Update: Activision "Might Have to Stop Supporting Sony"
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have a PC of similar cost. No blu-ray on it though, nor do I have a blu-ray player, so +1 for a PS3 there. If I hadn't bought my 360 before the PS3 came out, I would probably own a PS3, but you can't change the past and who knows what I would have actually done. The whole argument about price dropping is getting to the customers on the fence about buying one (ME!).Mornelithe said:
I love gaming on my PC, but the real beauty of a PC is that it does more than any console will probably ever do, which is why the cost to me is justified. The only thing about a PC is that, while there are a lot of PC exclusive titles, more and more companies are starting to favor consoles over PC's, or at very least putting little effort in their PC ports.
Take Prototype for example. I played it on my 360 just fine. My friend got it for PC and was having issues with slow down on all the videos, he couldn't figure out why, and he wasn't alone in the problem. Nobody from (whoever made it) really gave a response to a fix, or plans for one. A player figured out the problem and posted a fix for it before they really even acknowledged a problem. Everyone knows that on the 360/PS3 a fix would have been out before the weekend, probably even day of release.
I hate to agree with that Pachter fellow on anything, but I'm inclined to think Activision is running a huge bluff here. Yes, Wii and Xbox may make more, but there's no way they'll cut support for one of the trinity of consoles. This is purely a coercion attempt "Play our way, or we'll take our ball and go home!". Pretty childish, actually. Kotick, once again, looks like a moron. What is it with the CEO's of publishing companies today? Are they being selected for their ability to embarrass the company with asinine remarks?
This doesn't feel like an earnest attempt at trying to get PS3 to become more economical, since all Kotick is saying is he Might drop support for PS3 games. Which would seem to me to be more a choice for the shareholders.
Considering the last time I caught this guy making noise, it was just noise. This feels like more noisemaking so I wouldn't read too much into it.
Although, truth be told, prices could be cut a bit on console games. Ever look at someone's library and add up in your head how much money they spent? Most likely it's at least a semester's tuition, half the price of a car, take your pick.
Considering the last time I caught this guy making noise, it was just noise. This feels like more noisemaking so I wouldn't read too much into it.
Although, truth be told, prices could be cut a bit on console games. Ever look at someone's library and add up in your head how much money they spent? Most likely it's at least a semester's tuition, half the price of a car, take your pick.
A PC or console will still make money whether they have an exclusive or not. The Halo games will most likely make a lot of money though as well as Mass Effect 2. Plus there is GTA IV DLC as well. Either way the 360 will be making money someway somehow.bue519 said:
I am not a fan-boy. I am just stating facts.
Hmm...well, instead of going into a nerd rage about a silly developer saying silly things, I'm just going to go quietly play Ghostbusters on my PS3. And yes, I know the graphics aren't as good as the 360 version. And yes, it pissed me off at first. But a few hours into the game it hit me...that I don't really care. It's still incredibly fun, and it still looks great.
On a side note, the PS3 is perfectly priced for what the console offers. People who continue to argue about it are simply spinning their wheels in vain. If you can't afford it, buy one of the cheaper consoles. Problem solved. Sony has some nice exclusives, but not enough for the kind of incessant complaining that I hear over and over again.
On a side note, the PS3 is perfectly priced for what the console offers. People who continue to argue about it are simply spinning their wheels in vain. If you can't afford it, buy one of the cheaper consoles. Problem solved. Sony has some nice exclusives, but not enough for the kind of incessant complaining that I hear over and over again.
Funny because not so long ago the PS2 was still high up in the sales charts. They could have kept supporting it to the degree they were before the PS3 launched. I bet even with all those Wii and 360 owners they would have still bought PS2 games. It was the lack of PS2 support that pushed me into the next gen and into the arms of MS. Sony had a good thing going and then got scared when everyone else started releasing thier next gen consoles. Hell even launching with MGS4 would have been a smarter move than trying to put out a crap launch line up to compete against the 360's line up that was already a year ahead of them.Onmi said:
What is really sad is that Sony should have known better. This isn't the first time in gaming history that a company put out a high priced console that was leaps and bounds ahead technologically that had a crap launch. And failed miserably. The only difference between the PS3 and the 3DO is Sony could afford the loss.
As am I and without console exclusives then whats the point of owning a console. Besides GTA DLC is probably coming to the PS3 and Mass Effect 2 is going to be on the pc. I'm only pointing out whats the point of owning a console with no exclusives?gof22 said:
The PS3 is currently one of the best blue-ray disc players out there for its price range. I know people who have bought it for that and don't intend to use it for games at all.Go on said:
And it is hard to see far ahead in this economy. I think that Sony gambled on things improving over the past 10 years instead of becoming steadily worse. It will be interesting to see if they can hold on. They are poised to be the forerunner in the quality market, but things have remained unstable in the economic market. Even so, I myself started balking at games that exceeded the $50 mark. Games in the $60-100 dollar range that are only as long as the current 40 hours of game play ones just don't seem worth it. We have already begun approaching photo-realistic. Even if the quality rises, will we be able to tell with our eyesight?
And I know people who won't buy it for that purpose because they don't' want or need to replace their entire DVD collection. And personally if I wanted a blu-ray player I'd get one for my computer because it costs 1/3 what a PS3 does (the player, not a computer, that was a gift)Gyrefalcon said:
Anyway trying to get back on topic, I feel that Activision is actually pulling a really big dick move here. Shocking, I know considering how I normally act in regards to Sony, but this kind of grandstanding won't solve anything. In fact it kind of reminds me of gamers going "what about meeeeeeeeee" every time they think a company has betrayed them. Only difference I think this is far worse because it's a goddamn professional acting like an entitled little punk.
the PS3 plays DVD's just fine you dont need to rebuy an entire collection on bluray the would be just stupid all bluray is is a better picture/audio quality otherwise it does nothing better than DVDAceDiamond said:
.....First, I'm 95% sure that the 360 has more exclusives than the PS3, as it has been out a year longer, and MS seems to enjoy pissing off sony fanboys by making previous PS3 exclusives multi-platform. Second, there are plenty of reasons to own a console with no exclusives. Maybe the graphics are better. Maybe the controller is cooler. Maybe the console has more games of your style. Whatever the reasons picking out a console based on what exclusives it has is quite stupid.bue519 said:
Well damn. I see how that would make sense, but if I tell my PS3-owning friends that they are getting nothing from Activision, they're going to cry.
But I agree with Pachter - this is a bluff. No way in hell is Activision ignoring a third of the generation, not unless it was really, really dieing. And with the rush of fantastic games that are helping the PS3 claw its way back up (I'm looking at you MAG and inFamous), and with the good Wii games giving up and drowning in the shit sea that is the Wii game library, I think the PS3 will get bigger by the end of the year. The Wii has slowed down considerably, and a PS3 price cut would bring it up to par. Look what a price cut did for the 360.
But I agree with Pachter - this is a bluff. No way in hell is Activision ignoring a third of the generation, not unless it was really, really dieing. And with the rush of fantastic games that are helping the PS3 claw its way back up (I'm looking at you MAG and inFamous), and with the good Wii games giving up and drowning in the shit sea that is the Wii game library, I think the PS3 will get bigger by the end of the year. The Wii has slowed down considerably, and a PS3 price cut would bring it up to par. Look what a price cut did for the 360.
...errr, I think that might be a bit backwards (at least in my eyes).Jsnoopy said:
'the 360 has all these games I want to buy, but the PS3 has better graphics!'
'The PS3 looks like it could be good, but the 360 has a better controller!'
'I would buy a PS3, but the 360 has more exclusive games that I want to pay'
Which one out of all of those statements sounds like it makes the most sense to pay hundreds on a console for? There is no way that picking a console based on exclusives is stupid, it's probably one of the smarter decisions to make when buying a new console.
You missed the point. The PS3 fanboys cling onto their exclusives like they're the reincarnation of Jesus. When two of their most important franchises branch off into the mainstream, you'd expect them to get pissed.bue519 said: