| Doctor_MG said: Ludicrous speed posted a much larger and more expansive list. We agree that IP fatigue can be a thing, but I don't agree that what they are doing is better overall game wise. I think that funding can still be put into AA experiences that are not surrounding the larger IP's to prevent IP fatigue. They can even use older IP's if they don't want too much of a risk (e.g. a Jak and Daxter game for the PS5 could take less resources and money to develop overall than a new Uncharted game). You can argue about the business decision, but, as I mentioned before, there are other factors besides the focus on AAA that increased their profits (namely their two competitors dropping the ball in significant ways). The PS4 was sold at only a very slight loss that was made up by buying just one game. Meanwhile, the PS3 was sold at a significant loss (some estimates as high as $200 during the launch period). They just aren't like for like scenarios. Clearly the software is a success and clearly they've made a lot of money with the PS4. Is that a result of their tactics? IDK, if the situations were a bit more similar it'd be easier to analyze. I'm not sure what you meant when you said "no legacy whatsoever". What do you regard as legacy? They had the two best selling home consoles ever and created numerous new IP's which they still own and some are being made today (Ratchet and Clank, God of War). I don't think Nintendo will be obliterated by the "future of gaming" as you put it. If having a legacy of iconic games prevents obliteration...Nintendo is at the top of the list of being saved. Their games are the most iconic of all time. |
I tend to ignore ludicrous's posts so I missed it.
Fine, I'll spare you the lists, because if you threw in 10 more games like Jack & Daxter at the Vita and it still wouldn't have been saved. If SONY made no games for the Vita, of which they made many, and secured Mon Hun as an exclusive in Japan instead, the Vita story would've been different, and that's my point really, before flooding the market with AA games, you ought have pillars and icons through which you can sell those AA games.
And I think you know what I meant by the PS had no software legacy after decades of selling hardware, the fact that you could only think of Ratchet and Kratos as examples says it all (I'll help out and throw in Gran Turismo). SONY's only just starting correcting this problem, Bloodborne as in IP in SONY's arsenal is worth a lot more than 10 more games like Gravity Rush, so definitely close SONY'S JAPAN and similar studios, it shows a hint of mature leadership that wants to correct course, a long way to go still.
Finally, my phrasing probably confused you, I obviously meant that Nintendo should adapt nicely to whichever twist and turns the future takes because they got their bases covered, something SONY doesn't, but might do if Jim Rayan pays no attention to dumb opinion pieces.
