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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Is Sonys image starting to stain in your view? (Poll)

 

Sonys imagine is becoming stained...

Yes. 74 66.07%
 
No. 38 33.93%
 
Total:112
twintail said:
firebush03 said:

1. I mentioned OoT > WW and MKWii > MK8 b/c they were the only sequel examples I could think up at the time of writing. You could equally say MM > WW and MKWii > MK7. But the purpose in even mentioning these is to state how installments in a series should ideally (1) introduce a unique art style and (2) introduce gameplay elements which vastly shift the design. Asset-reusing sequels are great for getting that “one last hurrah!” like with SMG and Zelda BotW, but not for pushing the series forward. To choose the route of an asset reusing sequel as opposed to something far more original is to play it very safe: This is what I’m arguing. (I’m sorry if this reads like a broken record compared to my previous comment…though I feel maybe I needed to clarify some of my points which obviously didn’t hit with you.)

2. That’s a fair point. Sony just needs to find some way to allow for old IP to remain fresh and relevant. I know I’m going back to Nintendo a lot here…but this is where I’m most informed. You’ll rarely see a Nintendo franchise go dormant and then stay dormant forever. (Note: *rarely* implies existence of franchises which go to die and never return, such as Mother.) Nintendo is always resurrecting old series: Emio, Metroid Dread, Metroid Prime, F-Zero (if you want to call the F2P F-Zero service game as a “resurrection”) Donkey Kong Country, Kid Icarus, Punch Out, Star Fox, etc etc.

Though I do pose the question: Is it possible that Sony & their studios are so reluctant to revive dormant IP b/c they understand the heavy risk involved if they fail? So, while maybe Sony isn’t intentionally acting in a “safe” regard, it certainly is understandable to interpret an unwillingness to rebirth old IP as fear of failure/lost profits.

3. Lol you literally just responded to the last half line of that entire paragraph. You got me there…now please address everything else I wrote. (Also, maybe a better way to have written that last half sentence would’ve been to say that a lot of these “risk” games feel as though some higher-ups at Sony were looking to appease some investors, so they ordered [X] game to be produced.)

1. While I understand the point you're making here, I still don't think it means much in the grand scheme of things. You can't possibly complain that GoW>GoWR or HZD>HFW are examples of Sony not taking risks when the first game in each of these were massive risks in the first place. GoW2018 and HZD are fundamentally nothing like anything the studios had done before and there was absolutely zero chance that their sequels were going to change their art style or introduce gameplay elements that vastly shift the gameplay loop. This criticism is just flimsy, I'm sorry.

2. Maybe, it's always possible. But that would just be conjecture at this point. Sony studios have failed even by introducing new IPs. So, I don't personally believe that studios and creators are ignoring older IP due to fear of failure, as I think it's just more likely they want to do new and different things. Insomniac ended Resistance on their own terms. Sony Bend did the same with Syphon Filter back on PSP (though you could argue there's niggle room to explore the IP again). ND appear to still be continuing with Uncharted (with rumours that a new one is underway). Santa Monica bet big on going back to GoW. Studios are making the games they want to make. I don't think it's anything more than that.

3. I didn't respond because I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make in the first place. Risk in something like the gaming industry, would be creating something that can potentially fail, but you appear to be defining risk as willingness to do something original based entirely on either art style or gameplay loop. Or perhaps, now, you're defining it as not making games that please investors.

I'm ultimately unsure what point you're trying to make here, because if the risk is the former, then what exactly is the risk? Alienating your userbase?

And if it's the latter, then my point that creating something which isn't a financial guarantee would be correct. 

I mean, I could level this criticism at virtually any publisher. 

👍🏻



Around the Network

It's been a wild couple of weeks



Sony’s image started to stain when they talked about Riiiiidge Racer, Giant Crabs, and tried to follow up the best console created (at the time) with a $599 George Foreman grill. Glad y’all are catching up.



LegitHyperbole said:

Switch 2 at 499, calling it now.

Yup, I think so too. Maybe 449, but I'm leaning into 499 the more I think about it.

1) The Switch launch price was 299, same as PS4 slim. Analyst thought it would be to pricey compared to the more powerful PS4. Switch showed customers did not care enough and saw the added value of portability & Nintendo IP.

I think Nintendo will match the PS5 again. 449 or 499, depending if Nintendo looks at the digital or disc version. Switch2 is less powerful, but again has added portability & Nintendo IP.

2) Foxconn told their investors it's opening a new factory in Vietnam making 4 million Switch per year from 2026 onwards. This tells me Nintendo will keep Switch as entry level console. I'm expecting Famicom vs. Super Famicom situation, where the latter was considerable more expensive.



Signalstar said:

Barren exclusives?

They just released the highest rated game of the year.

Some people are never satisfied...

I was scratching my head reading this as well.

It seems like people have been giving Sony a lot of crap lately over...choices?

Bad game? Don't buy it.
More powerful console too expensive for you? Don't buy it.

The only bone I have to pick with them is the lack of PSVR2 support, but then they dropped the PC adapter and opened up a whole new VR library for owners at a very modest price.



Around the Network
super_etecoon said:

Sony’s image started to stain when they talked about Riiiiidge Racer, Giant Crabs, and tried to follow up the best console created (at the time) with a $599 George Foreman grill. Glad y’all are catching up.

True, but that had a lot to do with their fear of competition from MS. It made SNY make stupid decisions that seemed smart to them at the time.

SNY clearly learned from that which led to PS4, but due to it's success vs XB1, SNY has started to drift back towards the PS3 corporate mindset again.

Ironically, the overall success that was the XB 360, caused MS to become very corporate minded when it came to designing the XB1 and its ecosystem.

MS also learned from this, but they hadn't righted enough of the wrongs with XBSS/X, and SNY just kept the PS4 momentum and mindset going with PS5.

Since PS5 has been as successful as PS4, if not more, and XBSS/X has been wavering, SNY can become more corporate minded again and get away with it.

This time it simply might be up to the gaming consumers to straighten SNY out again, because unless MS pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there's little sign of another company entering console gaming. Even then, would a new competitor be able to put enough pressure on SNY to cause them to become more consumer minded again? Unlike PS3, this time consumers will have much more power through things like social media to attempt to keep SNY in check, if they choose to use it and stand behind it by speaking with their wallets.



Soundwave said:


PS6 is probably gonna be like

PS6 "For Cheap People" SKU - $499.99
PS6 "Real Console Version" SKU - $749.99

Just you watch.

$500 is going to become the "budget" tier, lol. 

The thing is.... I could see the Switch 2, launching at $449 or even $499 as well.  So you don't even have many options, Xbox might not make a cheaper and normal version of their next console either.  So it'll be get one at 500, or don't own a console.

Tech isn't saving much from node shrinkage anymore.
And inflation is a real thing.... $500 today vs $500 from 12 years ago, are not the same.



JRPGfan said:
Soundwave said:


PS6 is probably gonna be like

PS6 "For Cheap People" SKU - $499.99
PS6 "Real Console Version" SKU - $749.99

Just you watch.

$500 is going to become the "budget" tier, lol. 

The thing is.... I could see the Switch 2, launching at $449 or even $499 as well.  So you don't even have many options, Xbox might not make a cheaper and normal version of their next console either.  So it'll be get one at 500, or don't own a console.

Tech isn't saving much from node shrinkage anymore.
And inflation is a real thing.... $500 today vs $500 from 12 years ago, are not the same.

The XSS procedure that budgets consoles are a bad idea, the headache it has cause MS is not worth. It's basically them writing a check to buy timed exclusives for Sony.



LegitHyperbole said:
JRPGfan said:

The thing is.... I could see the Switch 2, launching at $449 or even $499 as well.  So you don't even have many options, Xbox might not make a cheaper and normal version of their next console either.  So it'll be get one at 500, or don't own a console.

Tech isn't saving much from node shrinkage anymore.
And inflation is a real thing.... $500 today vs $500 from 12 years ago, are not the same.

The XSS procedure that budgets consoles are a bad idea, the headache it has cause MS is not worth. It's basically them writing a check to buy timed exclusives for Sony.

I wonder if one of the two (sony or xbox) is willing to be much much weaker, in terms of hardware (for their console line).
If it means they can then sell it at like half what the other is doing.

Honestly if enough of the market is lowballing (because Switch 2 will be around for awhile).
What big benefit would it even bring if just 1 of the 3 is focusing on power / expensive machine?

Might be a power play.
I think sony could pull it off without it damaging them too much.
But thats a thing for next gen consoles.



JRPGfan said:
LegitHyperbole said:

The XSS procedure that budgets consoles are a bad idea, the headache it has cause MS is not worth. It's basically them writing a check to buy timed exclusives for Sony.

I wonder if one of the two (sony or xbox) is willing to be much much weaker, in terms of hardware (for their console line).
If it means they can then sell it at like half what the other is doing.

Honestly if enough of the market is lowballing (because Switch 2 will be around for awhile).
What big benefit would it even bring if just 1 of the 3 is focusing on power / expensive machine?

Might be a power play.
I think sony could pull it off without it damaging them too much.
But thats a thing for next gen consoles.

Well the usually eat the cost, like there was no way PS4 and especially PS4 was that cheap. Hopefully, xbox will still be around and provide better competition to force each other to keep costs down. Idk if Nintendo is considered direct competition but I can see a world where Xbox and PS6 fail cost of expensive hardware and Nintendo ends up as the machine for causals who play Fifa, Madden, Cod and so on. I think this is proven with the spike in sales for the XSS when collage football released, most people don't give a fuck and will buy the cheapest system if the game they want is on it. Nintendo doesn't even need a powerful console to take these sales either cuase everything scales now.

We could be looking at a future where Xbox leaves the Hardware market and Sony whether your with Xbox or Sony this is aa failure you don't want to see happen.