all these arbitrary restrictions. Obviously it would still be lopsided in Sony's favor as they have way more first party studios, but the comparison in the OP is flawed imo.
This thread just reminds me why PC + Nintendo combo is the best. The list is bare on both sides.
95% of those games are completely forgettable. Who actually cares about all the shovelware or trash like Massive Action Game.
Devastated? Are you limited to recently released games as well as multiplatform games?
Those handful of Xbox games probably outsold all those PS3 games. Still, I've gotten more value out of the Halo titles than I have any of the those PS3 titles. Just my two cents.
Halo anniversary was a retail or no?
MAG was great, but the anime games i agree with.
From a business strategy perspective, they already roped in a bunch of gamers. It's tough to switch, most won't because they're already invested. I can fault them for it, and have.
Not only is it biased, but not updated either. Shouldn't TLoU be at the top of the Sony skyskraper, looking down at everyone else?
Those handful of Xbox games probably outsold all those PS3 games. Still, I've gotten more value out of the Halo titles than I have any of the those PS3 titles. Just my two cents.
I thought that was the colored frames. Seems to match.What are you talking about? This is not build with metacritic as a metric
Not only is it biased, but not updated either. Shouldn't TLoU be at the top of the Sony skyskraper, looking down at everyone else?
it may be tough to switch within a generation, but considerably less so between generations, which is why i think this is a valuable conversation. we are on the cusp of a new generation and we now know how msft is likely to play its hand. those of us who resent how they have done so can make our console purchasing decisions accordingly.
Cutting the jrpgs because you don't like the genre would be the same as someone suggesting shooters shouldn't count because they find them boring (which would eliminate most western games from both consoles).
Since none of our digital content carries over on either console, I'd say it's pretty easy to switch one company to another this coming generation. We're not talking about switching from iOS to Android or vice versa. Unless you really care about your gamerscore/trophies, you start from zero regardless of who you pick.
I thought that was the colored frames. Seems to match.