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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - SONY has to be the best publisher going around

foxtail on 17 February 2011

Here's some comments on milking an ip from EA:

“If you go back seven years, we were the leader. And we dropped the ball. Our IP deteriorated, our costs went up, and we didn’t really have an answer for the rise of digital.”

He explained that prior to the launch of the PlayStation 3, EA had eight core intellectual properties, but within a few years was left with only three, as familiarity bred apathy among gamers.

“Need For Speed ended up flat on its back,” he said. “That annual sequel thing got to us. That was a very tough business run. We just didn’t have the portfolio.” - EA CEO John Riccitiello

His comments come the week after Activision announced it was closing its Guitar Hero business unit due to the slide in demand for music games, widely attributed to aggressive and repeated use of IP. The firm had released 14 versions of Guitar Hero since the series debuted in 2005.



Around the Network
badgenome on 17 February 2011

If "going around" means "circling the drain", I agree.



NYANKS on 17 February 2011
mchaza said:
foxtail said:

Sony does a good job of finding new talent and developers that have new ideas, Media Molecule and Heavy Rain for example. 

 

CGI-Quality said:

That's a narrow way of looking at it. If we go by just the PS3, 360, Wii, it leaves out the bigger picture. Sony published a nice chunk of titles long before the PS3 (and some truly memeorbale stuff at that). Sure, they don't sell like the Mario titles have this gen, but then again, Mario titles didn't sell like that before this gen either (unless they were bundled....i.e. the NES/SNES days).

In 2008, Guinness World Records listed Super Mario 3  as the best-selling video game to be sold separately from a system, and reported worldwide sales of over 18 million copies.  It might have changed since then though.


was san andreas bundled, that game isn't far off beating that. what is it on 16 so million for the PS2 and it pulled 60k an week in emeaa late last year and will be sure to repeat it this year, will that take number one spot 

I'm assuming handhelds don't count as "systems" in this?  Because Pokemon is undoubtedly the best selling non-bundled game ever, 31 million brooooooo. loll



Dallinor on 17 February 2011

In terms of innovation and new IP's it's why I bought my PS3 in the first place. As a publisher they seem to take risks, and are always probing for new and exciting games.

As for the milking issue, I agree to a limited extent. While I'm excited for almost all of Sony's first party outings this year, I will be dissapointed if Killzone 4 or Uncharted 4 are then announced next year. At the moment though, I can't point to a single franchise that's really being milked by Sony in light of other publishers releases. Beyond perhaps R&C, but that seems to be a consistent million seller no matter how many of them they release, so the fanbase obviously exists and Sony supplies them, there's also the issue of it probably being a nice cash cow for Insomniac, who as independants could use the relaible source of income without throwing the dice at a new IP.

So I'm happy with Sony now, they've established some great new IP's this gen and are expanding on them, but I hope there's still room for some more exciting new IP's, and they won't just stick to playing it safe.



 

osamanobama on 17 February 2011
fallen said:
mchaza said:

Looking at SONY they are one of the few if not only publisher who invests the most in New crazy ip's. There is no other publisher that doesn't drive its franchises to the ground or forces games to be released unfinsihed or didn't get enough time. 

looking at SONY they have 3 US studios (naughty dog, insomanic and Sucker punch) who have created an new franchise for sony's consoles each generation (sucker punch only ps2-ps3). they funded heavy rain, mag and modnations for 2010 alone which are out there titles. 

They also have an wide range of titles being published that covers an wide range of genres and on top of releasing world wide releases they still fund japanese only games for there home audience. 

Why does it seem that SONY is getting everything right in games publishing while the others are getting stuff wrong. Sure sony has the more money but why does MS have such small 1st party when they have plently of money to buy up so many studios and have relied on 3rd party contacts when they have such dedicated fanboy's that would buy anything good or bad thats exclusive (fable 3). Even Nitendo is very guilty of re re re releasing games over and over but have been at least bringing out new innoviative titles. 

Then there is the 3rd Party who seem to make so many bad mistakes: bleeding franchises to death , funding bad games choices, making bad investments and not pushing new ips and have been relieing on old franchises. 

Now i am not being an fanboy and saying sony is prefect sure they have made there fair share of mistakes in the publishing deparment but it seems that its nothing to there rights and now look. There 1st party 2011 destroy's the others 2 and they are all setting up to being great games. 

you would think publishers would start and copy sony when really sony started from nothing 15 years ago to an publishing powerhouse. 

Err, so Sony releasing or soon to release like, 4 Uncharted games since 2007,  plus a movie, or 4 Killzone titles since 2008 (liberation, 2, 3, and NGP in case you're wondering) isn't driving them into the ground?

That's more frequent than Microsoft releases Halo titles, easily, yet MS is the one often criticized for milking Halo because they put out one spinoff title in a totally different genre (Wars) and 2 main Halo titles since 2005? Lets say the rumor of Halo CE remake this fall is even true (it probably is), that still puts them well behind the pace of Sony with KZ and UC.

 

Overall I dont look at Sony and think they have a great library. Most of their games dont interest me, or just look average and uninspired (such titles include Motorstorm, Socom, LBP, iNfamous,etc). Uncharted 2 I honestly didn't like much, especially if you take away the graphics. Killzone I consider a solid, but not great, franchise.

I would say Microsoft just with only the Halo and Gears series alone is a better publisher to my tastes, and EA is another, with Crysis 2, Bulletstorm, and Battlefield series all drawing interest from me, as well as a deep and varied slate of other titles.

youre equating psp and handheld spinoffs to mainstream console release? ohhh K.

and dont pretend like you played any off those ps3 games, we know you didnt



Around the Network
superchunk on 17 February 2011

I 100% disagree.

I think a good way to determine if Sony is the best publisher is to ask yourself if Sony's hardware could survive by almost entirely its own published software? To me the answer is absolutely not.

While Sony does make some great titles and offers a decent variety, they don't compare to Nintendo's quality and variety accross portable and home consoles.

Nintendo has and easily can support its hardware with predominately its own software. Its actually a reason 3rd parties don't like to publish on Nintendo hardware as its too hard to beat the Nintendo published software.

Why is Wii and DS so overwhelmingly successful? Nintendo published software. Brain Age, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, NSMB (both), etc, etc.

Sony can't claim that for any of their titles. Their consoles were successful based on the few high quality Sony titles and the large amount of 3rd party titles.

Additionally, you can't ignore sales. That's just asinine. Every year Nintendo and EA are pretty much the 1/2 for total published software. Difference is EA does it on as many platforms as there is available in the market (at least 6 at a time) whereas Nintendo only has two at a time (generally, rarely 3). This is an amazing feat especially when you consider one of EA's platforms is PC that has always been FAR larger than any console userbase.

Sorry, but Nintendo has been and probably will always be the best publisher gaming has to offer. For quality and variety.

The only area I'd concede to Sony is FPS/"M" rated software. But, that is just one small segment of a great multitude of gaming software.



LivingMetal on 17 February 2011
superchunk said:

I 100% disagree.

I think a good way to determine if Sony is the best publisher is to ask yourself if Sony's hardware could survive by almost entirely its own published software? To me the answer is absolutely not.


Sony has been making a lot of money off of their software, so you are wrong.



superchunk on 17 February 2011
LivingMetal said:
superchunk said:

I 100% disagree.

I think a good way to determine if Sony is the best publisher is to ask yourself if Sony's hardware could survive by almost entirely its own published software? To me the answer is absolutely not.


Sony has been making a lot of money off of their software, so you are wrong.

You're missing the point. N64, GCN were both far more profitable than PS1 and PS2 and Nintendo had very little to no 3rd party support. Why? Nintendo software is very desired. Sony could never support its hardware predominately off its own software. They like MS require substantial 3rd party support.

Nintendo portables have always been dominate. Why? Pokemon, Brain Age, Nintendogs, etc, etc. Nitnendo software. NDS is a clear example of this. PSP was holding its own until Nintendo pushed out Nintendogs. That one title destroyed PSP's changes.

Wii is another great example. Motion didn't sell Wii, Wii Sports followed by Wii Fit did.



Blacksaber on 17 February 2011
LivingMetal said:
superchunk said:

I 100% disagree.

I think a good way to determine if Sony is the best publisher is to ask yourself if Sony's hardware could survive by almost entirely its own published software? To me the answer is absolutely not.


Sony has been making a lot of money off of their software, so you are wrong.

He never said that...

He's saying that without 3rd party support Sony's Hardware wouldn't be able to sell the way it has and does.



Former something....

Demonslayersoultaker on 17 February 2011
superchunk said:
LivingMetal said:
superchunk said:

I 100% disagree.

I think a good way to determine if Sony is the best publisher is to ask yourself if Sony's hardware could survive by almost entirely its own published software? To me the answer is absolutely not.


Sony has been making a lot of money off of their software, so you are wrong.

You're missing the point. N64, GCN were both far more profitable than PS1 and PS2 and Nintendo had very little to no 3rd party support. Why? Nintendo software is very desired. Sony could never support its hardware predominately off its own software. They like MS require substantial 3rd party support.

Nintendo portables have always been dominate. Why? Pokemon, Brain Age, Nintendogs, etc, etc. Nitnendo software. NDS is a clear example of this. PSP was holding its own until Nintendo pushed out Nintendogs. That one title destroyed PSP's changes.

Wii is another great example. Motion didn't sell Wii, Wii Sports followed by Wii Fit did.

I think N64 and GCN were more profitable more because Sony puts the money it makes from games back into their gaming division and don't really try to make a net profit, also their hardware R&D was greater and they made less money off hardware sold then Nintendo I think if we talk about the gross 1st party software Sony would come out ahead in all 3 gens