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

Forums - Sony - Again, next year seems better for Ps3..

bigdom2786 on 25 July 2009
akuseru said:
bigdom2786 said:
leatherhat said:
I agree with OP all sony has done this year is give us Killzone 2, Infamous, MLB 09, Uncharted 2, MAG, ratchet and clank, a dozen or so psn games and then on the psp side all they have given us is GT portable, jak and daxter, resistance retribution, loco roco 2, patapon 2 and a gew others. I mean come on sony is that all you can do? 25+ solid games in one year? By the end of the year microsoft will have delivered TWO WHOLE GAMES for xbox. Sony you need to take a page from them and start doing your consumers right. Also God of War in March? Thats almost 3 whole months after the fall lineup, I cant wait that long! And strong rumors of GT5 this year? Unblelievable- truly you have failed sony. And I dont even want to start on third party games for ps3 and psp.

1. He was being sarcastic.

2.MAG has been confirmed for next year.

3. It's sad thats u have to add psn and psp games to make a point.

4. MLB or NBA whatever shouldnt be counted as a game. In that case we might as well add the 2k and live series in.

5. Halo Wars, Halo ODST, Left 4 Dead 2, GTA 4 DLC ( yes it's at leats 10 hrs it's counts as a game), Star Ocean: The Last Hope,Ninja Blade( didnt like the game but it got decent reviews so I'm putting it on the list), Shadow Complex, Magna Carta 2,Splinter Cell: Convinction, Forza 3....is not just 2 whole games.

6. Stop being a Fanboy....

 

btw...can I get an "Owned" Sign pls?

 

Just notice how (almost, maybe all) all the games leatherhat mentioned are games made by SONY and not 3RD PARTY devs... Sony delivers games made by themselves as well as 3rd party and does not rely on others doing the work for them. That is why I respect Nintendo and Sony, they don't rely too much on everyone else, they speak with their own creativity and development..

For me, Left 4 Dead, GTA DLC, Mass Effect, Star Ocean, Ninja Blade, Splinter Cell, Magna Carta and Shadow Complex have "nothing to do" with Microsoft at all. Those games would've / could've been made without the 360 existing at all. With the games and franchises that Sony and Nintendo make, there is a chance that they would've never existed at all. Valve would've made L4D, Star Ocean would've definetly been made, Rockstar could've made the DLC if they wanted (maybe not because of $50 million from MS), Splinter Cell is a series with roots on many consoles in the past (despite being an Xbox game originally), Magna Carta 2 is a sequel to a PS2 game I believe, and so on.. And if we dig deeper into the past, Capcom would've made Dead Rising and Lost Planet, Tales of Vesperia would've been made, possibly Eternal Sonata as well. Gears of War could've been made (maybe not, seeing as it is a typical game for the 360 fanbase), Mass Effect would've been made, Alan Wake would've been made, Rare games would've been made and actually be good... Hell, even HALO was supposed to be a game for Mac before MS made relations with Bungie. Almost EVERY game with ties to the 360 console would've been made without the console even existing.

Even though Nintendo is THE KING of franchises (even though they milk a lot, IMO) and have people like Miyamoto in their own ranks which I don't see Sony have within Sony Corp itself (if you know what I mean), Sony still creates new franchises and new game ideas WITHIN their own company and their studios. Most of their games are here today because of the actions of Sony and the creation of their studios.. Especially Nintendo games would've never seen the light of day if not for Nintendo being established. Sony is kind of in the middle because their studios are not directly from within Sony Corp, and there is a strong chance the games would've been made either way... Anyways, this is what makes the big difference between the big 3, and as long as MS keeps relying heavily on 3rd party, this will not change IMO.

For me, and I am possibly a minority but I don't really care, Forza, Fable, Kameo and probably some others are the only games that would've not been made without the 360. Sorry, there are probably a couple of more games (like that avatar racing game and 1 vs 100), but I have a really hard time remembering games from within MGS.. There really aren't that many titles that MICROSOFT themselves has brought to the table... A little sad actually for such a big software company.

this is all my opinion, in a wall of text.. sorry if you don't like it, then i will cry....

why would you want and "Owned" sign? So you could own yourself?

ps: sorry for double post

It's still exclusive either way...it doesn't matter because the guy above me was just being a troll... I respect Nintendo and Sony too ( which is why I have a three consoles) but he was obivously trying to be  a jackass and piss people off.  I like Sony's lineup but I hate the fact that they dont know when they're gonna release the game...it frustates me when I have a set date to get a game and it gets push back more than one time. Sony has done that serveral times. If the guy above me said "Well sony has the better first party exclusives" I wouldve agree...but even then I would'nt have agree because he said MS has two whole exclusives...which third or first party, is still exclusive. The problem wasn't who made what game but what system it's exclusive for. And I respect your opinion... but the guy was obviously being a troll.. and yes I still want an "Owned" sign because I schooled the kid.



Around the Network
Seraphic_Sixaxis on 25 July 2009

every year is the year of the PS3...



bigdom2786 on 25 July 2009
Lord Flashheart said:

^erm all those sony games could also have been made if sony weren't around. Those dev houses would simply make a game on a different platform. Remember how sony got those studios?
By buying them also games like K2 and uncharted are made by studios that choose to make exclusives.

Without sony those games would still be here.

Only Nintendo can the point your poorly trying to make about sony games be true for.
Without Ninty (and Sega when they was making hardware) most of their franchises and games not exist but for Sony and MS their exclusives would be elsewhere.

^

This...

 

This is actually true... minus maybe Home and some of psn games... most first party games are made by devs that's got brought out ( like Naugthy Dog for example) and even then those franchises they made can be sold off later on ( see Crash Bandicoot)...

Nintendo is probably the one that truly does their work for first party.



akuseru on 26 July 2009
Lord Flashheart said:

^erm all those sony games could also have been made if sony weren't around. Those dev houses would simply make a game on a different platform. Remember how sony got those studios?
By buying them also games like K2 and uncharted are made by studios that choose to make exclusives.

Without sony those games would still be here.

Only Nintendo can the point your poorly trying to make about sony games be true for.
Without Ninty (and Sega when they was making hardware) most of their franchises and games not exist but for Sony and MS their exclusives would be elsewhere.

if you had read my post (I know it is hard because it contains so much bullshit ^^), you would've seen that I said the exact thing about Sony.. But apparently you didn't.. As I said, Sony is "in the middle" (if that makes any sense) and Nintendo is the undisputed king when it comes to first party franchises... I said many of the Sony games would've been made because their devs don't come from within Sony Corp, but apparently you chose to ignore that... I know how Sony got their studios and I hinted at that in my post as well.. Nintendo is in its own league and Sony is trailing and doing ok, while MS doesn't seem to get the whole point with first party development. which I think is strange...



Lord Flashheart on 26 July 2009

"Sony still creates new franchises and new game ideas WITHIN their own company and their studios. Most of their games are here today because of the actions of Sony and the creation of their studios.. Especially Nintendo games would've never seen the light of day if not for Nintendo being established. Sony is kind of in the middle because their studios are not directly from within Sony Corp, and there is a strong chance the games would've been made either way... Anyways, this is what makes the big difference between the big 3, and as long as MS keeps relying heavily on 3rd party, this will not change IMO."

So the game ideas come from within Sony but the games are made by companies not within sony?
You act like all these games that come out are originally ideas from sony then they farm them out to the devs they bought or who choose to make games for sony.
That's bull.
Companies come up with ideas and then go to sony or who ever for funding etc and make them exclusive.
On rare occasions with Sony or MS come up with an original idea and tell a company to make it. They farm out sequels or expansions but the bulk of original games are from the software houses.

You dismiss any MGS (Microsoft Games Studio) games and say their games have nothing to do with MS!?! You give a long rant picking games out on the 360 why they would be made without the 360 then credit sony as the brains behind the PS3 exclusives then say the games would be made without sony?
How does that work? If sony comes up with the ideas and the franchises how could they be made without them?
Why don't you list sony games and give a rant on how they don't have anything to with sony then?
What is it?
Forza and fable would've been made without MS like God of War and GT would've been made without sony.

You can't lambaste one company like you did then quietly say but this company does the same and act like it's ok for them to. Hinting and alluding at one company doing something you've spent a paragraph knocking another for doing is like you said, bullshit.

". Sony delivers games made by themselves as well as 3rd party and does not rely on others doing the work for them."

And MS doesn't? MS doesn't have internal studios? 3rd parties making games exclusively for them? Sony doesn't care about multiplats? Did last gen. Their second gen in the business just like this is MS second gen in the business so why is it wrong now? They cared enough to distribute one multiplat. What is your point other than to bitch about MS?




Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network
theprof00 on 26 July 2009
Lord Flashheart said:

^erm all those sony games could also have been made if sony weren't around. Those dev houses would simply make a game on a different platform. Remember how sony got those studios?
By buying them also games like K2 and uncharted are made by studios that choose to make exclusives.

Without sony those games would still be here.

Only Nintendo can the point your poorly trying to make about sony games be true for.
Without Ninty (and Sega when they was making hardware) most of their franchises and games not exist but for Sony and MS their exclusives would be elsewhere.

I think Nintendo would still turn out mario games even if they didn't have a console in the race. I think it's fair to say that most games would still come out regardless of the vying consoles. Sorry, just being anal here. I know it's not your idea.

EDIT: Also, about the thing about Sony having outside studios with deve from within... A lot of Sony's third party supports are actually second party and are oftentimes co-developed with Sony techs and devs for the purposes of influencing the gameplay and optimizing code for the platform. THe gameplay guidance is meant to help adjust to the demographic. So, in a small part they are a big part of IP development, and the games possibly wouldn't be the same without the help, but then again, they very well could be better in some cases.



DjFlex53 on 26 July 2009
theprof00 said:
Lord Flashheart said:

^erm all those sony games could also have been made if sony weren't around. Those dev houses would simply make a game on a different platform. Remember how sony got those studios?
By buying them also games like K2 and uncharted are made by studios that choose to make exclusives.

Without sony those games would still be here.

Only Nintendo can the point your poorly trying to make about sony games be true for.
Without Ninty (and Sega when they was making hardware) most of their franchises and games not exist but for Sony and MS their exclusives would be elsewhere.

I think Nintendo would still turn out mario games even if they didn't have a console in the race. I think it's fair to say that most games would still come out regardless of the vying consoles. Sorry, just being anal here. I know it's not your idea.

EDIT: Also, about the thing about Sony having outside studios with deve from within... A lot of Sony's third party supports are actually second party and are oftentimes co-developed with Sony techs and devs for the purposes of influencing the gameplay and optimizing code for the platform. THe gameplay guidance is meant to help adjust to the demographic. So, in a small part they are a big part of IP development, and the games possibly wouldn't be the same without the help, but then again, they very well could be better in some cases.

The same can be said for MS. There are so many 2nd/3rd party games on the 360 that MS plays a big part in IP development, influencing the gameplay, incorporating and optimizing xbox live into games and optimizing code for the platform. Just to name a few....Mistwalker's RPGs, PGR 1-4, the Fable franchise, Halo franchises, Gears Of War franchise, Forza...etc. These games would exist without MS just as Uncharted, Motorstorm, LBP, the Metal Gear series & Killzone 1 & 2 would exist without Sony. It's the developers who make these games not Sony or MS. Only Nintendo has a FEW games that couldn't be made without Nintendo and only because they are Nintendo developers making them...not leased out developers like they did with Metroid: The Other M.



Being in 2nd feels so much better than being in 3rd

1337 Gamer on 26 July 2009

Honestly SONY should just release a few of those games this year then they would "win" 2009. But like always they wait to release a few of their highest profile titles so they dont have enough to "win" the year. If killzone had come out in 2008 they might have won. If GOW 3 and GT5 come out in 2009 they might win but as their current strategy stands 20XX will never be the year of the PS3



Long Live SHIO!

CatFangs806 on 26 July 2009

Seriously, another "(enter year here) is the year of the PS3" thread? Come on.



theprof00 on 26 July 2009