happydolphin said: theprof00 said: This is a sad development, but one that is completely true. If sony wants to compete on the same level as microsoft, they need to act more like microsoft. It's really sad because in the end, all microsoft will have achieved with their "attack" on Sony is a stifling of creativity. Sony will be able to respond and restructure, but in the end the gamers will lose. Sony can easily cut 10 or so IPs and really really focus on their big games and advertising. This will prevent MS from pounding them as hard, will sell more games and consoles, and is generally better business. It just sucks for people like me. I agree that Resistance should be cut though. I just don't think it's a very compelling game. @as far as creative liberty, Sony gives far more license to their devs than the other two. Nintendo is super controlling, even with the third parties they are controlling, and MS is super controlling with their first party, forcing them to make games that MS wants to sell. Look what they're doing to Rare for evidence. Sony's problem is mismanagement. They aren't strict enough, they pay their devs too much, they give too much leeway to fail (look at last guardian), and they don't drive focus within their games. If sony is supposed to be pushing little big planet, why isn't there things to centralize it? EVERY SINGLE GAME SHOULD COME WITH A SKIN FOR LBP, PERIOD. You buy god of war, you should be given a code for kratos, zeus, hades, sackboys, and wings. You buy infamous, you should be given a code to make your sackboy electric, or allow you to have new tools to lbp with electricity. You buy Gran Turismo, you should be able to insert cars into the levels. The same goes for modnation. The problem is that Sony has disrupted the chain of command at SCE. Their is no centralization. Everyone acts almost independently and their is no "vision-guy" roping them all together. I had the idea for playstation suite in the early ps3 days. If I can think of it, why can't they? A system like steam where their games can work on pc but only if you're a member. I mean, they're in the PC business with Vaio! How hard can it possibly be to say, gee, we should be selling these on pc too, there are bluray drives in pcs now. They should play ps3 games. If we're losing money on ps3 sales, then why push people to buy a ps3 to play the content? Sony has problems selling games because they simply are not focused on it. They're focused on making quality games, and frankly that's not good enough. They need someone to look at how they make and sell games, and realize that they're doing pretty much everything wrong...aside from making quality games. IMO nobody makes games that are as compelling as Sony's first party (except maybe atlus), but they really don't have any idea how to make money, because nobody is there telling them how. They are saying, "make good games and we will make good money", and that's really all they think. I mostly agree. You know, what good is a quality+appealing game if nobody knows about it, if nobody talks about it, if nobody is going to play it? Marketing is important beyond money, it's important in the community aspect of it. If nobody is told about the game (via marketing for example), and the community is smaller, it's less fun to be part of that community, in general (there are exceptions). I remember back when OoT 64 and FFVII launched. It wasn't just the games that were awesome, it was the fact that people were talking about them,sharing tricks, sharing answers to plot holes. These were social phenomenons. That's a VERY important part in the industry, and sadly a part not alot of people on the online forums understand or talk about. The fact that you know that others genuinely enjoyed a game you enjoyed is a great sense of belonging I have personally felt. Yet if a game is barely marketed, how can that realistically happen? It really can't. And also, to be fair, the games need to be genuinely appealing for this kind of thing to happen. I don't think Resistance or KZ are the type of game to make the cut.

Sure, marketing is important, but I believe that quality/appeal comes first. I'm a firm believer that if a game is top quality & appealing, then sales will come. I think a passively marketed, top quality/appealing game will be more successful than a highly marketed, average game in most cases. Of course, marketing is necessary to cross into the "huge" territory, but quality/appeal comes first IMO.

You can't advertise a B-Level game to sell like an A-Level game. This is the reason I think Sony didn't heavily market games like Killzone or Resistance. They simply weren't made to be blockbuster games, so why waste money trying market them as such? Now, if the games were top quality like Uncharted, then I'm sure they would have naturally gotten the marketing love like Uncharted. Marketing is used on games only if they are good enough. For that reason, the game's content is more important than marketing.

Had all the games Sony released last been developed with superb quality/appeal, then I'm sure heavy marketing would have naturally been used. But sadly, that was not the case.

No more Heavy Rain, Flower, WipEout, Team ICO, Echochrome, StarHank, MotorStrorm, Folklore, Twisted Metal, LittleBigPlanet, etc....

 I hate you Sony... If that happen then they lost a gamer.

Jay520 said: Sure, marketing is important, but I believe that quality/appeal comes first. I'm a firm believer that if a game is top quality & appealing, then sales will come. I think a passively marketed, top quality/appealing game will be more successful than a highly marketed, average game in most cases. Of course, marketing is necessary to cross into the "huge" territory, but quality/appeal comes first IMO. You can't advertise a B-Level game to sell like an A-Level game. This is the reason I think Sony didn't heavily market games like Killzone or Resistance. They simply weren't made to be blockbuster games, so why waste money trying market them as such? Now, if the games were top quality like Uncharted, then I'm sure they would have naturally gotten the marketing love like Uncharted. Marketing is used on games only if they are good enough. For that reason, the game's content is more important than marketing. Had all the games Sony released last been developed with superb quality/appeal, then I'm sure heavy marketing would have naturally been used. But sadly, that was not the case.

I agree and disagree. I agree you can market the heck out of a B-Level game, and it'll sell maybe the first or second iteration, but not sustainably.

However, there are lots of A-Level gems that don't get the love they deserve. That's the part I disagree on hardcore. Yes, a good game will have its love in a niche without marketing, but why do that to a good game? If it's really good, of good quality and high appeal, then it should be marketed.

Then, I agree here, in that there are exceptions. Some games have little marketing and yet do very well by their intrinsic appeal and quality. Yeah, it happens.

But tying back to OP, a game like Uncharted given more marketing can really shine. Repeat the process on other links in the chain (increase quality and appeal, the themes have potential), market them as such, and you have a winning formula.

ethomaz said: No more Heavy Rain, Flower, WipEout, Team ICO, Echochrome, StarHank, MotorStrorm, Folklore, Twisted Metal, LittleBigPlanet, etc....  I hate you Sony... If that happen then they lost a gamer.

That's not what they said. Actually, those you really hold on to, they will probably market even stronger. They'll just drop the weakest links (those some Sony fans don't even buy if sales are an indicator).

happydolphin said: However, there are lots of A-Level gems that don't get the love they deserve. That's the part I disagree on hardcore. Yes, a good game will have its love in a niche without marketing, but why do that to a good game? If it's really good, of good quality and high appeal, then it should be marketed.

I'd like you to name some superb quality, appealing games that don't see high sales because of marketing, particularly PS3 exclusives. The only PS3 exclusives of superb quality & appeal that I can think of are Uncharted & God of War (and maybe GT) and those are fairly big.

Nearly every other PS3 exclusive is a B-Level game and/or lacks appeal, two problems that marketing can't fully overcome.

Killzone is not appealing (most people dislike the slow aiming) and in some cases, it's low quality (it lacks modes like competitive splitscreen). LBP is not appealing to most PS3 owners (it just looks kiddy and that's enough to put most people off), and in some cases, it's low quality (floaty physics, amateur levels, etc). InFamous & Resistance are both considered B-Level games. Heavy Rain is obviously niche. Ratchet & Clank is apart of genre not popular at all amongst PS3 fans so it's not appealing.

This is why I believe most Sony games see low sales because of their own content, not marketing. Like I said, marketing would come naturally if they were good enough. Can you name me some high quality/appealing games that see low sales?

I agree with everything else you said.

Jay520 said: happydolphin said: However, there are lots of A-Level gems that don't get the love they deserve. That's the part I disagree on hardcore. Yes, a good game will have its love in a niche without marketing, but why do that to a good game? If it's really good, of good quality and high appeal, then it should be marketed. I'd like you to name some superb quality, appealing games that don't see high sales because of marketing, particularly PS3 exclusives. The only PS3 exclusives of superb quality & appeal that I can think of are Uncharted & God of War (and maybe GT) and those are fairly big.  Nearly every other PS3 exclusive is either a B-Level game and/or lacks appeal, two problems that marketing can't fully overcome. Killzone is not appealing (most people dislike the slow aiming) and in some cases, it's low quality (it lacks modes like competitive splitscreen). LBP is not appealing to most PS3 owners (it just looks kiddy and that's enough to put most people off), and in some cases, it's low quality (floaty physics, amateur levels, etc). InFamous & Resistance are both considered B-Level games. Heavy Rain is obviously niche. Ratchet & Clank is apart of genre not popular at all amongst PS3 fans so it's not appealing. This is why I believe most Sony games see low sales because of their own content, not marketing. Like I said, marketing would come naturally if they were good enough.Can you name me some high quality/appealing games that see low sales? I agree with everything else you said.

It's a point that' really difficult to agree on, because appeal is something that's hard to have a consensus view on until the sales make it official, but since the games in question have low sales... the objective measure is lost to show the exception to the rule. :( Maybe reviews can be used as the second metric.

 

For instance, Pikmin. The game was fantastic, but since it was a new IP, on the less popular platform, it didn't sell as much as it could have (1.63Mil).

What about Okami (1M), or Zack and Wiki (400k)? What about Billy Hatcher (250k), Maximo on PS2 (770k). These are games I haven't played, but do you think it's quality/appeal that kept them at low sales levels? I really can't tell since I haven't played them. Trace Memory for DS (270k) got destroyed by Layton. Ecco the Dolphin on DC (Sales?), Shenmue (1.18M). Lots of DC and GC games in general.

I don't really know Jay, I'm not doing super good at this, but I think there are a few out there, it's hard to really find them and say those are stellar and appealing games for sure. 

Jay520 said: happydolphin said: However, there are lots of A-Level gems that don't get the love they deserve. That's the part I disagree on hardcore. Yes, a good game will have its love in a niche without marketing, but why do that to a good game? If it's really good, of good quality and high appeal, then it should be marketed.   I'd like you to name some superb quality, appealing games that don't see high sales because of marketing, particularly PS3 exclusives. The only PS3 exclusives of superb quality & appeal that I can think of are Uncharted & God of War (and maybe GT) and those are fairly big. Nearly every other PS3 exclusive is a B-Level game and/or lacks appeal, two problems that marketing can't fully overcome. Killzone is not appealing (most people dislike the slow aiming) and in some cases, it's low quality (it lacks modes like competitive splitscreen). LBP is not appealing to most PS3 owners (it just looks kiddy and that's enough to put most people off), and in some cases, it's low quality (floaty physics, amateur levels, etc). InFamous & Resistance are both considered B-Level games. Heavy Rain is obviously niche. Ratchet & Clank is apart of genre not popular at all amongst PS3 fans so it's not appealing. This is why I believe most Sony games see low sales because of their own content, not marketing. Like I said, marketing would come naturally if they were good enough. Can you name me some high quality/appealing games that see low sales? I agree with everything else you said.

You're a little off in you discrepancy.

All those games are AAA games. AAA refers to quality and budget. KZ is AAA, Resistance is AAA. They're just not as appealing, but a shitload of money goes into them, and they are, by all standards very polished and professional AAA games. I'd contest that Infamous is likely high B.

If you're talking AAA as in, an outstanding game, then I'd say their AAA franchises are GoW, GT, Uncharted, LBP. Those games are all excellent games totally worth 60$ and first day buys. They could focus more on those, but you have to understand that three of those are aging franchises. Some of those B games could be pushed up to AAA if they tried a little harder or had better focus.

Also @ this
"
Sure, marketing is important, but I believe that quality/appeal comes first. I'm a firm believer that if a game is top quality & appealing, then sales will come. I think a passively marketed, top quality/appealing game will be more successful than a highly marketed, average game in most cases. Of course, marketing is necessary to cross into the "huge" territory, but quality/appeal comes first IMO.

You can't advertise a B-Level game to sell like an A-Level game. This is the reason I think Sony didn't heavily market games like Killzone or Resistance. They simply weren't made to be blockbuster games, so why waste money trying market them as such? Now, if the games were top quality like Uncharted, then I'm sure they would have naturally gotten the marketing love like Uncharted. Marketing is used on games only if they are good enough. For that reason, the game's content is more important than marketing.

Had all the games Sony released last been developed with superb quality/appeal, then I'm sure heavy marketing would have naturally been used. But sadly, that was not the case."

 

That is not true. quality/appeal will never see the levels of sales that a strong marketing push will provide. You don't think you can advertise a B level game to make it sell like an A level? Just look at Cod and Halo for counter-evidence.
Uncharted didn't even have a tenth of the marketing that halo 3 had.
All the Sony first party are extremely high quality games, they just don't have enough exposure. Shit, I didn't even know resistance 3 had been released until like a month after it was. Sony just doesn't advertise.

Halo 3 had a marketing budget of 40 million. As much money as a AAA game's budget. Sony instead uses that money to make a new game. MS uses it to make those Halo 3 sales explode.

what happened to the PS3 has no games? Now PS3 has to many games lol

Actually the reality is this:

Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible)

Microsoft: Make sure you have*insert list of features and psychological hooks here like multiplayer/coop/lighting style* but otherwise have a good time.

Nintendo: Make a game your momma wants to play that is still fun for you, I.E. to fundamental gameplay principles first. Innovation mainly in how you play rather than what you play.

So the result is:

Sony: Reviewers and hardcore gamers/other developers love your games, but you don't understand why mainstream success strike rate is lower than it should be with such high reviewing titles. This is because game developers make the games for themselves, hence their higher satisfaction and better technical achievement whilst mainstream users are often not quite catered for as fully as many other titles.

Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things.

Nintendo: Pisses off reviewers (Reviewers: Isn't this the same game I was playing 10 years ago?? Nintendo: Yes, and it still works) but mainstream users don't really care most of the time. The games sell remarkably better than any reviewer would say they ought to, Kinda like Avatar.

 

Squilliam said: Actually the reality is this: Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible) Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things.

I noticed something the other day about Fable. I was talking to some gurl gamers I know and they were all like, "Fable is sucha game for girls". It's shiny, it's easy, and it's really pretty. And I was like, man I didn't even think of that. No wonder girls play WoW too. 

Sony must lose a lot of demographic without those shiny pretty graphics. Sony is probably the biggest offender in terms of brown and bloom. Thinking about it again, Halo is super colorful as well, to the point of awkwardness almost. Hordes are sometimes a rainbow cascade of warfare. etc etc Sony really does not to look at being pretty again. They need better artistic direction.

Oh man...yaknow, I love brown and bloom and could never understand why people used it as a negative, but I totally see now why that is. Games on PS are just too gritty. It's almost like their games are stuck in the 90s.......hmmmm