By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CGI-Quality said:
VideoGameAccountant said:

Ahhh, I see. Your assessment of Sony is correct. The reason I say their line-up isn't great is that it's not strong enough to push consoles on its own and Sony still relies heavily on third parties. Where they are better than Microsoft is they have more than Halo and Gears and they at least come up with moderate hits each generation; the issue is they may not stick around for very long (Killzone is one such example). 

I like that, though. Sony always brings something new to the table. Makes each PlayStation feel unique, but most of their properties are strong enough to return for more. And Killzone got a much needed break. They don't have a major history of running properties into the ground. 

And Sony have a lot of IPs that they could pay 2nd party studios to make sequels



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."