MS has nothing to defend itself with? How about this - a $200 console can produce graphics nearly on par with a $400 console's best game? Graphics have NEVER decided the winner of a console war anyway.
I strongly disagree with the comment that "no company likes to cut prices", and MS only cut theirs because they "could see the writing on the wall". ALL electronic items have price cuts over their lifetimes as technology becomes cheaper to produce. It's not desperation, it's business. Remember, 1 year ago a stand alone blu-ray player costs over $400. Now they are $200. Did all those companies "see the writing on the wall"? No, it's just the normal cycle of ...
Impressive - Yes. Innovative - well, we all have our own opinions.
I could say that AAA multi-platform games always sell better on 360 than PS3. Developers will not ignore that. MS has the advantage of multi-platform titles being 360 system sellers, while Sony doesn't.
Just as Sony has never been about one game, MS will never be scared of just one game. 360 has it's own diverse lineup of exclusives, just like PS3.
An in-game monster or lack of lag hardly qualify as innovative. Little big planet on PS3 and Braid on 360 (don't discount it because it's downloadable) are the two most innovative games of 2008. And yes, it is extremely difficult for a sequel to be innovative. A sequel, by definition, is an update or expansion of an existing game.
A console that has sold over 100 million units, with tons of AAA titles, is stiff competition regardless of generation.
How can you call MGS4 and R2 innovative? First of all, they are sequels. Second, did the shooter genre not exist until those games came along?
Exactly - PS3 fanboys like to claim the 360 had "no competition" for the first year, then they turn around and trumpet "total" PS2, PS3, and PSP sales. 360 was still competing against the PS2 in it's first year.
I love reading what PS3 fanboys say about the 360 price cut. "PS3 was winning until 360 dropped it's price". As if to suggest that PS3 would have won 2008 if MS had not dropped the 360's price. Well, lets look at 2009 then. Let's assume Sony drops the PS3 price, and it begins outselling the 360 month by month. 360 fans will simply shrug their shoulders and repeat the PS3 fanboy excuse in reverse - "360 was ahead until Sony dropped it's price". PS3 taking the lead aft...
Killzone 2 is too hardcore to drive system sales. Plus, how many people are saying "Killzone 1 was so great, I have to get a PS3 for Killzone 2"? I would put my money on God of War 3 and Gran Turismo 5 as far bigger system sellers than Killzone 2. Those are just more well known franchises, and God of War 3 is a more traditional platformer compared to the shooter that is Killzone 2.
You can't just disregard the price cut and say that "sales were down until they cut the price". The price cut happened - it's history. And sales surged because of it. It is not MS's fault that they could afford the price cut but Sony couldn't. When Sony finally cuts the PS3's price, it's sales will surge as well. It all balances out in the end. MS still has room for more price cuts as well. It's a continuous cycle. Also, MS's best exclusives outsold Sony's best exclusives, a...
Just as people didn't abandon the PS1 and PS2 due to faulty hardware, people won't abandon the 360 either. As long as it has the games people want to play, they will keep buying. In the end, that is what it is all about. The sales charts show that the 360 exclusives sell very well, and multi-platform titles are preferred on the 360. Remember, 99.9% of consumers are not fanboys like on these forums. They just want good games at a good price. Defective hardware did not hurt Sony in the pa...
Al you can do is wonder, because PS3 didn't come out at the same time. Also, 360 in general is NOT half the price, only the Arcade version is half. The Pro is $299, and the Elite is the same price. Since the Elite is still on the market, it is also reasonable to assume that it is selling well at the same $399 price point.
Price cuts are part of the business. It's not MS's fault that they could afford a price cut while Sony couldn't, nor is it MS's fault that they launched a year sooner. You can't just disregard those facts.
By that reasoning, here is the 360 fanboy line for 2009 if Sony takes the lead, based on the PS3 fanboy's favorite line of 2008 - "360 was ahead until Sony dropped it's price".
Graphics have NEVER decided the winner of a console war. Quite the opposite actually, the less powerful system is usually the winner. Quality and quantity of games - that's it.
I find it kind of fun to debate and defend numbers. It makes me feel more passionate about gaming even though I know that in the end my comments really mean nothing. It's a good break from the stress of real life. Some people take it far too seriously though, especially those who resort to name-calling, of make fun of executives last names, or insult entire countries because their console of choice is not selling as well as a competitor.
It costs $200 less only if EVERY 360 sold was an arcade unit, which I doubt. I don't know the breakdown of the different sku's but I would find it very hard to believe that ALL sales were arcades. The Elite is still on the market, so it must be selling decently - and it is the same price as PS3.
So, there are about 100 million PS1 and PS2 owners in the US, plus millions of PSP owners, and you think the US is full of only Xbox fanboys? Also, since when does being ahead of your main competitor constitute "life support"? I know what the response will be already - "PS3 was outselling 360 this year until the price drop". Well, price drops happen. It is not MS's fault that Sony couldn't drop it's price as well. This year, Sony will probably drop it's price, then MS...
By the same reasoning, I guess Sony had no confidence in MGS4 last year whe they sold a bundle.