Fragony on 7/9/2009 at 17:44

---

Yes but it looks really cool and I am a sucker for design.

Ostriig on 7/9/2009 at 17:58

---

Fragony, there's appreciation for design, and then there's (http://forums.macrumors.com/) throwing money out the window. There's a difference.

Sulphur on 8/9/2009 at 17:06

---

Sony's gone and (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sony-extends-ps3-platinum-range) inducted heavy hitters Killzone 2, Resistance 2, MGS4, and Motorstorm: PR into the Platinum range for Europe (and, by extension, all PAL territories). Which means the price for these titles just went down by half, which is just peachy for all those people in the market for a PS3 post price-cut.

Sony's doing smart, sensible marketing now? How in fuck did that happen!? :eek:

gunsmoke on 8/9/2009 at 19:08

---

Probably not, if they stick to their '10 year lifespan' for the PS3.

Sulphur on 8/9/2009 at 19:53

---

You know, I'm tired of all this 'who's winning the console race' claptrap. Does it really matter who comes out on top? While it's great comparing numbers and stuff and declaring a 'winnah' because of total units sold and shit, I'm far more interested in two things:

1) Is the console generating enough of a profit to perpetuate itself (objective to an extent)
2) Does the console have enough games worth their salt

Going by that rubric, the Wii, while a runaway success by virtue of the first point, has literally only half a dozen games in its vast library that I'd actually be interested in. So fuck it.

The X360 probably has 1) covered, though for all we know Microsoft might still be haemorrhaging money because of those 3-year warranties and God knows what else. As far as 2) is concerned, it definitely has some amazingly good titles, both AAA and on XBLA; however, many of those are already available on at least 1 other platform (PC, PS3).

With the PS3 1) has been a question mark for a while. While the news is that, even with the PS3 Slim, Sony is still losing money per sale, if sales quantity catches up and stays consistent they're definitely going to make profits over time. Which is something I'd want because...

2) is far more important here for me with respect to the PS3. Sony's got more first-party dev houses than Nintendo and Microsoft combined, and in my highly subjective (and probably a little biased) opinion, these guys have been and will be creating some of the more interesting games this side of our current 'next' console generation.

The biggest selling point, as far as I can see, is that because these are owned by Sony, there's only the one console you're likely to get them on.

I'll admit that's actually a disadvantage to an extent, but it's a small price to pay if Sony's willing to back creativity even if it seems risky to do so - and it seems that's exactly what they're doing (cf. Little Big Planet, Noby Noby Boy, Flower, Heavy Rain, et al.)

I like my shooters and platformers and shit, but the industry's proven to be pretty incestuous when it comes to development over the last 5 years: it seems to have been peddling us an endless procession of shooters, each one greyer/browner than the last, each one having either the same or less or more slightly deformed features than the title preceding it.

And, unfortunately, a large amount of these seem more prevalent on the X360 than the PS3 in my eyes. I might be wrong, as I'm not an X360 owner, so I'll gladly accept any evidence to the contrary that says the PS3 has more brown shooters than the X360. But until that happens, I prefer to think the PS3 just happens to be a bigger font of creativity than either the Wii or the 360, which is why I'd rather see Sony doing well than Microsoft or Nintendo.