LOL!

[Steerforth]

There is no question MS is in a lot worse trouble than Sony. I know 360 owners on this site don't seem to care because of the warranty, but the red ring of death has obviously been a disaster for MS.

They also don't have :

A. PS2 revenue

B. PSP revenue, which while no DS success story, hasn't flatlined either.

Its easy to say MS can afford these losses, and maybe they can, but Gates could also decide the home console war just ain't worth fighting.

I ain't being alarmist, probably things will go mostly as they have for the forseeable future. But I agree with JLH, Sony has too much going for them to just roll over and die, even though they have lost a lot of momentum with PS3. But nearly anything would look bad when you compare it to the most succesful console (if you go by sales) ever, PS2.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

The problem with that logic is that it assumes developers wouldn't try to optimize games going to the larger install base.  If the 360 has the larger base, as you say it does, then a developer will worry first about reaching that base.  With many system exclusives there already trying to reach that base, developers will very frequently want the games they release on there to have all the bells and whistles in order to "stand out" against the crowd.  Making a weak port aimed at the big market where the money is so that you can have a stronger port on the smaller market where the money isn't, doesn't make any sense.  No one would do that to maximize profit, as that wouldn't maximize profit.  The only games I can see following the approach you mentioned is the licenced stuff, where the movie/TV show marketing and name brand is all that they sell anyway. As getting the prettiest movie tie ins is like winning a "who gets the most scurvy" contest, I don't think it bodes well for the PS3.
[/QUOTE]

Well its not my logic.  Its what developers and industry analysts are reporting.  Its not about making the PS3 games better than the 360...its making them at least equal.  By starting a games life cycle on the PS3 instead of the 360 it guarentees that the company makes both products great and do it in a timely manner.  Going from the PS3 arcitechture over to the 360 is pretty simple, and its cost effiecent.  Going from the 360 to the PS3 is very difficult and very time consuming...which is why you see games coming out several months after the 360 version.  The longer developement cycle on these ports means that they are eating up more money.  Its not cost effiecent for developers.  When they switch it around they will have spent less money and both games come out with pretty much idenetical quality and at the same time. 

That in theory is what is supposed to happen.  I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it might.

[/QUOTE]

I make it a point to watch what really happens rather than listen to analysts, as analysts largely caused the videogame crash.
 
The fact is, it does matter which system you make the game for first quality wise.  If you spend your time pumping a ton of money into maxamizing every feature of the PS3, easy or no, the product transitioned to the 360 won't play as well to its strengths.  Whether or not the transition is easy in that direction doesn't change the fact that the system getting the main course will get more attention than the one getting the leftovers.  Design decsions will be completely different based on the powers of the initial system.  You're making a game for the PS3, an hour of high res. rendered footage doesn't seem problematic.  You move it to DVD on the 360 and what have you got?  You're making a Phantasy Star game for the 360 and there's all kinds of online stuff you can throw in.  You try to move it to the Anemic PS3 network, and you have nothing but issues.  You make a FPS game for the incredible (I say perfect) 360 controller and then map the controls to the crazy SNES with analog PS3 pad, and it's a mess.   

I'm pretty sure developers are aware of this.  They are also aware of which system is selling better, and then which market they need to put the most profitable product in.  An easy transition doesn't make up for the fact that people think your games are sub par on the system they actually own.    

[Luke]

Well of course the Sony department isn't going anywhere! Especially with how well the PS2 is still doing. But, see.. that wasn't my point. My point is that so far the PS3 has been a MAJOR flop. First, there was the long delayed for the release of the system. Then when it finally came there were serious shortages *which of course wasn't surprising*. Next came the loss of MANY exclusive titles, most of them being their primary games that were originally supposed to sell the console. Then there was the hardware and software troubles associated with the backwards compatibility of the PS1 and PS2 games. Now we're starting to see quite a few games taking much longer to be ported over to the PS3 versus the 360. And lately there's also been a lot of rumours about certain games being dropped for development for the PS3 due to its unfriendly dev kit. Lastly, THEY'VE ALREADY GIVEN THE AXE TO THEIR FIRST TWO MODELS OF THE SYSTEM - the 20 and 60GB. Which further proves, without a doubt, that so far the PS3 has been a complete and utter failure in every sense of the word. And lemme tell ya something.. if the 80GB fails.. it's curtains. Because where else do you go from there? They're already taking the Emotion Engine out of the new PS3's. What's next - The Cell? lol

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=Atarifever]I make it a point to watch what really happens rather than listen to analysts, as analysts largely caused the videogame crash.
 
The fact is, it does matter which system you make the game for first quality wise.  If you spend your time pumping a ton of money into maxamizing every feature of the PS3, easy or no, the product transitioned to the 360 won't play as well to its strengths.  Whether or not the transition is easy in that direction doesn't change the fact that the system getting the main course will get more attention than the one getting the leftovers.  Design decsions will be completely different based on the powers of the initial system.  You're making a game for the PS3, an hour of high res. rendered footage doesn't seem problematic.  You move it to DVD on the 360 and what have you got?  You're making a Phantasy Star game for the 360 and there's all kinds of online stuff you can throw in.  You try to move it to the Anemic PS3 network, and you have nothing but issues.  You make a FPS game for the incredible (I say perfect) 360 controller and then map the controls to the crazy SNES with analog PS3 pad, and it's a mess.   

I'm pretty sure developers are aware of this.  They are also aware of which system is selling better, and then which market they need to put the most profitable product in.  An easy transition doesn't make up for the fact that people think your games are sub par on the system they actually own.    
[/QUOTE]

I have no problem agreeing with everything you said.  It could continue to happen like that and I wouldn't be surprised.  However I could still see it going the way the analysts say too.  Like you said, we shall watch what really happens and go from there.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]I have no problem agreeing with everything you said.  It could continue to happen like that and I wouldn't be surprised.  However I could still see it going the way the analysts say too.  Like you said, we shall watch what really happens and go from there.
[/QUOTE]

And I have no trouble agreeing that it could go the way you said.  I think it more likely, now that Sony has even started to claim poor console sales are good, that Sony will be getting the leftovers this generation, but I also understand how some developers might be attracted by ease of porting the other way.  It will depend, in the end, on how much money the developers have, how many of each system sells, and how reaction to less than optimized games (either way) effects sales.

[Blah]

[QUOTE=Luke]Well of course the Sony department isn't going anywhere! Especially with how well the PS2 is still doing. But, see.. that wasn't my point. My point is that so far the PS3 has been a MAJOR flop. First, there was the long delayed for the release of the system. Then when it finally came there were serious shortages *which of course wasn't surprising*. Next came the loss of MANY exclusive titles, most of them being their primary games that were originally supposed to sell the console. Then there was the hardware and software troubles associated with the backwards compatibility of the PS1 and PS2 games. Now we're starting to see quite a few games taking much longer to be ported over to the PS3 versus the 360. And lately there's also been a lot of rumours about certain games being dropped for development for the PS3 due to its unfriendly dev kit. Lastly, THEY'VE ALREADY GIVEN THE AXE TO THEIR FIRST TWO MODELS OF THE SYSTEM - the 20 and 60GB. Which further proves, without a doubt, that so far the PS3 has been a complete and utter failure in every sense of the word. And lemme tell ya something.. if the 80GB fails.. it's curtains. Because where else do you go from there? They're already taking the Emotion Engine out of the new PS3's. What's next - The Cell? lol[/QUOTE]

The PS3 is not a failure. That's like saying the Gamecube was a failure. No, a failure is the 3DO. A failure is the CD-i. A failure could even be the Saturn! But no my friend, the PS3 is not a failure.
Yet.