pezus said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
Now not every title can be a must buy franchise and that's totally fine.
|
So here's where I mostly disagree. A good portion of 1st-party titles or exclusives should be must-haves. It was like that for the PS2, and that's one of the reasons why it was so successful. The question is, what happened?
Sure, some titles can be A or just good to haves, but as a manufacturer they should have must-haves so as to not dominated by MS like this. How a company can mainly win on multi-plats beats me.
|
The thing is on a given year there's only room for 2 or so must have game for a first party.
Add 3-4 must have third party games and you're up to 5-6 must have games a year. Add the fact that most players have a genre they prefer ( shooter, prg, sports, take your pick) and you're up to 7 or more games and that is already above what most gamers will buy in a year....
Release more must have and the must have start competing with each others and the overall result isn't actually a lot greater.
|
I thought 1st party games were supposed to have must-have priority. It was like that pre-PS3, it's like that for the Wii and the 360. You're making excellent points, but why are the PS3 exclusives not performing as well as 360 exclusives. I as some others would argue:
1st and foremost marketing is needed.
2nd. Some games need to either be dropped or overhauled to increase appeal and quality.
What you say is true, but tradition has it that 1st party games trump 3rd party games in terms of must-haveness, bar a few exceptions (e.g. GTA).
|
Halo>GT>Gears>Uncharted>GoW>Forza/Fable>LBP>Lots of Sony games>Alan Wake and Crackdown. That's how I see the franchises, MS exclusives generally selling more than Sony exclusives is a myth. It only seems that way because Sony make a lot more of them.
|
This post seems awfully familiar. Hmmm...
