The Gaming Lounge: Beyond - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Vivendi need the money and I doubt it will be that unfair a price given how much extra value the shares have to Microsoft as otherwise it would totally scare away all other interested parties to whom control of Activision means little more than whatever revenues they can independently generate.
 
The tomb raider game will be on Xbox first with no release date for other systems yet.
Didn't know that. Good choice of game as XBox has a glaring gap in that genre that Sony has knocked out of the park with Uncharted. But I kind of mean must-have-now-to-play-with-all your-friends-multiplayer-games of which CoD is the biggest. Even with the best single player games there is less pressure to buy at release (with all the quality competition out there now) so a delay is nowhere near as effective as proper exclusivity.
 
Where did you hear that?

E3 panel and plenty of articles from that.

EDIt: Ok I might be wrong. It might just be the DLC first. I thought the guy announced that whole game was coming first during the Xbox Conference.
 
Last edited:
Still dumb either way. "Hey guys, let's find the best way to not maximize our profits!" :p
 
Still dumb either way. "Hey guys, let's find the best way to not maximize our profits!" :p

Yea you'd think, but it obviously works. Otherwise MS wouldn't keep doing it. They must be seeing some kind of gain from it.
 
Yea you'd think, but it obviously works. Otherwise MS wouldn't keep doing it. They must be seeing some kind of gain from it.

I dont know about that. They've most prominently have done it with CoD, but I think its unnecesary as CoD would sell better on the 360 regardless of time exclusive DLC. It seems more like a marketing ploy for them to brag about as they dont have many big exclusive franchises under their belts so this is one way to promote the exclusivity found on their platform even if it is onl for a few months. Nintendo and Sony dont really have that issue

I wonder how many people really choose to get a game for a platform they might not have otherwise purchased it for just bc they get the option to pay a month earlier for DLC? I can undestand timed exclusivity on games but it doesnt seem to have quite the benefit on DLC for me. There's no DLC that I need right away and I thnk I can wait at least a month as long as it will be available
 
I dont know about that. They've most prominently have done it with CoD, but I think its unnecesary as CoD would sell better on the 360 regardless of time exclusive DLC. It seems more like a marketing ploy for them to brag about as they dont have many big exclusive franchises under their belts so this is one way to promote the exclusivity found on their platform even if it is onl for a few months. Nintendo and Sony dont really have that issue
Agreed. It comes off as very silly to me.
 
I dont know about that. They've most prominently have done it with CoD, but I think its unnecesary as CoD would sell better on the 360 regardless of time exclusive DLC. It seems more like a marketing ploy for them to brag about as they dont have many big exclusive franchises under their belts so this is one way to promote the exclusivity found on their platform even if it is onl for a few months. Nintendo and Sony dont really have that issue


These companies dont do anything "just cause". They feel they are getting something from it. They wouldn't throw money at these publishers if they weren't getting anything in return. Maybe its part of their ad budget, but they absolutely are getting something back. It being a "marketing ploy" would be just that. It creates an awareness that might not be there other wise.

I personally dont see the positive in it. DLC has never swayed me one way or the other, but then again, I'm primarily a 360 user and i feel most others act the same, meaning they tend to go with their console of choice no matter what.
 
Last edited:
I have both consoles and I tend to go with whichever has better DLC, followed by whichever system has better performance on the game (if I read a lot of claims that one is better; usually the difference is negligible), followed by the type of game (I seem to prefer platformers and beat-'em-ups on the PS3, probably because Sony still invests a lot in those games as exclusives), followed by whichever's cheaper, followed by utter randomness based on my mood at the time.
 
I have both consoles and I tend to go with whichever has better DLC, followed by whichever system has better performance on the game (if I read a lot of claims that one is better; usually the difference is negligible), followed by the type of game (I seem to prefer platformers and beat-'em-ups on the PS3, probably because Sony still invests a lot in those games as exclusives), followed by whichever's cheaper, followed by utter randomness based on my mood at the time.

Yea my friend is the same way as you. He generally will go back and forth between his PS3 and 360. His collection is almost even between the two whereas mine, is like 90% 360. I basically just use my PS3 for its blu ray and wicked awesome exclusives.

But in my experience, most users who own both tend to truly favor one over the other.
 
I've been favoring my 360 a lot lately. I stack my 360 games on one side of my entertainment center and my PS3 games on the other. The 360 side's jumped up to about 20% higher than the PS3 side in the past few months.
 
I generally use my 360 for the majority of my gaming and my PS3 for blu-rays and exclusives.
 
Yeah, I use my PS3 more for video stuff. Not just BRs, but Netflix as well. Both play everything on Netflix in HD if it's available, but I feel like the PS3 gives me slightly better picture quality for some reason. Also, I don't have to constantly wake my controller back up on the PS3.
 
Yeah, I use my PS3 more for video stuff. Not just BRs, but Netflix as well. Both play everything on Netflix in HD if it's available, but I feel like the PS3 gives me slightly better picture quality for some reason. Also, I don't have to constantly wake my controller back up on the PS3.

Oh Netflix is FAR better on the ps3. The setup on the 360 is dreadful. Just horrible, horrible.
 
They changed it recently. To me, anyway. I don't actually use Netflix on my 360 that much, so it may have looked the way it does now for a while.

I also think the PS3 upscales DVDs a bit better.

I can't remember, is it the PS3 or the 360 that supports Amazon Instant now?
 
They changed it recently. To me, anyway. I don't actually use Netflix on my 360 that much, so it may have looked the way it does now for a while.

I also think the PS3 upscales DVDs a bit better.

I can't remember, is it the PS3 or the 360 that supports Amazon Instant now?

Yea they changed it and its still awful. Like you can't view episodes of a tv show without actually playing the show. Its a pain in ass. Yea the PS3 also upscales dvds better, at least it looks that way to me.

I thought they both did? But i know for a fact the 360 does. They just added the support not long ago.
 
I used to use Netflix on my Xbox for the Party feature but now I just use it via my PC since they are all tied into the same television.
 
They changed it recently. To me, anyway. I don't actually use Netflix on my 360 that much, so it may have looked the way it does now for a while.

I also think the PS3 upscales DVDs a bit better.

I can't remember, is it the PS3 or the 360 that supports Amazon Instant now?
No clue if the 360 does, but the PS3 does.

Funny the talks about the PS3 being a better media player bc MS has been pushing the 360 hard as one the last year or so. As an outsider, Ive thought there stuff has looked really good and think the user interface looks alot better for that stuff than on the PS3. I guess it comes down to exectuion though then. 360 is prettier on the surface but PS3 operates alot better when it comes to functionality?
 
360 isn't media friendly. You can't transfer videos/music/pictures to the system off a thumb drive or whatever like you can with the PS3. I hate the XMB menu but the system itself is great for music/movies unlike the 360 which is only really good for games.
 
No clue if the 360 does, but the PS3 does.

Funny the talks about the PS3 being a better media player bc MS has been pushing the 360 hard as one the last year or so. As an outsider, Ive thought there stuff has looked really good and think the user interface looks alot better for that stuff than on the PS3. I guess it comes down to exectuion though then. 360 is prettier on the surface but PS3 operates alot better when it comes to functionality?
They both work just fine. They both look good, and the difference in picture quality is probably close to negligible if you're not a videophile. But the PS3 has a slight advantage in picture quality and navigability to me, and I own both systems, so I go with the PS3. You're really not missing much if you only have a 360, though. Its media stuff is just about as good.
 
360 isn't media friendly. You can't transfer videos/music/pictures to the system off a thumb drive or whatever like you can with the PS3. I hate the XMB menu but the system itself is great for music/movies unlike the 360 which is only really good for games.
Thanks. I always put video files on a flash drive for use on my PS3. If not that than I just stream it. I make good use of all of that
 
June NPD Charts. NBA 2K12 still placing in top 10

  1. Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes (360, Wii, PS3, NDS, 3DS, PSV, PC)
  2. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier (360, PS3, PC)
  3. Diablo III (PC)**
  4. Max Payne 3 (360, PS3, PC)**
  5. NBA 2K12 (360, PS3, Wii, PSP, PS2, PC)
  6. Batman Arkham City (360, PS3, PC)**
  7. Pokemon Conquest (NDS)
  8. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (360, PS3, Wii, PC)**
  9. Battlefield 3 (360, PS3, PC)**
  10. The Amazing Spider-Man (360, PS3, 3DS, NDS, Wii)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,738
Messages
22,018,866
Members
45,811
Latest member
taurusofemerald
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"