DanneSandin said:
teigaga said:
DanneSandin said:
This line up is too far fetched imo. What Sony should have focused on is portablility; price and games. And I'll tell you this; if Nintendo struggled to get decent 3DS sales, so would Sony no matter what they did |
The 3DS had no games though for a long while.
Whats particularly far fetched about the list though? Far fetched in that sony wouldn't do it (because they're not smart enough), or far fetched in that it wouldn't be feasible for them to release, fund all those games?
Most of those games are coming from studios who produced a game for sony in that same period, I'm suggesting a lot of them should have been repurposed in terms of what they made. Elderscrolls is pretty much the only big release without a listed studios but as its a port sony could have outsourced it just like Epic Mickey was (sony paid for that), or ''Borderlands 2 late'' sony also ported that. I mean guys sony set up a whole studio to throw money at devs, I think alot of the above only seems far fetched because it was so above and beyond what sony offered but their output in the reality was not far below what I'm proposing.
StarHawk, Unit 13, Resistence Burning Skies, Sly Cooper 4, Vita pets... just a handful of games sony commisioned where the resources were in my opinion wasted completely wasted.
|
Yes, 3DS didn't have a lot of games for quite some time - but some of those games that WERE released sold quite well (I'm thinking Star Fox and Ocarina of Time), while the first game wave for Vita didn't do as well. And I think we have to ask ourselves why that is. Quite a few of the games you listed isn't made with portability in mind, but for home consoles - and going by home the AAA games have faired on Vita doesn't suggest that that's what people wants. Uncharted have down quite good for a handheld title (1-2m?) as have CoD and other AAA games, but when compared to 3DS's best selling games, they don't stand a chance.
And what I mean by far fetched is that Sony wouldn't release/fund all of those games because it would cost them too much, and considering that people don't seem to want to play those kind of games Sony would stop porting them sooner or later anyways...
|
Sorry I couldn't help but write a mini essay, I won't dwell on the issue much after this....
A big difference was in quality and appeal of those titles. A portable mario is going to sell more then a portable uncharted without a doubt, but Uncharted has never been about core mechanics. Its about cinematic gameplay and story, exactly why I think it was a bad suite for the Vita and Jak 4 would have been a better investment or God of War. The problem with the insertion that the big games on Vita don't sell that there is virtually no quality ones apart from Uncharted and the one or 2 that were do not have the right appeal
Unit 13- Bland uninspired game ( a small ME3 spinoff would have been far more successfull in the Vitas early days)
Gravity Rush- shallow game but great art and potential- exactly why I think it would have made a good launch title lol, people would have been more forgiving.
AC Liberation- Bad game, lets all be honest.
Call of Duty- Bad game- A straight port would have been novelty enough and actually sold off merit. Sony paid for this shoddy game BTW.
Soul Sacrifice- Niche in style, completely not suited to the the western market either. Note how Toukiden and God eater2 on Vita both outsold SS in Japan.
Killzone Mercinaries- Good game but Vita is pretty much dead on its arrival- As I said in the OP a portable KZ was never a goldmine anyway.
Now we have a bunch of misfires, now add in the fact that a lot of them arrived mid way through software droughts wherein people stopped using their Vita's- Gravity rush, Soul Sacrifice, KZ all had 5months gaps between them and another prior exclusive.... Very poor management from sony, by comparison despite the 3DS's bad start they knew very well what games they needed to get out on the 3DS. Zelda followed by starfox, followed by 3D Mario, followed by mario kart all in time for its first worldwide holiday.
Finance wise what I'm saying is that sony ACTUALLY spent this money within the same period. So its not question of could they afford it but would have lost money on the investment? Just a few comparisons
Star Hawk funed and released on PS3 only to sell 270k (less then most Vita exclusives). I proposed that team supervised by Sony Santimonica should have made Heavenly Sword II or something else exclusive for Vita. If KZM sold 500k on vita (double starhawk), I think so would a Heavenly Sword Sequel at the very least.
Uncharted Golden Abyss sold 1.3m. I think an exclusive Jak 4 would have sold upwards of that. The collection alone sold 700k physically, and it probably doubled those figures including digital. I really think there was more demand for a new Jak then then there was for a portable uncharted.
Sly cooper thieves in time sold 600k across the Vita and PS3. I think Syphon Filter Vita exclusive would have reach 1m IMO.
Persona 4 Golden and FFX HD are great evidence that quality JRPGS are in demand on Vita. Both games outsold soul Sacrifice despite only being ports. Again i'm not suggesting sony conjured money out of thin air to produce Dark Cloud 3 (a game with a colt following and tons of potential both in japan and west unlike SS which only had japanese appeal). Im suggesting they made smarter decisions, gauged the space for big RPGS on handhelds and been in communications with devs enough to know that half a dozen MH clones were already on their way to Vita (and sony themselves already had Freedom Wars in developement)
Ratchet and Clank Nexus didn't exactly sell a ton or set the PS3's sales alight. Surely it would have been better utilised on the vita?
God of War Accension. The weakest of all the games in terms of sales (1.9m), still pretty impressive. Even if it didn't reach 2m on the Vita (lets say it done 1.3, the franchise has a great track record on portable), we all know it woud shift a lot of systems. If made for the Vita we would also assume that its budget wouldn't have been as high anyway.
Grand Turismo 6- Typically huge, but this game couldn't even reach the sales of GT on PSP. Whenever we talk financials its important to consider not only the money the game would make itself (I think it would sell close to 1m in Japan alone), but also the hardware it would sell as that is inevitably part of sonys revenue stream and enables even more software sales across the board because a bigger userbase. Check the sales jump this and GOW provided the PS3. Virtually none. Similar to the 360 the PS3 at that point in its life was selling exclusively off 3rd parties and momentum which it developed over the previous 6 years.
Sony could afford to produce Invizibles for pS3 and anothe seperate game for Vita (both flopped), Vita pets (flop), port Epic Mickey (waste of time), port Borderlands 2 (waste of time), port all of their PS3 collections (badly), but yet they can't afford to afford an Edlerscrolls remake or to have secured FFType 0 in the early days when SE were still supporting the PSP?
I accept that I can't prove any of my presumptions on what would have more and they are just that... presumptions, but a lot of people have said sony simply would not spend this much money. The truth is they did, they just spent it badly.
