You might get a guy here or there that figures out a creative way to tell the gamers without getting in trouble (like the guy at IGN who wrote that "he" was getting it on PS3 because it supposedly felt like the right thing to do - hint, hint) but Microsoft has lots of money invested in FFXIII so don't expect to hear anybody saying not to get it on 360.
But Sony has to offer some incentive as well. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean they aren't cutting the percentage they would recieve from each sale or something.
Great, more themed boxer shorts and sleepwear.
Just wait and watch. Obviously nobody is going to lose their job because nobody is going to blast the 360 version like everybody did the PS3 version of Bayonetta. When have you ever seen the internet (outside of message boards full of fans) ever rip a hole into anything 360 related? Seriously. Plenty of reviewers said if you have the chance to buy the 360 or PS3 version of Bayonetta, to buy the 360 version because of the PS3 differences. But did you ever hear anybody ever say "Gee, ...
Thanks for the news. This is good news =)
Microsoft is offering a Final Fantasy XIII bundle so regardless of how the 360 version of FFXIII turns out you will not see any articles from the media saying anything negative about FFXIII on 360, or anything to suggest which console version you should buy.
Which is why from the comparison articles you may have read already you notice how everyone toes the line very carefully and basically says you can't lose either way because a FFXIII on 360 smear campaign will not be tolera...
Only on XBOX...for a little while.
Then PC gamers can get some.
.
I was going to make the comparison of Bioshock 2 running on PS3 being like RE5 since they both look great running and there's no screen tearing unlike the 360 versions.
Bioshock 2 has better gameplay. Bioshock 2 also runs better on consoles. The world is still the same crazy imaginative setting that sets it apart from all the other shooters. Scoring Bioshock 2 lower than the first one is wrong in my opinion.
Is it performance or graphics, or both?
Screen tearing is something that is visible and rather annoying so it should actually matter more in a graphic evaluation.
If that doesn't make sense to you then you probably don't mind looking at it since it's not like slowdown where your game performance is actually effected.
No problem.
And no guarantee they ever pay up.
And Built for specific hardware are totally different.
Sure they are going to shoehorn the engine in and in the process will put all the pieces in they can thus the "to take full advantage" comment but it wasn't designed from day one for the PS3 so I honestly have doubts it can outshine the modified Killzone 2 engine which was designed from day one only for PS3 to really take full advantage of the system.
Nobody cared after the first hour of the original.
Seriously, how long before originality becomes familiar?
EDIT- Raf1k1, "to the end" didn't really change much so I can't agree with you. The world of Bioshock is its own setting and that is what kept you playing. Do you even remember what the guy's name was in the first game? Honestly it wasn't really about that. And to have a Resident Evil 5 game release and keep selling makes any Bioshock disagree...
2 reasons.
1- Microsoft has a Halo game coming out that will rape its sales on 360 and hurt the media reception as well.
2- Everybody in the media creams over IW so if they don't make it, it won't make it.
Are you telling me you don't like guiding Lt. Chuck Peterson (or whatever his name is now) through the building and then through the field and so on as he goes after the bad guy?
You must be a nut because it's such a rush!
It doesn't matter that it's been the same thing since game number 1. Mario still jumps from edge to edge. Kratos still cuts everyone in half. And in COD you shoot people.
When I originally posted it did say Fallout 3 and since I type and think quick I never made the connection. Thank God. A DLC for the GOTY version would have ruined whatever respect I had left for Bethesda.
COD's main fanbase is on 360 and they already pay for the multiplayer service. I doubt it's that serious that they would shell out even more money to play one game even if it is COD. Granted I could be wrong, but I do still have faith in my fellow gamers regardless of which system they rep, so I would hope they wouldn't support a fee based COD to go along with the Gold fees because in the end it effects us all as DLC has proved.
EDIT- no way dude.. Subscription based games ...
But while everybody else posting here is trying to say what games are good on PSN I decided to search for Rust Bucanneers. Its official website describes it as " In Rust Buccaneers, the player’s gets to raid the seas with modern-day Sea vessels armed with modern-day weapons in an open world environment. The gameplay consists of raiding cargo and passenger ships and battling against patrol boats, which raises the player’s infamy"
The screenshots were pretty impressiv...