Why does Sony fail at making another mega franchise?

[Michael-5]

evolution_1ne said:

Michael-5 said:

evolution_1ne said:

Michael-5 said:

Exactly! You also should realize that within a year of it's EMEAA and Americas launch, PS2 had GTA III, FF X, GT3, ICO, and Twisted Metal Black all exclusive. 3 killer games and two well received exclusives to boost. PS3 only had Resistance at launch, a couple underdeveloped low rated games as well (Liar, Heavenly Sword, etc), and in 2008 all it really got was Uncharted which really wasn't that spectacular. PS3 has it's share of great games, but nothing killer yet, and it hurts.

oh please the ps3 lost market share, lost money and userbase ONLY because it launched at 600 dollars, if it was affordable at launch all the good but not great games you keep saying just doesn't have it would be mega franchises, price and ONLY price hurt the ps3 this gen.

X-Box 360 launched for $400, and it did fine, I know it's still a difference of $200, but do you really think thats the only reason PS3 sales didn't pick up? I mean PS2's were also selling for several hundred dollars at launch due to limited productions initially, so it wasn't really that different.

I mean you don't think the lack of quality titles in 2007 affected sales? Maybe HD DVD competing with Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray being put onto the market too early? However didn't a lot of people buy a PS3 since it could be used as a cheap Blu-Ray player? I know a few people who bought a PS3 in 2007 for the sole purpose of movies, and still have no games.

Are you really that nieve to beleive that the price was the only reason for it's slow pick up? I mean the 3 big reasons why people buy a PS3 now (In Americas) is Games, Blu-Ray, and Price. Why ignore games near launch?

You have to blaime games at the start. PS3 did not have the initial software linup the PS2 had, and compeditors had a better lineup (360 had Gears of War, Halo 3, Lost Planet, Oblivion (timed), Halo, Bioshock(timed), Mass Effect, Project gotham Racing 3 and 4, Forza Motorsport 2, Dead or Alive 4, Prey, Battlestations: Midway, Condemned, Fight Night Round 3 (timed), GRAW 1-2, Ace Combat 6 and many other exclusives just by the end of 2007. PS3 only had Uncharted, Resistance, Folklore, Warhawk, Virtua Fighter 5 (timed) and Motorstorm by then. I honestly off the top of my head cannot think of any other 8/10 or greater exclusive for PS3 in 2007 or prior.

Also multiplatform games looked noticably better on the 360 then the PS3 back then (look at ProStreet, Madden, Assassin's Creed, CoD 3 & 4, Burnout Paradise, etc) despite PS3 claiming superior power.

Not only was PS3 overpriced, but in 2007 it was an inferior platform, never has a Sony platform been inferior gamewise to it's compeditors, especially at launch.

so you think if the ps3 was 300 dollars like every other playstation at launch it would have done anything similar???

no sir 600 dollars and 600 dollars alone was the reason, as for lauch line up's see ps2 vs dreamcast laucnh line-ups. also check the price for both.....

ps3 claiming superior power.... uhhh it is more powerful, developers not knowing how to program it though...yeah me thinks that was the multiplat problem, and also lol at your 360 line up list, how long was it on the market compared to the ps3...........yeah, nice try though.

but I'm pretty sure if the ps3 was 300 at lauch it would have raped fucking face with the same games it had. but the ps3 could never be 300 at launch for obvious reasons so it suffered. claiming it was the games is just something fanboys tell themselves so they can sleep at night. especially those who say it was the games over the price.

question you think the 360 with it's FAR superior line up would still be ahead of the ps3 if it was 300 at launch?

you do know if you align launches of the 2 consoles ps3 is ahead right, and thats with a crappy launch line up compared to 360 games at the time, and costing 200-100 dollars more than the 360 this entire generation, just food for thought.

Well $300 for the PS2 is similar to $400 for the PS3 due to inflation, and if PS3 were $400 at launch, it would definatly sell consoles, but mainly because it's a really cheap Blu-Ray (Since Blu-Rays back then cost $1,000 or more).

Dreamcast is a Sega console, it failed for many reasons other then it's $200 price. It came out way too early into the consoles life, it had a bad image, and it's library was still not that great. Sonic Adventure and Soul Calibur. This is also a different topic of discussion, X-Box and Gamecube were relativly cheap consoles, and so was N64, why did they fail?

PS3 is actually graphically not that much more powerful then the 360. What the PS3 can do that the 360 cannot is multi-processing (since it was what seven or 8 cores?). So GT5 with it's pre-rendered backgrounds looks roughly as good as Forza 3, but the difference is 16 player racing not 8. Resistance has 64 player matched, I think Halo 3 was limited to 32. MAG had 256 player multiplayer.

People didn't know how to develop for the PS3 because it was designed very different from any past console or PC. To push games graphically the traditional way PS3 can't keep up with the 360, you have to cheat and make everything multi-processor. So one engine focuses on the players, another the background, another the physics, etc, etc. This too is not the topic at hand.

As for the 360/PS3 library, even if you just compare 2007, and 2006 fall titles, 360 is superior, and that pushed many new console owners to buy a 360. 360 also had a really good early line up. It doesn't matter that the 360 came out a year earlier (which is also another good reason why the PS3 is behind), 2 years into this generation of gaming, 360 had more games. Only in 2008 did Sony stat to match software.

Okay, don't call me a fanboy, thats just insilting. PS3 would definatly have sold better if it were $400, but it still would have sold A LOT more poorly then the PS2. PS2 launched early, and had great games at launch while compeditors came out later and only produced a couple smash titles at launch. This happened this generation, but with Microsoft not having much of an image (from the X-Box), it wasn't as drastic as the PS2 had it.

Thinking the $600 launch price was the only reason PS3 sales are far inferior to PS2 sales is just silly. PS3 has a lot stronger competition, it's always going to be the most expensive platform, it had a very slow start in 2007, etc, etc. I personally think the stronger competition is the main reason PS3 is in third. Stronger competition, cheaper consoles, and a head start on the 360.

Yes if we allign PS3 and 360 launches PS3 is ahead I know. How many people bought PS2's in 2006? Was the current generation of gaming defined at that point? Of course PS3 is ahead of 360 by alligning launces, more and more people are jumping into this generation on a yearly basis. Did you know that the 360 has outsold the PS3 annually in every year except 2009 due to the PS3 Slim? Before the PS3 Slim was launched, 360 was up on PS3 Year on Year for 2009. The PS3 Slim effect is gone, and it's back to 3rd again, where I feel it will stay