sales2099 said:
osamanobama said:
Jexy said:
osamanobama said:
sales2099 said:
Ha....ha. Id like to say I told you so.
Having a ton of exclusives every year with therefore thin spread marketing per game will lead to sales of each game not giving a proper return on investment. Without proper awareness, blockbusters will be rare and therefore will fade in the memories of the general gaming public within a year.
Thats why MS releases a few exclusives and markets the crap out of them, while releasing new games on lower-risk avenues like XBLA where it doesnt really matter if they flop or not.
|
and thats good for gamers, how?
why does it matter at all how well the games are selling, if they are good.
are you more statisfied as a gamer to now that, sure you only had 1 or 2 games this year, but at least the company that published them is making alot of money. i think most people just care if there are a lot of good games. (which is why i bought the ps3 because there are a lot of games, with a lot of quality, i didnt buy a PS3 because i was hoping sony would make billions of dollars. and really unless you own stock in the company, why should you care.
how does that benefit the gamer? i think games benefit the gamer, dont you?
|
It benefits the gamer in that there will continue to be more games from them. You won't get any new games from a company that no longer can afford to make them or ceases to exist at all. However, there needs to be a happy medium. Like I said in previous posts, they can't keep churning out crap like the most recent socom games. They aren't good, get bad reviews, bad word of mouth, and don't sell, yet cost lots of money. Microsoft however, needs more exclusives than just Halo, Gears, Forza, and Fable.
Remember, it isn't just the sales and the company that suffers, it's the quality of games, and Sony admitted that. Production budgets and values get cut when you spread yourself too thin. The consumer doesn't get as quality of a game. I see it similar to how the government needs to cut back on spending by eliminating the crap. That doesn't mean I want the government, or gaming companies, to not take risks on new technologies or new games. It just means I don't want them spending money on unnecessary things. Too many of Sony's games end up stuck in limbo for one reason or another, which just sucks away money from them with no return on it, and no game ever being made. They need to either do it, or don't do it. But they won't be around for much longer at this rate, thus they will be unable to supply us as consumers with awesome games.
|
so 1 (2 if you count ALL 4 One) game out of... what 10. all the other games were of superb quality.
and it doesnt matter to the gamer, until the company ceases to make games. what happens in the mean time is of no concern, its up to the company to be profitable, and if it takes making less games, milking some more like other companies do to become profitable, thats still not good for the gamer.
games are good for the gamer. and Sony has been churning out tons of very high quality exclusives, with 1 or 2 duds. thats good for the gamer, if they reduce those games, its bad. sure i want Sony to do good, but if it comes at the expense of games, then i will be moving to which ever company provides me those games. i dont buy the system so the company makes profit, i buy the system for the games.
and the only game that i regret buying from Sony was Socom 4, and i bought that because of the move support ( and perhaps the little fanboy in me), all the other games i bought from Sony either met my expectations or vastly exceeded them.
So really in no way is it good for the gamer, for a company to do what Microsoft does.
if i worked for Microsoft or had their stock, i would love it, but i dont. if i worked for Sony or owned their stock, i would be pisses, but i dont. i own their game system, i own it to play games, not to profit Sony.
|
"thats still not good for the gamer" "games are good for the gamer"......Please stop sounding like an idealist. Start being a realist.
This is a business and the satisfaction of you, the gamer, ultimately depends on the sustainability of the company that provides them. Most Sony exclusives undersell to similar multiplats and expectations, not giving a proper return on investment. Do you care as a gamer? Offcourse not (which is kinda selfish). But with lower then expected sales comes the greater possibility that you won't see a sequel or the game gets more casual to get more sales. With greater marketing per exclusive, you will actually get a bigger following and the game mechanics won't be compromised to cater to the mass market when the sequel is announced.
You, the "exclusive nut", which isnt an insult, are a minority. Outside the internet, most 360/PS3 gamers are really content with 3rd party offerings. It is the blockbuster exclusives that rise above the 3rd party ocean of games. An exclusive with low marketing is just another "meh" title to the masses, and I think Sony is starting to see that.
So really, from your point of view "and it doesnt matter to the gamer, until the company ceases to make games", you want Sony to just crank out games no matter how much it puts them in the red. This is kinda like what is actually happening now given Sony financials. Really, it shows your part of the problem, asking them to give you games at a cost to the business, thus your part of the ones sucking them dry.
|
