Is common sense PS3 has the hottest exclusives while Xbox is basically dying since Microsodt doesn't make games they basically all DLC or timed exclusive.

There's one big reason i'll be sticking with my xbox for Modern Warfare 2 and its the ps3 control pad. The ps3 pad is just terrible for a first person shooter and i don't feel like coughing up another £30 for the madcatz MW2 pad to make up for it.

I would expect week one sales will fall in 360's favour, as they still have the larger installed base, as well as the fact that I was always under the impression the 360 will be favoured amongst the hardcore shooter fan, and these are the ones that will form a large percentage of the week 1 sales.
There may be some truth in the overall shift to PS3 however, and maybe over the longer term we will see the PS3 version emerge the victor. It does ignore the fact that we assume the majority of console owners can afford both consoles.

before the fanboys jump on however, Im not sure I see the relevance. Both consoles have an established installed base now, and I expect both versions will be largely identical. I do not believe whichever console emerges victorious will change much in the future. To say Infinity Ward may chose to focus on only one console depending on which is most successful is not too insightful either, as it ignores the fact that sales on both consoles will be massive (although they may chose one as the lead development SKU). It also ignores the dynamics of the console market in future years as factors such as project natal and the Sony motionwand etc also come into play. How such factors may affect MW3 i dont know, but we should not ignore this either. Project natal may exceed all our expectations and prove to be the only way to play shooters in the future - who knows ?

Maybe it's got something to do with the silly little brats spoiling game chat on Xbox360? Although at least people talk on xbox360!

I switched my Modern Warfare 2 purchase to the PS3 version as I intend cancelling Xbox Live; while I still prefer to buy 360 releases generally I don't see why I should be paying for multiplayer, particularly if most of my time will be spent playing Modern Warfare 2. Microsoft need to rethink taxing gamers ~£40 a year to play their multiplayer games, particularly as DLC has proven to be such a lucrative revenue stream.

@ James: couldn't agree more lol

please note i am a PS3 fanboy, however having owned a 360 i can say, the 360 is WAY better for FPSs because of the controller and LIVE, and it has a bigger install base. MW2 will sell more on the 360.

perhaps the PS3 will be choice for other titles, and i do believe that in the not too distant future it will overtake the 360 and be the lead console of this generation despite Natal. but MW2? no way.

for a game to make the most of the PS3 it has to be exclusive (see Uncarted 2) and until devs learn from Naughty Dog et al how to make the most of it then we will be looking at xplat games developed on the 360 and whacked on the PS3. for a 3rd party developer it's the only option a publisher will give you as it will maximise profit/investment. hell if i was a publisher that's what i'd do!

until Cryengine3 is a favoured 3rd party game engine (which i think it will be) then the 360 will have the edge on xplat games, or until devs decide that the PS3 is worth developing for despite the (relatively) smaller audience (certainly compared to Xplat). if/when Valve start developing for the PS3 then bye-bye Xbox.

i suppose now the PS3 has a bigger install base than it did when MW1 was released means it will take more of the percentage sales than it did before, but it'll still be less than 50%.

Xbox has a better multiplayer experience than the PS3: any FPS and Gears.
Ps3 is better for epic solo campaigns: MGS4, U2 (and i'm expecting GOW3 and Heavy Rain to kick butt-hoop too).

there are of course exception on both sides. but didn't we know this alrady?

...they could just get it on the PC for lower pings, country filters, better graphics, no auto-aim (promoting skill in multiplayer) and the game itself will cost less.

Oh, wait, nevermind. That would require the elitist console fanboys to have some common sense.

Every time I log onto XBL its like a dozen American teenagers jamming knives into my ears.

I've played xbox live since 2004 & not one person who's been on my friends list has "defected". Most people acutally own multiple consoles, ok normally a wii/360 or ps3/wii combo.

As for the bloke who said xbox live should be free. I disagree. PS network will be going subscription based shortly! But still £40 for 12 months access, dude that's cheap as chips!! (I personally preferred it when it was credit card only, this kept all the kids off live!!)

Lets not forget, Assassin's Creed 2 advertsing is branded PS3 only.. there's no sign of an 360 logo anywhere..

There is no chance PSN is going subscription for PS3 or PSP. This is a big thing and every executive as Sony just says no to idea of subscription. There will be subscription service ie VidZone in time so it wouldn't get add's etc.

Show a document from Sony showing you (Gaz) point as true! Otherwise admit thet Microsoft Live subscription is silly and paying something for nothing.

@8: £26 for 12 months if you shop around.

And I'm sorry James Benn, but your argument is like saying, I'm going to stay at home and drink water because I don't see why I should pay to drink something else. Or, I just play free games as I don't want to pay for commercial games.

I rarely play online but I have no qualms about paying 50p a week for the ability to do so when I want to. I also do so as it is is required for the creators club membership.

Services cost money, ask BT, or Sky or any other service provider. I bet you pay for Sky TV don't you, like many other 360 owners? If so, then the argument is pretty hypocritical don't you think? It isn't a tax as it is optional. If you don't want those services, then don't pay for them. It gets tiresome to hear this same old argument over and over again.

I personally cannot think of any reason to switch consoles for a sequel, especially as having previous game data on the machine can sometimes give you extra rewards. I guess the sales figures will tell the whole story.

I had given up on the xbox 360 In 2007 after having 3 major faults. The Xbox pad is good for fps games but the PS3 controller isn't all bad. I finished Killzone 2 using it. I have found some gems on the PS3 (especially considering I was a Nintendo Zealot before) including the uncharted series and heavenly sword

Elitist console fanboys? Oh please, your following post:

"they could just get it on the PC for lower pings, country filters, better graphics, no auto-aim (promoting skill in multiplayer)"

...smacks of PC snobbery. Pot kettle black.

Surely the real reason is the fact that the XBOX 360 powerpack has serious problems and WILL at some point stop working.

Dont belive me? Take a look on Goggle; Now the problem is that MS know this and yet refuse to sell power packs.

So if your $22 power pack breaks (which is will) then you will have to spend $200 ++ to fix it.

Why does that not suprise me?!

LeeC wrote:
"Services cost money, ask BT, or Sky or any other service provider. I bet you pay for Sky TV don't you, like many other 360 owners? If so, then the argument is pretty hypocritical don't you think? It isn't a tax as it is optional. If you don't want those services, then don't pay for them. It gets tiresome to hear this same old argument over and over again."

That's a good argument. Should we as consumers be expected to pay for online gaming, considering the fact we do pay for existing services like Sky. The problem is I think many see online gaming on console as something that should be included in the price of the video game. With Sky and BT you pay for the service because that service IS the product. With consoles it's a bit different, you pay for the video game, that's the product. And in doing so I think many expect the online side of the game to be a part of that price.

Things get more difficult though when you factor all the extra services and options that Microsoft are providing in addition to the basic online gaming infrastructure. Should we be expect to pay for all that? My opinion probably yes, as long as you want those services.

@11 / LeeC:
Fair enough if you want to pay £40 a year for Live and similarly if you want to subscribe to Sky TV. Personally I think PSN and Freeview are just as good and although the initial outlay for a PS3 and a Freeview PVR were higher than it would've cost me on day one for an Xbox 360 and a Sky+ sub, it only took me a year or so to make an overall saving. I'd rather have the money in my wallet to spend on games or DVDs instead as any extras or perceived benefits of having either of those paid-for services don't really bother me.

Yes, services cost money to run and that's why we see advertising on those free services. Oh, hang on, you get adverts on Sky and Xbox Live as well, don't you? ;-)

(Please forgive the dig - I couldn't resist!)

AS of the 4th Oct Xbox 360 pre-orders for MW2 were at 1.7 million, PS3 was at 473,000....Source: http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=5514

Your study and news article are null and void....

Perhaps you should look up the definition of snobbery. Nothing I said was unreasonable. The mere mention of PC gaming to the average console user results in flames of "PC is for noobs". Should I even dare to turn on my 360 and play on Live, the first thing any American - or any one else for that matter, points out is "OMG STFU BRITISH ****!"

I'm not saying Americans are idiots, but there's a vast congregation of children and/or fools on Xbox Live. I haven't used PSN anywhere near as much and so can't comment, although I feel they're unlikely to be any different.

This article is clearly trying to evoke discussion of "which console is better?" and my point is just that; neither. If you want a mature, competitive, fair gameplay environment, PC is the way to go, imo.

I purchased the PS3 simply because it's free online. There is zero lag when online gaming, I can surf the internet, download, listen and watch many different media and now there are various services coming to the PS3 such as the Video Store, NetFlix and possibly Sky.

I pay my internet service provider to surf the internet, download media and ultimately play games online on my PC, PS3, iPod, PSP and Wii and possibly other devices I cant think of right now....

I dont give a damn HOW much, I woulnd't hand over a penny to Micorosoft for the priviledge of an online "service" where from what I've seen, offers me absolutely nothing I'm not already receiving for free, and tbh, advert free from the start up screen.

I think the XBox is a fantastic machine and the games on it are absolutely superb, but I simply refuse to pay to play online and I find it shocking that hundreds of thousands of people do. Secondly, I DESPISE the fact Microsoft treat their Silver users as SCUM!

In fairness, the article does say that the PS3 "will emerge as the favoured format" - it's not claiming that it'll be ahead on pre-orders, plus there are plenty of people out there who will look to pick this up in store on release day (possibly in the hope of some serious supermarket discounts) rather than pre-ordering.

No one yet knows what the figures will be so it's too early to say this is rubbish.

Besides, the story itself is about shifting trends and the fact that a significant minority have indicated their intention to switch platforms for a pair of forthcoming major releases. We can only speculate as to the reasons why...

i like the comment Hard core shoter fan's... hard core shoter fans dont play consoles they play PC's why? caz PC are better in every respect,

Are you mad? Hard core shooter fans play on consoles. PC is not better in any way, online for mw2 will be exactly the same as it is for consoles because you lost your dedicated server, how do you feel? Also how much more money will you pay for a rig that can run mw 2 as good as consoles? Fool

"Perhaps you should look up the definition of snobbery"

No problem, your own following post:

"If you want a mature, competitive, fair gameplay environment, PC is the way to go"

Yep, PC snobbery at its best.

It is certainly getting more difficult to defend the 360.
The alleged proposals to increase the cost of Live has certainly set alarm bells ringing. I regularly go a fortnight without using the service, so paying around £30 to subscribe is about my limit.

PS3 exclusive Uncharted 2 and the forthcoming Gran Turismo release are both tempting enough to consider supplementing my console collection. The initial purchase price is the only thing stopping me.

Which console I then buy multi-format titles on would purely be dictated by potential DLC and which console handles the engine best.

Lee wrote "your argument is like saying, I'm going to stay at home and drink water because I don't see why I should pay to drink something else. Or, I just play free games as I don't want to pay for commercial games."

That's a terrible analogy - I said that given I'll be playing MW2 for the most part, I didn't see why I needed to pay for a multiplayer subscription on the 360, when none is required on the PS3; hence my choice to buy that particular title on the PS3.

I can easily afford the Xbox Live Gold service, I just don't consider it value for money when it's main benefit is multiplayer gaming which all other platforms offer free; yes the PSN may be rough around the edges but I don't expect it to make a difference to my experience as a casual gamer.

While you all argue about why or how this may be, you're miussing the actual data. AC1 on the 360 outsold the PS3 2:1. The pre-orders for AC2 360 are 2:1. And at the end of the day AC2 on 360 will outsell PS3 by a healthy margin - somewhere around 2:1.

So regardless of how we get there, the net marketshare gain for Sony will be likely right around 0%. That's the important factor you should be considering, especially as this year represenets Sony's strongest push yet.

Now as to the conclusions drawn by the study, they're completely wrong given their own data.

In the US, AC1 sold ~3m on 360, ~1.5m on PS3. Assuming AC2 will sell as well or better to larger install bases, let's use 4m and 2m respectively. This keeps in line with the 2:1 ratio everyone, including the original study, is expecting.

So, if 7% of the 4m intending to purchase for 360 originally owned AC1 on PS3, that means there are 280,000 defectors from PS3 to 360.

If 15% of the 2m intending to purchase for PS3 originally owned the AC1 on 360, that means there are 300,000 defectors from 360 to PS3.

In other words, a net gain of only 20k for PS3, or a marketshare gain of only 0.3% out of 6m units. That's nothing, especially since there are so many new fresh units of PS3 in the market this holiday season.

Even worse for Sony, that would mean that 280k/1.5m, or ~17% of their AC1 user base is defecting to 360. Whereas only 300k/3m, or ~10% are defecting from 360. So, the defection rate for PS3 is significantly higher than 360.

You can play with the expected sales all you want and you will arrive at a similar outcome, a higher percentage of PS3 players are defecting than 360 players. And again, particularly because of the strong push with the slim and the price cuts, these numbers go the wrong way for Sony.

AJS: "Also how much more money will you pay for a rig that can run mw 2 as good as consoles?"

You do realise that consoles will be running MW2 at 30 fps, on the lowest settings (except for textures, probably medium, similar to Borderlands, MW1, Gears, etc) at 600p? They can't even handle the full 1280x720 anymore.

You can't buy a PC anymore that will run "mw 2 as good as consoles", only one that will run it BETTER than a console.

Moreover, you've clearly never heard of a keyboard and mouse.

Before you argue some retarded point akin to "omg but u just point n click" - that's exactly the point. EVERYONE finds it easier to aim. Therefore you have less time to react.

Finally with regards to "how do you feel about no dedicated servers?" I don't care. I won't be purchasing MW2. The last CoD I bought was CoD: United Offensive. My money would be better spent on Bad Company 2, which will no doubt be a much, MUCH better game.

"The belief comes from numbers showing that 15 per cent of those who plan to buy the PS3 version of Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed 2 own the original version on Xbox 360. By contrast, just seven per cent of those intending to get the Xbox 360 version owned the original on PS3."

This is the most insane argument ever. The reason for this is the SIMPLE fact that fewer people owned the PS3 version in the first place.
C'Mon Now!!

Is this a joke? I laughed.

I was originally thinking of getting MW2 when I buy a 360 ( I already have a PS3) since I was guessing that the PS3 version would be significantly worse, but seeing how my friends that have the game on PS3 already, don't have any complaints I'll now be getting it on PS3. :D

MW2 looks great on both consoles, but pushes the 360 hardware beyond it's limits - already the consoles are massively failing, see how long a 360 lasts playing MW2! Those rings are gonna be lighting up the skies, lol

I'll be buying on PS3 - but then, I'd have to, I'd not touch an xbox!

My main reasons for not getting an Xbox live subscription and RROD.

PS3 is the best purchase Ive ever made I use it everyday for internet, gaming, TV and blu ray. If i got an xbox all I would do on it would be gaming which would cut the time I use it considerably.

300 for my PS3 when I bought it WORTH IT. Hell i would have even payed the launch price for it i use it that much.

This is funny... I own Xbox360, but still bought Ps3 60Gb, simply because it has better exclusive games(Mgs4, Uncharted2, Heavy Rain The Last Guardian, Little big planet, God of war 3...) The only reason i'm not selling my xbox360 is Alan Wake & Mass Effect2.

you mean u didn't sell it because halo3 & GOW

Ivan_PSP - Biased much? What about Sony insisting games have 'PS3 exclusive extras'?

In this case I can see why people with both console might go for the PS3 version. Though with most dual-format games the 360 version looks and plays the best (see Eurogamer face off series for more detail).

However I expect it mostly comes down to what system your mates have it on (esp on a multiplayer centric title like MW2).

Yeah right! I can't wait till we see the numbers on this one. Sony does not have XBOX LIVE! PSN is a damn joke. Without xbox live being as great as it is, these two consoles would have a much tighter race.

The simple fact is the 360 will win this format war for at least the next couple years. I work in the Games industry, and understand the ins and outs all toooooo well. First, yes people claim to want to defect to PS3 because of the free online. However something all of you must understand is that free online play has its issues, and big ones. First and last from me, It is unstable. However, Microsoft began developing XBOX live 10 years ago, and no offense to any PS3 online gamer, but they have darn near perfected it. Sony is a long way, and until they start charging for online play, they will spend little on R@D developing it into a strong and reliable system as Microsoft after 10 years has delivered. If you do not believe me, look at company's like Blizzard who undoubtedly have the largest online community with a stand alone or single title. Um, World of Warcraft. The fact is, if you don't invest in the continuing evolution of that type of game play, you will fall behind.

Now, I am not taking anything away from Ps3. It is by far a superior system. I have played God of War 3 at a developers conference, and all I can say is it is simply freaking amazing. And I do own both systems and I would love to see what Sony can do if the Ps3 ever does reach its peak as far as Imersive game play and truly amazing visuals and longer game play. But the fact is, Developing a game that utilizes all the PS3 can do is VERY expensive, the systems have to hit the market to apply the faith the developers need that their money and insane effort in making triple A titles will not cost them to go upside down with large loss in revenue. , and they need to start offering different ergonomic controllers that work well with other games. Microsoft has the best controller with the exception of Blue tooth technology. People, its nothing more than a waiting game. So time will tell.

But for something for everyone to think about, and furthermore I am not trying to blow the 360 hype because in my business I have to be biased. Sony better come up with something fast to battle project Natal. THIS will REVOLUTIONIZE game play in a way you couldn't even imagine, especially with FPS games. Take it from a person who has been up close and personal with it. It is simply amazing. It makes the WII look like 70's attempt in comparison as far as the technology behind full motion control.

No matter what, any argument is justified in every ones own mind as to where the gaming industry will take us. I'm greatly awaiting the future to see what it brings.... Game ON!!!

im a ps3 owner i'll admit that 360 has sold more consoles so far but the ps3 is catching up... fact

and switching consoles at the end of the day the ps3 is more than just a games console it's also a blu ray player a decent blu ray player will cost you in the region of £300 anyway and lets face it the 360 and the ps3 both share multi format games but the ps3 has by far the better exclusives coming out on it which will only help ps3 sales

i mean uncharted 2 is a gem of a game no 360 fan boy can deny that what game can rival that on the 360? i know that this is only one game but it's not in development its out there and loved

and the fact about the ps3 controller face facts if you're a 360 gamer picking up a ps3 pad then of course you'll find it weird just the same with me picking up a 360 pad

and pc fan boys if you want to play mw2 scaled down go for it but you wont be getting the same experience, unless you often upgrade your pc then whats the point it's alot cheaper and better worthwhile getting an actual fucking console fact