Database of Release Games for Both Systems

[hpman247]

Ok, so i have a question for you guys. I want to know which system, PS3 or 360 ,had the most titles released from the day of it's release until one year in.

That being, what was released on 360 from Nov 22, 2005 to Nov 22, 2006. And what has been released on PS3 from Nov 17, 2006 to today. Everyone says the PS3 has no games , but i want to see how valid this argument was for 360 last year, who if I recall had only GeoW, and Oblivion.

My problem is that i can't find a database anywhere to get actual numbers. Do you guys have any idea where i can get such information?

 

[meStevo]

The 360 didn't have a ton of games, but didn't have any viable competition at their level. Given the current market, the PS3 has no games, those that they have are few and far between.

Poke around Wikipedia and Gamespot, there are lists there I think of the games released I believe.

 

[hpman247]

See, that is one thing that I have never understood. The current market situation. You can't come out with a product such as a gaming console and have it beat the competition in the first year. That makes ZERO sense and I cannot understand such arguments as being in any way valid.

But look at the PS3. I am not trying to vouch for it and say it has so many great games, however, looking at it from the prospective of the 360 in its first year, the ps3 will have out HS, Lair, Ratchet, MGS4, Uncharted, UT3, Haze, in addition to games like Assassins Creed and Rock Band in a much smaller time frame.

I'm just comparing apples to apples here, while EVERY single person who talks about the 360's massive library over the PS3's is comparing apples to oranges. To me, that is not fair. I cannot understand the logic. Even if this was turned the other way around, I would feel the same way. I would feel like people were bullying the 360 before it was even given a chance, but I guess with fanboyism thats just how it works.

For me I've got one more level of HS, 2 more levels of Lair, a plastic wrapped bio-shock, and midnight release of Halo 3, some ratchet and clank soon along with quitar hero and assasins creed. The gaming life for me this holiday is just beginning. Have fun yall!

 

[meStevo]

Ya, but it isn't Apples to Apples if you have to invent the scenario to make it such. For people who are looking to invest in a next gen system, their only option was the 360. There was certainly a disparity of games at the time, but for next gen, it was the only representative other than a dream of owning one of the future consoles yet to be released.

With the launch of the other systems, the landscape changes, and now the options are more varied. The PS3's launch could have more games even, but the consensus is obviously the 360 and the Wii have much more to offer, given the sales numbers.

Comparing the sales of the consoles out of the gate, by putting them in a bubble and showing sales figures over relative time lines is only so effective, the PS3 has been destroyed by the Wii and the brand as a whole has been humbled by the 360 in large part due to a lack of system selling titles.

To Sony's credit, the fact that it has sold anywhere close to the number of 360 that MS did in it's first year is impressive.... given the market situation. They had competition, and all MS had to compete with was people saving for future consoles, and the previous gen systems.

Long term, I expect the PS3 to be a great value, but there are too many holes in Sony's foot for it to be within the next 12 months or so. Once they can afford to match the price of the 360's offering, it will have a great chance to explode, but by then the Wii will be $150 and steaming toward all of the Playstation's sales records.

...and while this certainly puts the cart before the horse, how will this affect the next generation? Will Sony allow MS to get a year up on everyone again? What will Nintendo do to improve upon the Wii-fad, will it produce a traditional console next run out to build off of as a core product?

Personally I am looking forward to owning a PS3 some day, but it will be when 'gaming' is a much higher marketing bullet point in their pitch, and their TV spots are showing a lot more of the game being advertised, and a lot less of shiny box levitating/exploding/whatever since the games themselves aren't selling the console.

 

[BigTimMN]

Afford to match the price of the 360's offerings?

Games are the same price points. Accessories are the same price points.

The systems are very comparably priced IF you factor in the Blu-ray & Wireless INCLUDED in the PS3 vs adding the HD-DVD and Wireless to the 360. If neither of those are important to you, yes the 360 wins.

One of the drawbacks when i had my 360 was having to run a cord down from my router to play games online or download, as I couldnt justify paying the $80 for the wireless set up. I have had ZERO issues with the wireless on my PS3 playing games online, the downloads are a bit slower, but i just set it up to get the demos overnight.

Second issue that Sony wins on, is QUALITY. Dont see many complaints about Ps3's dying. With near the same # of systems sold in the first year (known to be the "problem" period for 360's), Sony wins this HANDS DOWN.

 

[Sapient]

I'm just comparing apples to apples here, while EVERY single person who talks about the 360's massive library over the PS3's is comparing apples to oranges. To me, that is not fair. I cannot understand the logic.

The logic is in the choice that people have today. They are not choosing between an XBox 360 in 2006 and a PS3 in 2007. They are choosing between what is available right now.

And the fact is that the environment has changed in a year. The 360 did not need a huge library to compete with next gen systems, because there was no competition. The PS3 was released into an environment with a fairly well established next gen competitor.

 

[tonyp56]

Truth is, neither system, no system (except maybe the Wii) had a great showing when released. Most should expect that, it is a brand new system after all.

Where Sony messed up, IMO, is they set the bar too high, especially when it comes to price, and many passed up the PS3. Add to that the lack of great games, and it isn't hard why PS3 has had a hard time at first.

Will they catch up? Sure. Will they pass up 360? Probably. Will they pass up Wii? Very unlikely. That is just the way of things, like Sega and even Nintendo before, Sony can't stay on top forever. Perhaps, the next gen Sony console will be what fanboys wanted for the PS3.

 

[meStevo]

Afford to match the price of the 360's offerings?

Games are the same price points. Accessories are the same price points.

Offering as in what the brand is providing to the consumer. Until Sony can afford to match the price of the 360, and can convince the consumer it is actually offering a comparable alternative to Microsoft's console, they will continue to flounder, revise estimates, gasp at Wii sales, etc.

The systems are very comparably priced IF you factor in the Blu-ray & Wireless INCLUDED in the PS3 vs adding the HD-DVD and Wireless to the 360. If neither of those are important to you, yes the 360 wins.

While there will never be numbers to support this, a vast majority of consumers do not care about these options, so it is best they remain options. When the HD format war is over the HD-DVD will be a novelty add-on that can play a small library of movies laserdisc-style, and/or the PS3 Blu-Ray capabilities will be a forced adoption to an obsolete format that is probably a generation too early to be included in a video game console in addition to causing the PS3 to be delayed. Though, maybe the delay was a good thing, that's a number of months of bad press to write even before the Wii's release and the SNAFU that was Christmas for Sony.

WiFi is convenient, if you have wireless at home. Anything is better than running a cable, which I do because like you I'm not going to overpay for a WiFi adapter.

Quality I would care about if MS didn't make it right, which they did in spades with the 3 year warranty.

With Sony fans touting the features of the PS3 over 360, how do they explain not bundling a HD cable with the unit?

 

[hpman247]

that is probably a generation too early to be included in a video game console

Are you serious. I think Sony's pont of BD being necessary for next gen games was proven by HS, will again be proven by Ratchet (22GB), and by the fact that there is some game, i forget the name coming to 360 using 4 disks. This is pure insanity. 4 Disks for a game.

 

[BigTimMN]

Blue Dragon per another post is a 3 disk game on the 360.. more than enough reason right there to have Blu-Ray/HD-DVD built in.

As for the comment above on the Wii.. it sold great at launch and is still selling.. but guess what, the games arent moving! with so many in the marketplace, you wuold think the sales charts would have a few Wii games listed... I fell for the hype, I got a Wii, I played it alot for a couple of months, the novelty wore off, and it just sits there gathering dust, hasnt been played in over 3 months, maybe when Mario comes out.

 

[ONUOsFan]

Yeah, I think someone's angry/confused/constipated....

Take a look at this link and tell me PS3's not going to be there this year in terms of game offerings:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/822/822202p1.html

 

[Derwin0]

As for the comment above on the Wii.. it sold great at launch and is still selling.. but guess what, the games arent moving! with so many in the marketplace, you wuold think the sales charts would have a few Wii games listed

Perhaps they have several games selling decently, as opposed to only a couple selling spectacularly.

 

[meStevo]

I think the Wii will be the biggest fad since the Rubick's cube. I have and love ours, wouldn't give it up, but we haven't bought a game since Wario, and it hasn't been hooked up for 3 months or so.

Nice list for the PS3 fans, but for the PC/360 gamers, how many are on that list that they aren't already getting? How many different titles will they have to combine to equal the single day sales for Halo 3, let alone the Fall sales. What is the compelling reason to switch given the same titles? Avoiding the 5 seconds per x hours of gameplay it takes to swap a disc on 1 in 50 games?

 

[BigTimMN]

Personally I know 10 people that own Wii's, 4 of those own just the Wii, and they are the only ones that are playing it regularly, 1 other one gets used by the kids in the house on occasion, but the other 5 are gathering dust as teh 360 or PS3 (and in one case, teh PS2) gets all the attention.

 

[ONUOsFan]

I think the Wii will be the biggest fad since the Rubick's cube. I have and love ours, wouldn't give it up, but we haven't bought a game since Wario, and it hasn't been hooked up for 3 months or so.

Nice list for the PS3 fans, but for the PC/360 gamers, how many are on that list that they aren't already getting? How many different titles will they have to combine to equal the single day sales for Halo 3, let alone the Fall sales. What is the compelling reason to switch given the same titles? Avoiding the 5 seconds per x hours of gameplay it takes to swap a disc on 1 in 50 games?

I think there are two different arguments to be made here...

1. Is there enough to make you want to switch to and/or add a PS3 if you already have a 360? Maybe not... depends on if you believe in Blu-Ray and whether you think Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, Warhawk, etc. are better than HALO and whatever other exclusives Microsoft has to offer.

2. If you don't have either, which one should you buy? At this point, unless you just HAVE to have HALO, I think the answer is clear...

 

[ONUOsFan]

Personally I know 10 people that own Wii's, 4 of those own just the Wii, and they are the only ones that are playing it regularly, 1 other one gets used by the kids in the house on occasion, but the other 5 are gathering dust as teh 360 or PS3 (and in one case, teh PS2) gets all the attention.

Personally, I think the best thing about the Wii is also the worst thing about the Wii... It's a physical playing experience, so you're not just sitting on your couch, but it's a physical playing experience, so you're not just sitting on your couch (and yes, I realize I just said the same thing).

Most gamers, good or bad, prefer to be able to relax while playing, at least to a certain extent, and I think the fact that you have to be active while playing so many of the games would tend to reduce the replay value as well as the time you can stand to play it at one sitting...er, standing. It's great for parties and family time, but not so much if you want to buy a system to actually spend time playing games.

 

[BigTimMN]

I disagree with that, I enjoyed playing thru Zelda, it wasnt that physical of a game, the movements were more than a normal game, but it made it more fun... but after i beat Zelda, I rented a few games, and nothing at piqued my interest very much.

It will be interesting to see how many games on the PS3 take advatage of the sixaxis...

 

[ONUOsFan]

I disagree with that, I enjoyed playing thru Zelda, it wasnt that physical of a game, the movements were more than a normal game, but it made it more fun... but after i beat Zelda, I rented a few games, and nothing at piqued my interest very much.

It will be interesting to see how many games on the PS3 take advatage of the sixaxis...

Good to know... I always enjoyed the older Zelda games.

Personally, I'm just not a "motion-sensing" kind of guy, apart from playing Wii at a friend's house once in a while - I couldn't care less if they never make another game that uses Sixaxis.

 

[BigTimMN]

If they use it in a proper way it does add to the fun of a game... but i do like to be able to turn it "off" and play the old fashioned way too.