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

Forums - Sony - Sony: We Should Probably Develop Less Games

Stefan.De.Machtige on 11 February 2012
SvennoJ said:
Jexy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SvennoJ said:
It will be a sad day when the need for big sales numbers kills variety.


True. If they follow Microsoft it wont be a good day for gaming.


Well no one is saying put out as few exclusives as Microsoft did this year.  As an Xbox owner, I wish there were more, but then again most of mine at 3rd party anyway.  But Sony has to cut back a SOME.  Microsoft could easily afford to make more too.  But then again keep in mind all of their Kinect exclusives.   We don't count those, but they do.

They could do a bit better market research and adjust the budget more realistically. No need to cut back on nr of games. I don't want xbla, psn, etc to be the only source of variety and all big budget games to be targeted at the widest possible audience.

Apart from motorstorm apocalypse, whose release was completely messed up beyond Sony's control, most exclusives had around a million or more sales. Why is that not good enough anymore?

For a couple reasons:

1. Doing good enough is what got all of Sony in big trouble today. They should have been aiming for great.

2. Doing good enough, when your competition is doing great, is a bad investment. Sony puts in more work, but gains the least.

3. It is a sign of brand weakness. A big brand must be seen to be growing or it's deemed to be in decline. Even stagnating is seen as this.

4. Brands like Mario and Halo sells more consoles. The costs savings of making 1 IP with the strength of 4 or 5 IP's are rather big.



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

Around the Network
Khuutra on 11 February 2012
Slimebeast said:
RolStoppable said:

Sony is bound to come late to the party and don't have the first party it takes to offset a headstart of the competition. Third parties won't go through the trouble of making improved PS4 versions of their game for a small installed base, so if Sony decides to make a vastly more powerful console than Nintendo and Microsoft, then their system is going to be underutilized, because it isn't worth the effort.

Yes but I was asking what you would want to happen. But I think the answer is obvious (you're with Khuutra) so you can skip that one.

I think it's very sad. My last hope for next gen to be graphically powerful and hardcore is Sony to be bold and try the expensive hardware route again even if it's against all odds.

I built a PC so I won't have to worry about it.

Nintendo just needs to give me the games I want, and third parties need to be desperate multiplatform whirlwinds.

It's all so close. I can taste it in the air.



Rafux on 11 February 2012

I don't own SONY stock so... RELEASE EVEN MORE GAMES DAMN IT, keep the exclusives coming.



osamanobama on 11 February 2012
happydolphin said:
osamanobama said:

so having less games, less variety, and having more of the same is good for gamers!

good to know, next time im in the market i will be buying the console with which i think there will be the least amount of games for.

silly me, all this time i thought having the most options, in which games to buy was a good thing for me.


You're bringing absolutely 0 value to the thread. Even Sony realize that, so they can make more games you enjoy, they need to have business sense, and stop producing games that have low ROI. They also admit they need to restrict certain resource allocation so as to bolster marketing and increase sales so as to stay alive and produce more games they can market.

If resources are allocated in excess of the respective sales met, due to not reaching a market (for marketing and content reasons) or failing to appeal to an audience, then those resources should be better allocated into proper marketing games with higher ROI and reducing the money lost in content the audience is not responding to. That's all that's being said.

Many posters have explained this to you, drop it already.


drop what?  i already said i dont care about the company, i care about the games.

simple as that.

i just want games, all other things are secondary to me. 

jeeze, i have already explained this to people, drop it already.



happydolphin on 11 February 2012
osamanobama said:


drop what?  i already said i dont care about the company, i care about the games.

simple as that.

i just want games, all other things are secondary to me. 

And all this time I thought you and Rafux were Sony fanboys, but it looks like you are eager to see them fail.

Color me surprised!

Looks like I care more about them to get their act together than you do, and I'm a Nintendo fan, figure that one out! Bad news though, you won't be gettin' em' games once they go bankrupt (assuming they follow your wonderful advice).

Oh, by the way, do you like Uncharted? Yeeeaaah, that won't really exist either one they go out of business making more loss returning gamez for you and your monkey friends.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 11 February 2012
happydolphin said:
osamanobama said:


drop what?  i already said i dont care about the company, i care about the games.

simple as that.

i just want games, all other things are secondary to me. 

And all this time I thought you and Rafux were Sony fanboys, but it looks like you are eager to see them fail.

Color me surprised!

Looks like I care more about them to get their act together than you do, and I'm a Nintendo fan, figure that one out!

Bad news though, you won't be gettin' em' games once they go bankrupt (assuming they follow your wonderful advice).

and they wont get my business if they dont make "em games".

i couldnt care less what company is make the games, i have no brand loyalty, only game and hardware loyalty.

and i fail to see how they will go bankrupt with making games, all but 2 of their games this yeah, had arguably good to great sales. only Socom and MotorStorm could you say sold poorly. which can easily be explained by Socom being just a bad game. MotorStorm i more intereting, its a high quality game, fun and well made, arguably the best in the series, but some reason the reviews werent there. could be because of the lack of mass appeal among the reviewes, and then of course sales were hurt badly by the blundered launch. the earthquake in Japan, caused it to be canceled there, and delayed in other regions day before launch. No one kne it came out.

all the other games i would say did fine: LittleBigPlanet 2 over 2 million, Killzone over 2 million, MLB the show over .60 million, inFamous 2 over 1 million, Resistance over 1 million, Ratchet and Clank over .8 million sales, and Uncharted 3 over 3.5 million.



happydolphin on 11 February 2012
osamanobama said:

and they wont get my business if they dont make "em games".

i couldnt care less what company is make the games, i have no brand loyalty, only game and hardware loyalty.

and i fail to see how they will go bankrupt with making games, all but 2 of their games this yeah, had arguably good to great sales. only Socom and MotorStorm could you say sold poorly. which can easily be explained by Socom being just a bad game. MotorStorm i more intereting, its a high quality game, fun and well made, arguably the best in the series, but some reason the reviews werent there. could be because of the lack of mass appeal among the reviewes, and then of course sales were hurt badly by the blundered launch. the earthquake in Japan, caused it to be canceled there, and delayed in other regions day before launch. No one kne it came out.

all the other games i would say did fine: LittleBigPlanet 2 over 2 million, Killzone over 2 million, MLB the show over .60 million, inFamous 2 over 1 million, Resistance over 1 million, Ratchet and Clank over .8 million sales, and Uncharted 3 over 3.5 million.

Wow, you really don't understand then do you. It costs a fortune to make those games, they are called high-production software in that they cost an arm an a leg to develop. Selling .8 million, .6 million is not enough to make a profit at that level of development. Plus, they need money to market Uncharted so it ends up selling 8 million instead of 5.5 (at best), so as to be really profitable for the invested cost of marketing. It's called leveraging sales.

God I'm glad you're not in my camp. What kind of moron runs the Sony fan camp anyways, Gilgamesh? Get your act together boys!



osamanobama on 11 February 2012
happydolphin said:
osamanobama said:
happydolphin said:
osamanobama said:


drop what?  i already said i dont care about the company, i care about the games.

simple as that.

i just want games, all other things are secondary to me. 

And all this time I thought you and Rafux were Sony fanboys, but it looks like you are eager to see them fail.

Color me surprised!

Looks like I care more about them to get their act together than you do, and I'm a Nintendo fan, figure that one out!

Bad news though, you won't be gettin' em' games once they go bankrupt (assuming they follow your wonderful advice).

and they wont get my business if they dont make "em games".

i couldnt care less what company is make the games, i have no brand loyalty, only game and hardware loyalty.

and i fail to see how they will go bankrupt with making games, all but 2 of their games this yeah, had arguably good to great sales. only Socom and MotorStorm could you say sold poorly. which can easily be explained by Socom being just a bad game. MotorStorm i more intereting, its a high quality game, fun and well made, arguably the best in the series, but some reason the reviews werent there. could be because of the lack of mass appeal among the reviewes, and then of course sales were hurt badly by the blundered launch. the earthquake in Japan, caused it to be canceled there, and delayed in other regions day before launch. No one kne it came out.

all the other games i would say did fine: LittleBigPlanet 2 over 2 million, Killzone over 2 million, MLB the show over .60 million, inFamous 2 over 1 million, Resistance over 1 million, Ratchet and Clank over .8 million sales, and Uncharted 3 over 3.5 million.

Wow, you really don't understand then do you. It costs a fortune to make those games, they are called high-production software in that they cost an arm an a leg to develop. Selling .8 million, .6 million is not enough to make a profit at that level of development. Plus, they need money to market Uncharted so it ends up selling 8 million instead of 5.5 (at best), so as to be really profitable for the invested cost of marketing. It's called leveraging sales.

God I'm glad you're not in my camp. What kind of moron runs the Sony fan camp anyways, Gilgamesh? Get your act together boys!

what, source? you know the development cost fo those games?

games like MLB the show are low budget, yearly release sports games, Ratchet and Clank seems to be of much lower budget than the previous 2 entries on PS3, also made by a secondary team. i fail to see how .8 million sales in 4 months isnt enough to make profit.

So uncharted needs to sell 8 million to be profitable, or am i reading that wrong? i also dont know why you say it will sell 5.5 million at best when its predessor is has already sold more than that, and is on pace for 6 million, and Uncharted 3 is selling more and faster than Uncharted 2, so i see no reason why i couldnt reach more than 6 million sales.

really this whole thread is shocking, people are asking for LESS GAMES. i would never have thought i would here that on a gaming website, but perhaps people are on to something, after all xbox is hugely successful, and outsells PS3. so i guess for some less games is a good thing. i may be in the minority but for me MORE games is a good thing. thats all i care about.



happydolphin on 11 February 2012
osamanobama said:

what, source? you know the development cost fo those games?

games like MLB the show are low budget, yearly release sports games, Ratchet and Clank seems to be of much lower budget than the previous 2 entries on PS3, also made by a secondary team. i fail to see how .8 million sales in 4 months isnt enough to make profit.

So uncharted needs to sell 8 million to be profitable, or am i reading that wrong? i also dont know why you say it will sell 5.5 million at best when its predessor is has already sold more than that, and is on pace for 6 million, and Uncharted 3 is selling more and faster than Uncharted 2, so i see no reason why i couldnt reach more than 6 million sales.

really this whole thread is shocking, people are asking for LESS GAMES. i would never have thought i would here that on a gaming website, but perhaps people are on to something, after all xbox is hugely successful, and outsells PS3. so i guess for some less games is a good thing. i may be in the minority but for me MORE games is a good thing. thats all i care about.

lol, how do you not see it? Sony is bleeding. If they make more games, in the long run, you will have EVEN LESS GAMES (keep making tons of in-house games and go bankrupt) than LESS GAMES (slow down development, market the hell out of certain games).

In the end, those people are asking for MORE GAMES. Not on the short term like you are of course, but rather on the long term.



SvennoJ on 11 February 2012
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
SvennoJ said:
Jexy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SvennoJ said:
It will be a sad day when the need for big sales numbers kills variety.


True. If they follow Microsoft it wont be a good day for gaming.


Well no one is saying put out as few exclusives as Microsoft did this year.  As an Xbox owner, I wish there were more, but then again most of mine at 3rd party anyway.  But Sony has to cut back a SOME.  Microsoft could easily afford to make more too.  But then again keep in mind all of their Kinect exclusives.   We don't count those, but they do.

They could do a bit better market research and adjust the budget more realistically. No need to cut back on nr of games. I don't want xbla, psn, etc to be the only source of variety and all big budget games to be targeted at the widest possible audience.

Apart from motorstorm apocalypse, whose release was completely messed up beyond Sony's control, most exclusives had around a million or more sales. Why is that not good enough anymore?

For a couple reasons:

1. Doing good enough is what got all of Sony in big trouble today. They should have been aiming for great.

2. Doing good enough, when your competition is doing great, is a bad investment. Sony puts in more work, but gains the least.

3. It is a sign of brand weakness. A big brand must be seen to be growing or it's deemed to be in decline. Even stagnating is seen as this.

4. Brands like Mario and Halo sells more consoles. The costs savings of making 1 IP with the strength of 4 or 5 IP's are rather big.

1. The ps3 was in trouble because they were aiming for great instead of good enough. Too much new tech to make it cost effective.

2. There are a lot of other factors why Sony is in trouble today, not because they are making too many games. The earthquake / tsunami and exchange rate are 2 big ones. Sony only makes 67% on overseas sales with the exchange rate compared to when the ps3 launched. Compare Sony's losses to other Japanese tech companies to put it in perspective. Not against MS who is riding on a weak dollar, thus gaining a lot on overseas sales.

3. As far as I know the ps3 brand is still growing, top of sales again since Januari.

4. Imo libraries is what sells consoles. Sure one great game can convince me to buy a console a little sooner, but without a nice variety of other games to be played on it as well I won't buy it.