Baloney, I own both consoles and from where I'm sitting the lineups for both consoles look about equal.

So far this year, a similar number of exclusives were released for both consoles. The 360 had games like Halo Wars, Ninja Blade, Velvet Assassin and several prominent DLC releases. The PS3 had games like Killzone 2, MLB 09 and Infamous. Sure, the PS3 games averaged higher review scores, but nevertheless the numbers have been pretty equal and ultimately it is still going to come down to taste as to which games were better.

I like Killzone 2 and Infamous, but could care less about MLB 09 because I have no interest in baseball games. And honestly I have had just as much fun with Halo Wars and Ninja Blade as those two PS3 games. Halo Wars in particular is a very fun game, which, by the way, scored very similarly to Infamous.

The point is, the numbers of released exclusives are similar so far this year and we have more than half a year left. The second half of the year receives by far the greater proportion of game releases anyway. When you look at which games are actually known (or very likely) to be coming out this year, the two consoles have a very comparable number of games in their lineup.

what are you talking about?
you do realize the billion dollar processor was in development before anyone even knew what a wii was

all anyone knew was the competition is bringing something out and we need to top that

do you realize what your saying up there?
if that was true then sony would have known as well as microsoft what nintendo was planning no one knew what the wii would be but nintendo

the cell was being developed way before the wii was revealed
sony didn't create the cell because of the xbox they did it to try and be the most powerful of the 3
even when the cell was being made sony didn't know what microsoft was planning with the xbox they went full power assuming ALL 3 competitors would do the same so they tried to top them including the next nintedo hardware that had no name at the time

and there was no way sony could have done what nintendo did since there as no way no one could know that even nintendo was going to do what they did

they went with power because everyone though microsoft nintendo and sony would all do the same

im slow but even i understand what qface is saying

and it is true the cell was being developed before the new consoles were even revealed

instead of bsing your way through this you COULD just admit that you don't want to give microsoft credit. that's much easier than to make me believe sony would've treated us all to HD gaming out of fear that the Wii was going to be a beast of a machine. it was x360 that did it. they even said it themselves that they'd be watching the launch and would delay the ps3 if needed.

you guys are ridiculous!

you honestly believe sony would've developed ps3 if there was no need to! you guys clearly have no idea what competitive business is. lemme give you a hint: it's not competition when you HAVE NONE! the reason to make new things is because you have to respond to the changes of the market. if you build the only machine to compete in that market you basically control when those changes happen. so it could potentially stagnate, as has been evident in MANY examples.

it took a restructuring of GM back in 73 to make smaller cars...would they have done it they didn't need to? and look today, as they have to do it AGAIN!

wow all of that and you still do not get it

ok THE PS3 AND THE CELL WERE BING MADE BEFORE ANYONE KNEW THE WII WAS GOIN TO BE UNDERPOWERED
IT WAS EVEN BEING MADE BEFORE ANYONE KNEW THE 360 WOULD BE A HD SYSTEM WITH POWER
do you understand what im saying now?
if what your saying is slightly true then sony must have used that crystal ball they have lying around to look into the future and see what the systems would have and what kind of performance they would deliver

when was this about giving credit
look at all of my post when did i ever say or imply that they didn't deserve credit they get credit from me for what they did with xbox live and i don't see any reason to give em anymore credit than that

Yeah I agree with ApocalyPS3. Microsoft was an underdog when the first Xbox came out. When Xbox released Halo and started to get a bit of market share, Sony started pumping out better PS2 games.

Same thing goes for this gen. PSN wouldn't be as advanced as it is now, Sony wouldn't be pushing it's developers to go above and beyond with graphics, and the PS3 would have a better install base. In fact, I think Sony would have put more interest in casual games to compete directly with the Wii for install base.

Microsoft deserves credit. If you deny that, go back to your bridge.

EDIT: @qface64

Dude, think for a second. The gamecube was considered the "kiddy" console(I didn't mind it, but that's how people talked about it then). If there was NO Xbox, what would be the point in bringing out a super powered console? Yes the Cell was in production either way, but do you think it was ALWAYS meant for gaming? The 360 was released a year before PS3 and Wii. Sony and Nintendo had a year to get their consoles ready to directly compete with the 360. Sony went the super route, while Wii went the casual route.

this ISN'T ABOUT THE CELLBE!!!! IT'S ABOUT THE PS3!!!!

the question isn't whether or not they still would've built CELLBE!!!!! it's whether or not they would've built the PS3!!!!!!

we both AGREE that cellbe was in development for a while, but would they have still felt the need to USE it in the ps3 if x360 wasn't launched? GOING ON HOW WELL PS2 SUCCEEDED, without a doubt the answer would be NO!

edit at above:

thank god dem0n get's it. i have no beef with you qface but you have to reason here.

The PS3 was in development long before Microsoft even considered making a successor to the original Xbox.I have no idea why qface64 is forced to explain his point over and over again.I have seen his comments and he is actually one of the most unbiased members of n4g

What point? This one?

"personally i don't want microsoft joining in trying to buy their way to the top"

Microsoft does have quite a bit of money, no one can argue against that. But they invested their money wisely. They brought an innovating online service to the console table, that is only getting better with time. If they can release a decent handheld with the same features, that would be amazing.

EDIT: And yes, the PS3 was in development. Why wouldn't Sony want to stay in the gaming scene? The thing is, would the PS3 be the same as it is now without the addition of Microsoft? I just don't think so.

what does being seen as kiddy or mature have to do with having more power in your system?

your making it sound like that would matter in making a console if the xbox was seen as kiddy does that mean microsoft would have an underpowered console right now?

also there's no way of knowing if the cell would or wouldn't have been in the ps3 since they never really said if it was made for the ps3 from the start or just used on it later on

demon i think you misunderstood what i said
i was never talking about their hardware i was talking about the way they always try to snag away exclusives
that's what the console market has become its all about stealing exclusives its all everyone keeps doing back and forth
i wouldn't want the handheld market turning into what the console market has become

how about instead of investing millions snagging exclusive DLC or an exclusive game
how about investing that money into their first party developers which they greatly lack

Demon
I agree Microsoft, does get some just dues for bringing somethings to the table.

Sony was gonna pump better titles anyways, you can look at the PS1 vs N64 vs Sega Saturn to see that, FFvii was part of that proof.

Sony never wanted to be apart of that dedicated casual service, they already did too much homework w/ the SNES & Genesis days, to even conceive to split their audience.

It has everything to do with it. When it was just Sony and Nintendo, the PS2 had a few nice gems. When Microsoft entered the ring, I remember the sleeping giant(Sony) waking up. At that point the PS2 wasn't living up to its' PS1 days. And then, BOOM: Awesome game here, amazing game there, graphics powerhouse over there.

I'm just basing my opinion on what the past shows. I'm not trying to discredit you, I just didn't like the way you stated your first comment.

EDIT: Yes, very true. It has been an exclusive fight since the start. The way I see it though, is I'd rather have Microsoft enter the handheld market and bring a truly innovative product with LIVE. If that comes at the price of a crowded market, oh well. If Microsoft doesn't do it, someone else eventually will.

colbert, i agree that qface is one of the better members here. but if he or you want to believe that ps3 AS WE KNOW IT would've been built regardless of microsoft's intent with xbox 360 you're kidding yourselves.

for instance, wi-fi. who had that? WHO HAD THAT? NOBODY! so why would sony put it into their console? why would sony not only put that but also bluetooth AND a gigabit ethernet if NO other console had or intended on having such options? also, why would they have even bothered with PSN? they actually had supported a decentralized model before xbox live's SUCCES (not advent, since i'll yield that one to sega.net).

think qface...please think about it.

edit: i ran out of bubbles, but anyway thanks for the discussion guys. yes qface i'm complimenting you. we part as friends :)

HOLY CRAP am i getting complimented ='D

this is new to me most of the time i always get yelled at and get called a trol or something
my pm box is full of people saying F YOU and all this

i had to go use number 2 haven't used the bathroom in almost 6 days
ehm dang i lost my train of thought gotta re read everything

wow part as friends o_O wut?
im still on N4G right?

i get no FYOU NOOB or what about a FREAKING TROLLS of course we can't forget the classic STUPID FANBOY

@demon
its cool it didn't seem like you were trying to offend me
will do i need friends i only have 4 xD i think or 7?

If my comments came off as offensive, I'm sorry. I was trying to explain my view(as were you) on the subject. I misunderstood your first comment. Good discussion.

Add me on LIVE if you want and we'll play a game sometime.
My PSN account I list on my profile isn't my main. Message me on LIVE if you want my main PSN.

There have nearly always been three players in the home console market and I don't see any reason why the hand-held market couldn't support 3 or more competitors as well. As a general rule the benefits of competition far outweigh any negatives.

For me, personally, the hand-held market feels kind of stagnant right now. The kinds of games I want to play aren't being made with any regularity. I think part of the problem is that the DS and PSP aren't really direct competitors with one another. There is some overlap, of course, but to a large extent each hand held appeals to a different kind of gamer. I bought a PSP, for example, but my choice was never down to buying a PSP 'or' a DS.

As far as this idea that Microsoft is doing something wrong by buying exclusives, well, this nonsense needs to be laid to rest. What I mean is this: all the console makers buy exclusives. The exclusives don't just make themselves, after all. Each console maker has a different approach to "buying exclusives", but make no mistake, they all buy exclusives.

Fundamentally I fail to see the difference between a company like Microsoft that approaches a developer and says "hey, let's make a game together...here is what we are offering on our side" and a company like Sony that says "hey, we like your work...we would like to purchase your company and have you make all your future games exclusively for our Playstation platforms". In either case the company on the other side can choose to accept the offer or not.

Now, if Microsoft is so evil for paying for a one time exclusive from a developer, thus restricting access to that game to users of their console, wouldn't Sony be just as evil for buying out a development studio and permanently restricting access to ALL of that studio's future output?

The fact is, consoles need exclusives to survive and compete. And the only way to get them on your console is to pay somebody to make them. The approach might be somewhat different between the various console makers, but the end result is the same.

To criticize Microsoft for entering into agreements with developers to create an exclusive game or franchise, while not criticizing Sony for the outright purchase and control of a studio and all its future content is irrational and inconsistent.

Yeah, I def. agree. I don't understand why everyone is always dissing Microsoft for buying exclusives when Sony pushed out money to buy first party devs. I mean, what's worse, one game, or an entire studio exclusive?

There is more than enough room for Microsoft in the handheld market as long as they bring something different. DS has the casual different way to play, PSP has the hardcore games, but where is the medium? I think Microsoft could be that medium.