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

Forums - Sales - Sony is going down the wrong path with their game development?

psrock on 15 December 2009

Gears is as first party as MGS4 is first party.

It's very simple why PS3 games don't seems to sell as well as 360 games.

America.

If you look at all the games and the difference in sales, they all come from America.

Halo 3

7 million in America
2.7 in others

Halo ODST

2.7 in America
1.08 million in others

This one is even more telling

LEFT4DEAD

2 million in America
400k in others

While the PS3 games always seemed to sell toe toe in others with 360, in America they have to crawl to reach 1 million.

Only 3 games have sold 2 million copies in America and released on the PS3:

COD4
MWF2
GTA4

More people bought gta4 in others than America.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Around the Network
steverhcp02 on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
steverhcp02 said:
A_C_E said:
 

I'm not directly comparing MS to Sony so much as Sony to Sony. The only comparison I have made towards MS is the marketing division which MS takes the take no doubt. MS doesn't need many first party titles to sell over 5 mil because they already have two franchises that are 'guaranteed' 5 mil sellers with each release, the ones you posted, Gears and Halo. But that's not the point I'm getting at. What I'm trying to figure out is why Sony just let's these amazing games get not even half the sales they deserve?

Like I said, the PS3 has a problem when not even it's two biggest highly rated FPS's can't even top 4 mil, it's pathetic. They have to build towards a great online community where they ship their PS3's with mics and they have x-game chat and have an online experience unmatched by all, all in one FPS game. This is why Halo is so big today but Sony as a company just doesn't know how to pick up on these things. Sony as a company is so very linear and spend more time catching up then they do inventing, which is too bad because they have IMO the best line-up of 2010 but they won't get the sales they deserve.

The most successful console of all time in a generation where it had little to no competition for third party or 1st party titles sold a grand total of 25 total games over 4 million.

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?page=1&results=50&name=&console=PS2&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=

Take a gander at the "first party" titles.

This argument is geting ridiculous with speculation and a false sense of reality in terms of sales numbers by using Halo and Gears as standards.

I'm tellin you.

no no no, not only am I telling YOU but i linked to an interweb site to prove it so there YOU have it.




Get Your Portable ID!

Hus on 15 December 2009
jarrod said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Im still waiting for the link...

CGI asked what other "1st Party" titles by MS sold 5m+ besides Halo and ppl are so quick to mention Gears......now I ask give me a link where it clearly statest that Gears IP is owned by MS no buts.

Gears IP is owned by Epic.  Microsoft has an exclusive license for the first 3 games based on the property.

How many of the cars and tracks in Gran Turismo are Sony owned btw?  If we're doing 1st party by "ownership", how well do you think a GT utterly devoid of licenses would sell?

not that it matters and you are just grasping at straws here.

Sony does not pay for those licences, many manafactures come to PD to be featured in GT. 



jarrod on 15 December 2009
psrock said:
Gears is as first party as MGS4 is first party.

That's pretty much nowhere near the case.  Gears was 100% funded, promoted and published by Microsoft.  They don't own the IP (somewhat shockingly, as that tends to be what happens when one funds, promotes and publishes a game), by they were involved in pretty much every step of the game's creation and even had some of their own R&D staff on it.  



steverhcp02 on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
steverhcp02 said:
CGI-Quality said:
steverhcp02 said:
A_C_E said:
 

I'm not directly comparing MS to Sony so much as Sony to Sony. The only comparison I have made towards MS is the marketing division which MS takes the take no doubt. MS doesn't need many first party titles to sell over 5 mil because they already have two franchises that are 'guaranteed' 5 mil sellers with each release, the ones you posted, Gears and Halo. But that's not the point I'm getting at. What I'm trying to figure out is why Sony just let's these amazing games get not even half the sales they deserve?

Like I said, the PS3 has a problem when not even it's two biggest highly rated FPS's can't even top 4 mil, it's pathetic. They have to build towards a great online community where they ship their PS3's with mics and they have x-game chat and have an online experience unmatched by all, all in one FPS game. This is why Halo is so big today but Sony as a company just doesn't know how to pick up on these things. Sony as a company is so very linear and spend more time catching up then they do inventing, which is too bad because they have IMO the best line-up of 2010 but they won't get the sales they deserve.

The most successful console of all time in a generation where it had little to no competition for third party or 1st party titles sold a grand total of 25 total games over 4 million.

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?page=1&results=50&name=&console=PS2&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=

Take a gander at the "first party" titles.

This argument is geting ridiculous with speculation and a false sense of reality in terms of sales numbers by using Halo and Gears as standards.

I'm tellin you.

no no no, not only am I telling YOU but i linked to an interweb site to prove it so there YOU have it.

I mean seriously though, 25 4mill sellers for a 135+mill userbase. Like I said, PlayStation games haven't sold those kinds of numbers in droves, EVER, save for Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo, which could be seen as PlayStation's Gears and Halo.

*high five*

Now im going to go watch Watchmen on Blu-ray because i bought it instead of a Sony first party title since its BD-Live enabled and has online functionality.




Get Your Portable ID!

Around the Network
jarrod on 15 December 2009
Hus said:
jarrod said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Im still waiting for the link...

CGI asked what other "1st Party" titles by MS sold 5m+ besides Halo and ppl are so quick to mention Gears......now I ask give me a link where it clearly statest that Gears IP is owned by MS no buts.

Gears IP is owned by Epic.  Microsoft has an exclusive license for the first 3 games based on the property.

How many of the cars and tracks in Gran Turismo are Sony owned btw?  If we're doing 1st party by "ownership", how well do you think a GT utterly devoid of licenses would sell?

not that it matters and you are just grasping at straws here.

Sony does not pay for those licences, many manafactures come to PD to be featured in GT. 

Doesn't matter, Sony's lone huge franchise is 100% dependent on other people's IP.  A licenseless GT would probably sell about as well as a licenseless Madden or Kingdom Hearts.  Makes one wonder about real brand value...



A_C_E on 15 December 2009
steverhcp02 said:
A_C_E said:
 

I'm not directly comparing MS to Sony so much as Sony to Sony. The only comparison I have made towards MS is the marketing division which MS takes the take no doubt. MS doesn't need many first party titles to sell over 5 mil because they already have two franchises that are 'guaranteed' 5 mil sellers with each release, the ones you posted, Gears and Halo. But that's not the point I'm getting at. What I'm trying to figure out is why Sony just let's these amazing games get not even half the sales they deserve?

Like I said, the PS3 has a problem when not even it's two biggest highly rated FPS's can't even top 4 mil, it's pathetic. They have to build towards a great online community where they ship their PS3's with mics and they have x-game chat and have an online experience unmatched by all, all in one FPS game. This is why Halo is so big today but Sony as a company just doesn't know how to pick up on these things. Sony as a company is so very linear and spend more time catching up then they do inventing, which is too bad because they have IMO the best line-up of 2010 but they won't get the sales they deserve.

The most successful console of all time in a generation where it had little to no competition for third party or 1st party titles sold a grand total of 25 total games over 4 million.

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?page=1&results=50&name=&console=PS2&minSales=0&publisher=&genre=

Take a gander at the "first party" titles.

This argument is geting ridiculous with speculation and a false sense of reality in terms of sales numbers by using Halo and Gears as standards.

You just proved my point on the 360 side...I just posted that 360 doesn't need all these  major first party titles because it's already got enough 3rd party and then you post something that states the same for PS2? Why don't you take a gander at how much harder Sony is trying to push out 1st party software in comparison to PS2. Sure all dev's are paying more this gen but not as much as Sony is. Sony is pumping so much money into their games that the effort they put into the PS2 would look very pale.

And why do you say argument? Are we arguing? lol. Look at the thread title it does not mention anything about MS so let's leave them out of this because you and CGI have used their name more times in this thread than anyone so don't even try and accuse me of using Gears and Halo as standards because I'm not. I'm simply look for reason with a logical answer as to why PS3 games like KZ2/Infamous/UC1/UC1 aren't reaching 4 mil when that should be their lowest sales. If you guys are just going to use comparisons to a system that is very online centric then why even try to have a discussion or as you would say, arguement.



psrock on 15 December 2009
jarrod said:
psrock said:
Gears is as first party as MGS4 is first party.

That's pretty much nowhere near the case.  Gears was 100% funded, promoted and published by Microsoft.  They don't own the IP (somewhat shockingly, as that tends to be what happens when one funds, promotes and publishes a game), by they were involved in pretty much every step of the game's creation and even had some of their own R&D staff on it.  

Funding money to keep a game exclusive doesn't make it first party, and trust me I am pretty sure Sony paid money to keep this game as well.  Gears 1 and 2 are a 3rd party game.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
A_C_E on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
A_C_E said:
CGI-Quality said:
A_C_E said:
steverhcp02 said:
A_C_E said:
Some company's don't know how to move on to the next big thing. Sony isn't really doing anything revolutionary with their games in the online department and their marketing is way off. Their marketing for games sucks but now that they've found a sweet spot for the PS3 slim then maybe they'll find a sweet spot for their software as well but I doubt Sony will ever be able to sell very many 5 mil sellers for the rest of this gen.

I see lots of new successful IP's in the OP's list. That to me is the most important thing for a developer, especially a first party developer as a consumer.

Online is one aspect of development, but ill take good new IP's over 4 ratchet, games in 4 years with online play.

Also, lets not forget LBP, possibly the most revolutionary online game of this generation.

Ok here, some company's as a whole don't know how to move on to the next big thing, although I do see the 'Play, Create, Share' genre becoming massive for this and next generation so I'll give them that but overall as a company they are just so linear. Sure they offer great games and great new IP's which are important for a company but look at how they are selling. Sony is no MS when it comes to marketing but I know they have it in them to sell large amounts of software, they just haven't been doing that at all. Their only major title I see selling over 5 mil is GT5 and after that...what? RFoM? It's franchise is already on decline. KZ? KZ2 Hasn't reached 3 mil yet. LBP2? 1st hasn't reached 3 yet. Uncharted of all semi-hardcore franchises that are geared more towards casuals most likely won't even make it to 4 mil yet it's one of the most highest rated games of all time in a genre that is known to sell in the 10's of millions. There's a major problem for Sony to overcome. They've got great software just not enough juice to squeeze, somethings missing.

Tell me though, what franchise(s), outside of Gears and Halo, does Microsoft have that sell over 5mill? I keep hearing that Sony's games have a hrad tiime selling but then see no examples of 360 games that sell MUCH better?

- Crackdown - 1.52mill

- Fable II - 3.27mill

- PGR 4 - 1.85mill

- Left 4 Dead - 2.53mill

- Mass Effect - 2.10mill

Where are these HUGE selling 360 exclusives again? As I said, they perform very mcuh like PS3 games:

- Uncharted 1 - 2.79mill

- LBP - 2.74mill

- Killzone 2 - 2.14mill

- Resistance 2 - 1.73mill

Now, where are the major differences again between many of these IPs, I'll tell you:

Gears of War: Deserves a commendation, it did EXCEPTIONAL for a new IP.

Halo: Brand Name alone will, sell 5-6mill of these.

Gran Turismo: Look at the Prologue.

Take away the big guys and you have fracnhises that sell comparable #s on both. I think this idea that PS3 games "underperform" and 360 games sell so well is quite deluded.

 

I'm not directly comparing MS to Sony so much as Sony to Sony. The only comparison I have made towards MS is the marketing division which MS takes the take no doubt. MS doesn't need many first party titles to sell over 5 mil because they already have two franchises that are 'guaranteed' 5 mil sellers with each release, the ones you posted, Gears and Halo. But that's not the point I'm getting at. What I'm trying to figure out is why Sony just let's these amazing games get not even half the sales they deserve? Like I said, the PS3 has a problem when not even it's two biggest highly rated FPS's can't even top 4 mil, it's pathetic. They have to build towards a great online community where they ship their PS3's with mics and they have x-game chat and have an online experience unmatched by all, all in one FPS game. This is why Halo is so big today but Sony as a company just doesn't know how to pick up on these things. Sony as a company is so very linear and spend more time catching up then they do inventing, which is too bad because they have IMO the best line-up of 2010 but they won't get the sales they deserve.

I love this talk of "invention". People love to forget the innovative games that Sony releases. Oh well..............

OT: Either way, the same could be said of 360 games, that are amazing, that don't get higher sales. I'm saying it's a redundant arguemt, and just because something doesn't sell 5mill, which most 360 IPs don't do either, doesn't mean it sold "bad/pathetic/underperformed", whatever you'd like to call it.

The 360 has ONE more IP than Sony that sells 5mill. Some of you act as if Sony's IPs all sell FAR lower than it's closest competitor, which is quite laughable given the data.

Fact remains, Gears was the one nobody saw coming. Halo we knew would do gangbusters. Sony's biggest IP has yet to release it's next full iteration, and judging by past PlayStation consoles/franchises, PS3 games sell comparably.

OMG...the 360 again? Are you kidding me? Why is the PS3 not selling as much software as should be? I am not saying that PS3 software is failing or is not comparable, I'm 'asking' a question looking......fuck it.



jarrod on 15 December 2009
psrock said:
jarrod said:
psrock said:
Gears is as first party as MGS4 is first party.

That's pretty much nowhere near the case.  Gears was 100% funded, promoted and published by Microsoft.  They don't own the IP (somewhat shockingly, as that tends to be what happens when one funds, promotes and publishes a game), by they were involved in pretty much every step of the game's creation and even had some of their own R&D staff on it.  

Funding money to keep a game exclusive doesn't make it first party, and trust me I am pretty sure Sony paid money to keep this game as well.  Gears 1 and 2 are a 3rd party game.

It wasn't funded to keep it exclusive, it was funded to make it period.  Without Microsoft, there wouldn't have been a Gears of War, they were there from day one.  The game was made for them pretty much, the only difference between say this and PGR or Crackdown is that Microsoft settled for exclusivity rights and not full IP ownership.

MGS4 would've happened regardless of Sony, and they didn't even handle publishing, advertising or funding.  It was all Konami, though Sony likely threw some heavy incentives their way to keep it exclusive.