@MassFlow
Last gen-GTA was NEVER a Sony exclusive. All three games were released for both the Xbox AND PC at later dates: 2003 (GTA III and Vice City) and 2005 (San Andreas).
I would LOVE for that to be aired on TV when the game gets closer to release.
That's me too.
Although I have to say I've put in equal time with Star Ocean AND Killzone 2. So no one of the consoles is getting more love than the other.
Sony needs to tell any studio thinking of releasing a MMO or RTS on it's console that Keyboard and Mouse support is an option.
All I know is that it better not be your "standard" FPS..you know, with the whole "shoot guys, advance, shoot guys, etc," cause we know how much reviewers love to criticize those types of FPS.
/sarcasm
The franchise may have been big on the PS2, but it was never exclusive.
GTA III onwards were all multiplatform titles. The only coup there was getting it day and date with the PS3 version.
The same can be said with RE 5. During the PS2 era, RE went multiplat. Aside from the PSOne games (which were re-released on the Gamecube), the RE series was never a Sony exclusive.
-------
Curious.
Considering they just released financial info it's odd that these numbers were not included. Not even the supposed 1 million DL numbers floating around the net are represented. (which isn't surprising since neither MS--who brags about these things-- nor R* actually released them)
I have no doubt the DLC did big numbers, but it's curious that they were omitted.
----------
And to clarify something in the article..
"but the...
Time travel.
So was Fable II. Which dropped from 1st to 14th in a week.
Certain RTS' are insanely popular--and the Total War series is one of them.
In that pic, he's actually a bit darker than the average Persian.
And his nose is a little too big.
But other than that.
I got the game from Play-Asia a while back. It's a great thing to play with family or if you've just got a little time to kill. My little girl loves it.
If you're really interested in picking this up, it's sitting at
$54.90 + $3.90 s/h.
on the website. Which is actually cheaper than a full retail release.
Except that both this guy's "analysis" and the initial 1 million copies sold are not based on any facts.
The author doesn't mention, nor is it cited, where the 1 million figure came from. There isn't even a link to another article that can explain it. The truth is, R* hasn't released any figures of HOW much it's sold. And neither has MS.
All we have is articles saying that it "broke previous DLC records" in terms of REVENUE, not units sold. Which,...
Except that R* hasn't released any figures of HOW much it's sold. Neither has MS.
All we have is articles saying that it "broke previous DLC records" in terms of REVENUE, not units sold.
That could have been 1 million, or it could have been less. We don't know for sure.
---
Considering the fact the PSN is a 2 year old service going against a 6 year old service, its amazing how close it's come to parity with LIVE.
For me, the services offer exactly the same thing based on my needs--online play, dlc, and movies/tv content. Anything outside of that is pointless to me.
Most of your list is already on the PSN store.
On your list:
US PSN = Crash Bandicoot 2, Castlevania: SOTN, Spyro 1
Japanese PSN = Resident Evil 1-3, Dino Crisis, Metal Gear Solid
EU PSN = Spyro 3
So the games are there, Sony just needs to get on the ball about releasing all the titles to all the regions.
I would love a remake of the original using the Killzone 2 engine. Maybe even a remake with a packed in copy of Killzone: Liberation so players can have the entire first arc.
But, Sony may want GG to focus on Killzone 3. Despite the fact a remake could be made and released next year with Killzone 3 to follow.
Just like GRID was "the best-looking racing game ever."
Just like Race Pro was "the best-looking racing game ever."
And so on and so on.
Oh I saw the connection between the HDD LIVE bundles and DD. And it makes perfect sense, tbh. But it just seems like something that could have been push forward a lot sooner. We are entering the 4th year of the 360's life cycle.
I'm just saying that in the context of the article it seems like playing catch up rather than a roadblock.
I love this kind of logic.
It completely ignores the fact that companies and people have been making games for over 20 years WITHOUT the need to nickel and dime the consumer after the fact.
I'm sure these people had families too, so why is all of a sudden is overcharging for games a necessity to sustain families?