Sony: We Should Probably Develop Less Games

[Ail]

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).

I would argue that the Wii has demonstrated that too many first party must have isn't that good either...

There's no denying the 360 has done a great job with first party.

All I'm saying is while I agree that Sony should release less titles there is still some room to release more first party than the 360, granted all won't be must have for everyone, but some of them can fill a niche that needs feeling ( like Q2 low release, or provide a game in a genre not well represented on the platform, or even giving a shot a new IP once in a while).

That's why I like game like Infamous because they meet my criteria. Same with Heavy Rain, it was a good shot at a new IP and didn't release during the crowded holydays season.

I am actually ok with Killzone too as it isn't released at the same time all the others shooters are released and it provides a somewhat different MP experience.

But I agree that while Resistance 1 was needed , Resistance 2 and 3 should not have been released. At the time they released there were already plethora of FPS on the PS3 and both resistance 2 and 3 released within months of CoD and provided a subpar experience compared to CoD... And I don't think any amount of marketing could have changed that.....