Tiger Woods PGA 11 reviewed from a life-long Xbox version player:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/09/review-tiger-woods-pga-tour-11-wii/

And the Wii version doesn't require an Online Pass...

@Lou

Propaganda...

He probably refers specifically to the United States as worldwide that's so far from the truth.

He could also have claimed there are more XBox 360 Final Fantasy XIII discs sold in the United States (although the PS3 version sold well more units despite the smaller install base for the US, as the XBox 360 version comes supplied on 3 discs...).

On the other hand Sony could just as meaninlessly counter by claiming Final Fantasy XIII sold million more on the PS3 for Japan! (as it was PS3 exclusive...).

Such propaganda IMO helps nobody and only serves as food for trolls.

The only thing which matters is that PS3 software sold way more than XBox 360 software last year (regards an amount much more than Halo 3 lifetime sales) despite with regard to install base it was still 4.47 million hardware units behind. And unless Sony goes off-track or Microsoft this year sells way more units than last year, the PS3 install base is going to overtake the XBox 360 before the end of Sony's current fiscal year.

Last edited by MikeB on 10-Jun-2010 at 03:29 PM.

@Lou

This better informs me why MikeB consistently poo-poos Halo. The PS3 defensiveness stems from FPS sales inadequacies on the PS3. Heck mention any other PS3 game, such as GT5, and still MikeB's gotta compare against Halo. Undeniably Halo has made it's mark even in the PS3 user's minds.

@BrianK

Nah, I won't compare Halo with GT5. At least I have never done so.

But of course Gran Tursimo is to Playstation what Halo is to XBox and Mario is to Nintendo.

Although Playstation owners seem to prefer more varierty, FPS games perform well sales wise, actually pretty similar to on the 360 I think (minus of course Japan).

The Resistance games sold about 6 million combined. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sold over 8 million on the PS3. Killzone 2 almost 3 million (it's a more impressive game than COD series though), already 2 or 3 time more than what the first game sold on the PS2.

@MikeB

Quote:

Although Playstation owners seem to prefer more varierty,

The original Xbox was known for it's FPS. The 360 has earned this reputation by carry over and rumor. There is no significant difference in variety between the 360 and the PS3. The 360 has 9 out of the top 25 games as FPS. (Though a few of those have a third person shooter view as well. So you wouldn't have to play them a FPS if you didn't want to.) The PS3 has 7 out of the top 25. The difference there is academic. Most of the FPS on either platform surround the 'Call of Duty' series.

(And for amusement I'll jump off a line you've used -- The PS3 launched after the 360. -- So the timeframes are out of wack the PS3 hasn't had the same amount of time to build up it's FPS library. If you line up the timeframes then some future games must be considered on the PS3. Crysis2, MAG, Rage, Postal 3, Bodycount, Bullethammer, and Sledgestorm. (roughly) If any of them breach the top 25 the count will be equal, considering the timeframe. Of course we don't consider any more 360 games because once again we're trying to align the timeframe.) -- I hope you can appreciate the attempt at amusement here. Even still I think it highlights that the 360 is not one trick pony any more than the PS3 is.

Getting back to seriousness one thing not included in the Microsoft numbers were Arcade downloads. Some of these are well over a million, noteably, Aegis Wing #1 and Uno #2. Uno reached this in 2007. I'd believe by now it would make the Top 25 Xbox sellers list. The problem is NPD or others don't include online sales in their lists. Bringing those two into the picture would knock the 360's 9 games down to 7. No significant difference in variety.

Now if you're talking bigger picture you (and I mean I won't be doing this) would have to count every game by type and do a comparison by percentage. Microsoft lists 1314 titles playable on the 360. Feel free to count those and the PS3 games then get back to us. (EDIT: Oh yeah there's about 6-8 more games that are playable but not on the Microsoft list because of vendor redaction.)

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Jun-2010 at 11:24 PM.

Motorstorm 3 - Apocalypse for the PS3 looks sick!

http://worthplaying.com/article/2010/6/10/news/74832/images/271452/

My BluRay Player+ DVD burner combo drive drive arrived today! That was my birthday present to myself.
$96

So yes, Mike, I'm all about HD, but all I've found that it does for gaming this gen on consoles is increase the cost and reduce the content. $60 games should not be able to be completed in an afternoon. (This goes for the 360 as well as PS3.) I'm 30+ hours into both Fire Emblem (tactical RPG - hardcore) and Monster Hunter 3 on my Wii with no end in sight.

To me, games that offer future DLC should simply not be discounted by retailers. The DLC should encourage continues new (and full retail) sales. Publishers make less money when a game becomes 'Player's Choice' or whatever but then they make it back on paid DLC. If they simply kept releasing DLC, I'd never reduce the retail price and consumers would see the continued value of the full retail price because of DLC.

In PC land, multiplayer was always free and new map packs were also free until recently and even supplied by the community and I blame consoles for this.
With PCs someone could always act as a host server (see Quake 3) and enable multiplayer. Multiplayer (deathmatch crap) requires no AI programming. Multiplayer is trivial compared to single player adventure designs. Co-op is something else. Co-op adventuring of sigle player campaigns has falled by the wayside and to me that is the best way to make a game "multi-player". Yet it seems HD grafix and multiplayer are now commodities that 360 and PS3 owners are fooled into paying extra for.

I refuse to subscribe to "premium" HD cable content as well for the simple reason that all current content is both digital and HD in nature and that it actual costs extra to downgrade it to SD and analog. I do use free 'over-the-air' HD...because HD is the standard and I shouldn't have to pay extra for it.

Mind you, these are my principles and has nothing to do with my personal financial status.

Things don't looks good for sales of MOVE & NATAL

http://www.edge-online.com/news/study-natal-and-move-purchase-intent-below-10

I have no idea why 2 Nintendo games made it to the MOVE section...

@Lou

Happy birthday Lou.

More storage capacity does not reduce content at all. The XBox 360 does not have a Blu-Ray drive, you can have games on DVD which take a long time to complete (like for example Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto 4) or even on 3.5 inch Amiga diskettes (like Civilization, Sim City or Pirates!).

Although it should be noted many PS3 games are straight XBox 360 ports, which usually don't take good advantage of this extra storage capacity. More storage capacity provides developers more freedom how to design their game, although there is more freedom to make games bigger this need not per se be the case.

It allows developers to make fewer sacrifices, for example allows for higher quality audio and textures to be stored on the disc, it allows for more varierty in assets to be stored on discs. This means that the audio and visual quality can be improved and a long game can have levels be more different (note you can make your HD game bigger and still fit on a DVD, for example by re-using assets already used in earlier levels).

The average story driven PS3 exclusive is about 8-12 hours (if you rush things, for comparison the highly acclaimed Half-Life 2 can be completed in well less than 2 hours), many of those are very well done with good replay value (different difficulty levels, multiple languages, intel/treasues/emblems/etc to discover) and some have extensive (a free for you as well as your online buddies) multi-player options in addition to keep the title interesting for after you have completed the main campaign.

I hope you now understand and actually trying to cut assets down or redesigning sacrifices to still fit a disc can actually be more costly. To polish a game with good story telling, top graphics, top audio, etc of course costs more than developing a game with average story telling, average graphics, average audio, etc (it requires more time and/or talent).

Last edited by MikeB on 11-Jun-2010 at 05:22 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 11-Jun-2010 at 05:18 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou Happy birthday Lou. More storage capacity does not reduce content at all. The XBox 360 does not have a Blu-Ray drive, you can have games on DVD which take a long time to complete (like for example Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto 4) or even on 3.5 inch Amiga diskettes (like Civilization, Sim City or Pirates!). Although it should be noted many PS3 games are straight XBox 360 ports, which usually don't take good advantage of this extra storage capacity. More storage capacity provides developers more freedom how to design their game, although there is more freedom to make games bigger this need not per se be the case. It allows developers to make fewer sacrifices, for example allows for higher quality audio and textures to be stored on the disc, it allows for more varierty in assets to be stored on discs. This means that the audio and visual quality can be improved and a long game can have levels be more different (note you can make your HD game bigger and still fit on a DVD, for example by re-using assets already used in earlier levels). The average story driven PS3 exclusive is about 8-12 hours (if you rush things, for comparison the highly acclaimed Half-Life 2 can be completed in well less than 2 hours), many of those are very well done with good replay value (different difficulty levels, multiple languages, intel/treasues/emblems/etc to discover) and some have extensive (a free for you as well as your online buddies) multi-player options in addition to keep the title interesting for after you have completed the main campaign. I hope you now understand and actually trying to cut assets down or redesigning sacrifices to still fit a disc can actually be more costly. To polish a game with good story telling, top graphics, top audio, etc of course costs more than developing a game with average story telling, average graphics, average audio, etc (it requires more time and/or talent).

That's the HD tax MikeB. That's my point. Uncharted 2 can be completed in 6 hours and thats supposedly the #1 game on the platform. I'm fine with SD resolutions and longer gameplay.

I prefer better games over better graphics. What's the point of adding so much detail into a few scenes that will be mostly unnoticed if it means you have to cut out designing extra levels at the end? Look at Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. The Wii version had 2 extra levels. When you try to make things too realistic, you end up having to cut corners somewhere to make a deadline and launch a title.

You can talk about story and graphics and sound all you want but if making a game in 640p and 5.1 Dolby sound vs 720p and 7.1 sound means I get an extra level or two to play, I'll take the 640p version please because with scaling, I'll never notice the difference and my ears won't care either.

@Lou

Quote:

That's the HD tax MikeB. That's my point.

But a flawed one, for example sequels to Ratchet & Clank, God of War, WipeOut, etc, etc are not shorter than they were on the PS2. Actually many PS3 games now provide additional replay/continued play value through online features and hidden bonusses.

As pointed out you are referring to a game design decision. For example God of War 1 & 2 were ported to the PS3 much improved in just 15 weeks supplied on a single Blu-Ray disc. That can be done for other SD games.

Last edited by MikeB on 11-Jun-2010 at 08:00 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

That's the HD tax MikeB.

Not only is there HD tax there is now a 3D tax. 3D TVs are coming out from Sony. Sony's 40" Bravia 3D capable set is a 50% markup over the 2D set. ($2,100 vs $1,400). Then there's another $200 per person for glasses.

There's little wonder the Wii is winning. It has a reach into the widest audience. The Wii doesn't need 3D. Rarely will parents spend $2,500 on little Mikey or little Suzy for either to play a 3D videogame. The PS3 and 360 can handle this sure, but exclusivity of audience does not a top seller make. Parents will spend $200 on the Wii then buy $2300 in games instead. (Okay a bit of overexaggeration as rarely does anyone buy a 100 games.)

3D seems to me to be pushed from the manufactures. With the exception of Avatar the movie, 3D has never been popular. I wouldn't be surprised to see it be a fad like laserdisc. In a few years the 3DTV cost will come down to earth. If it's popular all TV makers will include it for free. If it's not popular those 3DTVs will rot on the shelf w/o a heavy discount.

If selling to the broadest market is your goal. 3D right now is not where it's at. And certainly if 3D catches on the next gen Wii will likely be able to do it too.

Last edited by BrianK on 11-Jun-2010 at 08:53 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Not only is there HD tax there is now a 3D tax.

The funny thing is, this is relatively simple to do. Like the overhauled Super Stardust HD 3D games also still support 2D.

It's a win-win situation. It costs developers of HD consoles way more time and effort to continue to support SD televisions than it will be to support 3DTVs!

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Quote: Not only is there HD tax there is now a 3D tax. The funny thing is, this is relatively simple to do. Like the overhauled Super Stardust HD 3D games also still support 2D. It's a win-win situation. It costs developers of HD consoles way more time and effort to continue to support SD televisions than it will be to support 3DTVs!

You missed the point about requiring a $2500 investment from the consumer...
If you thought HD adoption was slow...

It costs nothing to support SD. Now if you mean analog transmission, even that is dead already. When your target resolution is lower, your textures can be less detailed. HD made the major cost of development swing from the programmers to the artists. The problem is the programmers aren't making less money, you just have to employ 5x more artists...

Last edited by Lou on 12-Jun-2010 at 12:11 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 12-Jun-2010 at 12:07 AM.

I bought Red Steel 2 for the Wii last night and all I have to say is that Moster Hunter 3 is not the best graphics on the Wii.

The game runs at full screen AA and jaggies are tough to come by. The game has a beautiful art style. Amazing what Ubisoft can do when they put effort into something.

The game is also fast and smooth.

I encourage everyone within shouting distance of a Wii to check it out. I am impressed.

@Lou

Quote:

It costs nothing to support SD.

Sorry Lou, but I take the words of a highly acclaimed games developer such as Mark Cerny way above yours (first video on the linked page).

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3178907

"Base level 3D support is actually easier than keeping SD TV support going"

Also check out the rest of the interview, he's well balanced and competent, you might learn a thing or two.

@Lou

Quote:

You missed the point about requiring a $2500 investment from the consumer...

From a narrow mind perspective you may come to such conclusions. But if you look at the grand perspective from a 10 year plan, then 5 years from now due to mass production costs will have dropped dramatically.

We have seen complaints with regard to the pricing of Blu-Ray players, Blu-Ray disc replication costs, HDTV, surround audio sets and what not in the past. That's all now become very affordable for hardcore gamers.

Killzone 3 debut gameplay trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPX2QCPyFUo

@MikeB

Quote:

@Lou Quote: You missed the point about requiring a $2500 investment from the consumer... From a narrow mind perspective you may come to such conclusions. But if you look at the grand perspective from a 10 year plan, then 5 years from now due to mass production costs will have dropped dramatically. We have seen complaints with regard to the pricing of Blu-Ray players, Blu-Ray disc replication costs, HDTV, surround audio sets and what not in the past. That's all now become very affordable for hardcore gamers.

The 'narrow' perspective is one of marketshare and profits. The interview you posted with Mark Cerny highlighted part of this. The $600 PS3 was not a winner and didn't fit in well with the consumers. At $300 it's now quite a deal. What was the result of a $600 approach? Loss of marketshare from PS2 #1 to PS3 #3. Loss of profit - Sony lost most if not all the PS2 profits to try to fight for 2nd in the market? Wise business decisions these are not.

3D adds to this. Yes it is $2,500 presently and will remain more then $1K for a few years. Great for the hardcore rich gamer. Not a good approach if you want a #1 market position, not a good approach if you want mass acceptance, not a good approach to be losing money for Sony.

Wii has 3 of the top 20 selling videogames ever. PS3 none. Clearly the PS2 having a couple was not a success the PS3 has been able to repeat.

You pose an interesting question will this approach win in 10 years? To truly show profit the PS3 has to restore PS2 profits and make some of it's own. It's a hard road ahead when it's not #1. Perhaps it will be able to do this. Likely to make 10 years the PS3 will face the Wii2 and Xbox3. It's difficult to predict what the market will look like in 6 more years and if the aged PS3 can still rise above.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jun-2010 at 01:48 PM.