By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WilliamWatts on 15 December 2009
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
WilliamWatts said:
CGI-Quality said:

But, when looking at Xbox and PlayStation exclusives, they sell comparably. This is a misconception that I continue to see. Outside of key franchises, PlayStation franchises sell very much like Xbox exclusives, and vice versa. Also, very few 3rd Party titles sell like Assassin's Creed and such. Check the data.

I agree about local multiplayer but the games sell very similar when PS3 games don't have some of those features. For your perspective to hold much water, you have to explain what franchises have "underperformed" on PS3 that don't include local multiplayer and what franchises, besides Gears, that did exceptionally well on 360 that include the local multiplayer you speak of.

Excuse me, im confused. I don't remember mentioning the Xbox 360 or its exclusives. I couldn't personally name any as I don't own the system and I don't have any interest in games I cannot personally play. I didn't really know that Gears of War had local multiplayer until you mentioned it.

My point still is that theres a tendency for games which have a lot of playable content, whether its a huge open world sandbox or if it comes with local and especially local and online multiplayer which seem to dominate the top of the charts. Furthermore games which have these features in abundance tend to be less graphically intensive than games which do not. Whilst there are exceptions the general trends indicate that the best selling games have both local and online multiplayer and further to that they aren't the best graphical showpieces in general they do sell a lot. 

Since Sony's business is to sell games consoles, games, controllers etc. Why do they seem to focus on graphics at the expense of electing to use their developers to work on local and online multiplayer content when it seems that it earns them fewer sales especially as they have a piece of the controller pie as well?

What I'm saying is, for Sony's games to have "underperformed", as you're implying, you have to size them up against games that have comparable selling tendencies. The 360 is it's closest rival, so it's what you can compare it to. If you look at their exclusive franchises, they sell comparably, and if PS3 games are "underperforming", then how are 360 games doing?

I never said the games underperformed anywhere, I don't understand where you're getting this idea from? Is it from other people inside this topic?

Is the concept of comparing the top 20 general releases with the top 20 Sony releases and looking for trends in the placement of different titles not a good one? 

Since you're keen to go down that path I did a check of the top 10 Microsoft published games (these are all exclusives right?) 

  1. Halo 3
  2. Gears of War
  3. Gears of War 2
  4. Forza Motorsport 2
  5. Halo ODST
  6. Fable 2
  7. Mass Effect
  8. Project Gotham Racing 4
  9. Halo Wars
  10. Forza Motorsport 3

I think only three of them lack local multiplayer and they are Fable 2, Mass Effect and Halo Wars. Two of them also lack any significant online play and they are Fable 2 and Mass Effect from what I can gather from Wikipedia. None of the top 5 lack either local or online multiplayer. I think Halo 3 must have been bundled with every Xbox 360 in the U.S.A. because the sales there are silly compared to what Vgchartz calls the 'others' region so I guess that sort of should get taken into account. The further down the list you go the more likely the game seems to be completely single player in nature.

So does this not support my concept that Sony may have been better off if more of their big releases had both online and offline multiplayer modes? I feel I must repeat to make myself clear here that im not saying that the games underperformed on Sony's side at all. Im saying that more people might have instead purchased or kept ahold of their copies of games Sony personally released instead of trading or renting.