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

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

happydolphin on 14 February 2012
pezus said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
Now not every title can be a must buy franchise and that's totally fine.

So here's where I mostly disagree. A good portion of 1st-party titles or exclusives should be must-haves. It was like that for the PS2, and that's one of the reasons why it was so successful. The question is, what happened?

Sure, some titles can be A or just good to haves, but as a manufacturer they should have must-haves so as to not dominated by MS like this. How a company can mainly win on multi-plats beats me.


The thing is on a given year there's only room for 2 or so must have game for a first party. 

Add 3-4 must have third party games and you're up to 5-6 must have games a year. Add the fact that most players have a genre they prefer ( shooter, prg, sports, take your pick) and you're up to 7 or more games and that is already above what most gamers will buy in a year....

Release more must have and the must have start competing with each others and the overall result isn't actually a lot greater. 

I thought 1st party games were supposed to have must-have priority. It was like that pre-PS3, it's like that for the Wii and the 360. You're making excellent points, but why are the PS3 exclusives not performing as well as 360 exclusives. I as some others would argue:

1st and foremost marketing is needed.

2nd. Some games need to either be dropped or overhauled to increase appeal and quality.

What you say is true, but tradition has it that 1st party games trump 3rd party games in terms of must-haveness, bar a few exceptions (e.g. GTA).

Halo>GT>Gears>Uncharted>GoW>Forza/Fable>LBP>Lots of Sony games>Alan Wake and Crackdown. That's how I see the franchises, MS exclusives generally selling more than Sony exclusives is a myth. It only seems that way because Sony make a lot more of them.

For example, take two titles in the same genre. Halo, Gears versus Resistance, even KZ. Compare the sales.

Uncharted is in a category of its own, really. It's doing well and can do even better.

Gran Turismo is doing much less well than it used to, and being beaten by a MS franchise (Halo) is not expected.

Forza is a new IP and is doing good, nobody expects it to surpass GT anytime soon.

OK for the rest, but you're already at pretty weak sales (<= 3M) at that point.

I won't say what I said is entirely false. Everything in perspective, it's partially true. I'll admit I hyperboled it a little.



Around the Network
Jay520 on 14 February 2012
pezus said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
Now not every title can be a must buy franchise and that's totally fine.

So here's where I mostly disagree. A good portion of 1st-party titles or exclusives should be must-haves. It was like that for the PS2, and that's one of the reasons why it was so successful. The question is, what happened?

Sure, some titles can be A or just good to haves, but as a manufacturer they should have must-haves so as to not dominated by MS like this. How a company can mainly win on multi-plats beats me.


The thing is on a given year there's only room for 2 or so must have game for a first party. 

Add 3-4 must have third party games and you're up to 5-6 must have games a year. Add the fact that most players have a genre they prefer ( shooter, prg, sports, take your pick) and you're up to 7 or more games and that is already above what most gamers will buy in a year....

Release more must have and the must have start competing with each others and the overall result isn't actually a lot greater. 

I thought 1st party games were supposed to have must-have priority. It was like that pre-PS3, it's like that for the Wii and the 360. You're making excellent points, but why are the PS3 exclusives not performing as well as 360 exclusives. I as some others would argue:

1st and foremost marketing is needed.

2nd. Some games need to either be dropped or overhauled to increase appeal and quality.

What you say is true, but tradition has it that 1st party games trump 3rd party games in terms of must-haveness, bar a few exceptions (e.g. GTA).

Halo>GT>Gears>Uncharted>GoW>Forza/Fable>LBP>Lots of Sony games>Alan Wake and Crackdown. That's how I see the franchises, MS exclusives generally selling more than Sony exclusives is a myth. It only seems that way because Sony make a lot more of them.



This post seems awfully familiar. Hmmm...

Jay520 on 14 February 2012
pezus said:
Jay520 said:
pezus said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
Now not every title can be a must buy franchise and that's totally fine.

So here's where I mostly disagree. A good portion of 1st-party titles or exclusives should be must-haves. It was like that for the PS2, and that's one of the reasons why it was so successful. The question is, what happened?

Sure, some titles can be A or just good to haves, but as a manufacturer they should have must-haves so as to not dominated by MS like this. How a company can mainly win on multi-plats beats me.


The thing is on a given year there's only room for 2 or so must have game for a first party. 

Add 3-4 must have third party games and you're up to 5-6 must have games a year. Add the fact that most players have a genre they prefer ( shooter, prg, sports, take your pick) and you're up to 7 or more games and that is already above what most gamers will buy in a year....

Release more must have and the must have start competing with each others and the overall result isn't actually a lot greater. 

I thought 1st party games were supposed to have must-have priority. It was like that pre-PS3, it's like that for the Wii and the 360. You're making excellent points, but why are the PS3 exclusives not performing as well as 360 exclusives. I as some others would argue:

1st and foremost marketing is needed.

2nd. Some games need to either be dropped or overhauled to increase appeal and quality.

What you say is true, but tradition has it that 1st party games trump 3rd party games in terms of must-haveness, bar a few exceptions (e.g. GTA).

Halo>GT>Gears>Uncharted>GoW>Forza/Fable>LBP>Lots of Sony games>Alan Wake and Crackdown. That's how I see the franchises, MS exclusives generally selling more than Sony exclusives is a myth. It only seems that way because Sony make a lot more of them.


This post seems awfully familiar. Hmmm...

I remember saying something similar before, or do you mean somebody else said it already?



Yeah, I did a few months ago. I ordered the games the exact same way. I even used the word "myth". I'll try to find the post.

happydolphin on 14 February 2012
pezus said:

Okay, compare genres: 

Halo>>>KZ, Resistance

GT>>Forza

Gears>Uncharted

LBP>>R&C>>Banjo (yeah, nothing else to compare to really)

Infamous>Crackdown

Heavy Rain>Alan Wake (although it's not an exclusive anymore)

Then they have the rest for which MS has no answer, like God of War, Motorstorm, Twisted Metal, Starhawk/Warhawk and all the others. Pretty fucking good if you ask me.

Okay, but you're using GT! It sold 14Mil in its PS2 iteration!! Now it barely sells 10. I don't count that sorry.

LBP versus what? Banjo? gee, out of ideas p? LBP could do much, much better.

inFamous is at 2.18 mil... compare that to other MS exclusives, I don't think it stacks high enough, maybe on par. ME sold how much? 2.43Mil. Even if in another genre, it doesn't stack up. Sony was #1, now it's at best equal if not inferior. You're not gonna tell me everyone bought COD now?

Okay, I will concede they have a few of the lower-selling ones beating the MS ones. But to say it's a myth is a total hyperbole too!



Jay520 on 14 February 2012
pezus said:
Jay520 said:
pezus said:
Jay520 said:
pezus said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
Now not every title can be a must buy franchise and that's totally fine.

So here's where I mostly disagree. A good portion of 1st-party titles or exclusives should be must-haves. It was like that for the PS2, and that's one of the reasons why it was so successful. The question is, what happened?

Sure, some titles can be A or just good to haves, but as a manufacturer they should have must-haves so as to not dominated by MS like this. How a company can mainly win on multi-plats beats me.


The thing is on a given year there's only room for 2 or so must have game for a first party. 

Add 3-4 must have third party games and you're up to 5-6 must have games a year. Add the fact that most players have a genre they prefer ( shooter, prg, sports, take your pick) and you're up to 7 or more games and that is already above what most gamers will buy in a year....

Release more must have and the must have start competing with each others and the overall result isn't actually a lot greater. 

I thought 1st party games were supposed to have must-have priority. It was like that pre-PS3, it's like that for the Wii and the 360. You're making excellent points, but why are the PS3 exclusives not performing as well as 360 exclusives. I as some others would argue:

1st and foremost marketing is needed.

2nd. Some games need to either be dropped or overhauled to increase appeal and quality.

What you say is true, but tradition has it that 1st party games trump 3rd party games in terms of must-haveness, bar a few exceptions (e.g. GTA).

Halo>GT>Gears>Uncharted>GoW>Forza/Fable>LBP>Lots of Sony games>Alan Wake and Crackdown. That's how I see the franchises, MS exclusives generally selling more than Sony exclusives is a myth. It only seems that way because Sony make a lot more of them.


This post seems awfully familiar. Hmmm...

I remember saying something similar before, or do you mean somebody else said it already?


Yeah, I did a few months ago. I ordered the games the exact same way. I even used the word "myth". I'll try to find the post.

Lol, that's pretty funny. It must be ingrained in my mind or something because I completely agreed. 



Here is the post.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4152448

EDIT: Wrong Link: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4151913

Apparently I didn't say the word "myth" but I sure was thinking it. You must have tapped into my subconscious somehow. Don't blaze me for the typos. I was a younger Jay520.

Around the Network
happydolphin on 14 February 2012

That is damn impressive guys.



Ail on 14 February 2012
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
happydolphin said:
Ail said:
Now not every title can be a must buy franchise and that's totally fine.

So here's where I mostly disagree. A good portion of 1st-party titles or exclusives should be must-haves. It was like that for the PS2, and that's one of the reasons why it was so successful. The question is, what happened?

Sure, some titles can be A or just good to haves, but as a manufacturer they should have must-haves so as to not dominated by MS like this. How a company can mainly win on multi-plats beats me.


The thing is on a given year there's only room for 2 or so must have game for a first party. 

Add 3-4 must have third party games and you're up to 5-6 must have games a year. Add the fact that most players have a genre they prefer ( shooter, prg, sports, take your pick) and you're up to 7 or more games and that is already above what most gamers will buy in a year....

Release more must have and the must have start competing with each others and the overall result isn't actually a lot greater. 

I thought 1st party games were supposed to have must-have priority. It was like that pre-PS3, it's like that for the Wii and the 360. You're making excellent points, but why are the PS3 exclusives not performing as well as 360 exclusives. I as some others would argue:

1st and foremost marketing is needed.

2nd. Some games need to either be dropped or overhauled to increase appeal and quality.

What you say is true, but tradition has it that 1st party games trump 3rd party games in terms of must-haveness, bar a few exceptions (e.g. GTA).


I would argue that the Wii has demonstrated that too many first party must have isn't that good either...

There's no denying the 360 has done a great job with first party.

All I'm saying is while I agree that Sony should release less titles there is still some room to release more first party than the 360, granted all won't be must have for everyone, but some of them can fill a niche that needs feeling ( like Q2 low release, or provide a game in a genre not well represented on the platform, or even giving a shot a new IP once in a while).

That's why I like game like Infamous because they meet my criteria. Same with Heavy Rain, it was a good shot at a new IP and didn't release during the crowded holydays season.

I am actually ok with Killzone too as it isn't released at the same time all the others shooters are released and it provides a somewhat different MP experience.

But I agree that while Resistance 1 was needed , Resistance 2 and 3 should not have been released. At the time they released there were already plethora of FPS on the PS3 and both resistance 2 and 3 released within months of CoD and provided a subpar experience compared to CoD... And I don't think any amount of marketing could have changed that.....



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

happydolphin on 14 February 2012
Ail said:

I would argue that the Wii has demonstrated that too many first party must have isn't that good either...

There's no denying the 360 has done a great job with first party.

All I'm saying is while I agree that Sony should release less titles there is still some room to release more first party than the 360, granted all won't be must have for everyone, but some of them can fill a niche that needs feeling ( like Q2 low release, or provide a game in a genre not well represented on the platform, or even giving a shot a new IP once in a while).

That's why I like game like Infamous because they meet my criteria. Same with Heavy Rain, it was a good shot at a new IP and didn't release during the crowded holydays season.

I am actually ok with Killzone too as it isn't released at the same time all the others shooters are released and it provides a somewhat different MP experience.

But I agree that while Resistance 1 was needed , Resistance 2 and 3 should not have been released. At the time they released there were already plethora of FPS on the PS3 and both resistance 2 and 3 released within months of CoD and provided a subpar experience compared to CoD... And I don't think any amount of marketing could have changed that.....

Makes alot of sense, but it still feels like dilution. I believe a focus on a handful of IPs (keep the others for later) for now would be the best approach. But oh well, that's why we're here, because we have different views.

In my eyes, Sony should be adoring ND and investing more in its efforts, drop some other ones, and push push push with marketing, but that's just me :)



MARCUSDJACKSON on 14 February 2012
theprof00 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

well if it's to centralized/control then we loss creativity, and then every game becomes the same, but for some strange reason i fill this make loads of sense.

the studio heads should be able to control the direction, but i think you're saying for most projects that's not happening, but i think you may be right. 

Socom4 sucks. that is all.

See nintendo and ms are stifling because of how much direction they force, but Sony could use *some* direction. They really have none. The other two could do with a little less direction, also, although Nintendo seems to really wander into the forest when they don't have good direction.

agreed.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

reviniente on 14 February 2012
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.

A heavy turnout of creative, fun, high-quality games is really great ethomaz, but they'll have to restructure and trim the fat down the line. If they don't, SON¥ will end up losing a lot more gamers in the end.