Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS3 starts selling= sony gets cocky again

Well it's better than saying "nobody is buying our system because it's crap." Granted, I don't believe it's crap but at the same time, a company should talk about how great their product is. It gets people more interested in the product than if they randomly started slamming their own product.



Around the Network
woopah said:

“In the next few years, you’re going to start to see us separate from the herd. Some of the other platforms are going to look very dated because their life spans are so much shorter than ours. If you’re a competitor I’ve got bad news for you because we’ve got some absolute blockbusters that are in the works, some of them new IP, some of them existing IP, that we’re building specifically for the PS3. From a competitive standpoint our competitors are going to have a tougher road now then even in 2008. But for PlayStation 3 consumers, it means more quality and more choice.” - SCEA’s VP of product marketing Scott Steinberg

what is this guy thinking? he acts like the PS3 is kicking ass when its not.   The only real point hes got is about the PS3s lifetspan being longer but even im not sure that technically the case. i think he truly understimates the competition. Nintendo and microsoft are gunna find things EVEN tougher than 2008? i think microsoft  willl find it easier because of lower price  and nintendo certainly hasnt had a tough road. He even says 'haha unlucky competitors. we, sony , are making new IP and existing IP for the PS3.' thats just saying that they have a 1st party, did he not consider that his competitors could also have 'absolute blockbusters' built specifically for their consoles?

 

I saw him say that on Gametrailers TV months ago



MMM...... All I got from this was

"We got more games coming. Games that will run only on the PS3 (I would assume so since they are first party...) watch out."



4 ≈ One

Wow, there is some grade-A trolling going on here.

Some of it is very good. Well done! ^_^



Dgc1808 said:
MMM...... All I got from this was

"We got more games coming. Games that will run only on the PS3 (I would assume so since they are first party...) watch out."

 

That's actually true. The only games that I assume are being referred to are first party.

Considering the 360's current library, imo, they would have to put out quite a ass-ton of first party games to reach that oh so unattainable gamerankings equality.

While I don't subscribe to gamerankings myself, I do believe that the site breeds inferiority compex and false assertions about a ton of games. According to them, Uncharted, and Elite Beat Agents aren't AAA, but Winning Eleven 6 and NCAA Football 2004 are.

That said, I guess the speaker could be talking about future games, and pretending like the past and back library doesn't exist. Even then, however, Sony surely must be putting out quite a lot more first party games than they are in 2008, if they want to be significantly better than what Microsoft probably has planned. Especially since MS can also get its exclusives from 3rd party publishers.

Now, granted, there are a couple of big 3rd party games for the PS3, but those are gonna dry up, and since Sony isn't investing anymore in 3rd parties, we'll have very few games sticking with the console out of the "loyalty > profit" mantra.

In essence, I don't know how Sony is gonna keep up with Microsoft exclusives and exclusive content, since they are no longer paying for 3rd party support, as stated by them. Much less how they are gonna absolutely dominate them, like it says in that interview.

It certainly is possible, but I just don't see the plan. I think it's PR.

Anyway, lets looks at the Sony exclusive lineup for PS3:

 

SOCOM

LBP

R2

Rachet and Clank Future Untitled sequel

Killzone 2

Heavy Rain

God of War 3

MAG

ICO 3

Team ICO game untitled

WKS

FFVerses13

 

Now lets looks at the upcoming 360 exclusives lineup(with assumption that these games may/will also appear on PC):

 

Banjo

Gears 2

Fable 2

Halo Bungie untitled sequel

Halo 4

Halo Wars

Alan Wake

Star Ocean 4

 

...and Left 4 Dead, we'll chalk up to moneyhatting and Valve being understaffed, or whatever you want.

 

I think that yes, certainly Sony has a small advantage there.

However, the overall library for those systems is significantly in the favor of the 360 in my, and most people's honest opinions.(at the very least it's a generally accepted myth)

And even though the PS3 has an edge in upcoming releases, doesn't mean we have seen everything from either company.

So, basically, how the hell is the PS3 destroying Microsoft in future games releases? I think that with multiplats, the future libraries are both really, really close, considering that the multiplats make up about 80 or 90 percent of all the games that come out anyway.

If this was World of Warcraft, we would call a transition from 360 to PS3 future libraries a sidegrade. We could call overall libraries a downgrade. In the world, we call it comparing apples and oranges.

The Sony exec basically said, "Oranges are gonna pwn apples even harder in 2009, because we have a lot tastier oranges coming down the line than ever before." except their Oranges used to be sour and mostly sucked until MGSOrange came out. It's cocky and arrogant, and as an apple and orange lover, it offends me.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Dgc1808 said:
MMM...... All I got from this was

"We got more games coming. Games that will run only on the PS3 (I would assume so since they are first party...) watch out."

 

That's actually true. The only games that I assume are being referred to are first party.

Considering the 360's current library, imo, they would have to put out quite a ass-ton of first party games to reach that oh so unattainable gamerankings equality.

While I don't subscribe to gamerankings myself, I do believe that the site breeds inferiority compex and false assertions about a ton of games. According to them, Uncharted, and Elite Beat Agents aren't AAA, but Winning Eleven 6 and NCAA Football 2004 are.

That said, I guess the speaker could be talking about future games, and pretending like the past and back library doesn't exist. Even then, however, Sony surely must be putting out quite a lot more first party games than they are in 2008, if they want to be significantly better than what Microsoft probably has planned. Especially since MS can also get its exclusives from 3rd party publishers.

Now, granted, there are a couple of big 3rd party games for the PS3, but those are gonna dry up, and since Sony isn't investing anymore in 3rd parties, we'll have very few games sticking with the console out of the "loyalty > profit" mantra.

In essence, I don't know how Sony is gonna keep up with Microsoft exclusives and exclusive content, since they are no longer paying for 3rd party support, as stated by them. Much less how they are gonna absolutely dominate them, like it says in that interview.

It certainly is possible, but I just don't see the plan. I think it's PR.

Anyway, lets looks at the Sony exclusive lineup for PS3:

 

SOCOM

LBP

R2

Rachet and Clank Future Untitled sequel

Killzone 2

Heavy Rain

God of War 3

MAG

ICO 3

Team ICO game untitled

WKS

FFVerses13

 

Now lets looks at the upcoming 360 exclusives lineup(with assumption that these games may/will also appear on PC):

 

Banjo

Gears 2

Fable 2

Halo Bungie untitled sequel

Halo 4

Halo Wars

Alan Wake

Star Ocean 4

 

...and Left 4 Dead, we'll chalk up to moneyhatting and Valve being understaffed, or whatever you want.

 

I think that yes, certainly Sony has a small advantage there.

However, the overall library for those systems is significantly in the favor of the 360 in my, and most people's honest opinions.(at the very least it's a generally accepted myth)

And even though the PS3 has an edge in upcoming releases, doesn't mean we have seen everything from either company.

So, basically, how the hell is the PS3 destroying Microsoft in future games releases? I think that with multiplats, the future libraries are both really, really close, considering that the multiplats make up about 80 or 90 percent of all the games that come out anyway.

If this was World of Warcraft, we would call a transition from 360 to PS3 future libraries a sidegrade. We could call overall libraries a downgrade. In the world, we call it comparing apples and oranges.

The Sony exec basically said, "Oranges are gonna pwn apples even harder in 2009, because we have a lot tastier oranges coming down the line than ever before." except their Oranges used to be sour and mostly sucked until MGSOrange came out. It's cocky and arrogant, and as an apple and orange lover, it offends me.

they are not paying 3rd support but they are getting it, all the games from capcom are going multiplatform and looking at the huge base it have now it will continue getting.

third party exclusive are more likely a thing from the pass even m$ won't be getting so easy or getting at all in the future.

even valve is considering ps3 development.

whats the take? focus on first party.

and sony and nintendo got a great ground in this m$ don't.

 



Jo21 said:

they are not paying 3rd support but they are getting it, all the games from capcom are going multiplatform and looking at the huge base it have now it will continue getting.

third party exclusive are more likely a thing from the pass even m$ won't be getting so easy or getting at all in the future.

even valve is considering ps3 development.

whats the take? focus on first party.

and sony and nintendo got a great ground in this m$ don't.

 

You think Microsoft has bad first and second party development?  Bad enough that the PS3 will "dominate" them simply due to Sony's first party projects?

So, this Sony exec says that Sony will dominate Microsoft because it's first party development, which makes up about 3 percent of the games on the console, is better than Microsoft's 3 percent?

Are you saying you believe this guy? Are you defending him?

Maybe you can explain to me then, how exactly the 1-3 first/second party games released a year, by Sony, will make the PS3's library dominate the 360s, despite the 360 also having first/second party development of games like Halo 4 and Gears of War. Especially when the PS3's library already has some catching up to do.

You say that first party development will make the PS3s release list dominate the 360s, or at least you defend the man who made such an assertion, despite the fact that the 360 is also buying exclusive 3rd party development in the future, and Sony has stopped that practice. It's not debatable. It's simply untrue, assuming your definition of domination is being obviously better by a considerable margin.

1st/2nd party games are only a small percentage of games released on the PS360. Most games are multiplats, or by 3rd parties. Both companies have a slow but steady stream of quality 1st/2nd party titles. How the hell could Sony use that slow but stead 3 percent of games released on its console to completely dominate the 360's upcoming library? Simple answer, it can't. That's marketing spin, and buying/defending it is fanboyism.

 



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

I won't believe ANYTHING they have to say until they close the 5 MILLION UNIT GAP between the PS3 and the 360. Until then, makes games and keep yourself quiet.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

Confidence is not the same thing as cocky.

Assertive is not the same thing as hyperbole.

Pride is not the same thing as arrogance.



Some of you would do well to learn the differences.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:
Confidence is not the same thing as cocky.

Assertive is not the same thing as hyperbole.

Pride is not the same thing as arrogance.



Some of you would do well to learn the differences.

 

Actually, they do mean the same thing, except maybe the "assertive > hyperbole" example. It's just how we percieve them. However, I can't see any fair minded person percieving these comments as anything but cocky arrogance. You realize he asserted that with 1st party games, which make up max 10 percent of games on either console, he would totally dominate the 360's release list. Assuming that Sony can manage to have more exclusive games than Microsoft, how many more would they need to dominate? It's silly. Don't be biased.

Unless you're saying the opposite of what I think you're saying.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.