Seeings how Sony was turning out a ton of middling content, that seems unlikely. Even considering the significant rate of development inflation we've seen this generation.
Also, I didn't say they don't count, but they're a small segment of the industry, one that Sony is serving just like MS is. Where are the AAA retail games from MS? Are you saying that a bunch of XBLA games completely makes up for the lack of even trying to establish any new front line IPs in over three years?
XBLA games are great, but it's the same as MS turning out tons of FPS and racing games and nothing else. You aren't servicing a broad spectrum of the audience, and XBLA games aren't even analogous projects to front line AAA titles which games in a small subset of genres could at least be argued to be.
MS is asking their fans to live off of snacks, very delicious snacks mind you but snacks all the same, for three years with a few favorite entrees mixed in and the promise of them some day showing you some new entrees to try out. Meanwhile Sony's bringing the snacks and old favorites right along side a plethora of new entrees to try out with consistency. Who's the more complacent party here?
Considering the splash that games like Journey and Walking Dead have made last year, they are not small segments IMO. I've had more fun, and put in more time, with Dust last year than I have with many retail releases. So I'm not sure how that doesn't count.
Otherwise, you're correct with retail titles, it's mostly been Gears, Forza, and Halo.
Primal, Siren and it's sequel, Mark of Kri and it's sequel, the previously mentioned Rouge Galaxy, two additional entries in the Sly series, The Getaway, Genji: Dawn of the Samurai, and the previously mentioned Shadow of the Colossus just to name a few.
This was back when Sony's first party was hit and miss, which further highlights the difference between their focus and MS' focus at this moment. Sony will release a questionable game and often give the developer a second bite at the apple if the concept or personnel are worth it. It isn't a boom/bust situation with every new release, just waiting to axe the IP and the studio at the first sign of missing mass market appeal.
Thanks for the list, I knew you were the man to ask ;p I stand corrected on their output late last gen.
It isn't a problem with their support for Kinect, it's that their support for Kinect cannibalized their core gamer support. That's been my point all along, hence why I pointed out how Sony effectively supported both EyeToy and core gamer IPs in parallel on the PS2. Neither got short changed and no core gamer IP had Kinect foisted upon it (such as Fable: The Journey).
Sony has a lot more studios than MS and maybe even Nintendo. You can't expect everyone to be able to spread their resources like they do. Plus the Eyetoy titles back then were far simpler than the Kinect/Move titles we see today.
We really have no idea if Kinect has cannibalized anything since there's no proof that core titles would have been developed in their place if the device never existed. I completely forgot about Fable: the Journey, but IIRC Peter actually had to convince MS to green light that, so it's not like that was pushed by the higher ups at MS.
And again we're back to you missing my main point. I don't care about the business sense behind it, I care about the games I get to play. MS isn't paying me dividends out of their annual profits, so I have no real interest in the financial aspects of their studio closures, I just care about their core game output, which is shoddy at best.
Sony has closed down studios this generation, but they've opened just about as many and have continued to push out core gamer titles at a good clip. MS shuttered damn near everything that was a core gamer studio, while having two of the three remaining core studios (Rare and Lionhead) make Kinect games.
They can start up all the new studios they want. I don't know what those studios are making or if there is a track record worth caring about with them. They're blank slates with a lot to prove, and most studios take a while to really find their stride. Sony has made and maintained those investments. MS bailed out on the option to make similar investments earlier in this generation and lived off of 3rd party preference far too much. There is no guarantee that will continue and without it MS has very little to bank on from a software standpoint.
I only bring up the business aspect since it helps to explain certain actions by the companies. No doubt I prefer Sony's model of housing as many studios as possible to crank out games.
Even with that said, with all these studios Sony has, that didn't help the PS3 last year for gamers like me. So while they output more titles, they too can have off-years, just like MS. Though this year looks really exciting for the PS3, that's for sure.
I think MS realizes they can't continue to bank on 3rd party offerings which is why they are investing more in 1st party studios now. I get your points, and I don't disagree with all of them, but my issue with your posts is that you make it sound like all hope is lost with MS. So while there's little they can do to win you over, I much rather wait and see what these studios have to offer next gen before I make up my mind.
This is a dumb argument, no one is claiming they are playing all the games. But if I pick 15 games to play for a year, do I want to chose from 50 games across 8 genres, or 100 games across 12 genres? Does the profit margin from a publisher excite me or the games?
XBLA and PSN both have great DD games, but not all of us consider replaying the same Trials level over and over for a high score the same as playing a large story driven game. We want both, not an either or. I had great fun with Journey, Unfinished Swan and Walking Dead in 2012, but that does not mean I don't want the option to play Last of Us or GoW.
Anyhow, why you would argue against more games is beyond me, but you guys are being defensive and starting in with pack mentality and group think. Stop protecting a faceless multinational company, look out for number one.
No one is arguing against having more games, people are arguing against the misconception that there's nothing exclusive to play on the 360.
