By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LurkerJ on 15 April 2021
Edit Thread
Doctor_MG said:
LurkerJ said:

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. 

I'm not suggesting they would have "saved the Vita". I'm saying Sony's output was considerably higher last generation as it spanned two different consoles (three if you include the PS2, but most of those were PSP ports) and they still made more total games for the PS3. 

I only PROVIDED two examples, that isn't all that I could think of. Suggesting I couldn't come up with anymore because I didn't come up with a comprehensive list is a poor attempt at derailing my argument, no offense. Playstation started a legacy with the PS1. They carried over games like Wipeout, Syphon Filter, Medievil, Ape Escape, Gran Turismo and Twisted Metal to other generations. The PS2 brought God of War, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, MLB The Show, and Killzone to other generations. The PS3 established IP's like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and Infamous. All of these franchises carried through to multiple generations. Some of them Sony dropped, some of them they haven't. Some of them are at an unknown status. All of them are part of Playstations legacy and were a part of the brand. You are acting as if the brand or its games were not recognizable before this generation, which I don't think is true. 

I think most companies don't pay attention to opinion pieces like these (otherwise Nintendo would reduce their port prices). They pay attention to sales. Clearly what Sony is doing is working for them, and that is fantastic. The issue is that it isn't working for me. I miss the AA games they used to invest in. They have a large catalog of IP's (some listed above) that they can still utilize. But they aren't going to according to these new sources. For me, that's sad and frustrating. The AAA blockbuster games are not the only reason why I enjoy Playstation products. 

Also, Bloodborne was partially developed BY Sony Japan...so I don't see how closing that studio was good for that IP.  

I know you're not suggesting it would've saved the Vita, but I was giving an example of how a single beloved owning an iconic AAA IP is better than 10 forgettable AA games from a business point of view. Hypothetically, SONY would've had a much better chance selling games like gravity rush on the VITA if they secured the system success through a title like Monster hunter, be it first or third party. With that example in mind, you can see why I think SONY is heading in the right direction. You ought to have pillars, icons, mascots, aka a legacy that you can rely on and through which you can sell AA games. 

I wasn't derailing your argument, and your bigger list tells a similar story. PS1/PS2 era is full of forgettable SONY games that were nice to have, but never iconic. With the massive success these two systems had, SONY should've had more tiles along the lines of God of War and GT. Does that diminish their contributions to the gaming scene? No, it's just terrible business. SONY need to make brand-defining games before they overly indulge in developing AA games that apparently xbox fans like so much lol (not referring to you, I am actually replying to your posts because there is a genuine attempt at having a discussion here). 

Back to my point, if you compare the original Xbox to the PS2 in terms of original IPs that had lasting appeal, you'd realise that both SONY and MS have 1 each (Kratos/Halo). Which is, in a hindsight, problematic for SONY because the PS2 was a massive success, while Xbox was an objective failure. Even if you throw in Ratchet and Clank, the list remains very small. 

As for Bloodborne, we know the talent behind it wasn't Sony's Japan, why are we pretending otherwise? In fact, I just had a look at SONY's Japan output in the last 10 years, yup, a great decision that was, whoever made it. I think more money spent on new studios or securing third party games like Nier and Nioh was a much better investment strategy.