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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Why does Sony fail at making another mega franchise?

Slimebeast on 05 September 2010
mhsillen said:
Slimebeast said:

But I'm only happy that Sony doesn't have any mega franchises.

I don't like mega franchises because they always tend to dominate everything else and overshadow other great games (at least in the eyes of casuals they do).

I always hated GTA for being so huge. In this generation that game is Call of Duty. All other shooters are compared to Call of Duty and they even have to adjust release dates in fear of CoD.

I love Assassin's Creed but I'm starting to feel it's getting too big (I mean AC II is on track to sell 10 million. 10 million!)

I hate Mario because everyone buys Mario instead of other platformers which I think are far more interesting.

I love Xbox but I don't like the extreme hype for Halo as if it's the only game on earth. Same with Gears of War.

And most of all I hate World of Warcraft and Starcraft because I don't like the style of Blizzard and it pisses me off that everyone is playing WoW and ignoring better MMOs. I will get Diablo but I think it's extremely overrated and it pisses me off.

And Age of Empires slays Starcraft.

what platform game is better?

lbp?  uh no sorry

Name a few platformers.



Around the Network
Jordahn on 05 September 2010
Zipper said:

Sony has been in the console business for 15 year. 

They've created 3 amazing consoles, two of them being amazingly popular and one the best selling home console in the world. They own the most amazing developers, I believe today Sony is only second to Nintendo in  quality when it comes to first party titles. They created dozens franchises, some of them more popular than others yet only one of them - Gran Turismo, has been extremely popular and with Gran Turismo 5 releasing soon, we will see if the franchise is still popular as it was before.

I'm trying to think why, in 15 years, they couldn't make at least one extremely popular franchise among the dozens they've created? Even back in the PS2 era, Sony created some of the best titles on the system, but they still weren't crazy popular

Titles that are critically acclaimed - Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Killzone 2 - Why do they fail to reach their sales potential? It obvious the potential is there

Take Uncharted 2 for example. It the most critically acclaimed of the bunch, it has multiplayer, co-op and I can't take of a game that is more easy to market - yet it failed to make an impact and dropped of the NPD for good after one month of sales which weren't extremely good anyway

Why do titles like Gears of War (for some reason the eastiest title to compare to Uncharted) do so much better?

Why do titles like Killzone 2 which had a huge amount of hype and belongs to the most popular genre on consoles today failed to sell the millions everyone thought it will?

It an interesting topic I think we should discuss


The answer is easy.  SONY targets their fanbase and the gamers first, the masses second.  Since you mentioned Nintendo, they just simply did a better job catering to the masses with their pseudo motion controls while still concentrating on their core franchises.  



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Jordahn on 05 September 2010
Liquiduval said:

The answer is "AGE GROUPS". Look alot of people here blame marketing/depending on 3rd party support.... blah blah blah. But selling games and consoles you realise it's the answer is what age groups are buying these consoles.

In order as i see it Nintendo: KIds (families that have kids) and 40 women (all buy what friend s and family have and seldom buy anything different as you can witness on this sight)

                                 Xbox:Young-Teenage boys, 20 men (no real care for saving just wants the next fps thier mates have)

                                 Playstation: 20 men (mostly in ther 30's)  Teenage boys (Generally buys a game after research abit anal, doesn't throw there money around)

I have no real stats on this but I sold the most consoles in canada 2009 so i sort of pick up on these things


Rather general, but I too see a similar trend.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

darthdevidem01 on 05 September 2010

AGE OF EMPIRES >>>>>>> Starcraft

_______________________________

GT is

Does MS have any others apart from Halo? no they don't.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Scoobes on 05 September 2010
Crazymann said:
Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
Scoobes said:
Crazymann said:

Well,

I am glad that you have your opinion, and no issues with sharing it, but many of us DO like how Blizzard does things.  Blizzard has a committment to polish, and furthermore, it seems rather hypocritical to laude the virtues of Sony and then trash Blizzard in the same post.  Both companies are very good at taking pre-existing ideas to new levels of refinement.  Blizzard's style is fine, Sony's style is fine.

I don't like WoW either, but I don't like MMO's in general.  Still, the fact is that (while long in the tooth) WoW is still the most recognizible MMO and it was the best of its kind at release (unless you seriously believe that EQ and its ilk were good).  All pre-WoW MMO's sucked, and neither WoW or any MMO since has changed the formula enough for me to give it a second thought.  Note, I don't lump Guild Wars into that mess because of its use of instancing.

Finally, I own Age 1, Age 2 Conquerers and Age 3

Age 3 sucks, Age 2 was the pinnacle of the series.  Starcraft, while lagging behind Age 2 in some respects was the MOST fun I had in a single player campain EVER.  So, how exactly does Age "slay" starcraft???

Reviews:  NOPE

Popularity:  NOPE

Sales:  NOPE

Cultural Impact:  NOPE

Single Player:  NOPE

Graphics:  NOPE

Production Values:  NOPE

AI/Pathing:  YEP

Multiplayer:  PERHAPS*

*  And that is only if you are still burned about LAN and other features removed from BNet2 (which I don't like, but still.)

 

Taking your list:

Reviews:  About equal. Some Age games are rated higher than Starcraft 1.

Popularity:  NOPE

Sales:  Techinically, the Age of series has sold over 20 million copies. Starcraft has 'only' sold 13 million. Having 4 games in that time-frame will do that ;)

Cultural Impact: I dunno, AoE taught me more history than school ever did :P

Single Player:  NOPE

Graphics:  Which games are you comparing? All the Age games (orginal included) are graphically superior to Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 has released 5 years after Age 3 which isn't really fair.

Production Values:  Arguable with the originals of each series.

AI/Pathing:  YEP (actually if you compare Age 1 with Starcraft 1 they were both pretty bad)

Multiplayer:  PERHAPS- Oddly I disagree with you in favor of Starcraft with this one. There's a reason the original is still played so heavily 10 yrs after release.

When did you start playing Age of Empires II?

(same question to you Crazzyman)

Pretty much since it was released. It's actually my favourite RTS franchise and I've been playing it since the original was first released. And I actually quite liked 3.

Used to play the second with my mates. I wasn't that good to be honest so I always chose Byzantines as most of my mates picked the British. The cheap skirmishers would always save me from those bloody longbowman. I still play Age of Mythology with my girlfriend from time to time as she likes the anchient mythology setting.

I played it on release.  Conquerers expansion as well.  I really enjoyed it, though I didn't get into 3 very well. 

I still have all 3 on my shelf, but not installed sadly.

Which Civs did you play?

With 3, the only problem I had with it was you pretty much had to stick with one Civ and lvl them up rather than switching on a whim. I did fairly well using the British villager boom tactic though.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Cueil on 05 September 2010
geddesmond2 said:
RolStoppable said:

Sony doesn't do amazing things first, that's why. Their games usually consist of ideas borrowed from somewhere else and mixed together. It's not surprising that Uncharted was compared to Tomb Raider and Gears of War a lot. Why did Gears of War do so much better? Because it redefined its genre and ever since then other TPS try to mimic its gameplay. God of War followed Devil May Cry. Killzone followed Halo.

Why didn't LittleBigPlanet or Heavy Rain become mega blockbusters? Because they are not amazing to most gamers. The thing that's new in LBP is the extensive level editor, but most gamers rather play than create, so they don't care. Heavy Rain is more of an interactive movie and that's only amazing to a small subset of gamers.

Of course, this explanation works in reverse as well and that's why Gran Turismo is so big while it's imitators never come close in sales. Forza would be the most popular one and hardly anyone remembers Konami's Enthusia Professional Racing anymore.

If you want to hit it big then you either have to do something first or something that hasn't been done in a long time by anyone else.


Yeah I know because the COD series was never done before so thats why it sells so much on each consol. They were the first people to do a FPS and the Halo series was so original. Like there was never Sci fi FPS's before the Halo franchise either and thats why Halo is a hugh success. Its funny how theres 100 other FPS games out there yet some people only compare 360 vs PS3 and think the 360 games the original game ignoring all the other games with the same simularities.

You can't seem to grasp it can you?  Halo(not to mention they've added in things almost no console fps has) redefined FPSes and made them a dominating force on the consoles.  The mega franchises were either the first done right or they redefined their genre.  As good as UC2 was it didn't do either one of those it did what other games did very well and wrapped it in a pretty package with a great story but that's not redefining a genre.  Microsoft also popularized Western RPGs on consoles though that only became huge this gen it has it's roots on the Xbox1.



 
Get your Portable ID!

Crazymann on 05 September 2010
Scoobes said:
Crazymann said:
Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:
Scoobes said:
Crazymann said:

Well,

I am glad that you have your opinion, and no issues with sharing it, but many of us DO like how Blizzard does things.  Blizzard has a committment to polish, and furthermore, it seems rather hypocritical to laude the virtues of Sony and then trash Blizzard in the same post.  Both companies are very good at taking pre-existing ideas to new levels of refinement.  Blizzard's style is fine, Sony's style is fine.

I don't like WoW either, but I don't like MMO's in general.  Still, the fact is that (while long in the tooth) WoW is still the most recognizible MMO and it was the best of its kind at release (unless you seriously believe that EQ and its ilk were good).  All pre-WoW MMO's sucked, and neither WoW or any MMO since has changed the formula enough for me to give it a second thought.  Note, I don't lump Guild Wars into that mess because of its use of instancing.

Finally, I own Age 1, Age 2 Conquerers and Age 3

Age 3 sucks, Age 2 was the pinnacle of the series.  Starcraft, while lagging behind Age 2 in some respects was the MOST fun I had in a single player campain EVER.  So, how exactly does Age "slay" starcraft???

Reviews:  NOPE

Popularity:  NOPE

Sales:  NOPE

Cultural Impact:  NOPE

Single Player:  NOPE

Graphics:  NOPE

Production Values:  NOPE

AI/Pathing:  YEP

Multiplayer:  PERHAPS*

*  And that is only if you are still burned about LAN and other features removed from BNet2 (which I don't like, but still.)

 

Taking your list:

Reviews:  About equal. Some Age games are rated higher than Starcraft 1.

Popularity:  NOPE

Sales:  Techinically, the Age of series has sold over 20 million copies. Starcraft has 'only' sold 13 million. Having 4 games in that time-frame will do that ;)

Cultural Impact: I dunno, AoE taught me more history than school ever did :P

Single Player:  NOPE

Graphics:  Which games are you comparing? All the Age games (orginal included) are graphically superior to Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 has released 5 years after Age 3 which isn't really fair.

Production Values:  Arguable with the originals of each series.

AI/Pathing:  YEP (actually if you compare Age 1 with Starcraft 1 they were both pretty bad)

Multiplayer:  PERHAPS- Oddly I disagree with you in favor of Starcraft with this one. There's a reason the original is still played so heavily 10 yrs after release.

When did you start playing Age of Empires II?

(same question to you Crazzyman)

Pretty much since it was released. It's actually my favourite RTS franchise and I've been playing it since the original was first released. And I actually quite liked 3.

Used to play the second with my mates. I wasn't that good to be honest so I always chose Byzantines as most of my mates picked the British. The cheap skirmishers would always save me from those bloody longbowman. I still play Age of Mythology with my girlfriend from time to time as she likes the anchient mythology setting.

I played it on release.  Conquerers expansion as well.  I really enjoyed it, though I didn't get into 3 very well. 

I still have all 3 on my shelf, but not installed sadly.

Which Civs did you play?

With 3, the only problem I had with it was you pretty much had to stick with one Civ and lvl them up rather than switching on a whim. I did fairly well using the British villager boom tactic though.


Well, I think you hit the nail on the head with my problem.  As I recall, I was very restless, and bounced around a lot - never really finding a "niche".  That wasn't a problem with any other RTS game I played because I always played the "good side" first then the "bad" (such as in C&C*) or in the recommended order (SC).  For some, illogical reason, Age 3 never "fit" with me.

 So, my unfavorable memories of the game could have as much to do with my mood at the time than anything else.  Maybe after Age 2 - which was totally great - I expected more, and let my restlessness color my perceptions**.

*  I mean the old games when they were good, and made by Westwood.

**  Whereas I had not played SC1 for years before SC2 released, so I didn't get hit with that same feeling.  Honestly, though, if it wasn't for the single player, I would be dissappointed in that, too.



mhsillen on 05 September 2010
Doobie_wop said:
RolStoppable said:
evolution_1ne said:
RolStoppable said:

Sony doesn't do amazing things first, that's why. Their games usually consist of ideas borrowed from somewhere else and mixed together. It's not surprising that Uncharted was compared to Tomb Raider and Gears of War a lot. Why did Gears of War do so much better? Because it redefined its genre and ever since then other TPS try to mimic its gameplay. God of War followed Devil May Cry. Killzone followed Halo.

nothing about gears of war was original, it was successful for the same reason Halo was successful, at the time of their release they were the only worth while quality games for the platform, which is why Halo success was never repeated. Also gears didn't redefine anything, that "revolutionary" cover system was a carbon copy of the cover system in killswitch, and game released last gen. but you wouldn't know nothing of that considering the level of ignorance in you comment (not surprising coming from you). God of war is nothing like devil may cry, a game I know you never played, you couldn't have. bayonetta is like devil may cry. and Killzone followed Halo.... seriously, how about you play them first and come back to me.

Why didn't LittleBigPlanet or Heavy Rain become mega blockbusters? Because they are not amazing to most gamers. The thing that's new in LBP is the extensive level editor, but most gamers rather play than create, so they don't care. Heavy Rain is more of an interactive movie and that's only amazing to a small subset of gamers.

and nothing is wrong with appealing to smaller markets.

Of course, this explanation works in reverse as well and that's why Gran Turismo is so big while it's imitators never come close in sales. Forza would be the most popular one and hardly anyone remembers Konami's Enthusia Professional Racing anymore.

If you want to hit it big then you either have to do something first or something that hasn't been done in a long time by anyone else.

but then you mention lbp and heavy rain, both games have done something first and hasn't been done by anyone else...... fail logic is so very very very very very very FAIL!!!


So much fail it isn't even funny..........

Sony doesn't do anything amazing first *sigh* demon souls, shadow of the colossus, 256 player in a single match......

now to answer op, because no one else but Nintendo does, Nintendo is by far the best at finding the biggest markets making great games for those markets and sticking to them, they play it safe and only take risk when the have nothing to lose, which is what Sony doesn't do, they are always trying to reinvent themselves  and refresh their ip's and franchises no matter how successful they are, which is why Sony unlike Microsoft and Nintendo aren't a defined brand and playstation doesn't have a mascot, it appeals to everyone and every franchise isn't around long enough to become extremely popular, GT is the only one that is and it's been 4 years since the first one have hit the console. But op you have to realize this is why fans of Sony love the brand so much. 

Doing something first or doing so in an amazing way are two different things. It doesn't matter that kill.switch used a cover mechanic before Gears of War. Or Operation Winback which predates kill.switch. And it was GeoW that redefined the genre, because it was only after that game that TPS developers started to regularly implement similar cover mechanics.

God of War is as much like Devil May Cry as Super Mario Bros. is like Sonic the Hedgehog. Do they have differences? Of course. But more importantly, are their similarities in the core gameplay? Absolutely. Killzone was a selfproclaimed Halo-killer. If the developers of Killzone say that they are going after Halo, then this is a clear case.

Regarding LBP and Heavy Rain, I already explained why the things they did first were not amazing in the bigger picture... and you have read that paragraph. What is amazing is not defined by me nor you. In any entertainment medium the market at large decides what it amazing and that is what gives birth to a mega franchise. Likewise, the market also decides when a mega franchise has to die. For example, Guitar Hero is not what it used to be.

You may think that Demon's Souls and whatever else is amazing and you are entitled to it, just like I am free to believe that Fire Emblem is super awesome. But your and my personal opinion doesn't overrule the market as a whole.

@leo-j

inFamous is more or less just another sandbox game with a couple of new ideas. Did the game do anything that would have an impact on the genre as a whole? I guess no. So the market sees another GTA wannabe game, even if that perception isn't fair.

Marketing is far more a factor in how a game sell's than the actual quality of the game. The market is ignorant and misinformed, most of the general public don't know they want something until they are told what to want. Nintendo would never have been the success that it was if they didn't start grabbing celebrities for ad's, putting the Wii on talk shows and advertising the system non-stop for the first three years of it's release. The same applies to their games. 

You've seen the marketing push that's followed games like Halo 3, MW2, Gears of War, Wii Something Something, Mario and Gran Turismo. If little Timmy had never heard about Halo from his TV box or never read the back of a Mountain Dew can, he most likely would never have heard of Halo. People could say that word of mouth is the cause of their success, but that only works after the ad's kick in because they have to develop a large enough userbase to spread the word to a significant amount of people.

Your opinion on what games are innovative and important is skewed because I'm willing to bet that you don't play most of the PS3 games you've mentioned or you already have some sort of weird affiliation with another console that hinders your enjoyment of PS3 games. 


Or the general public does not like how video games are being developed now.  The market decides how good a game is not you.  



IMU1808 on 05 September 2010

1) Lol@Killzone copying Halo. They're nothing alike.
2) Demon's Souls is the greatest thing to grace consoles this gen.



NYANKS on 05 September 2010
Michael-5 said:
NYANKS said:
Michael-5 said:

Microsoft has more money to market their games. I mean I saw more adds for Crackdown 2 then I did for God of War 3.

Sony and Microsoft are at battle at making "the" home theatre station. They both want their console to be the centerpeice of your livingroom. Except Sony went all out, making a PS3 Blu-Ray before Blu-Ray was cheap and practical to produce. They put too much in, and it's hurting them. Only recently have they seen a profit. Microsoft simply wanted to control games, and influence movies. I think a 360 successor will try to be "the" home theatre system, but with the 360 Microsoft simply wanted to make a name for themselves.

To put it simply, thats what they are doing, convincing people that they are "the" gaming platform for gamers. Yes Wii sells better, but 360 is the gamers system.

Microsoft still puts out as many great products as Sony does, this year I see 7 big exclusives on both consoles. For 360 there are Halo, Fable, Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Crackdown 2, and Metro 2033 (I know there are more). For PS3 there are GT5, LBP2, God of War 3, Heavy Rain, MAG, ModNation Racers, White Knight Chronicles (Again I know there are more).

However Microsoft has Call of Duty limited bundles, early map packs for 3 more years, and they do stuff like this with all big titles. They have enough money, 360 generates cash, and Microsoft spends it making a name for themselves.

So that is why 360 titles are always soo successful saleswise. Sony on the other hand, I blaime a lack of a solid fanbase. Hear me out, an FPS on the 360 will sell extremly well because the 360 is full of FPS nuts, and has established itself (through a few great early titles, and marketing) as the Shooter console. However Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, and Tales of Vesperia didn't sell that well. Thats because the 360 lacks a significant RPG fanbase. Don't get me wrong, I love my RPG's, especially the 360 installments, however I can see why a lot of die hard RPG nuts don't relate Microsoft to RPG console.

So for the PS3 FPS don't sell well. No matter how good Uncharted, Killzone, and Resistance are, there is a lack of a PS3 favoring FPS fanbase. That shows in it's regional sales (Most PS3 fans are from EMEAA, a place where ALL FPS just don't do that well).

However Racing games sell well on the PS3, so do RPG's. Take a look at GT5 Prologue, and Final Fantasy XIII.

In conclusion, 360 games are successful due to marketing and a strong FPS fanbase, PS3 games generally aren't as successful because established fanbases are for smaller genres like racing and RPG. Many of PS3's past exclusive titles have gone multiplatform as well (See P.S. below)

P.S. for Sony established mega franchises, Final Fantasy was exclusive to Sony during the PS1 and PS2 era, MGS still kind of is, Gran Turismo is also a big Sony branded game, and until GTA IV came out, GTA was largly associated with Sony. God of War is pretty epic still, and so are Kingdom Hearts and Dragon Quest. Resident Evil was mega on the PS1.

Funnily enough, most of those games are not made by Microsoft, while Sony makes just about all of theirs on the list. 

Technically Sony only owns the studios that make their first party titles. Nintendo is the only company to really develop their own games, where only a handful are handled by other studios (Pokemon by Game Freak, and Metroid: Other M by Team Ninja). You may think some other Nintendo franchises are developed by third party companies (Advance Wars and Fire Emblem by Intelligent systems, Metroid Prime, and DKCR by Retro Studios, and Smash Bros/Kirby by HAL Laboritories), but if you do a history lesson, these companies originally branched off from Nintendo R&D 1&2, Nintendo EAD 1-5, or were simply bought out in early life. I beleive Camalot, Game Freak, Team Ninja, and Creatures Inc were the only developers that ever got to work on a big Nintendo project (Golden Sun/Mario Sports, Pokemon, Metroid: Other M, and Earthbound).

This is similar to Bungie, which was conceived by Microsoft.

To my knowledge, the only first party studio that originated withing Sony would have been Polyphony digital, everything else was bought out. Even Square-Enix, Sony bought large shares for that company back during the N64 days, and thats why Final Fantasy games largly remain exclusive.

Edit, I looked it up. Polyphony Digital, SCE, Zipper Interactive, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Evolution Studios, and Media Module are the big ones. So Sony develops Gran Turismo, God of War, Ape Escape, Ico, SOCOM, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, Jak & Dexter, Killzone, Motorstorm and LBP

Microsoft has 343 Studios, Lionhead, Rare, Turn 10, and Wingnut Studios. So they develop Halo, Fable, Conker, Perfect Dark, Killer Instinct, Forza, and flight simulator.

Most of these companies have been bought out, the difference from Nintendo to Sony and MS, is that most of their studios separated from Nintendo development studios to work on different games. I think Nintendo only bought Retro Studios.

If your refering to games released in 2010, all 360 titles are published by Microsoft, and PS3 titles are published by Sony.

Who cares WHEN they buy them out. Nintendo still bought them out. How about Media Molecule, Sony got them early.  Sony develops, because they are part of Sony.