David Jaffe,
I know your feelings:





The questions aren't biased.

They're only making an article about the Fall of Playstation.
Only facts. The harsh reality.

This is a good point, but I think he was making more of a general point about the potential appeal of those games in the market, rather than talk about sales numbers...  and obviously it was oversimplified (only including three games from each console).  The sales performance of those big three definitely seems much stronger for Microsoft this generation, though -- and there's no doubt they deserve it, outselling the PS3 2:1 in the US so far this generation.  If that's not domination I don't know what is.

Sales are the best way to measure the 'appeal' of a game or genre. The hardcore market is tapped out and theres unlikely to be any gains unless a game can sell to the widest possible audience to draw people in to a certain console on its own.

Since you apprently missed the whole point :

It's pretty biased to say that Sony is making excuses up when some of their historically largest selling/accepted/anticipated games have yet to even be released.   Much like it would be pretty biased to say that Microsoft fans are 'making excuses up'  if they hadn't released Halo 3 or Gears of War 2 yet.

And it would be.

The thing about this thread is that it's fanboyism as usual, by which I mean that the conversation here immediately jumps to talking about who has more failures, Sony or Microsoft, and the only question here that people seem to think is relevant to that Great Struggle, is whether or not the reporter's questions were "biased" -- if they are, there's a media bias against Sony (at least in this case,) and if they aren't, Sony just doesn't want to face up to the facts, and their brilliant young developer Jaffe is a little crybaby who can't take the heat.

The funny thing is, you can't say whether these questions are biased or not just by reading them. Whether or not the questions are biased could totally change depending on what the article they are included in ends up saying. The questions merely suggest the possibility of a biased article. It could be an article painting poor old Sony on it's last legs, or it could be an article asking tough questions of some industry "personailities." The funnier thing is that Jaffe pretty much says this during his post. Several times. (Even though it contradicts what he says in the beginning about showing an example of "media bias.")


That said, it was easy to see Jaffe seemed offended during his post. Can anyone here understand why?

A reporter just sent you a bunch of unusually hard questions, fishing for inside information about you and your colleagues' feelings about the company that supports you, which is going through hard times.

The reporter also happens to be working for the corporation in direct competition with your parent company.

Worst case, the reporter is hoping to use your publicity (because you're a well known industry "personality") to write a damning and biased article about, once again, the company that feeds your wife and children -- in effect using your company's own good publicity against it, in a skillfull attack of reporter jujitsu.

Lol, I don't think I'd answer, either.

I never counted beyond this current generation. If one company spend X in development and gets Y return compared to another company and the ratio of X to Y is better you could say they are more successful.

If was you who compared Gears, Fable and Halo to MGS4, GT5 and GOW III. So if you want to make that comparison you have to accept the sales of every Halo game sold in this generation, every Gears game and every Fable game. As individual SKUs Halo 3, Gears and Fable 2 may outsell their counterparts but its not that simple as they have each recieved a smaller development effort than their PS counterparts so they can release more titles in the same time-frame and they must also be counted.

Sales are the key metric of success in the video game business. Critical acclaim is nice, but it obviously doesn't pay the bills or fund the next game. Furthermore if a game sells well it is because it reaches a wider demographic of people, some who may not own the respective console and draw them in. System sellers never sell poorly themselves. So if you want to talk about a system seller at this point on the HD consoles you'll have to be talking about a game which will sell at LEAST 4-5Million copies. So if Uncharted/GOW 3 doesn't meet that metric it doesn't enter the picture.

I compared the franchises(or series) or general appeal of these games yes.  I didn't specify GT5/GOWIII versus Gears/Fable/Halo.   Re-read.

 Sales = appeal. Gears released with very few consoles sold and yet managed to sell huge quantities.  Deep friend chocolate bars are unappealing to most people but some find them delicious. A restaurant wouldn't generally expect a massive increase in business selling deep fried chocolate bars now would it?

No it hasn't gone over my head that there are numerous factors involved when talking about the sales of a game. Have you heard of simplifying assertions?

Halo CE didn't sell more because Halo 2 was released and the total sales of the Xbox 1 remained low.

GoW II sold 2.44 million, its hardly a heavy weight series. Now, Mario Kart is a heavy weight series it sold 7 million on a console with a far smaller userbase.

PS3 would actually have a lower percent of male users by MikeB's study examples if there were more local multiplayer games that are really fun to play with others.

(since he's not opposed to anecdotal evidence) I took my Wii over to my friends house we had Smash Bros, SMG, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Mario Kart, Strikers Charged, and Dragon Ball Z: Tenkaichi 3 to play local multiplayer just to name a few.

I brought my PS3 over a few days later we had Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm, Street Fighter IV, and LBP to play from local multiplayer, that's all and I have a healthy selection of PS3 games, and it's not uncommon, some games on PS3 rely on multiplayer a lot but it's online only, now if you have it local your girlfriend is more likely to play with you, your mom wouldn't mind playing it with your dad and your little brother or your kids would be more likely to play it with their friends.  All of which would inflate the results of the nielsen study.

When a game that comes with the system and one that many people buy like Wii Play just because they wanted a controller like me cause you couldn't find them anywhere, people will play the game, it might not be the core player but it's being played, but then you have the lack of those fun local multiplayer games that will hinder the nelsen results.

In short flawed :P

Again, you are going off on tangents and distorting the original point and trying to create some completely different argument.

Which was,   It's biased to sit here and negatively judge the PS3 (Or it's fans) based on their mention that some of it's largest most successful, console moving titles haven't even been released yet.  Just as it would be biased for someone to criticize Microsoft fans (Prior to Halo's release)  or Nintendo fans (Prior to Mario Kart or Mario Galaxies release).