By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - The reason I believe Sony's exclusives can't sell as well as they should this gen.

MessiaH said:
I agree that commercializing your brand characters/mascots can help but only if done right. I think a couple people have listed examples of commercialization through cartoons, etc that just did not work. But if pulled off right, yes, you have a point. It works.

Another issue is the fact that Nintendo's main mascot is, has been, and always will be Mario. Same goes for Microsoft, it has, is and probably will always be Master Chief. Sony on the other hand seems to switch it up from one generation to another. The PSOne era had Crash Bandicoot, PS2 had Jak (or Kraots late in the PS2's life), and the PS3 now has Nathan Drake. Because Sony keeps pushing new IPs on its consumer base every year (which is a GREAT thing for its loyal consumers who get to experience new games/stories/etc every generation), it ends up hurting Sony because they do not have this main-stay character that everyone can relate to at a mass level.

Also, another issue why their exclusives don't sell as well as Microsofts (I am comparing these 2 as their customer base is far more similar than Nintendo's) is because Microsoft drops about 3 - 4 exclusives per year, whereas Sony drops anywhere from 6 - 10 exclusives every year stretching their customer's wallets thin. Not everyone can purchase every exclusive so customers have to make the decision as to where their dollars will go. Microsoft customers don't have to do that, they can probably afford all 3 or 4 exclusives, and so their selling numbers are greater than that of Sony's.

I love Sony's strategy only because it suits my taste, I enjoy new experiences, I enjoy adult games, and I don't need a mascot like Mario to keep me coming back. Which is why I love Sony's platform. I find that I have more choices. But at the same time, I wouldn't want it to affect Sony's entertainment division and have them close it down if they don't see it as being profitable sometime in the future. It really is in Sony's hands to get things right. They have Sony pictures to release movies for some of their strongest characters, they just need to know how to have synergy between the different divisions. How they can use the strengths of their different parts to create a collective push forward. Right now, their different divisions do not work well together, and I believe that is a problem they recognize and are trying to fix. Whether they succeed or not is something we will have to wait and see.

I tip my hat to you sir, very well said



Around the Network
Joelcool7 said:
lol no offence Sony's IP aren't selling because they aren't amazing IP. Sony follows they don't lead and when you don't lead you don't get a huge user base. Look at Digimon Bandai did everything they could, Namco had Monster Hunter neither title out performed or even neared Nintendo's level of success. Digimon and Monster Hunter were on TV every day yet Pokemon kicked their asses. Why? Because Pokemon did it first and Nintendo maintained the IP, there was no room for the clones and competitors. Today Digimon is all but dead, Monster Hunter is dead.

Look back at the history of games, the big games are always the ones that offer something new and unique.

You mentioned Mario, you credit the shitty TV show and movie with its success. No, Mario was a success because it was in every arcade, every bar across North America. Donkey Kong and Mario became staples in the arcade world alongside Space Invaders, Asteroids, Pong, Centipede and Pac-Man. Mario made college students go broke my uncle has told me stories of blowing entire pay cheques playing Donkey Kong and Mario Bros in the arcades.

Then when Nintendo Entertainment System came out Mario was a launch title. People wanted to play at home and to play unlimited Mario. The movie had shit all to do with its success as did the TV show. Mario was a success in its own right. Nintendo kept Mario going by innovating Super Mario World added riding on Yoshida and new game play elements. Mario64 was the first major 3D game kick starting the 3D revolution and being Nintendo64's flagship title. Nintendo spun off Mario creating sports games and fighting games and racing games. With GameCube Nintendo innovated again giving Mario his little water canon buddy. With Wii once again Nintendo innovated bringing Mario to space and using gravity as a game play mechanic something rare new and innovative.

Nintendo has kept Mario fresh. Nintendo has made sure every generation new gamers get attached to Mario. Now every parent who played Mario in the eighties, buys their kids Mario. Every parent remembers Mario, I teach Sunday school every kid in my class for the last two years plays Mario. Parents love Mario it is the game they grew up with a game they can still play and have fun with.

Sony cannot replicate that. None of Sony's current IP could ever become that big.

Sony is always playing catch up, follow the leader. They are rarely every the leader, the only way Sony will break out of its slump is to get out ahead of its competitors. Gran Turismo is a perfect example of a successful IP. God of War was another fairly successful IP but of course not Pokemon or Mario levels. KillZone/Resistance both IP couldn't possibly replicate Halo's success, why? Halo brought vehicle combat and the idea of massive production values to the market. With Halo 2 Microsoft brought Live to the forefront, Halo 3 was the killer App for 360 and Microsoft through its full resources behind it. Microsoft spun the series off with Halo Wars, Halo:LEST. Then yes Microsoft did an amazing marketing campaign and things like books, the anime and action figures helped establish Halo as a major IP.

What does Sony need to do to reach Nintendo and Microsoft level success? They need to stop following trends and start making them. Following trends can make you second best, it can steal users away but you can rarely ever catch the leader. It is next to impossible to create a product that actually topples the original.

If I was in charge of Sony, I would put Santa Monica on developing a new IP. I would put Guerilla Games on a new IP as well one that would have some FPS elements but take the genre in a new direction. Eat Sleep Play would be put on a new IP as well. I would take my existing IP and shop around for other developers to handle them. Resistance would go to the highest bidder, any FPS studio that would take it. I would likely ask CryTek to take KillZone off my hands and bring out a KillZone4 from a great third party studio. Gran Turismo would be my flagship title available launch day on all future Sony platforms, because lets face it its the strongest 1st Party IP Sony has.

Then yes I would begin looking at marketing because marketing is extremely important. Children's cartoons based on Sly and Daxter would be immediate choices and a 3D animated film on Ratchet could help. A God of War anime and comic series and possibly a live Action movie would be great. KillZone would be turned into a Live action television series. Little Big Planet would be turned into a web series where users could contribute ideas and even objects and the team would create episodes using user created content.

But the fact is even with all these marketing techniques 5-6 million is roughly as good as these games will do. Even if future hardware sells better.

If Sony wants 8-10 million selling IP, Sony will need to start doing something new. Watching them announce their blatant rip off of Smash Bros shows me they still haven't taken the hint. The company changed Uncharted to make it more palatable, they have kept their products often as similar to their competitors as possible.

When I see games like Journey and Pay day:The Heist game like the new one coming out of Santa Monica. Its games like these that could have potential as new AAA IP.

At the same time when Sony gets an established IP, they need to maintain that IP. I mean Spyro and Crash, Sony should have moved mountains to secure those IP. Any IP that is between 8-10 million copies should be Sony's absolute priority. Any IP that does 4-6 million should be a side project, anything that is under 3 million should be out sourced to a third party or canned.

not mass market = bad game and lol @ Sony copies IPs

you know writing a lot doesn't make you look smarter and you wrote A LOT for someone who has no idea what they're taking about



logic56 said:
MessiaH said:
I agree that commercializing your brand characters/mascots can help but only if done right. I think a couple people have listed examples of commercialization through cartoons, etc that just did not work. But if pulled off right, yes, you have a point. It works.

Another issue is the fact that Nintendo's main mascot is, has been, and always will be Mario. Same goes for Microsoft, it has, is and probably will always be Master Chief. Sony on the other hand seems to switch it up from one generation to another. The PSOne era had Crash Bandicoot, PS2 had Jak (or Kraots late in the PS2's life), and the PS3 now has Nathan Drake. Because Sony keeps pushing new IPs on its consumer base every year (which is a GREAT thing for its loyal consumers who get to experience new games/stories/etc every generation), it ends up hurting Sony because they do not have this main-stay character that everyone can relate to at a mass level.

Also, another issue why their exclusives don't sell as well as Microsofts (I am comparing these 2 as their customer base is far more similar than Nintendo's) is because Microsoft drops about 3 - 4 exclusives per year, whereas Sony drops anywhere from 6 - 10 exclusives every year stretching their customer's wallets thin. Not everyone can purchase every exclusive so customers have to make the decision as to where their dollars will go. Microsoft customers don't have to do that, they can probably afford all 3 or 4 exclusives, and so their selling numbers are greater than that of Sony's.

I love Sony's strategy only because it suits my taste, I enjoy new experiences, I enjoy adult games, and I don't need a mascot like Mario to keep me coming back. Which is why I love Sony's platform. I find that I have more choices. But at the same time, I wouldn't want it to affect Sony's entertainment division and have them close it down if they don't see it as being profitable sometime in the future. It really is in Sony's hands to get things right. They have Sony pictures to release movies for some of their strongest characters, they just need to know how to have synergy between the different divisions. How they can use the strengths of their different parts to create a collective push forward. Right now, their different divisions do not work well together, and I believe that is a problem they recognize and are trying to fix. Whether they succeed or not is something we will have to wait and see.

I tip my hat to you sir, very well said

I return your tip-o-the-hat with a Dark Souls 'Proper Bow' gesture!



S.T.A.G.E. said:
d21lewis said:
Uncharted: Great franchise with high production values. Got great sales.

Killzone/Resistance: Average FPS games. Got average sales.

Heavy Rain: Unique franchise got better than expected sales.

inFamous: Mediocre game. Got mediocre sales.

LBP1: Unique and fun. Good sales.

LBP2: More of the same. Weaker sales.

I know Sony releases a lot of games that are only on Playstation. Sony fans hype them up but, from my experience, most of the time, these games just are not worthy of that hype. You want to know why Sony's first party games don't sell as well as you'd like? It's because third party games are often better. Would you want to buy inFamous 2 or Batman Arkham City? Killzone or Call of Duty? It's good that Sony tries to fill out its library but if they aren't the best of the best, what's the point? The games sell right about where I think they should.



InFamous is the second best superhero franchise on the market. The only Super Hero franchise that is better is batman, but InFamous has better cinematics and set pieces.

LBP 2 was not more of the same. Have you played the two games?  Killzone is an above average shooter in an age where shooters thrive on another console. Killzone 2 averaged a 91 and 3 a 84 which is far from bad when you average out the scores.  Little Big Planet 2 averaged 91 Metacritic score, and Little big planet  scored a 95. PS3 exclusives on average out score the multiplatform competition and generally have more exclusives than 360 in a given year on a first party front.

Own both LBP 1 and 2 at this very moment.  Bought Killzone 3.  Took it back and traded it in for Red Dead Redemption after that first stage where I piloted a mech in an abandoned city. Played Resistance 1 on a friends PS3 right at launch.  Didin't like it at all.  Cousin gave me Resistance 2 (made a thread about it called "The Mother Load"--his PS3 broke and I got a bunch of games from him temporarily).  Played the first stage.  Didn't like it. Got Infamous 1 the week it came out.  Still own it.  Never beat it because it was boring and repetitive.  I never said anything about the 360.  Where did that come from? 

Anyway, I guess I was wrong.  PS3 games are awesome and addictive and should have sold better by word of mouth.  360 sucks.



Not to break the chain of replies, but the real-world experience I have with PS3 games boils down to two camps.

Camp 1 = Non-core gamers that play whats popular. I have a number of people on my friends list that bought their PS3 to play MW2. They play COD related games and the sales numbers show for it. When it comes to getting those people to play anything other than that series, they just are not "that" interested in games. Those people dont go to forums and post. They dont follow the scene. But they do take a decent share of the overall share of PS3 owners/players.

Camp 2 = Core gamers that may play popular games (COD etc..), but also follow what other games are around. Id consider myself one of these gamers. But time and time again, I see core gamers post about their backlog. I have a backlog of at least 10 games. I dont have time to play games to completion. So Ill gravitate towards playing 30 mins of Skate 3. Or on a good night, 2 hours of BF3.

Im totally interested in Uncharted 2 and 3. I want to finish Killzone 3 and Red Dead. Im slowing making my way through Fallout 3 and thats almost 4 years old. Fact is, I dont have the time I used to. So when a new game comes out that Id like, I tell myself Ill pick it up when its sub 20 bux and add it to the list of games that I know ill never make through.

Granted myself and most of the folks I know are in their mid 30's now Im sure the teens are a different story, but they likely dont have $$ to dump on AAA day one releases. The value that comes in these games now with multiplayer being the focus are soo incredibly long lasting its like why buy the next title if I still enjoy putting more hours into the titles I already own.




Around the Network
Hornet303 said:

Not to break the chain of replies, but the real-world experience I have with PS3 games boils down to two camps.

Camp 1 = Non-core gamers that play whats popular. I have a number of people on my friends list that bought their PS3 to play MW2. They play COD related games and the sales numbers show for it. When it comes to getting those people to play anything other than that series, they just are not "that" interested in games. Those people dont go to forums and post. They dont follow the scene. But they do take a decent share of the overall share of PS3 owners/players.

Camp 2 = Core gamers that may play popular games (COD etc..), but also follow what other games are around. Id consider myself one of these gamers. But time and time again, I see core gamers post about their backlog. I have a backlog of at least 10 games. I dont have time to play games to completion. So Ill gravitate towards playing 30 mins of Skate 3. Or on a good night, 2 hours of BF3.

Im totally interested in Uncharted 2 and 3. I want to finish Killzone 3 and Red Dead. Im slowing making my way through Fallout 3 and thats almost 4 years old. Fact is, I dont have the time I used to. So when a new game comes out that Id like, I tell myself Ill pick it up when its sub 20 bux and add it to the list of games that I know ill never make through.

Granted myself and most of the folks I know are in their mid 30's now Im sure the teens are a different story, but they likely dont have $$ to dump on AAA day one releases. The value that comes in these games now with multiplayer being the focus are soo incredibly long lasting its like why buy the next title if I still enjoy putting more hours into the titles I already own.



Sony Greatest Hits titles come with extra DLC you otherwise would have to buy. It's good if you're willing to shell $30 instead of $60.



When it comes to the PS3, a game's success is mainly dependent upon the game itself. Specifically, it's quality, longevity and it's appeal. When a game has those two qualities in abundance, it receives appropriate marketing and it then sells as much as it should.

A lot of times, high quality games get high rankings, so it's fairly simple to find quality. Appeal is how attractive a game is, based on the general nature of the game, to it's potential audience. Games with low appeal have low potential for sales, regardless of quality. However, games with high appeal has lots of potential and only needs the quality to fill that potential. Longevity is simply the amount of time a person can spend with a game before they become bored with it. Games with low longevity typically have a lower potential as a lot of gamers will decide to rent them rather than buy. Let's look at a few of Sony's IP's.

Gran Turismo. Quality: High - The GT series is known amongst critics and gamers as the most realistic driving simulator. Appeal: High - There is a huge number of people interested in cars & driving simulators, particularly in European countries. Longevity: High - The massive amount of content included in these games also encourages consumers to buy the games, not just rent them. It sells extremely well.

Uncharted. Quality: High - Uncharted's cinematics & production values combined with smooth controls rank Uncharted as top-tier in the industry for action games. Appeal: High - Much like the movie industry, a large amount of people enjoy the simplistic, action-packed, adrenaline-filled titles that they can spend a few hours on without too much thought involved. Longevity: Low - Though high quality, the Uncharted games are short. I think it's common knowledge that the Uncharted games are popular for their campaigns, which can be finished in 10 hours or less. After which, the games serves little value. It sells very well.

God of War. Quality: High - Like Uncharted, GoW's cinematics, smooth controls, & sheer epicness is highly praised. Appeal: Moderately High - Again like Uncharted, God of War reels in consumers because it offers the visual eye candy & an action-packed ride for very little thought required. It is slightly less accessible than Uncharted in some areas though. For one, it's in the hack-&-slash genre, which isn't exactly famous for having high sales. Secondly, it takes blood & gore to a level beyond what you'll find in another M rated game like Halo & CoD. This excessive gore is likely the culprit behind it's low sales in Europe. (See European sales for other bloody games and see if you find a patten. Hint: Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil, Dead space all see drastically low sales in Europe). Longevity: Low - Same as Uncharted. 10 hour campaign. Only worse because it doesn't even offer multiplayer. It sells very well.

LittleBigPlanet. Quality: High - Critics & gamers agree that LittleBigPlanet is one of the most creative titles to enter the industry. Appeal: Moderate - There aren't that many platformer fans on the PS3. The "kiddy" look of the game certainly turns away a lot of PS3 owners as well. For the Platform fans on the PS3, they probably were turned off by the floaty jumping. Longevity: Moderate - High - I wasn't sure what to put for this. LittleBigPlanet's good levels are probably hard to find for a lot of gamers. I know I had troubles finding any decent levels in the game and I'd imagine the average gamers has had more problems. It sells respectably (sp?)

Killzone. Quality: Moderately high - Killzone (particularly KZ2) has received a lot of praise from gamers & critics for it's unique controls, in-your-face action, and tactical gameplay. Though even some of the most hardcore gamers detest it's controls. Appeal: Moderately Low - Yeah, it's a shooter, but it's very hardcore. Gamers are used to having FPS controls like CoD. They need to move fast. They need to aim fast. They don't want to wait. They don't want to plan. They don't want to think. They want to react. They just want action. And they want to shoot people in the face without difficulty. No doubt the controls turned away a lot of people. Longevity: Moderately High - It has a good online system & some cool unlocks to keep people playing. Sadly, the appeal, the nature of the game, turns people off from the beginning. It sells modestly I'd say.

Games rated in the mid to low 80s (InFamous, Resistance, and my beloved Ratchet & Clank) are viewed as B-Level. And though that isn't bad, consumers rarely buy things when there's a better alternative (A-Level games) which explains their low sales.

Games like Demon's Souls & Valkyria Chronicles. Though of high quality, have very low appeal, which explains their "low" sales.

There are other factors for a game's sales also like uniqueness, but I think I covered the major 3. Quality, Appeal, & Longevity. Marketing is very important as well, but once a game has 2 or 3 of the previously mention traits, the game receives decent marketing. That's why game like Uncharted & God of War received big marketing pushes, while Infamous & Resistance did not. No point in spending so much on a game with (relatively) low potential.

This same rule applies to multiplats. A game like Skyrim is of high quality, appeal, & longevity. It sold well. Yes, even CoD is seen as being high quality. And it has enormous appeal and longevity. It sells well. Same for Halo. Same for Battlefield. Same for GTA. As you can see, game with two of the three traits are usually successful. Games with all three are very successful.



d21lewis said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
d21lewis said:
Uncharted: Great franchise with high production values. Got great sales.

Killzone/Resistance: Average FPS games. Got average sales.

Heavy Rain: Unique franchise got better than expected sales.

inFamous: Mediocre game. Got mediocre sales.

LBP1: Unique and fun. Good sales.

LBP2: More of the same. Weaker sales.

I know Sony releases a lot of games that are only on Playstation. Sony fans hype them up but, from my experience, most of the time, these games just are not worthy of that hype. You want to know why Sony's first party games don't sell as well as you'd like? It's because third party games are often better. Would you want to buy inFamous 2 or Batman Arkham City? Killzone or Call of Duty? It's good that Sony tries to fill out its library but if they aren't the best of the best, what's the point? The games sell right about where I think they should.



InFamous is the second best superhero franchise on the market. The only Super Hero franchise that is better is batman, but InFamous has better cinematics and set pieces.

LBP 2 was not more of the same. Have you played the two games?  Killzone is an above average shooter in an age where shooters thrive on another console. Killzone 2 averaged a 91 and 3 a 84 which is far from bad when you average out the scores.  Little Big Planet 2 averaged 91 Metacritic score, and Little big planet  scored a 95. PS3 exclusives on average out score the multiplatform competition and generally have more exclusives than 360 in a given year on a first party front.

Own both LBP 1 and 2 at this very moment.  Bought Killzone 3.  Took it back and traded it in for Red Dead Redemption after that first stage where I piloted a mech in an abandoned city. Played Resistance 1 on a friends PS3 right at launch.  Didin't like it at all.  Cousin gave me Resistance 2 (made a thread about it called "The Mother Load"--his PS3 broke and I got a bunch of games from him temporarily).  Played the first stage.  Didn't like it. Got Infamous 1 the week it came out.  Still own it.  Never beat it because it was boring and repetitive.  I never said anything about the 360.  Where did that come from? 

Anyway, I guess I was wrong.  PS3 games are awesome and addictive and should have sold better by word of mouth.  360 sucks.


I am sorry that a company should be measured by how little it does for gamers, than how much it actually does.



So yeah, if Sony wants more blockbusters, they'll need to make games with:
1.) High Quality . It should score high 80s at least, but 90+ is preferred.
2.) High appeal/accessible. Not too hardcore, not too casual, and it has to appear attractive to the general consumer.
3.) Longevity. No 10 hour games. You want people to buy AND keep your games, not rent and/or sell.

As of now, I don't know if any game in the future looks to have these three traits.

But when a game does have all of these, then Sony needs to blast the public with advertising and BOOM! 10 million seller.



Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me Princess! (Some one had to say it since you included the Zelda Cartoon intro)

But I do somewhat agree with the OP. If Sony wants their IP to thrive and become household names they need to market them in a way that attracts a wider audience to them.

I feel that one way they could build even more interest is to put trailers for these games in front of Summer Blockbuster movies at the theater.

Uncharted, LBP and Infamous would all translate well into Sat morning cartoons. Though they would need to tone down the violence. Nathan Drake would be very popular with kids in the same way Indiana Jones was with kids my generation.