By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Are Sony's 1st Party Studios Leading The Way?

andremop on 06 July 2010
axumblade said:
Arius Dion said:
Hynad said:

If quality is really a factor to achieve higher sell than the rest, then explain Twilight.

Never saw it. Inflation?

Inflation? So you're saying your favorite movie of all time is Gone With The Wind. Excellent choice. :D


Gone with the wind is a great movie! Not my favorite, but it's a favorite among older people.



Around the Network
dirkd2323 on 06 July 2010

I agree , Sonys first party developers are down right Amazing, and they don't get enough credit, What they have been able to do with the PS3 is just Amazing, I own a 360 , its also a great console, with great games, but that being said, they 360 does not have one title that competes with Killzone 2 -3 , Uncharted 2 , Infamous 2 , GOW 3 , GT 5, Heavy Rain, MGS4 , MAG , these are all games a few bars ahead of the rest. Look forward to the future, Twisted Medal looks to be amazing, also Killzone 3 , Infamous 2 , will be great , Some other games I can't wait for are Crysis 2 , Rage , then on 360 , Gears of War 3 , and Halo Reach. This will be a year that hits my wallet very HARD.  but it will be worth it  !!!!



Torillian on 06 July 2010
Arius Dion said:
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
rockeford2010 said:
 


what if other people think that nintendo has the best games?

 

It's all a matter of opinion


Exactly. The author of this 'article' is trying to manipulate the arena and twist things in a box where he can make such a claim, and try and justify it.

The bottom line is, if the majority of people thought Sony had the best first party games, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in this gen. And their games wouldn't struggle to get to 5m.

Your argument about Sony not making the best games as evident by them not selling the best only makes sense in a world where the consumer is perfectly informed and gets to try every single game before buying.  Which is a world we don't live in.

It makes sense in this world. People are not as ill informed as has been spread across the web( at least in the case of gaming). The same box used to marginalize gamers i e casual gamers, hardcore gamers, etc. is just an attempt to try to explain why Wii's success is meaningless.

I mean, in that case, I could just say the GC was a better quality system than the PS2, but the ill informed consumer wasn't informed enough to understand that. That's bogus. Consumers like what the like and vote with their wallets. That's always been the case. When the PS1 was king, I remember Nintendo spouting "quality over quantity" when Wii is king, I hear sony spouting "quality over quantity'.  


You can absolutely make that argument about the gamecube.  Whether or not you are right is immaterial, but the point is that sales and quality are not connected at the hip, they may not even be holding pinkies.  Sales has too many other factors included to just look at two things and assume the one with better sales is the better quality, unless you can somehow counteract the affect of differing genres, differing advertising budgest, the name behind the game (which is why Forza could actually be better than GT even though GT will sell much much more) and people buying it because their friends have it. 

I am not margianalizing one group of gamers over another, or trying to disparage the success of the Wii.  I am simply telling you that sales and quality are not directly related enough to make conclusions on one based on the other.



...

MaxwellGT2000 on 06 July 2010
leatherhat said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
leatherhat said:
dsister said:
leatherhat said:

Commercially nintendo has had the greatest success but no doubt sony has made the best first party games *cough* demons souls *cough*


From Software isn't first party


Sony funded and the game and owns the IP. If demons souls isn't first party then neither is Halo or Metroid: Other M.


Wait where is it that Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP? 

Also Bungie was owned by Microsoft at the time of Halo 1-3, what you're trying to say is something like Halo Wars is not first party cause now Ensemble is defunct, future events don't change what it is.  

Anyway Demon's Souls is a spiritual successor to King's Field a From Software game  

Its pretty common knowledge that sony owns Demons souls and SCEJ partnered with From to make it. As for bungie, I wasn't aware MS owned them at the time, so I guess that only applies to halo reach. And yes demons souls is the spiritual successor to kings field (great games by the way) but I don't see how that would effect sonys ownership of Demons souls. 


I have yet to see a lick of evidence on who owns the IP all I know is From Software directly references the game in another one of their games and unless they get permission to do so they could get in trouble for if they do not own the IP.  And what does Kings Field have to do with anything?  Well that Sony if leading the pack as the topic says you don't really lead the pack just making a new King's Field title with the original developers :P just like Metroid Other M is satisfying the fans but it's not meant to lead the pack in what consumers want and change gaming.



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

dsister on 06 July 2010
CGI-Quality said:

I understand that, but what I'm saying is, my specific argument wasn't on whether we give Sony credit for Demon's Souls or not, but what it's considered. How do we call an owned IP anything but 1st Party, and when has that ever happened? (looking @  Metroid and Halo in particular).


Sony's 1st party did not develop the game. It was developed by a second party. In this case From Software. It is 2nd party

MS's first party is not developing Halo Reach. It is being developed by a second party

Nintendo's first party is not developing Metroid: Other M. It is being developed by a second party.

 

None of these games are 1st party



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

Around the Network
Hynad on 06 July 2010

@CGI-Quality: Most people never really talk about second parties because of what I explained.  It just makes the whole thing a bit tedious, in fact.  As I said, the first party in charge will most of the time supervise the production.  Since the first party have its say on just about anything that is going on, even if they rarely intrude the production and usually trust/give freedom to the second party, it's usually accepted that the game is a first party one, since in the end, they do own the IP.



Torillian on 06 July 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:
leatherhat said:

Its pretty common knowledge that sony owns Demons souls and SCEJ partnered with From to make it. As for bungie, I wasn't aware MS owned them at the time, so I guess that only applies to halo reach. And yes demons souls is the spiritual successor to kings field (great games by the way) but I don't see how that would effect sonys ownership of Demons souls. 


I have yet to see a lick of evidence on who owns the IP all I know is From Software directly references the game in another one of their games and unless they get permission to do so they could get in trouble for if they do not own the IP.  And what does Kings Field have to do with anything?  Well that Sony if leading the pack as the topic says you don't really lead the pack just making a new King's Field title with the original developers :P just like Metroid Other M is satisfying the fans but it's not meant to lead the pack in what consumers want and change gaming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment

it's under the list of IP's owned by Sony, and if you go on the official Demon's Souls Website is says that the copyright has been licenced to Atlus

...

leatherhat on 06 July 2010
irstupid said:

i'm annoyed by the quality argument.

please tell me what is not quality about nintendo games?

i can't think of any bugs, glitches, bad gameplay, camara issues, ect. for their games.  Why is mario kart not a quality game?  What makes these sony games mores quality than twilight princess, mario galaxy 1 & 2, metroid prime series, mario kart, new mario, ect.

What is wrong with them, why are they not quality games?  Or so you don't respond with they are quality games, just not as high quality as sony, what makes Sony's games HIGHER Quality than those? 

Or are we basing quality purely on your own personal preferences?  Or is mario kart actually just as high quality or more than killzone 2, but you just like shooters more than racers?


For me anyway, its that Ive been gaming for a long time and want some new experiences. Ive been playing mario and zelda for a long time, so when sony makes great new IP's like Infamous, uncharted, LBP, patapon and whatnot  thats something that appeals to me. The fact that they are all high quality games only helps of course. Sony first party has really taken off this generation. 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

irstupid on 06 July 2010
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
rockeford2010 said:
 


what if other people think that nintendo has the best games?

 

It's all a matter of opinion


Exactly. The author of this 'article' is trying to manipulate the arena and twist things in a box where he can make such a claim, and try and justify it.

The bottom line is, if the majority of people thought Sony had the best first party games, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in this gen. And their games wouldn't struggle to get to 5m.

Your argument about Sony not making the best games as evident by them not selling the best only makes sense in a world where the consumer is perfectly informed and gets to try every single game before buying.  Which is a world we don't live in.

It makes sense in this world. People are not as ill informed as has been spread across the web( at least in the case of gaming). The same box used to marginalize gamers i e casual gamers, hardcore gamers, etc. is just an attempt to try to explain why Wii's success is meaningless.

I mean, in that case, I could just say the GC was a better quality system than the PS2, but the ill informed consumer wasn't informed enough to understand that. That's bogus. Consumers like what the like and vote with their wallets. That's always been the case. When the PS1 was king, I remember Nintendo spouting "quality over quantity" when Wii is king, I hear sony spouting "quality over quantity'.  


You can absolutely make that argument about the gamecube.  Whether or not you are right is immaterial, but the point is that sales and quality are not connected at the hip, they may not even be holding pinkies.  Sales has too many other factors included to just look at two things and assume the one with better sales is the better quality, unless you can somehow counteract the affect of differing genres, differing advertising budgest, the name behind the game (which is why Forza could actually be better than GT even though GT will sell much much more) and people buying it because their friends have it. 

I am not margianalizing one group of gamers over another, or trying to disparage the success of the Wii.  I am simply telling you that sales and quality are not directly related enough to make conclusions on one based on the other.

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 



Torillian on 06 July 2010
irstupid said:
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
rockeford2010 said:
 


what if other people think that nintendo has the best games?

 

It's all a matter of opinion


Exactly. The author of this 'article' is trying to manipulate the arena and twist things in a box where he can make such a claim, and try and justify it.

The bottom line is, if the majority of people thought Sony had the best first party games, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in this gen. And their games wouldn't struggle to get to 5m.

Your argument about Sony not making the best games as evident by them not selling the best only makes sense in a world where the consumer is perfectly informed and gets to try every single game before buying.  Which is a world we don't live in.

It makes sense in this world. People are not as ill informed as has been spread across the web( at least in the case of gaming). The same box used to marginalize gamers i e casual gamers, hardcore gamers, etc. is just an attempt to try to explain why Wii's success is meaningless.

I mean, in that case, I could just say the GC was a better quality system than the PS2, but the ill informed consumer wasn't informed enough to understand that. That's bogus. Consumers like what the like and vote with their wallets. That's always been the case. When the PS1 was king, I remember Nintendo spouting "quality over quantity" when Wii is king, I hear sony spouting "quality over quantity'.  


You can absolutely make that argument about the gamecube.  Whether or not you are right is immaterial, but the point is that sales and quality are not connected at the hip, they may not even be holding pinkies.  Sales has too many other factors included to just look at two things and assume the one with better sales is the better quality, unless you can somehow counteract the affect of differing genres, differing advertising budgest, the name behind the game (which is why Forza could actually be better than GT even though GT will sell much much more) and people buying it because their friends have it. 

I am not margianalizing one group of gamers over another, or trying to disparage the success of the Wii.  I am simply telling you that sales and quality are not directly related enough to make conclusions on one based on the other.

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 


That's a perfectly fine argument and though I think quality is something that can be looked at atleast semi-objectively I don't really have any good arguments against that point.

My argument is solely against the idea that Sales proves quality as Arius tried to infer.



...