By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Squilliam on 13 September 2010
Edit Thread
Michael-5 said:
Squilliam said:
Michael-5 said:
Squilliam said:

3 different shooters, yes, but thats hardly a good reason why they don't have a mega franchise from their efforts.

Well personally I think Sony came into this generation ill prepared. They made PS3 a Blu-Ray console well before Blu-Ray was the established form of media, they released PS2 exclusives up to 2007, and I think early PS3 exclusives were rushed. Lair was glitchy and short, Heavenly Sword was really short and had no replay, Resistance had no cinematics because Sony wanted it to be a launch title, and Motorstorm, although beautiful and fun, lacked variety in it's race type, tracks, and cars.

So thats 1 reason why I don't beleive Sony has a "mega" franchise. I think "mega" franchises need to establish themselves early within a generation, but the big, well polished PS3 games didn't start comming out until 2008, and even then I think Killzone was the first real shocking PS3 exclusive (to me at least). A lot of the bigger PS3 IP's took time to develop, GT5 still has yet to be released, Killzone 2 wasn't released until 2009, LBP was a 2008 title, and God of War was this year. Except for Uncharted, and Resistance, none of the big PS3 IP's came out until 2008. To be fair Nintendo didn't have much until 2009, but the success of Wii is another issue.

So thats my second reason, my third reason is that Sony has a lot more competition this generation. Were there any "mega" 10 million plus sellers on the Gamecube or X-Box 1? N64 only had a couple itself. PS3 was the first Sony platform with real attractive compeditors. N64, Cube, and X-Box were all great consoles, but they failed to attract the medias attention. PS3 this generation attacted the least attention, and most of it was negative at the start (high price, is blu-ray the future, etc).

My 4th reason is 3 competing shooters, and my 5th reason is that this generation, the PS3 has done soo poorly with respect to past PS consoles (only recently PS3 consoles have started making a profit), that Sony simply has not allowed a budget for a "mega" franchise other then GT5.

I guess thats my proper response to this thread, everything else is just getting off topic.

Sony came into this generation well prepared for the 3rd coming of the PS1, I.E. total market domination and weak oposition.

I don't believe big franchises need to establish themselves early in a generation, there are just a lot of new franchises released near the start of any new console cycle and its just a game of numbers as to how many new huge franchises emerge. However after the first title is out, most titles don't break out of that initial mould which is why you see consistancy generally once the first generation of games come out in a console cycle. There are very few titles which establish themselves on the 2nd or 3rd version as a mega franchise after having failed to do that previously. The start of a generation is the perfect time to attempt to hit these home runs as they can at the very least be milked for 3-4 game generations.

The simplest answer here is that if Sony hasn't published anything which has hit the home run whilst other companies have, then theres something which Sony is failing to do which Microsoft and Nintendo has done. It's obviously not for  a lack of talent that they haven't sold many 10M selling franchises, funnily enough the closest developer to that mark is Naughty Dog whom had gone down hill  somewhat from their Crash Bandicoot days after they were acquired. The more likely answer is that the way Sony developers make games do not resonate with a wider audience and that its probably how Sony themselves act as a publisher which is the reason.

The hardcore gamer Loves Sony (except for PSN) is iffy on Microsoft (except for Live) and is not so fond of Nintendo.

Order of highest selling published exclusives go Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony in reverse order of how much the hardcore gamers love the titles themselves.

 

That 1st generation establishment theory is interesting, and well yea it's kind of true in the case of Sony and Microsoft. Some games do emerge as "mega" franchises down the road of a consoles life, but most started on the home consoles first system. However It's not always the first generation that establishes franchises. Take Nintendo for instance, Mario and Zelda started on the NES, Mario Kart and Donkey Kong Country started on the SNES, Pokemon started on the Gameboy, Smash Bros started on the N64, Nintendogs and Brain Age started on the DS, and Wii -- started on the Wii. So with the exception of the N64 and Gamecube, two consoles who didn't really sell that well in the first place, Nintendo has created at least 1 "mega" franchise per console.

For MS it's only Halo, so your theory holds, and for Sony it's only GT, so your theory holds again, but not for Nintendo.

I'll agree that Sony hasn't published anything home-run worthy as a game since Gran Turismo

As for the part I underlined, you can't generalize that. I consider myself a hardcore gamer and I like the 360 more then the PS3 (I admit it, big deal), and I love the Wii. I think the Wii has more interesting games then the PS3 and 360. If I had to put those consoles in an order it wouldn't be fair because everyone has different tastes. My tastes do not reflect others, and I think most people in the forums here need to realize that their tastes don't reflect everyone elses

You missunderstand me. I was talking about software generations.

I.E. Generation 1: Call of Duty 2, Generation 2: Call of Duty 3. Or Assassins Creed 1 or Assassins Creed 2 = generation 1 and 2 of that franchise. Most games if they don't make it big on generation 1 they aren't going to make it big at all. On the other hand once they make it big they can be milked for 2-3 more software generations for large assured profits. The best time to release new attempts at making massive software is generation 1 of a console hardware generation. So 7th generation console, software generation 1 Epic releases Gears of War and it proves to be a big hit as a new I.P. Thats the reason why Sony released so many new I.P. games. They wanted to hit it big and get another 1/2 huge seller I.Ps to go alongside Gran Turismo.

Furthermore I was talking about published games. I.E. anything from 1st or 3rd party which is stamped with the publishers logo. It takes as much skill to find a big selling franchise and get it published as it does to develop one in house. Theres no difference between Microsoft seeing great potential in Gears of War and publishing it and their making a similar game in house.

For your last paragraph I admit I am wrong. It was a gross over-simplification. Though I do wonder why they are so set to produce / publish so many cinematic influenced games. In this generation a significant proportion of their titles are cinematic whereas none of the Nintendo published games are cinematic and Microsoft published games tend to be traditional as well. In a nutshell a lot of Sony titles this generation seem to focus on the experience of playing the game whereas Nintendo and Microsoft tend to focus on the experience from playing the game. Its a slight and stark distinction at the same time.



Tease.