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?

WilliamWatts on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
WilliamWatts said:

I never said the games underperformed anywhere, I don't understand where you're getting this idea from? Is it from other people inside this topic?

Is the concept of comparing the top 20 general releases with the top 20 Sony releases and looking for trends in the placement of different titles not a good one? 

Since you're keen to go down that path I did a check of the top 10 Microsoft published games (these are all exclusives right?) 

  1. Halo 3
  2. Gears of War
  3. Gears of War 2
  4. Forza Motorsport 2
  5. Halo ODST
  6. Fable 2
  7. Mass Effect
  8. Project Gotham Racing 4
  9. Halo Wars
  10. Forza Motorsport 3

I think only three of them lack local multiplayer and they are Fable 2, Mass Effect and Halo Wars. Two of them also lack any significant online play and they are Fable 2 and Mass Effect from what I can gather from Wikipedia. None of the top 5 lack either local or online multiplayer. I think Halo 3 must have been bundled with every Xbox 360 in the U.S.A. because the sales there are silly compared to what Vgchartz calls the 'others' region so I guess that sort of should get taken into account. The further down the list you go the more likely the game seems to be completely single player in nature.

So does this not support my concept that Sony may have been better off if more of their big releases had both online and offline multiplayer modes? I feel I must repeat to make myself clear here that im not saying that the games underperformed on Sony's side at all. Im saying that more people might have instead purchased or kept ahold of their copies of games Sony personally released instead of trading or renting. 

Well, since this seems to be the basis of your thread, I'll deal with it directly. I think your conclusion could be right or wrong. Of course the only way to know for sure is for Sony to release more games with features you mentioned. I apologize for the confusion with you, but it's just how your point came out.

Forgive me for feeling a little disapointed that our lengthy discussion came to this. But thanks anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Youre right in your assessment...probably i dont know to be honest.

But the most important thing to those games on the list are the franchises. 3 Halo games, 2 Gears games, 2 Forza games, 2 PGR games. The sales correlation is in regards to existing IP's sans ME and Gears 1. All the others had userbases on the origina Xbox.

Your argument, as its carried out, shows its franchise correlation not this online/local multiplayer stab in the dark for sales comparisons."

Does it matter that the games had a previous incarnation on another system? There seem to be a lot of franchises like LBP, Uncharted, Resistance Fall of Man which sold quite well without having a previous version to draw instant recognition from. Also many of the franchises which seem to correlate well with my theory are available on all systems, and many had their roots on the PS2. 

 



Around the Network
A_C_E on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
A_C_E 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.

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.

But, to say these games should have sold 4mill, which I don't get why they need to reach that in the first place, you'd have to have some sort of basis, which just sounds to me like those games should have sold that by YOUR standard. If not, then it must be that you are comparing them  to something else, and the only things comparable in sales to PS3 games are, you guessed it: 360 games. Also, whenever people claim that PS3 games "underperformed", why do you think this is being said? Because the "online centric" 360's games apparently sell "much better". It's all peopkle can mostly go on.

But tell me, why should those games have sold 4mill copies? These games would have to have comparable counterparts to say that they "underperformed". What are the reasons that these games should have sold 4mill?

Dude, seriously? They don't 'need' to reach the 4 mil they just should have because they are very well built games in comparison to most other's. I enjoy the games I listed more so than most other's so yes I am basing that off of my own inner feelings towards the games but also what most other people say about them. You hear about it all the time, games that are amazing but 'could' do alot better in sales. If Sony pushed these First party games then they would get alot more sales which in my eyes is what they deserve. These devs deserve more sales over their hard work and I mean that for all games not just the Sony ones.



psrock on 15 December 2009
jarrod said:
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.

Again, these games are still 3rd party exclusives no matter how you see it.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
slowmo 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.


Would Epic not actually come under the 2nd party umbrella when working so close to Microsoft on the Gears franchise in fairness?  Obviously Epic are a 3rd party company given they are not owned by Microsoft but when a publisher funds so much of a game and has the input Microsoft did then it is probably more accurate to call them a 2nd party developer in the instance of that game. 

One thing thats for certain is Gears is not a first party game.



jarrod on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
jarrod said:
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.

 

Well, Epic doesn't seem to shell out IPs, so that may explain why it's still an Epic IP.

Likely the case.  Microsoft also struck a similar deal with Bioware for ME, and they were in talks with Valve for a similar project (which Valve would've retained ownership over)... I think it could also be reflective of their change in 1st party ideology.

Really, it's a lot like Sony's original deals for Crash and Spyro in the PS1 days.  Maybe we'll see ME4 and Gears 4 on PS4?



Around the Network
A_C_E on 15 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
A_C_E said:
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.

What should the software be selling? Then tell me: why?

Look at my previous post^^^



jarrod on 15 December 2009
psrock said:
jarrod said:
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.

Again, these games are still 3rd party exclusives no matter how you see it.

No, one was a first party product.  The other wasn't.  3rd parties own the IPs and developed the titles, that's pretty much all they share in common.



A_C_E on 15 December 2009

Anyways I'm going to bed, sorry if I seemed harsh or whatever I'm just a little tired, don't judge from this one discussion lol.



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

What should the software be selling? Then tell me: why?

Look at my previous post^^^

Well, your opinion can't dictate the absolute of the situation. In other words, just because TO YOU the games should've performed better doesn't mean that they should have.

Yes, Sony needs to take notes on certain asopects of gaming, but then again, so does EVERY company in the industry. But these games don't have to sell 4mill copies, why should they? Why does 4mill copies determine absolute success or decent performance? Tha to me makes no sense.

Actually I had also said that I based it off other's feeling's towards the games as well so if you think about it since pretty much whoever touched UC1/2, or any other highly rated title, liked it then this can only mean one thing; Sony doesn't know how to properly sell towards their own fanbase and the biggest thing is, Sony doesn't have to deal with piracy. Sure I can't decide the absolute but that doesn't mean I can't expect more sales from a game, does it?



nofingershaha on 15 December 2009

Gears is a hard title to classify. While Microsoft did fund, published, and marketed the game, Epic still owns it. However over the years Epic and Microsoft have become a bit close. While Epic have had Unreal Tournament 3 published on PS3 by Midway, Epic have later ported that title over to the 360 and even co-develop the recent game Shadow Complex for XBL. Not to mention Epic now has an office within the Microsoft Games Studios over in Redmond, Washington.

So even though Epic is third party, they sure act like first party.