Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
CGI-Quality said:
Squilliam said:
CGI-Quality said:
Sony spends their money where they deem it can differentiate their brand. It works. 
|
Relative to what exactly?
|
Um, their brand is accepting of such a game? Look at who puts their games on PlayStation platforms...Team Ico for instance... I think for them, it's more about demographics rather than sales. Sony goes the artistic route, rather than a sales route. I like that, because we've seen AMAZING games from that.
Just read Rainbird's post, he gets it.
|
Amazing games, yes. Saying that it works on you is obvious but its inefficient compared to other avenues they can be taking overall. I think this generation may prove that artistry in games simply doesn't compell a general audience towards your platform. The best system sellers are pretty much artistically null.
|
I don't understand why we are having this argument again. We all know that quality doesn't guarantee sales, so while I agree with CGI that Sony are "diversifying" the Playstation brand, it only really benefits those of us who take notice. Squilliam is right that these new, more artistic IPs are not the best sellers we see out there. Having Team ICO, Quantic Dream, thatgamecompany and what not develop for the PS3 is all great for those of us who appreciate such games, but I doubt that many people associate the PS3 with artistic games. If Sony wanted more greatly selling franchises, they should have taken their money elsewhere.
All in all, yes Sony are differentiating the brand, but it hasn't really been an economically sound decision (which is what Squilliam is arguing).
Personally, I love Sony's style, and I love the games I get to play because of it. I think it's wonderful that Sony are trying to make games as an art form more evolved and more appreciated, by going out of their way to support those who wants to make these games. But it is not something that has really been pulling in customers, because it is a niche.
|
Actually all we know is that noone can agree on a metric to measure quality. Therefore you can't say that quality != sales as noone can agree about what 'quality' actually is. Alternatively you could say that people value different aspects and there are some qualities which directly influence sales and some which have no bearing.
But yes theres no need to go any further into this here.
Good response btw.
|
Very true. I was pondering how best to say it, but I figured that the good old phrase of "Quality != Sales" would get the message across the best 
And thank you ^^
Spedfrom said:
|
Rainbird said:
But it is not something that has really been pulling in customers, because it is a niche.
|
What reason do you then attribute to Sony's (and Playstation's) brand and staying power, even after insulting us with the "2 jobs" argument, the blunder of PS3's initial price and the arrogant stance?
To me, at least, it is their commitment to the forwarding of the gaming industry, the flirting with the artful games, the balls to drop successful IP's to create new ones and the ability to differentiate.
|
To be fair, the PS3 is the console that has sold the least this generation, and it's not like the PS3 only has artsy games. There are in fact games that are generally good, both in a mainstream and an artsy sense. The "staying power" and the brand of the PS3 is still alive today because Sony have been making good games for the platform, but if artsy games where what drove the industry forward, then Sony would already have been in a much better position then they are in now.
Trust me, I love many of the games that Sony have supported for the PS3, but if Sony wanted more sales then they have now, they should have stuck with some of their big guns from last generation, instead of starting from scratch.
