DLC for PS3, BULL****!

Ok, I'm getting pretty pissed about all the awsome stuff that's only coming out for the Xbox360. For example the GTA4 Lost and Damned, and especially the Fallout 3 Broken Steel Expansion. I mean come on! Just because some of us own a PS3 doesn't mean we should be classified as lesser gamers who don't deserve DLC for our games!I have nothing against the Xbox, I would just REALLY like to see this stuff come to the PS3 the same time as the Xbox (or eventually as opposed to not at all).I'm sure that it wasn't just Xbox 360 users who thought the end of Fallout 3 was kind of a brick wall of "Huh, guess it's over." After you've been playing it for nearly a month levelling up character to maximum awsomeness.That's crap! I'm sure it was both sides were equally "perturbed" by it. So why does the Xbox 360 users get to be the big rich snobby DLC horders, while we have to walk around their big mansions created out of bricks of DLC content and be satisfied with what we have? Sony had better start stepping out to the plate,

It's because Microsoft shells out stupid amounts of money to make the DLC exclusive to their console. It's the closest this generation seems to get to exclusive titles.

Nice rant there, still it's not all bad. You get the blu-ray we get the DLC just think it's balanced out somewhat LOL. Sorry this is why Sony lets it's customers down. It's not just the Sony PSN which is unfortunately weak. It's the availability of content on it as well. Sure necessary bug fix patches like the one released for Fallout 3 (a game in your rant used as an example no less) generally on the day of release are fine, heck we 360 users have to put up with our machine AUTOMATICALLY downloading any updates or refusing to go online otherwise.

The Sony PSN is a weak system, ok so the console is £100 more expensive on average than a 360 and hardware wise I have a hard time finding faults apart from heat from extensive use, but that doesn't cover the cost of Sony maintaining it's network they've only just in the last year begun producing PS3 consoles for below cost meaning it's only just begun turning them a profit and for the last few years every console made has dug them a nice debt which in the current economical climate is a bad thing.

Now heres why we get DLC content and you don't and it's bluntly put; money. 360 users pay a measly £3 a month to go online with their console. In exchange for this we get stability and lots of free content such as certain arcade games and updates/patches/mods for some games. Now I know the PSN also offers arcade style games for free and well done on Sony for doing this. However we're paying and our servers are more stable for it, we also tend to have better quality arcade titles than the PSN offers all this comes down to the £3 a month we're paying. Now add in this, Sony whenever you need to pay for a DLC asks you to pay by credit/debit card and screw anyone who doesn't have one in this day and age, believe me I know for a fact some people don't I live on my own, go work full time, pay rent but for some reason my bank tells me theres a lack of activity on my account for me to get a debit card. Microsoft on the other hand introduced the Microsoft Live Points system, whereby owners can either purchase online via their consoles using their credit or debit cards or else go buy a validation card from a store for cash and simply redeem the code. This means the DLC content is far more readily available to it's target audience. This means that a new expansion for Fable 2, Halo 3 or Fallout 3 ect ect is going to do twice as well on the 360 as it will on the ps3. Easier time buying it = more people do buy it, more people buying the product = more $$$ in your account. Hence 360 users get more DLC, it's all about the damn money involved.

How could Sony improve the PSN? Well for a start lets see them sort stability. I dislike "paying to play a game you've already brought" as much as the next person and thats why I haven't gotten in to Warhammer online or World of Warcraft. However in paying the £39.99 or roughly £3 a month for Xbox Live gold membership I have access to any of my games which have an online multiplayer. This is far better than paying £9.99 per month for 1 game online. I am sure many playstation 3 owners who read this would agree if there was a similar charge from Sony for the PSN then so long as it meant more DLC and better stability of the servers they'd be overjoyed to pay it without complaint. They could also introduce a "points" payment system like used on the Nintendo network and the Microsoft Live networks. This allows them to open up their content to a much bigger audience and thus attact developers to doing DLC for their format so long as they also start producing store buyable "redemption codes" as well which would grant varying numbers of points similar to the Xbox Live points and Nintendo points already available.

With the stability and the increased chances of revenue for developers Sony sure as hell would attract more developers in to producing them some DLC. Though theres also a slight matter of how many active gamers there are on the respective networks. Xbox has been around slightly longer and had a significant headstart on other formats in this. Wii overtook because it's cutesy, gimmicky bull crap (If Roto were to read this he'd probably be incandescent with rage at me for bashing nintendo about but I say bite me to that :P) but as far as "serious" gaming machines go theres more 360 users than ps3 users.

Also as a please note: I don't hate the PS3, like I said as a piece of hardware it's clearly the superior statistically speaking machine, it also is the best blu-ray player on the market. I think it's got a few promising in house "exclusive" titles but over all it's just not quite there yet for me. Sony really need to decide exactly what it's final specification will be, I don't know if they completely canned the 160gb or just postponed it for another time due to the economic reccession or what but gamers want consistency in their machines. They don't want to spend £400 on a console only to find out a year later that for £100 less they could have had it with 2 or 3 times the storage capacity. Microsoft recently changed the 20gb core for the 60gb pro to go in it's line up but that was done because DLC on the 360 really has taken off and brought console gaming to a whole new level they never removed or added any extra features such as the ps3 - ps2 backwards compatability nonsense, Sony on the other hand just can't seem to make their damn minds up. Theres only one current gen console I really genuinely don't like, thats the Wii because altough it's without doubt fun, it's too childish and gimmicky for my tastes. The overall message for Sony to read if they ever read this post is: Fix the damn specifications of the machine in stone, stop dicking your customers around, sort your network out to be stable and reliable, charge if you must because as long as you get better stability and more DLC available then your gamer base will grow exponentially, DLC is not some little fad which will die off it's become a critical part of gaming for most gamers.

So you would rather have dlc over full retail games? Microsoft choose to spend their money on dlc and Sony choose to spend their money on games. Thats why dlc has been the only notable thing released exclusively on the 360 this year and the PS3 actually got what mattered, games. I hope that Sony keep up their strategy as I'd hate to only have dlc for my console.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

Nice rant there, still it's not all bad. You get the blu-ray we get the DLC just think it's balanced out somewhat LOL. Sorry this is why Sony lets it's customers down.

---

Sony let their customers down? Have you seen the PS3's lineup? You must have very low expectations if DLC keeps you happy.

Quote:

---

It's not just the Sony PSN which is unfortunately weak. It's the availability of content on it as well. Sure necessary bug fix patches like the one released for Fallout 3 (a game in your rant used as an example no less) generally on the day of release are fine, heck we 360 users have to put up with our machine AUTOMATICALLY downloading any updates or refusing to go online otherwise.

---

Well first of all PS3 owners have to automatically update their machines before returning online as well. And don't speak about content because both the PSN and XBLA are pretty neck and neck when it comes to that. With their being more re-releases on XBLA and more original content on the PSN.

Quote:

---

Now heres why we get DLC content and you don't and it's bluntly put; money. 360 users pay a measly £3 a month to go online with their console. In exchange for this we get stability and lots of free content such as certain arcade games and updates/patches/mods for some games.

---

And Microsft must be laughing their asses off at people like you who defend the charge by calling XBLA more stable and offering more free content. Your selling their service and they don't have to do anything. Reality check, both PSN and XBLA are equally stable and the content is on equal terms as well. Wise up.

Quote:

---

Now I know the PSN also offers arcade style games for free and well done on Sony for doing this. However we're paying and our servers are more stable for it, we also tend to have better quality arcade titles than the PSN offers all this comes down to the £3 a month we're paying. Now add in this, Sony whenever you need to pay for a DLC asks you to pay by credit/debit card and screw anyone who doesn't have one in this day and age, believe me I know for a fact some people don't I live on my own, go work full time, pay rent but for some reason my bank tells me theres a lack of activity on my account for me to get a debit card. Microsoft on the other hand introduced the Microsoft Live Points system, whereby owners can either purchase online via their consoles using their credit or debit cards or else go buy a validation card from a store for cash and simply redeem the code. This means the DLC content is far more readily available to it's target audience. This means that a new expansion for Fable 2, Halo 3 or Fallout 3 ect ect is going to do twice as well on the 360 as it will on the ps3. Easier time buying it = more people do buy it, more people buying the product = more $$$ in your account. Hence 360 users get more DLC, it's all about the damn money involved.

---

Ill give you that one point about Sony not offering a point system. I have no issues with their system though and its pretty rare for someone not to have access to a credit card at any age whether its theirs or their parents. It really isn't an issue.

Quote:

---

With the stability and the increased chances of revenue for developers Sony sure as hell would attract more developers in to producing them some DLC. Though theres also a slight matter of how many active gamers there are on the respective networks. Xbox has been around slightly longer and had a significant headstart on other formats in this. Wii overtook because it's cutesy, gimmicky bull crap (If Roto were to read this he'd probably be incandescent with rage at me for bashing nintendo about but I say bite me to that :P) but as far as "serious" gaming machines go theres more 360 users than ps3 users.

---

Firstly, quit with the stability thing. Your wrong. And exclusive DLC is usually governed by whos willing to pay. In 90% of all cases they go to both consoles.

Quote:

---

Also as a please note: I don't hate the PS3

---

Nope. Your just someone who bought a 360 and now feels compelled to "fight the good fight" and hate on the competition for simply not owning their console. A fanboy if I ever saw one.

Quote:

---

The overall message for Sony to read if they ever read this post is: Fix the damn specifications of the machine in stone, stop dicking your customers around, sort your network out to be stable and reliable, charge if you must because as long as you get better stability and more DLC available then your gamer base will grow exponentially, DLC is not some little fad which will die off it's become a critical part of gaming for most gamers.

---

The specifications on the PS3 is fine, their customers do not get dicked around, their network is stable and reliable.....and free and they don't need to waste their time on dlc and can deliver full retail games instead.

Seriously, after reading all that your clearly very ill-advised when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Just shut up and wait for Fat Princess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paro

So why does the Xbox 360 users get to be the big rich snobby DLC horders

---

Nice generalization. I didn't know we were snobby DLC hoarders on our consoles that die every two months or so, while PS3 owners get what is technically the better system with Blu-ray and Disgaea 3. :sweat:

Stop your whining and play some of the good PSN games that you get that we don't.

I have to agree. As a 360 owner and fan I honestly don't care too much about DLC, except for Halo map packs (Haven't even got Lost and Damned yet). And yeah, Dreddz is right about games > DLC. I know that I'd rather have Valkyrie Chronicles than any amount of DLC. It's honestly quite a petty thing to be going for exclusives on. And if there's a good game out there, it stands to reason that I want as many people as possible to play it, increasing the chances for a sequel.

Reasonability aside I'm trying to see how I can best stir up fanboys in this thread but it's really quite difficult to decide what to go for.

At least we're all agreed that the Wii is :bou::bou::bou::bou:, eh? :D

Dreddz, you're clearly a PS3 fanboy. You've made it evident and whilst I am a fan of my 360 I have a good thing to say about the PS3 though it's online capabilities in comparison to the 360 are sorely lacking and it's not just me who says this, every person who I know with a ps3 and most with both the PS3 and 360 consoles heck even some with the Wii as well agree the 360 is the best for online play.

As for the hardware? First the PS3 has a 20 gig hdd and backwards compatability, 40 gig hdd soon followed, 60 gig hdd after that, currently it's an 80 gig hdd and no PS2 backwards compatability, one of the other models since the 20 had backwards compatability, I forget which one exactly but the other previous released version of the PS3 did not. On the day they released the 80 gig hdd version of the PS3 Sony announced a 160 gig hdd model to be released "in the next year" Now, whether they scrapped that model or not I can't say what I can say however is; If 5 different hardware set ups announced so far some with PS2 compatabitlity and some without is not dicking around with your customers what is? I truly generally feel sorry for those who brought their PS3's with 20 gig hdds for £400+ when now they could get 4 x the memory space or if they keep their word on the announcements made 8x the memory space for £100 less than they paid. When Sony stop messing around changing what the PS3 has for features and settle on a HDD size and the compatability features ect then they have set their console in stone and got a finished product. If it was Microsoft who continually changed their features on the console you'd be the one saying "microsoft are as they usually do dicking around with their customers" instead of me it's just a matter of fact that aside from a single upgrade to the hdd and the new xbox live experience they haven't actually changed much about them. Sure they released the Elite 360 but thats a seperate console on sale for a higher price.

As for the comment on Games > DLC I would rather have 5 decent DLC packs out in 6 months than 10 crapily made games in 6 months, that said I do not imply the PS3 does not and has not had some decent games released this year or at any other year for that matter. Just because the PS3 is getting titles doesn't mean it's getting anything the 360 isn't and when it does get something exclusive theres a lot of crap titles on both consoles which are unique. Stuff like GTA IV Lost and Damned pretty much makes a albeit smaller but well made seperate game within the GTA IV world mechanics this is far better than a crap 6 outta 10 or 5 outta 10 game. GTA IV is a great title on both conoles but I would still take GTA IV L&D over a mediocre or crapily made exclusive title on the PS3 anyday. Just because it's a full game does not make it immediately better than a downloadable add on if that was true then why would anyone as big as the Bungie or Rockstar studios bother with it? Your complaints that Microsoft doesn't even need to sell DLC because I'm here selling it for them are valid. Microsoft doesn't need to sell DLC to us it's been sold by fantastic DLC packs such as Lost and Damned and dare I say the Legendary and Mythic map packs for Halo 3. I will be recomending DLC packs to gamers, probably because they're good to get and can add huge amounts of fun to a game this means Microsoft do not need to send a representative to us here to sell it :P Now, lets be serious for a second, your gripe that DLC is not full games is now sounding more like a disappointed PS3 owner whose a little jealous of those 360 owners.

You should think about this before you purchase a console. Saves complaining about it in the end.

Alternatively, you can get a PC. I hear PCs win in most departments, despite having to wait a tad longer for a lot of games.

The Pixel Junk games you can download to the PS3, namely Pixel Junk Eden, are better than anything you can download on the 360... and that's a fact!

PS3 gets far more exclusive original games for download which are better than WiiWare or the 360 arcade. Even I am willing to admit that, and I'm anything BUT a Sony fanboy, I typically hate on Sony.

THE JACKEL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

Dreddz, you're clearly a PS3 fanboy. You've made it evident and whilst I am a fan of my 360 I have a good thing to say about the PS3 though it's online capabilities in comparison to the 360 are sorely lacking and it's not just me who says this, every person who I know with a ps3 and most with both the PS3 and 360 consoles heck even some with the Wii as well agree the 360 is the best for online play.

---

I'm merely defending the PS3. I'm not the one writing extensive paragraphs on why the other system is bad. And I never said PSN is better than XBL. In fact it definitely isn't, but XBL isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the PSN which is why I'm against the charge no matter how little money it is. I just feel that 360 owners should stop defending it just because they have to pay it.

Quote:

---

As for the hardware? First the PS3 has a 20 gig hdd and backwards compatability, 40 gig hdd soon followed, 60 gig hdd after that, currently it's an 80 gig hdd and no PS2 backwards compatability, one of the other models since the 20 had backwards compatability, I forget which one exactly but the other previous released version of the PS3 did not. On the day they released the 80 gig hdd version of the PS3 Sony announced a 160 gig hdd model to be released "in the next year" Now, whether they scrapped that model or not I can't say what I can say however is; If 5 different hardware set ups announced so far some with PS2 compatabitlity and some without is not dicking around with your customers what is? I truly generally feel sorry for those who brought their PS3's with 20 gig hdds for £400+ when now they could get 4 x the memory space or if they keep their word on the announcements made 8x the memory space for £100 less than they paid. When Sony stop messing around changing what the PS3 has for features and settle on a HDD size and the compatability features ect then they have set their console in stone and got a finished product. If it was Microsoft who continually changed their features on the console you'd be the one saying "microsoft are as they usually do dicking around with their customers" instead of me it's just a matter of fact that aside from a single upgrade to the hdd and the new xbox live experience they haven't actually changed much about them. Sure they released the Elite 360 but thats a seperate console on sale for a higher price.

---

I think your putting Sonys actions in a more negative light than nessesary. Sure Sony have had issues with what they want the PS3 to be but they are only going through this hell so more people can get their hands on one. People are banging down Sonys door for a price cut and all Sony can do is make revisions on their console to lower the price. And your wrong about what stages the PS3 has been through. Sony made a 20GB and 60GB and then dropped the 20GB for a 40GB with a few features cut and then simply upped the 60GB to 80GB. There are only two versions of the PS3 out now, a cheaper model with fewer features and a more expensive model with more features. Its not that difficult to understand and I don't symphathize with anyone who can't figure out what system they want.

Quote:

---

As for the comment on Games > DLC I would rather have 5 decent DLC packs out in 6 months than 10 crapily made games in 6 months, that said I do not imply the PS3 does not and has not had some decent games released this year or at any other year for that matter. Just because the PS3 is getting titles doesn't mean it's getting anything the 360 isn't and when it does get something exclusive theres a lot of crap titles on both consoles which are unique. Stuff like GTA IV Lost and Damned pretty much makes a albeit smaller but well made seperate game within the GTA IV world mechanics this is far better than a crap 6 outta 10 or 5 outta 10 game. GTA IV is a great title on both conoles but I would still take GTA IV L&D over a mediocre or crapily made exclusive title on the PS3 anyday. Just because it's a full game does not make it immediately better than a downloadable add on if that was true then why would anyone as big as the Bungie or Rockstar studios bother with it? Your complaints that Microsoft doesn't even need to sell DLC because I'm here selling it for them are valid. Microsoft doesn't need to sell DLC to us it's been sold by fantastic DLC packs such as Lost and Damned and dare I say the Legendary and Mythic map packs for Halo 3. I will be recomending DLC packs to gamers, probably because they're good to get and can add huge amounts of fun to a game this means Microsoft do not need to send a representative to us here to sell it :P Now, lets be serious for a second, your gripe that DLC is not full games is now sounding more like a disappointed PS3 owner whose a little jealous of those 360 owners

---

Well in the context that you have put it in I would definitely rather have 5 decent DLC packs than 10 crappy PS3 exclusives. But thats not what is really happening. Sony have delivered on its exclusive titles for this year and from what I have heard the Fallout 3 DLC hasn't even been that great. Ask any PS3 owner what they would rather of had this year, Killzone 2, Flower, MLB and Noby Noby Boy or some DLC for GTAIV and Fallout 3. Also if we are on DLC then its worth noting that there was some pretty good DLC for Valkyria Chronicles released a few weeks ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

At least we're all agreed that the Wii is :bou::bou::bou::bou:, eh? :D

---

I actually think the Wii has done alright this year. Tenchu, MadWorld, Little Kings Story and House of the Dead all this year. I'm probably going to buy one soon actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

(Haven't even got Lost and Damned yet).

---

Get it immediately. Even though it's shorter than the regular GTA IV story line, I enjoyed it and the features it added a lot more than Niko World, which kind of dragged on a bit. The missions are of a much higher quality too, imho, none of this temporary invulnerability crap.

Anyway, that's the way the gaming market works. Some consoles get exclusives that others don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

You should think about this before you purchase a console. Saves complaining about it in the end.

---

This man speaks the truth.

Oh you guys and your console wars! :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

As for the comment on Games > DLC I would rather have 5 decent DLC packs out in 6 months than 10 crapily made games in 6 months, that said I do not imply the PS3 does not and has not had some decent games released this year or at any other year for that matter.

---

Well yeah you blatantly do imply that otherwise you wouldn't make the comment in the first place. If the PS3 does actually get decent games then the statement you made is completely pointless.

@ Dreddz: Yeah I'm looking for games that are actually good before declaring the Wii not :bou::bou::bou::bou:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

@ Dreddz: Yeah I'm looking for games that are actually good before declaring the Wii not :bou::bou::bou::bou:.

---

Trauma Center, Castle of Shikigami III, and Milestone Ultimate Shooting Collection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

I actually think the Wii has done alright this year. Tenchu, MadWorld, Little Kings Story and House of the Dead all this year. I'm probably going to buy one soon actually.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

@ Dreddz: Yeah I'm looking for games that are actually good before declaring the Wii not :bou::bou::bou::bou:.

---

Trauma Center, Castle of Shikigami III, and Milestone Ultimate Shooting Collection.

---

Muramasa: The Demon Blade
The Conduit
Arc Rise Fantasia
Monster Hunter 3
Tales of Graces
Dragon Quest X
FF:CC Crystal Bearers
No More Heroes: Desperate Struggle
Sin and Punishment 2
Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga
Wii Sports Resort

and those are just to add to your list of announced games... Now not all I listed are due out this year, but a number of them are. On top of that we can expect
Star Fox
Kirby
F-zero
and another Mario and Zelda
before the Wii is done.

I love my Wii. I love playing my roommates 360, and I enjoy playing my friends PS3. I want all 3 eventually. They all have something to offer, why can't everyone just admit it?!?!?!

THE JACKEL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

As for the comment on Games > DLC I would rather have 5 decent DLC packs out in 6 months than 10 crapily made games in 6 months, that said I do not imply the PS3 does not and has not had some decent games released this year or at any other year for that matter.

---

Well yeah you blatantly do imply that otherwise you wouldn't make the comment in the first place. If the PS3 does actually get decent games then the statement you made is completely pointless.

@ Dreddz: Yeah I'm looking for games that are actually good before declaring the Wii not :bou::bou::bou::bou:.

---

Actually Milf, I think there has been some definite good releases on the PS3 it is just with the most part the "exclusive" content released on PS3 in terms of new games has generated only a couple of good hits and the rest are future releases or past ones going platinum. Platinum re-release doesn't count. Killzone 2 obviously is a great game however I would still in any straight 6 month period rather have 5 good DLC addons released instead of 10 badly made crap games. Imagine if Army Men or something equally dire came out with 3 or 4 games and microsoft announced a new addon of good quality I would rather have the addon than the games. Overall the PS3 is a very good console, Sony do need to finish setting the damn consoles hardware out properly and see to it that they do more to attract good DLC to the PSN, an announcement of a 160 gig console during the release day of your new 80 gig console is 1) a stupid idea which caused the 80 gig to tank and 2) signifies further unrest in the hardware of the ps3 unless they did a "ps3 elite" console similar to the xbox 360.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

Actually Milf, I think there has been some definite good releases on the PS3 it is just with the most part the "exclusive" content released on PS3 in terms of new games has generated only a couple of good hits and the rest are future releases or past ones going platinum.

---

What the hell are you talking about? If Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, Valkyria Chronicles, Resistance 1 & 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, Warhawk, Ratchet & Clank, and Gran Turismo are your idea of only a couple of good (exclusive) hits then I'm surprised you'd defend the 360 at all. And someone needs to learn the definition of the word "couple".

And please stop complaining about the PS3 having multiple hardware versions. They've never had more than two in production at a given time. And if you want to talk about how many versions actually differed from one another other than in hard drive size, they've had five seperate models sold in North America. The 360 has had four. And if you want to get into complaining about hardware, buying a 360 is like playing russian roulette with the RRoD, and Microsoft also crippled their less expensive launch model by not including a hard drive so they could sell their overpriced proprietary HDD. They've each had their hardware faults, but who do you really think has the worse track record in that area?

Hey!

I like the Wii. :(

I said good, folks, not overhyped, overrated new versions of old games. Of the Wii games listed there are possibly three worth getting :monster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I said good, folks, not overhyped, overrated new versions of old games.

---

Just for the sake of argument, the same could be said of Halo (GAYLO) 3 :monster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I said good, folks, not overhyped, overrated new versions of old games. Of the Wii games listed there are possibly three worth getting :monster:

---

Okay, okay, so half of the games I mentioned are arcade ports. That doesn't subtract from the fact that they're smurfing fantastic. :irked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hsu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I said good, folks, not overhyped, overrated new versions of old games.

---

Just for the sake of argument, the same could be said of Halo (GAYLO) 3 :monster:

---

One day, Hsu - and that day might not be for months, it might not even be for years, but that day will happen - one day, you will resign from staff. And on that day, I will remember this, and I will ban you all the way back to god damn Boise.

Seriously guys just listen to what Yahtzee says because he's not wrong:

The Escapist : Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : MadWorld

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paro

Just because some of us own a PS3 doesn't mean we should be classified as lesser gamers who don't deserve DLC for our games!

---

Actually, the Gamer And Games Department of the UN puts every gamer in the World on a list corresponding to what system(s) they have and decides who gets DLC. PS3 owners are classified as lesser gamers or "less fortunate gamers" as they call and are among the lowest on the list, just below WII owners and thus gets nothing.

Sorry couldn't resist.

I was just wondering why you don't go and buy yourself a X360 and become a member of the Elite? If you don't want the same games for two systems, go to Gamestop and work something out. It's not like it's that expensive.

I don't know why anyone didn't jump on the PS3 PSN game Fat Princess with me... Here... I'll post some screens:

NSF56K
http://www.vgnetwork.it/images/Fat_P...rincess-03.jpg

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/ar...12242_640w.jpg

http://www.endsights.com/wp-content/...rincesstop.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...008/12/FP7.jpg

http://news.filefront.com/wp-content...ghtpriests.jpg


If none of you think it looks impressive, you're all stupid.

GTA IV DLC cost Microsoft $50 million, Killzone 2 cost Sony $20 million. Strictly speaking as a gamer, which would you rather have your company spending money on?

Metal Gear Solid 4
Resistance 2
Motorstorm: Pacific Rift
Valkyria Chronicles
Little Big Planet

Killzone 2
inFamous?
God of War III
Uncharted 2
Heavy Rain
MAG
White Knight Chronicles

Even if inFamous ends up being crap, that's still 10 slamming titles in a span of less than 2 years. Why would I ever want to keep playing Fallout or Grand Theft Auto when newer, more innovative titles are coming out?

Even if you want to talk sequels Resistance 2 and Motorstorm: PR were praised across the board for doing everything right that the originals didn't, and then some. Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3 and Fable 2 were all universally critiqued for either being inferior or too similar to their predecessors. And those are their main exclusives.

Now don't get me wrong - there's so many great multiplatform games coming out on both consoles I would never argue that the 360 is a bad system. But I don't get how anyone who's really a gamer can go on a crusade saying they're doing something right, or sony's doing something wrong, when from a game's perspective Sony had a better year last year and they're doing it again in 2009. It's really sad to hear gamers sound like business students throwing financial statistics at you instead of discussing the actual software.

Also, Iceglow, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about with the PSN not having a system comparable to microsoft's XBL points. The PSN has the "Wallet" where anyone can upload you money on your account to use, or you can buy those gift cards from stores with cash/whatever to get redeemable codes to use to buy games. At least in America, I guess you guys don't have it over there.

Also, you could never say XBL is more "stable" or even reliable than PSN, from what I hear XBL goes down alot more than I've ever heard the PSN go down, and MTV multiplayer conducted a test which concluded downloads are faster on the PSN.

I always say XBox Live is the gaming equivalent of iTunes, you could list all the convenient features you want, at the end of the day you're still paying for something most people get for free.

See, now, the PS3 isn't something I want enough to spend that much money on yet, but that's a list of games mostly worth having. Unlike a certain other console.

However, this line:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3 and Fable 2 were all universally critiqued for either being inferior or too similar to their predecessors.

---

Is complete bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:, except perhaps for Ninja Gaiden 2 because I wasn't paying attention. The other three are widely regarded as being excellent sequels which built on previous strengths, reduced previous weaknesses, and were generally totally awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

I don't know why anyone didn't jump on the PS3 PSN game Fat Princess with me... Here... I'll post some screens:

NSF56K
http://www.vgnetwork.it/images/Fat_P...rincess-03.jpg

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/ar...12242_640w.jpg

http://www.endsights.com/wp-content/...rincesstop.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...008/12/FP7.jpg

http://news.filefront.com/wp-content...ghtpriests.jpg


If none of you think it looks impressive, you're all stupid.

---

I remember making a thread on that a while back. I want to play it, but I don't have a PS3.

Really, the only things that attract me to the PS3 is Disgaea 3, Noby Noby Boy, and Fat Princess. However, that's not enough to make me go out and buy one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

See, now, the PS3 isn't something I want enough to spend that much money on yet, but that's a list of games mostly worth having. Unlike a certain other console.

However, this line:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3 and Fable 2 were all universally critiqued for either being inferior or too similar to their predecessors.

---

Is complete bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:, except perhaps for Ninja Gaiden 2 because I wasn't paying attention. The other three are widely regarded as being excellent sequels which built on previous strengths, reduced previous weaknesses, and were generally totally awesome.

---

A simple search for the reviews or conversation with gamers will bring up other opinions.

Ninja Gaiden 2 was awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

It's really sad to hear gamers sound like business students throwing financial statistics at you instead of discussing the actual software.

---

Welcome to the information age. And yeah it does suck that gamers all have to have an active interest in the financial side of this console war. Its like we're all shareholders all of a sudden. The real "winner" in my opinion is the one who pushes innovation and trys to shape this industry into something better and Sony seem to be the only ones who are actively trying to do that. You have to respect a company who are in a financial crisis and still throw lots of money at ballsy projects like Littlebigplanet and the upcoming Heavy Rain. I wanna see Microsoft do more of that instead of paying for DLC and robbing exclusives. Give us some new IP's!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I said good, folks, not overhyped, overrated new versions of old games. Of the Wii games listed there are possibly three worth getting :monster:

---

Oh come on, the Wii has way more than that. I'm the one who apparantly hates the Wii and even I can name at least a dozen titles for the Wii that are worth my money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

robbing exclusives

---

Are you still going on about that :roll2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

See, now, the PS3 isn't something I want enough to spend that much money on yet, but that's a list of games mostly worth having. Unlike a certain other console.

However, this line:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears of War 2, Halo 3 and Fable 2 were all universally critiqued for either being inferior or too similar to their predecessors.

---

Is complete bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:, except perhaps for Ninja Gaiden 2 because I wasn't paying attention. The other three are widely regarded as being excellent sequels which built on previous strengths, reduced previous weaknesses, and were generally totally awesome.

---

A simple search for the reviews or conversation with gamers will bring up other opinions.

---

Apparently you don't know what the words "universally" and "critiqued" mean. Some people have made those claims. Those people were wrong. If people don't like those games that's fine, that's their business, but their personal taste with regards the game overall doesn't change the objective facts that those games added to their predecessors. I'm not even going to start on the idea that there is something wrong with a sequel to a massively successful game being much akin to it. I'm just not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I said good, folks, not overhyped, overrated new versions of old games. Of the Wii games listed there are possibly three worth getting :monster:

---

Oh come on, the Wii has way more than that. I'm the one who apparantly hates the Wii and even I can name at least a dozen titles for the Wii that are worth my money.

---

If you, or anyone else, can name me twelve non-remakes/non-Virtual Console games right now, that I want to play, that I can't get a superior version of on another console, I'll probably go out and buy one. Here, I'll even get you started:

• Zack & Wiki.
• No More Heroes.
• Super Mario Galaxy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Welcome to the information age. And yeah it does suck that gamers all have to have an active interest in the financial side of this console war. Its like we're all shareholders all of a sudden. The real "winner" in my opinion is the one who pushes innovation and trys to shape this industry into something better and Sony seem to be the only ones who are actively trying to do that. You have to respect a company who are in a financial crisis and still throw lots of money at ballsy projects like Littlebigplanet and the upcoming Heavy Rain. I wanna see Microsoft do more of that instead of paying for DLC and robbing exclusives. Give us some new IP's!

---

THANK YOU. I remember in previous generations we all talked about which system had the better games, which had developers that were utilizing technology better, but now, because it's 8 million units behind a competitor who has been out a year longer, at the same time it's focusing on a portable system and a 10-year-running one, Sony is all of a sudden in "deep trouble" and "in danger of losing".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MILF

Apparently you don't know what the words "universally" and "critiqued" mean.

---

Look, I wasn't bashing any of those games. It's just there's no innovation. I'll agree with Dreddz that NG2 was awesome. But I was much more impressed the first time around, as most were. Same with Gears of War2. It's a great, solid game. But what was really added other than a few new combat features and a new game mode? The engine still looks like UT3 & GoW1 to me. I think Yahtzee put it most humorously, Fable 2 is Fable 1 with a dog. And you don't have to go very far to find shooter fanatics who say Halo 2 was better than 3, for any number of reasons.

Is there anything wrong with that? NO! That's completely a great 2008 lineup (minus H3 2007). It just wasn't the best 2008 lineup.

On topic, there's actually been a good amount of crazy PS3 DLC when you think about it. Valkyria Chronicles got some, and the Titan Map Pack of Unreal Tournament III was something it got that was missing on the 360. Also, it was free. And then there's the Little Big Planet MGS4 add-on that was awesome for so many reasons (Speedy Rexecutioner Trophy FTW).

As with other stuff there's been killzone and resistance2 ones recently, not to mention all the millions other to come out under the sun from 3rd parties. So yeah, all I can really think of is GTAIV and Fallout3, but again, there's just been so many great (and exclusive) releases since then, why would I even bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

• Zack & Wiki.
• No More Heroes.
• Super Mario Galaxy.

---

• Madworld
• Deadly Creatures
• Nights: Journey of Dreams
• Little Kings Story
• House of the Dead: Overkill
• Ghostsquad
• Tenchu: Shadow assassins
• Boom Blox
• Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles

I'm sure you will disagree with this list but I'd buy all of the games above personally. The Wii can cater for hardcore gamers if you look hard enough. It may not have many big-budget releases but it has a nice selection of niche titles. Particulary the lightgun genre which has been forgotten almost entirely by developers. Couple its current library with its upcoming one and you've got a system worth buying.

Admittedly I am disappointed with the Wii though considering its the fastest selling system of all time and still has a far inferior library to the PS3 or 360.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

• Zack & Wiki.
• No More Heroes.
• Super Mario Galaxy.

---

• Madworld
• Deadly Creatures
• Nights: Journey of Dreams
• Little Kings Story
• House of the Dead: Overkill
• Ghostsquad
• Tenchu: Shadow assassins
• Boom Blox
• Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles

---

I shall now edit this list to fit my opinion.

• Madworld
• De Blob
• Wario Land: Shake it
• Little Kings Story
  
• House of the Dead: Overkill
  
• Excitebots: Trick Racing
  
• Metroid Prime 3
  
• Boom Blox
  
• Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles

I just love that I explicitly said I was aiming to wind people up, proceeded to do so in the same post, and managed to get it going this far. For the record, there are now five games on the list, and I might consider adding Deadly Creatures if it looks particularly more fun than I anticipate. But yeah I'm not too sold on any console where a rail shooter constitutes a sales pitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

And you don't have to go very far to find shooter fanatics who say Halo 2 was better than 3, for any number of reasons.

---

Reasons which include infections, trauma, and autoimmune reactions that cause brain damage. I can see a case to be made that Halo CE is better than Halo 3, in fact I've been tempted to say as much myself at times - if CE had online multiplayer as good as 3's, I quite probably would say exactly that. But Halo 2? Short campaign, unsatisfying resolution, poor optimization, and poorly balanced weapons? Compared to other games Halo 2 was fairly awesome. Compared to CE and 3 Halo 2 is highly disappointing. Except for Headlong and Coagulation. Headlong needs to be in 3 and Blood Gulch/Coagulation are far superior to Valhalla. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I just love that I explicitly said I was aiming to wind people up, proceeded to do so in the same post, and managed to get it going this far. For the record, there are now five games on the list, and I might consider adding Deadly Creatures if it looks particularly more fun than I anticipate. But yeah I'm not too sold on any console where a rail shooter constitutes a sales pitch.

---

If I may ask, what are the five games on your current list?

• Zack & Wiki.
• No More Heroes.
• Super Mario Galaxy.
• De Blob.
• Boom Blox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

• Zack & Wiki.
• No More Heroes.
• Super Mario Galaxy.
• De Blob.
• Boom Blox.

---

Bleh. :mad2:

I agree about some of the downloadable content and like you said a lot of it comes from microsoft paying exclusive money.

It's a shame that the PS3 version of SFIV doesn't have the save replay data while the 360 does or that the PS3 really doesn't have any DLC for GTAIV. I just recently obtained my PS3, so I don't have many issues with it. I like the things I'm seeing in Little Big Planet though.