Is the PS3 too powerful for its own good? POLL

Yes -No -maybe a little?

Let me say first off ,I like the PS3 and I want it to succeed, but the
lack of good exclusives hurts and I just don't need/want one just yet. I
like to play games and the more systems with good games the better for
me and allot of gamers.

It's a given that the PS3 has ridden the Blu-Ray wave the last couple
months and that's helped sales ,although COD4 truly shows the PS3 can
make for some pretty visuals and the sales of that game surely helped
too.
But as a hardcore gamer who's owned a 360 since Mar of 2006 I already
have all of the cross-platform games on my 360.

By the way the PS3 is a good buy for people who own NO console at the
time being,there are allot of cross-platform games. My post more or less
refers too gamers like me who usually get releases day one and owned a
360 early in its debut. With so many games being cancelled or pushed
back , what gives here? I mean I really ,really,want a PS3 badly ,but no
games do it for me yet.
Maybe the cell is just too advanced for many devs ? Maybe it costs too
much money to develop games right now with the Cell? You'd think that
devs would look at the success of COD4 on the PS3 and say 'hey this is
profitable' but instead games get cancelled or pushed back.
We've all heard the chatter on this subject, what's your 2 cents? And
for once could we have an honest discussion without resorting to fanboy
type comments and personal attacks?

On Feb 26, 7:42 am, Mark Johnson <mark-john....DeleteThis@freeola.com> wrote:
> Private Private wrote:
> > Yes -No -maybe a little?
>
> > Let me say first off ,I like the PS3 and I want it to succeed, but the
> > lack of good exclusives hurts and I just don't need/want one just yet. I
> > like to play games and the more systems with good games the better for
> > me and allot of gamers.
>
> > It's a given that the PS3 has ridden the Blu-Ray wave the last couple
> > months and that's helped sales ,although COD4 truly shows the PS3 can
> > make for some pretty visuals and the sales of that game surely helped
> > too.
> > But as a hardcore gamer who's owned a 360 since Mar of 2006 I already
> > have all of the cross-platform games on my 360.
>
> > By the way the PS3 is a good buy for people who own NO console at the
> > time being,there are allot of cross-platform games. My post more or less
> > refers too gamers like me who usually get releases day one and owned a
> > 360 early in its debut. With so many games being cancelled or pushed
> > back , what gives here? I mean I really ,really,want a PS3 badly ,but no
> > games do it for me yet.
> > Maybe the cell is just too advanced for many devs ? Maybe it costs too
> > much money to develop games right now with the Cell? You'd think that
> > devs would look at the success of COD4 on the PS3 and say 'hey this is
> > profitable' but instead games get cancelled or pushed back.
> > We've all heard the chatter on this subject, what's your 2 cents? And
> > for once could we have an honest discussion without resorting to fanboy
> > type comments and personal attacks?
>
> With high development costs and the lower attach rate than the 360, Devs
> would get alittle worried about the PS3 and thats why I think the games
> seem to be getting pushed back or even cancelled. The 360 is far more
> easy to develop for as its basiclly a midrange PC, where as the PS3 with
> its wacky design must be a complete nightmare for them. To get games
> looking great on the PS3, the Dev's have to be first party to Sony, so
> they can get lots of help from them. The costs are too high at the
> moment for third party Dev's
>
> Maybe in the future it might all change, but in all honesty I don't
> think so.

The two of you speaks if games getting pushed back is a bad thing.
Maybe it's just me and boodybandit, but I'd rather the games came out
later and better than earlier and worse.