You don't own an XBox360. Why?

[paawl]

NG2 first party? I didn't know Team Ninja were owned by MS.

I always thought...

1st party - Studio owned by console maker. Rare for example.
2nd party - Studio not owned by console maker but makes games exclusively for that console and NO others. Bungee now for example.
3rd party - Studio that makes games for multiple consoles although it may release an exclusive here on one or another. Team Ninja.

Regards,
SB

Almost right, except that Bungie is now a third-party developer of Xbox-exclusive titles. There is no such thing as a second-party developer/publisher, because it's you, the console owner, who is the second-party. The seller of the console (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) is the first-party to the sales transaction; the purchaser of the console (i.e., you) is the second-party; anyone else besides the two of you (e.g., Sony and you) is, by definition, a third-party to the transaction, whether selling games, accessories, etc.

 

[specwarGP2]

You mean like Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, Tekken, the new MGS game, Virtua Fighter, Star Ocean... I don't think you'll see first party exlusives going either way and there is plenty of them on both consoles.

Other than VF, all the games you listed were (or will be) released to both PS3 and 360 simultaneously, so they can't be exclusive now, can they?

Games like Lost Planet, Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden 2... Those were all being promoted as 360 exclusives, and after a while they made it over to PS3.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

NG2 was (Co?)published by MS on the 360 so it was technically a second party title.

NG2 first party? I didn't know Team Ninja were owned by MS.

I always thought...

1st party - Studio owned by console maker. Rare for example.
2nd party - Studio not owned by console maker but makes games exclusively for that console and NO others. Bungee now for example.
3rd party - Studio that makes games for multiple consoles although it may release an exclusive here on one or another. Team Ninja.

Regards,
SB

Yeah, it makes you wonder why MS said it. Here are two different sources about their 2008 1st party lineup reveal (I use to have the GIF MS used):

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3162734

http://mediazealot.blogspot.com/2008/05/microsoft-unveils-xboxs-2008-lineup.html

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Wow, neat. Still couldn't really tell the difference though. I'd prefer if they rendered at 720P and used the extra overhead for better effects, or MSAA.

If YOU can't tell the difference, I would say that's not my problem. Since you're all for decreases in resolution, think of how much MSAA or better effect they can do at 480p!

I did, 79. Compared to games like Guitar hero: metallica at 88, and Mass Effect at 91. I'm betting it is a fun game, but it didn't live up to the hype Sony was pushing before it launched.

What's with some people and this "didn't live up to the hype Sony was pushing" cliche? 79 is good score (just read what the scores mean). What do mean by "compared to games like..."? Why didn't you compare Heavenly Sword's score to games like LittleBigPlanet at 95 or MGS4 at 94?

Ok, Review scores then. The first PS3 FPS to appear is Killzone 2 with a 91 Metacritic score. (Not counting multiplat titles, since they tend to get the same scores) There are 3 XBox exclusive FPS games above it. Of the top 50 games in general at metacritic (on PS3 and 360) 35 of them are for the 360, and only 15 for the PS3.

2008: PS3 had 23 titles that scored above 85 on Metacritic (6 exclusives...one is R2@87). X360 had 21 (2 exclusives).

2009: PS3 has 10 games above 85 on Metacritic (3 exclusives). X360 has 7 (1 exclusive)

I don't know of large crowds that are completely drawn to 2 to 3 year old games.

Sure, they might not be amazing, Too Human certainly did not live up to it's hype, or Lair. But considering Forza 2 is the highest ranked driving game at metacritic, and what they've shown of 3, it's a pretty safe bet. Alan Wake is a bit more of an unknown.

Forza 2, according to a lot of critics, is ranked higher than GT5 because it's not the full game (still about the same content as PGR3, though). None the less, you are technically accurate about Forza 2's rank.

But what if you already have speakers and the Marantz doesn't come with the option of not including them? And I already pay monthly for my music, it's called Sirius Satellite Radio. I pay monthly for my TV too, It's called digital Cable.

Sure, I could use normal radio and Hulu, but seriously they can't compare to the the full service that I pay for.

(and I think I may have stretched that analogy to the breaking point )

When the studies show that a LARGE portion of the Denon owners are buying speakers, it only makes sense to include them. That's what Marantz is doing. Yes, all Denon owners have to pay for their music within the confines of the previous analogies (you jumped off a cliff with the Sirius Radio stuff).

 

[goonergaz]

Setting up the X360 has been a bit of painful process.

It's nowhere near as intuitve as the PS3, setting up extra profiles was a pain - then I had to go through some DRM thing so I could play my bough games offline and by the other profiles (no such hassle with PS3!).

And then there's the noise! OMG, I had the PS3 on for over 5hrs last night, topping it off with a 2+ hrs of dead space action...I switched on the X360 and the noise of the cold machine with no disk was 2/3x the noise of the PS3 which had a disk and had been working it's nuts off for 5hrs!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yeah, it makes you wonder why MS said it. Here are two different sources about their 2008 1st party lineup reveal (I use to have the GIF MS used):

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3162734

http://mediazealot.blogspot.com/2008/05/microsoft-unveils-xboxs-2008-lineup.html

MS didn't say, others did. MS released a list of games they were publishing, and other sources just lumped them all in as first party for some reason.

Regards,
SB

 

[Scott_Arm]

Setting up the X360 has been a bit of painful process.

It's nowhere near as intuitve as the PS3, setting up extra profiles was a pain - then I had to go through some DRM thing so I could play my bough games offline and by the other profiles (no such hassle with PS3!).

And then there's the noise! OMG, I had the PS3 on for over 5hrs last night, topping it off with a 2+ hrs of dead space action...I switched on the X360 and the noise of the cold machine with no disk was 2/3x the noise of the PS3 which had a disk and had been working it's nuts off for 5hrs!

What DRM thing? Just curious. I've never encountered it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What DRM thing? Just curious. I've never encountered it.

Same here, at most I've only ever been asked to update the firmware in my machine.

The only people I know of that run into a problem with "drm" on games is ones trying to run pirated games with a machine that doesn't support such.

Or ones trying to run "backups."

Regards,
SB

 

[DrJay24]

You used to be locked out of your Arcade games when you played on a new 360 when offline. I think they let you switch machines once a year now. I don't know how the DRM works with different accounts on the same system.

 

[obonicus]

You used to be locked out of your Arcade games when you played on a new 360 when offline. I think they let you switch machines once a year now. I don't know how the DRM works with different accounts on the same system.

I've been able to play with DLC my friend downloaded onto my 360, but I can't remember if it'd shut down when I went offline. And I've switched 360s now so none of it works anymore.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You used to be locked out of your Arcade games when you played on a new 360 when offline. I think they let you switch machines once a year now. I don't know how the DRM works with different accounts on the same system.

Ah, ok, I have yet to buy an XBLA game so haven't had that experience. Although that's going to change this summer. Just too many cool XBLA games that I want.

Regards,
SB

 

[Scott_Arm]

I don't know. I have multiple accounts on my system and they can all play the arcade games I've downloaded. I've never had to switch my games to a new machine though.

 

[bkilian]

What's with some people and this "didn't live up to the hype Sony was pushing" cliche? 79 is good score (just read what the scores mean). What do mean by "compared to games like..."? Why didn't you compare Heavenly Sword's score to games like LittleBigPlanet at 95 or MGS4 at 94?

Sure, why not. Compared to LittleBigPlanet and MGS4, Heavenly Sword was crap. Pretty graphics, but gameplay couldn't match. Considering it had been trotted out by Sony (along with Genji - Based on real life historical battles with giant crabs!) as a premium title, I had been expecting more.

When the studies show that a LARGE portion of the Denon owners are buying speakers, it only makes sense to include them. That's what Marantz is doing. Yes, all Denon owners have to pay for their music within the confines of the previous analogies (you jumped off a cliff with the Sirius Radio stuff).

So you're just going to saddle the previous speaker owners with extra speakers they can't use and charge them more? That seems a bit rude. Also, a significant portion of the Denon (and Marantz I suspect) users don't listen to music. The Marantz "free" inclusion for extra upfront cost hurts those users.

And my only point about Sirius and Cable is that, in general, when I get a good service, I expect to pay for it. This "internet generation" expectation of "free" is counter productive. In the long run, you get what you pay for, and if you are getting value, you have given value at some point. You've seen the stories about Sony now charging publishers to put content on PSN. Do you really think that those publishers won't extract that money back from their users in some way?

The costs of PSN aren't 0, they're just hidden from the users. With Live, they're out in the open, and you can choose to pay them or not.

 

[Nesh]

Sure, why not. Compared to LittleBigPlanet and MGS4, Heavenly Sword was crap. Pretty graphics, but gameplay couldn't match. Considering it had been trotted out by Sony (along with Genji - Based on real life historical battles with giant crabs!) as a premium title, I had been expecting more.
So you're just going to saddle the previous speaker owners with extra speakers they can't use and charge them more? That seems a bit rude. Also, a significant portion of the Denon (and Marantz I suspect) users don't listen to music. The Marantz "free" inclusion for extra upfront cost hurts those users.

And my only point about Sirius and Cable is that, in general, when I get a good service, I expect to pay for it. This "internet generation" expectation of "free" is counter productive. In the long run, you get what you pay for, and if you are getting value, you have given value at some point. You've seen the stories about Sony now charging publishers to put content on PSN. Do you really think that those publishers won't extract that money back from their users in some way?

The costs of PSN aren't 0, they're just hidden from the users. With Live, they're out in the open, and you can choose to pay them or not.

I have a 360 and what I pay for isnt THAT better from what I get for free on the PS3.

Charging publishers if I recall counts also for MS. And we happen to pay MS too. In the long run many of us will pay more than we would ever pay for the PS3.

Lets talk about facts and not about estimations. Better tell us how they are going to extract that value than simply estimating that they will.

I also do not like how MS limits us on one profile. Consoles are used by multiple individuals in many households and they want to have their own profile and be able to play online. Here is an inconvenience due to MS's paying policy which is supposed to increase value. I have to pay twice for a Gold membership on the same system if I want to play some games online with a friend. No thank you.

How about more extra charges? Batteries? Battery packs? That overpriced HDD? Which gets filled faster than it should? What about the dissatisfaction from hardware failure?

And about games? That depends on the individual. Personally I believe that the PS3 has been offering more for the past 2 years including more fresh experiences. My 360 collects dust currently.
Care to talk about personal opinions?

 

[Tap In]

My main controller has the chatpad on it, and I've never had a problem with it blocking my fingers. Maybe I just hold the controller differently to other people, which could be why I can't hold a PS3 controller without it squirting out of my hands either.

agreed I love the 360 chatpad.... I rarely use it but keep it on all the time because it makes the controller feel even better to me

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I have a 360 and what I pay for isnt THAT better from what I get for free on the PS3.

Charging publishers if I recall counts also for MS. And we happen to pay MS too. In the long run many of us will pay more than we would ever pay for the PS3.

Lets talk about facts and not about estimations. Better tell us how they are going to extract that value than simply estimating that they will.

I also do not like how MS limits us on one profile. Consoles are used by multiple individuals in many households and they want to have their own profile and be able to play online. Here is an inconvenience due to MS's paying policy which is supposed to increase value. I have to pay twice for a Gold membership on the same system if I want to play some games online with a friend. No thank you.

How about more extra charges? Batteries? Battery packs? That overpriced HDD? Which gets filled faster than it should? What about the dissatisfaction from hardware failure?

And about games? That depends on the individual. Personally I believe that the PS3 has been offering more for the past 2 years including more fresh experiences. My 360 collects dust currently.
Care to talk about personal opinions?

Sure MS charges royalties for the paid stuff just like Sony...

However Sony also charges pubs and devs for Free stuff. Like patches, demos, free DLCs, etc... Yet another reason 3rd parties favor MS in general. But not much Sony can do, they have to pay for hosting and bandwidth somehow.

MS Gold fees take care of that for the most part for MS.

Regards,
SB

 

[bkilian]

I have a 360 and what I pay for isnt THAT better from what I get for free on the PS3.

But you don't get it for free, you paid more for the PS3, and publishers paid to let you play their demos, and to recoup costs, they'll wait longer before lowering the prices on their games. You're paying in slower uptake on the PS3, because Sony is keeping the price high to help offset PSN costs (slower uptake means publishers will marginalize the console in their developement, which results in better third party games on the 360 in some cases).
Sony is a business. Their purpose is to make money for their shareholders. Anything they give you for "free" is designed to increase other money making ventures. In this case, it's to convince users to pay more for their product.

Charging publishers if I recall counts also for MS. And we happen to pay MS too. In the long run many of us will pay more than we would ever pay for the PS3.

I'm not disputing that, we also get more. More shows and movies on Marketplace. More games on XBLA. More demos. Things like 1v100 with real prizes, netflix, Media Center Extender. Better online matchmaking. Better integration, with cross game voice chat. Parties, etc etc. With Live Gold revenue as an incentive, MS has far more reason to continue improving the service and adding value to try convince the other 50% of users that the service is worth paying for.

And as mentioned by someone else earlier. Sony charges publishers for free content (like demos) based on it's size, as a way to recoup bandwidth costs.

Lets talk about facts and not about estimations. Better tell us how they are going to extract that value than simply estimating that they will.

I also do not like how MS limits us on one profile. Consoles are used by multiple individuals in many households and they want to have their own profile and be able to play online. Here is an inconvenience due to MS's paying policy which is supposed to increase value. I have to pay twice for a Gold membership on the same system if I want to play some games online with a friend. No thank you.

I also don't like the single profile problem though I understand it. Two users playing online use more resources that a single user playing online. I would like a variable charge based on time spent playing online, but I suspect that would negatively impact our userbase . I also don't like that they've made it ridiculously difficult to use the same profile on multiple xboxes. Profile stuff in general should be worked on. I do like that you can redownload a game you paid for on another Xbox and play the full version. I also like that you can transfer a licence to a new box. And I like that you have unlimited redownloads of content you own, unlike on the PS3 (another one of those hidden costs of "free").

And about games? That depends on the individual. Personally I believe that the PS3 has been offering more for the past 2 years including more fresh experiences. My 360 collects dust currently.
Care to talk about personal opinions?

Really? Where's the PS3's Mass Effect like game? Or one like Fable?
But every person has their requirements, and yours appear to be met by the PS3. I'll happily take your XBox off your hands if you don't want it. I'm sure I can find someone who does

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

MS didn't say, others did. MS released a list of games they were publishing, and other sources just lumped them all in as first party for some reason.

Regards,
SB

Nope. It wasn't the other sources getting it wrong. It was MS's GIF. It use to be located here 4 months ago, but now it's gone. I can't find it anywhere, now. Many have seen this MS press kit GIF (myself included).

EDIT: It originated from the Microsoft's NA Xbox.com press site. Obviously, it's gone now.

 

[dobwal]

I have a 360 and what I pay for isnt THAT better from what I get for free on the PS3.

Charging publishers if I recall counts also for MS. And we happen to pay MS too. In the long run many of us will pay more than we would ever pay for the PS3.

Lets talk about facts and not about estimations. Better tell us how they are going to extract that value than simply estimating that they will.

I also do not like how MS limits us on one profile. Consoles are used by multiple individuals in many households and they want to have their own profile and be able to play online. Here is an inconvenience due to MS's paying policy which is supposed to increase value. I have to pay twice for a Gold membership on the same system if I want to play some games online with a friend. No thank you.

How about more extra charges? Batteries? Battery packs? That overpriced HDD? Which gets filled faster than it should? What about the dissatisfaction from hardware failure?

And about games? That depends on the individual. Personally I believe that the PS3 has been offering more for the past 2 years including more fresh experiences. My 360 collects dust currently.
Care to talk about personal opinions?

This whole debate is about personal opinions. When it comes down to it, consoles are a very subjective purchases. We all purchased our console based on our own impressions, feelings and opinions.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Sure, why not. Compared to LittleBigPlanet and MGS4, Heavenly Sword was crap. Pretty graphics, but gameplay couldn't match.

Personally, Heavenly Sword wasn't crap compared to anything. From the reviews I read, the main complaint was the 8 to 10 hours worth of gameplay without MP.