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

You haven't have recieved your hugs and kisses yet, I forgive. What I said applied to any publisher, but in this case I was talking about Sony.

 

HAHAHAHA!!!  It's the fact of the matter that what SONY announced is undeniably true.  But it pains some of you guys sooooooooooo much that anything is being thrown out to distract from the implication that SONY has the ability to continue churning out quantity and quality choices for the gamer.

:)

Actually it means a lot of different people. Some people wonder why there aren't more games released yet with those numbers, some people wonder if they are profitable. Some people wonder if/think they aren't as efficient as X publisher, some people take it as lotsa games for them, etc. You can take your pick because there have been a lot of responses along the lines of the above which is why its balooned out as a thread to over 200 posts.  

 

 

Switching the discussion to profit would be exactly changing the subject to minimize the prospect of a large number of quality games in the pipeline.  Quality proof: we all know already, but additionally one can check metacritic.

As for efficiency arguments, those would be valid but we'd need to see some indication that other studios are more efficient.  Insomniac and Naughty Dog are very prolific.  Polyphony Digital is slow but their Gran Turismo games pay for themselves in like the first week.  etc.   Sony Santa Monica and Team ICO pretty much can't strike out.  Seems like on balance Sony is doing well.  What, is Rare more efficient?  What's the claim, here?

I think that some Sony devs have to this point been working on toolsets and Cell help, and that may be less necessary as time goes by.  Large operations might well be less efficient man for man but then again guys from one studio can go help or share with other studios.  We've heard of several instances lately (Naughty Dog and Santa Monica, etc)