This thing I've been seeing for a while is really getting to me lately. I've been noticing that alot of games that were strictly PS3 are not anymore. Since GTA San Andreas Ive been upset that this PS game went to xbox too. Yesterday I went to GameStop to turn in games and saw that the new Assassins Creed is now PS3, 360, and PC when it has clearly been for PS3 only. It even happens with original ps1/2 franchises like Call of Duty, Ratchet and Clank, Spyro the Dragon, and most of all Castlevania. I just feel like in 20 years the PS3 empire will be no more if there is less character in games that make PS the fun it is.

I Pre ordered Infamous 2 and was glad that it kept its name in 'Only On PS'. I also to plan to get the Twisted Metal, in November I think, and also glad to see that that PS classic game is still only PS. But I guess the point is that I hate seeing the sharing of great titles.

Xbox guys dont flame me! It's hard trying to win a losing battle

/rant

A good game is a good game, regardless of whether it's available on more than one platform. Come right down to it, and I'd prefer NO game was ever console-exclusive. It'd be nice to own just one console and not have to worry about missing out on things. But instead I have a 360 sitting on my shelf that hasn't been touched in months, but that I don't dare sell because of the possibility of missing out on future exclusive games. This situation could be reversed any of the 3 ways (wii sitting unused, PS3 sitting unused) and it wouldn't suck any less. Exclusives are NOT good for consumers in any way. They only serve console manufacturers and, occasionally, game publishers.

Platform-exclusive releases going away is a GOOD thing. A very good thing.

alms24sebring wrote:But I guess the point is that I hate seeing the sharing of great titles.

Why?! How are you harmed by Xbox 360 owners being able to play GTAIV? Are you saying Infamous 2 would somehow be less fun if it hadn't said "Only on Playstation" on the cover? This complaint makes less sense than flying mattresses.

Holy crap, Flying Mattresses?!

I used to hate when games came out on 'this console only'. I didn't buy that console, I want that game.

What do I do? Skip all that and keep to PC gaming.

Amays U G37S wrote:Holy crap, Flying Mattresses?!

I used to hate when games came out on 'this console only'. I didn't buy that console, I want that game.

What do I do? Skip all that and keep to PC gaming.

This also is my solution.
My other solution is own all 3 consoles.
And a gaming PC.

Where'd all my money go?

Whats the point of having no consule exculsive games if there are 4 major consules out there. Granted that the wii is a little different, but if thats the case, there should just be 1 consule and 1 consule only.

MinisterofDOOM wrote: Are you saying Infamous 2 would somehow be less fun if it hadn't said "Only on Playstation" on the cover?

lol yes, yes it would.

Seriously tho what would be the point if every game was on every platform. There would be no difference in the game except for the controller/controls! There would also be no specialty in a system I think, it would just come down to you would buy a system based on price or controller comfort. I guess it just a competition thing Im thinking of. Maybe creators PS games expand to others to make more $$, idk.

And some people do have all 4 PS, Xbox, Wii, PC systems like yourself. So, when a game comes out just for 1 sytem, buy that game and hook it up for a while. The only downfall is buying all the systems.

All of this goes back to based on this, there should only be 1 system for all games.

alms24sebring wrote:There would be no difference in the game except for the controller/controls! There would also be no specialty in a system I think, it would just come down to you would buy a system based on price or controller comfort.

All of this goes back to based on this, there should only be 1 system for all games.

Absolutely agreed. I prefer my PS3, much as I hate Sony, over my other consoles because I like its controller design best, and its interface design best. That's what it comes down to. When I can buy games for my PS3, I do, for those two reasons alone. There was a time when I'd buy certain games for the 360 so I could play them with friends, but lately, I've got as many friends with PS3s as 360s, so online is an even split. Just giving some examples of how you first comment here is spot on.

And, to be honest, it's ideal. I agree that a single system for everything would be, in some ways, the best option. But, at the same time, competition tends to mean better options for consumers. And I'd even argue that controller layout is a far more appealing (and beneficial) basis for console preference than exclusive licensing. The controller is the critical interface between user and console. If it's not right for you, the whole console won't be right. I'd love to be able to play every game on my PS3 for that controller preference alone. I even had an adapter back in the GCN/Xbox/PS2 days that let me use my PS3 controllers on the other two boxes.

So...I guess in summary:
--More console choices for consumers is good.
--More games available across all of those choices is good.
--It's unfortunate that the same competition that keeps options appealing also gets in the way of multiplayer options at times.
--There's so much more that sets the 3 console options apart that there really isn't any NEED for exclusive titles anymore to create unique appeal. And, alternatively, if console manufacturers don't agree on this point: get to making your hardware outstanding enough to stand on its own rather than counting on a handful of games to carry all that weight for you!

Assassin's Creed has always been out for xbox since the beginning...just thought I'd toss that out there. I played the first two never got around to the newest one.

with all the problems that PS has been having, I'm kinda glad a made the switch. The graphics are the same, and yes there are a few really cool PS exclusive games, but nothing that would make me choose to be on only one console. I enjoy having the ability to switch between the two. I prefer xbox for online play and overall playing in general because I like the controller better, and I really like the online setup. Plus the fact that it's monitored makes me a little happier with the fact that I do have to pay to play.

On the other hand I do really enjoy the single player experience that PS games like God of War and Drakes Uncharted.The single player games are great! Multiplayer not so much. Games become unplayable in my opinion, which makes them un-fun.

One universal console sounds awful!! People would disagree on the controllers, formats, options. I would think that it would limit the market because you get rid of the console competition.

orangeNblue wrote:Assassin's Creed has always been out for xbox since the beginning

Indeed, it was never PS3 exclusive. Every game in the series has been on 360 and PC as well.

After reading your list of examples of games I have to point out that:
-Call of duty was never an exclusive, it started on the PC
-Assassins creed already stated...
-Ratchet and clank has not been on anything but a sony console
-Spyro, I dont believe that it was on anything but PS but not 100% on that
-And as for the "Most of All" Castlevania, that has never been exclusive to PS, infact I can only think of a handfull that were on sony consoles, and none exclusives.

orangeNblue wrote:One universal console sounds awful!! People would disagree on the controllers, formats, options. I would think that it would limit the market because you get rid of the console competition.

Of course they would.

But a few things would happen...

• A market would be created for custom controllers to make all those who have specific tastes happy.
  And people would just get used to it.

I used to hate of Xbox controllers are too big, but once I bought one and it became my primary system, playing with the PS3 controller was annoying because it was too small. Now I realize and appreciate the advantages of both. Now I can use both with out a problem.
When people start realizing that they can play HALO with their buddies and God of War with out buying extra hardware they will stfu and love it.

The only issues I can see with having one console to rule them all is...
Monopolies don't breed fair pricing or innovation and if you combine that with the fact that most humans in power are a$$*les then that for me becomes the biggest issue; not the controllers, formats or options.

RCA wrote:A market would be created for custom controllers to make all those who have specific tastes happy.

Don't be so sure about that. Yes, Nintendo and Sony use open standards for their wireless controllers. But Microsoft does not. That's why there are no third-party wireless controllers for the 360. Microsoft doesn't license their wireless protocol to anyone, which means they're the only ones who can make wireless controllers for the console. There are third-party wired 360 controllers, but who wants to go wired with a gamepad these days? Depending on who built this theoretical "one console" you may not have any options at all.

What about USB dongles for wireless?

The USB dongle is recognized by the Xbox as a wired gamepad but it communicates with the controller by 2.4ghz or maybe bluetooth? This would bypass the built in Xbox wireless receiver...

RCA wrote:What about USB dongles for wireless?

The USB dongle is recognized by the Xbox as a wired gamepad but it communicates with the controller by 2.4ghz or maybe bluetooth? This would bypass the built in Xbox wireless receiver...

It's still proprietary, dongle or not. The dongle exists to allow use of wireless controllers and other Xbox 360 peripherals with a PC. Used with a 360 it becomes redudant, doing the same job as the console's built in wireless controller transciever (I think the reason you can use it with the 360 is so you can leave your controllers sync'd to the same dongle and move it between the PC and 360 without having to resync the controllers every time you switch machines). It does not use bluetooth; the standard is unique to the Xbox 360 and is not used anywhere else. MS did this purposefully. So yes, you can use the dongle, but only MS makes and sells the dongle, so it doesn't solve the problem.

I would have to agree with MoD that the controller makes a big difference. I think the PS controllers are absolutly a perfect for my hands. They never get cramped up. In fact a large part of me says that the 360 controller is too uncomfortable. They joysticks are off center which bothers me and its just too bulky IMO. I remember I had a madcatz wireless controller for the PS2 that was even smaller that the standard size. It was a huge improvement because I could change movements and press buttons super quick.

anti_flag_army wrote:After reading your list of examples of games I have to point out that:
-Call of duty was never an exclusive, it started on the PC
-Assassins creed already stated...
-Ratchet and clank has not been on anything but a sony console
-Spyro, I dont believe that it was on anything but PS but not 100% on that
-And as for the "Most of All" Castlevania, that has never been exclusive to PS, infact I can only think of a handfull that were on sony consoles, and none exclusives.

I could sware that the Original CoD started on PS only, but ok. Maybe PS and PC ??

I think you missunderstood, my bad for not clarifying. As far as R&C, Spyro, Castlevania, I was specifically talking about the newest ones. All of the newest version are consulewide. I think that Castlevania started on PS and opened up to Sega later on but not 100%. And correction on AC: The 2nd one was all 3, but Brotherhood was PS only. I just looked on my Brotherhood cover and saw only on PS so I assumed the previous ones were too.

alms24sebring wrote:I think that Castlevania started on PS and opened up to Sega later on but not 100%.

Er...no. Castlevania started on the NES. LONG before the playstation was even a distant glimmer on the horizon.

And correction on AC: The 2nd one was all 3, but Brotherhood was PS only. I just looked on my Brotherhood cover and saw only on PS so I assumed the previous ones were too.

ALL Assassin's Creed games are available on 360, PS, and PC. Every one of them. PS3 version came with some exclusive side content, which is how they got away with the "only on" logo.

alms24sebring wrote:I could sware that the Original CoD started on PS only, but ok. Maybe PS and PC ??

The original CoD wasn't on ANY console. It was PC (and Mac) only. That changed recently when both XBLA and PSN released downloadable versions, though.
CoD2 was available for 360 but NOT PS2 or PS3.
COD3 was the first in the series to hit a Playstation console.

Maybe you're thinking of Medal of Honor? The first two were PS1 only. Then they went PS2/Xbox and eventually hit the PC as well with Allied Assault. MoH 1 and 2 were both fantastic.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:

RCA wrote:What about USB dongles for wireless?

The USB dongle is recognized by the Xbox as a wired gamepad but it communicates with the controller by 2.4ghz or maybe bluetooth? This would bypass the built in Xbox wireless receiver...

It's still proprietary, dongle or not. The dongle exists to allow use of wireless controllers and other Xbox 360 peripherals with a PC. Used with a 360 it becomes redudant, doing the same job as the console's built in wireless controller transciever (I think the reason you can use it with the 360 is so you can leave your controllers sync'd to the same dongle and move it between the PC and 360 without having to resync the controllers every time you switch machines). It does not use bluetooth; the standard is unique to the Xbox 360 and is not used anywhere else. MS did this purposefully. So yes, you can use the dongle, but only MS makes and sells the dongle, so it doesn't solve the problem.

No. I mean (for example) Madcatz creates "dongle XZY" to communicate with Madcatz controller "XYZ". Mean while Xbox "ABC" controllers use the built in Xbox "ABC" receivers.

You plug in your wireless Madcatz dongle into your Xbox. The Xbox reads this as a wired controller but the dongle will communicate with your Madcatz custom controller.

Now you can have a custom PS3 style controller to work wirelessly on what ever "single console solution" we were discussing earlier.

RCA wrote:No. I mean (for example) Madcatz creates "dongle XZY" to communicate with Madcatz controller "XYZ". Mean while Xbox "ABC" controllers use the built in Xbox "ABC" receivers.

The console has to have drivers and and other support for the dongle. Why would it, if the reason for the proprietary wireless tech is to prevent the use of third-party controllers? Which is exactly the reason Microsoft went the way they did with it.

You can't just plug any old USB device in to any old USB port and have it work. The 360 supports what it supports because it's specifically designed to do so. Anything else won't work. It's difficult enough getting oddball brands of "supported" devices to work.

Even if it wasn't an issue of trying to lock out other controller manufacturers, there's the simple problem of not being able to include a driver for everything. Even Windows has that problem.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:The console has to have drivers and and other support for the dongle.

Why would it? What if the dongle mimicked a wired Xbox controller? Could it represent an Xbox controller on one end and communicate wirelessly to something else on the other end?
A controller is nothing but +5Vs. 0Vs and -5Vs so emulating this shouldn't be hard. My guess what has stopped companies from doing this is for legal reasons. Does 2.4GHz require a license, or is it an opensource frequency?

I could sware that the Original CoD started on PS only, but ok. Maybe PS and PC ??

I think you missunderstood, my bad for not clarifying. As far as R&C, Spyro, Castlevania, I was specifically talking about the newest ones. All of the newest version are consulewide. I think that Castlevania started on PS and opened up to Sega later on but not 100%. And correction on AC: The 2nd one was all 3, but Brotherhood was PS only. I just looked on my Brotherhood cover and saw only on PS so I assumed the previous ones were too.

Now im not trying to argue, I just want the record straight, Ratchet and Clank is still a Sony Property and as such is only on Playstation, Spyro, looking it up did end up on other consoles. Castelvania started back on the nes, and had a ton of sequels before it even thought of hitting Playstation (and it was on Saturn at the same time)
Call of Duty was a PC only title for a while, then when consoles did get COD games, they were not made by Infinity Ward (in the ps2/xbox days) Not untill this generation have we had the same game across the consoles.

I sware I saw Ratchet and Clank at walmart or somewhere, before I made the thread. But now that I Google it think I was just trippin.

I disagree MoD. I remember clearly I got the first CoD for PS1 but I dont remember if it was a PC game too. It was a good game and I got CoD2 soon after it was released (which the last level on the bridge was a giant whore to beat). I dont think I got the third one because of that, but got MW1. I mean I was still a little kid when all this happened and never had a computer with games. I remember having Castlevania (CV): Symphony of the Night that me and my friend beat multiple times on PS1. I always thought that was one of the first CV's ever made with only a game or 2 behind it. ^ And yes I think I was thinking of Saturn not Genesis (never had either).

alms24sebring wrote:I disagree MoD. I remember clearly I got the first CoD for PS1 but I dont remember if it was a PC game too.

It's not the kind of thing you can disagree about. It's like gravity. Deny it all you want, doesn't change anything. CoD1 was not available on any console until recent downloadable versions were made. It was not a PS1 game, ever. You're remembering something else.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty

NO! I refuse to believe that! It musta been on PS2 when it first came out then. I played it on PS I sware b/c I remember some of the levels.

That game cover proves my point earlier of how last gen consoles got spinoff versions of call of duty, the "real" ones were on PC. I think you may have call of duty confused with medal of honor, that was on PS1

so past the argument of which games were on which system, I do believe that PS is losing fan base. I really look forward to their single player games, but at the same time if any of those games come out for the xbox (ex. assassin's creed 3) I won't hesitate to just go ahead and play it on xbox.

my suggestion...for all the FPS lovers out there, it's time to come to the dark side

Remember, the "fanbase" is more than just you. I don't see any "loss" on that front at all. As I noted above, there was once a time when I'd look at whether I'd be using a game's multiplayer component much, and if the answer was "yes" I'd get it for 360, and if "no" for the PS3. Now, that's no longer the case. Now I know more people with PS3s, and I specifically buy games for the PS3 for the multiplayer aspect. I have several PS3 games I bought SPECIFICALLY to play online with PS3 friends: MAG, Red Dead Redemption, DCU Online, LBP 1 and 2, and Portal 2.

So from my point of view, PS3 online is stronger than 360 online. Yes, XBL offers a better integrated experience in and out of games and some extras I still can't believe PSN doesn't have (especially with Plus) like party chat. But the core experience is solid, and the games go where my friends are.

Point is, the loss of "fanbase" isn't across the whole, and varies greatly from player group to player group.

sorry, by fan base I guess I should say a lot of my PS friends who have always been PS people are making the switch. This whole hack situation has rubbed a couple of people the wrong way and they just got fed up.

LBP is awesome. My girlfriend loves that game. It is an experience that only PS offers, and games like that are the reason I still have a PS3. I personally believe that the xbox online experience is better because its a better integrated system, bonus perks of early DLC, exclusive DLC, and party chat. Of course this could also be me trying to justify paying $36 to play video games online.

orangeNblue wrote:I personally believe that the xbox online experience is better because its a better integrated system, bonus perks of early DLC, exclusive DLC,

Some of the worst things to thank MS for.

Morph wrote:

orangeNblue wrote:I personally believe that the xbox online experience is better because its a better integrated system, bonus perks of early DLC, exclusive DLC,

Some of the worst things to thank MS for.

Thats the ONLY perk..

alms24sebring wrote:

orangeNblue wrote:I personally believe that the xbox online experience is better because its a better integrated system, bonus perks of early DLC, exclusive DLC,

Thats the ONLY perk..

Oh how deluded you PS fanboi's are, sure you get to play online for free and can talk to your friends for free, big F'n deal. For the very small price of $60 dollars a YEAR, I can not only play online, but I can use Last FM to listen to music, Watching pre-recorded AND live streaming sports with ESPN, I can video chat with my friends, post on Facebook and Twitter, Sync with my home PC/Laptop via Windows Media Center to listen to my music or movies or videos that are on my hard drive or DVD/blu-ray player, with Zune I can dowload and/or rent movies, tv shows, music videos, and music. Plus we have an exclusive deal with Hulu Plus and coming in the update in the fall update we'll have Youtube, Bing Search, Streaming Live TV, Skype, and an even larger downloadable library. All of this you can do in a party, so if you and your friends want to watch a movie together but you live to far away all you have to do is log onto your 360, have and join a party together and bam EVERYONE in the party can watch the same movie or TV show at the same time, and since your in a party together you can still talk to each other, and if half your party decides to go a few rounds on COD or or some other game, you're still able to voice chat with each other.

I'm sorry but the PS3 has absolutely no real features that the Xbox not only doesn't have, but also blows completely out of the water, except for the Blu-Ray player, but who needs to put a disk in when you can just stream it, sure you may get that disk a couple of weeks earlier, but who really cares. Just sayin'... As far as games go, the only real "exclusive" series' that the PS3 has that I have any interest in playing are Metal Gear Solid, God of War, Killzone, and maybe Resistance. The rest of your "exclusive games" don't interest me in the least. So you have Gran Turismo, whoopidy doo, we have Forza and it's a far more superior game. I'll admit it, as much of a headache the 360 was when it was first released, they seem to have got that fixed and I'm proud to say I'm a die hard 360 fan. We have more games, more features, more everything and oh the XBL server has NEVER been hacked.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:
Oh how deluded you PS fanboi's are, sure you get to play online for free and can talk to your friends for free, big F'n deal. For the very small price of $60 dollars a YEAR, I can not only play online, but I can use Last FM to listen to music, Watching pre-recorded AND live streaming sports with ESPN, I can video chat with my friends, post on Facebook and Twitter, Sync with my home PC/Laptop via Windows Media Center to listen to my music or movies or videos that are on my hard drive or DVD/blu-ray player, with Zune I can dowload and/or rent movies, tv shows, music videos, and music. Plus we have an exclusive deal with Hulu Plus and coming in the update in the fall update we'll have Youtube, Bing Search, Streaming Live TV, Skype, and an even larger downloadable library. All of this you can do in a party, so if you and your friends want to watch a movie together but you live to far away all you have to do is log onto your 360, have and join a party together and bam EVERYONE in the party can watch the same movie or TV show at the same time, and since your in a party together you can still talk to each other, and if half your party decides to go a few rounds on COD or or some other game, you're still able to voice chat with each other.

There are only 2 things you got on that. 1 being that you can play music while gaming. I can also play music but it has to be on the main menu. 2 is watching movies in a group. Everything else I can do via internet and PS already has a custom youtube, FB, and twitter format for the PS3. In the PS store you can watch and dl or rent movies in standard or HD. A few years ago the only HD thing was a blu ray before the internet got that too.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote: I'm sorry but the PS3 has absolutely no real features that the Xbox not only doesn't have, but also blows completely out of the water, except for the Blu-Ray player, but who needs to put a disk in when you can just stream it, sure you may get that disk a couple of weeks earlier, but who really cares. Just sayin'... As far as games go, the only real "exclusive" series' that the PS3 has that I have any interest in playing are Metal Gear Solid, God of War, Killzone, and maybe Resistance. The rest of your "exclusive games" don't interest me in the least. So you have Gran Turismo, whoopidy doo, we have Forza and it's a far more superior game. I'll admit it, as much of a headache the 360 was when it was first released, they seem to have got that fixed and I'm proud to say I'm a die hard 360 fan. We have more games, more features, more everything and oh the XBL server has NEVER been hacked.

Other than having a game platform battle of whats the best, this is the exact point of the thread. Alot of games signiture to the PS are now universal. Thats what I mean tho, when it came out, everything was on a blu ray disc for a short time. I hated GT5 and people in the GT5 thread know that. It was such a hype and I hoped for the best but being a critic, it f***ing sucked! I will give you that.

I just think and am sad to see this superpower start to fall and having a hard time holding itself up. Instead of being different and satnding out (and it does somewhat), I feel they are just trying to blend in.