| LurkerJ said: 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. |
Bold 1: Yes, from a business point of view, but remember I'm not arguing from a business point of view. I identify that they've been very successful recently. Whether that is because of the AAA focus or just overall great brand recognition I'm not sure, but they've been successful so I'm not surprised they are sticking with it. I'm essentially arguing from my point of view as a consumer and a Playstation fan. Playstation has always offered me a wide variety of exclusives to play. The PS4 is the first Playstation console I've owned where my best memories aren't with exclusives, but third party multiplatform games. If this is the direction they are taking the PS5 I don't think I'm going to buy one.
Bold 2 and Bold 3: This is predicated on the assumption that the IP's which are not continuing did not have lasting appeal. I think this is an erroneous assumption because there are some games Sony simply stopped making despite the success (e.g. Resistance or Jak and Daxter). Could these games have had lasting appeal? Possibly, but we wont know until Sony gives it a shot. We've seen franchises that were once very unappealing after numerous entries (Tony Hawk, Crash Bandicoot) revamped to great success. We've also seen franchises that didn't perform terribly well initially come back with greater success (Shadow of the Colossus). Utilizing these older IP's for smaller budget titles would not stop them from emphasizing the AAA blockbusters and it would also allow them to gauge interest for these other IP's. Nostalgia is a helluva drug.
Bold 4: First off, I'm insulted about your remark of Sony Japan! Astrobot and Gravity Rush are some of my favorite new IP's from Sony in the last 10 years. Second, I think games like Nier and Nioh would have been made regardless of Sony's investment. I would prefer Sony to fund games that would not have been made without their influence/investment.
And don't worry about the Xbox comment. I sold my Xbox One in 2017 for a new 3DS and never looked back. Still hoping Halo Infinite turns out good though. Also hoping that Sony develops a Sunset Overdrive sequel since they own the IP now, but with this news it makes it less likely.
