| Mr Puggsly said: It shouldn't surprise you to see Titanfall cheaper than a game like Infamous Second Son. Titanfall lives and dies on having an active online population. If Titanfall genuinely had a dead population that would ruin the experience of that game. If nobody is playing Infamous SS, who cares? I don't think beating Playstation was a realistic goal for X1. Frankly, the sales X1 is getting now wasn't even anticipated. Sony isn't doing much advertising of their own games because they aren't good. Instead they rely on 3rd parties to do the heavy lifting. Which is fine, atleast Sony accepts their 1st party games are weak and they will hopefully do better next year. When Sony had money they would moneyhat popular IPs as well. Its not about pissing people off, its about doing what benefits their platform. If Sony had money this gen they would attempt to crush X1 like PS2 did with OG Xbox. During the PS3 era, Playstation's world was shook. MS made a huge pricing error this gen and they're paying for it. The same error Sony made with PS3 and they're still paying for it because Xbox is still relevant. |
So one minute you were saying the online is fine for Titanfall now you're saying that they needed to give it away for a tenth of the iriginal price just to keep it alive? Hell they've een giving the game away for free to many since the game launched. Doesn't sound very promosing for me. Obviously people aren't sticking with it. I play BF4 and that game has sold comparable numbers on PS4 to Titanfall on X1. The difference being on PS4 a shit load of people still playing and the game is still being sold a year later for a very good price. That to me tells me one game is good and the other average. Titanfall great idea, lazy execution. It's barebones stuff and half the game it should have been. A bit like Destimy. And Infamous SS, if nobody is playing that Sony cares, because the number of people buying and playing it decides what they can charge for it.
Sony's first party is fine but you're ignoring the over all picture, a lot of their top studios couldn't make games for the PS4's first year because they were tied up supporting the PS3 unlike MS. And heavily supported for the last 3 years, again unlike MS. Just because they haven't all dipped their toe in PS4's water doesn't mean their 1st party line up is weak. The only diff between them and MS is, MS went and paid a lot of money to match Sony's first year. They won't compete when all SOny's first party games are releasing because they've hardly any of their own studios making AAA games.
Sony still have money as you know but they don't need to crush anybody. They can sell 130M this gen and the Xbox can sell 70M. It doesn't affect them and they don't plan on throwing away a boat load of profit just to bury MS. Moneyhatting when the PS2 was selling like thePS4 and the GC and Xbox were selling like the Wii U wasn't expensive. Now it is and is going to be craxy expensive for MS for the rest of this gen now that PS4 is dominating WW. It will be truly sad if they keep paying the upped prices for the next few years because that's bad for the industry. They should just buy/create new studios and make their own new games. That's a win win for the industry but it's not the MS way.
You conveniently ignore the fact that Sony during the PS2 days had way more studios than MS do now. Yes they moneyhatted but at the same ime they put most of their efforts into making loads of awesome games. Imagine all the gems we would have missed out on if they spent all that money securing more exclusives. MS did very well with the 360 thanks in part to Sony slipping up. They could have invested big time in first party and had a load of exclusive games made by them coming every year for the last few years of the 360's life. That would have given them big momentum into this gen and those devs could be making lots of awesome X1 exclusives for the X1 right now. You know next year Xbox might of actually had something to rival bloodbourne and the order. But no, MS are in it for the quick buck, the smash and grab. no long term vision. And that is why I believe they did have a chance this gen unlike you. They just went about the console business the wrong way.
Finally the PS3 did open the door WW for the xbox but with MS jumping into the gen a year early and 1.5 years in the EU they were always going to do decent either way with the way MS supported the console and with games like Halo and Gears so popular at the time.
They wouldn't have sold 80M if the PS3 did everything right and the PS3 would be well over 100M by now but the 360 would have made it over 50M no matter what SOny done. I'm pretty sure if MS had only double the sales of the previous Xbox they would have supported it for it's last 3 years and hit the ground running with the X1. But they had it too easy and got cocky. Bad idea under estimating Sony, the kings of home consoles.
