Support NeoGAF

[myzhi]

SHOCKING.


Developers stating that they will make most games for the company with most systems last generation. This has never happen before. That's why Nintendo & Sega are still at the top. Ooh wait... :lol



If Sony freaks up, people will drop them. There are no loyalties. It's a business.

 

[gofreak]

Developers stating that they will make most games for the company with most systems last generation. This has never happen before. That's why Nintendo & Sega are still at the top. Ooh wait... :lol

Actually, they aren't on top precisely because publishers did not continue to support them as they had before.

 

[myzhi]

Actually, they aren't on top precisely because publishers did not continue to support them as they had before.

Take all the good 3rd party exclusive games on PS1, and then put them exclusives on Saturn / N64, you seriously think Sony would still be around today?

If all major updates (MSG4, GTA4, FFXIII, DMC3, and etc.) were scheduled only for X360 & Revolution, you think people would still wait for PS3?

3rd parties play a huge role. Even, Nintendo can't last by themself with their best development studios.

 

[gofreak]

Take all the good 3rd party exclusive games on PS1, and then put them on Saturn / N64, you seriously think Sony would still be around today?


If all major updates (MSG4, GTA4, FFXIII, and etc.) schedule only for X360, you think people would really wait for PS3?

3rd parties play a huge role. Nintendo can't by themself even though they are supreme at making games.

Err..this is precisely my point.

I think you're saying, if Sony loses 3rd support, they're up shit creek. But I figured the comments at the top of the thread kind of dramatically pointed against that.

Sony could "freak up", but seriously, what are the chances? Since E3, Sony has looked every bit the one in control. These publishers don't invest resources and money blindly either..

 

[myzhi]

Err..this is precisely my point.

I think you're saying, if Sony loses 3rd support, they're up shit creek. But I figured the comments at the top of the thread kind of dramatically pointed against that.

Sony could "freak up", but seriously, what are the chances? Since E3, Sony has looked every bit the one in control. These publishers don't invest resources and money blindly either..

What I am saying is most developers always say that. Go back and read old articles right before or at beginning of each generation. It's common sense they you would put most developement into the company that won last generation, but they also want to be relatively safe in case it fails, and so, they also invest into other possible competitors. The OP just tells us what's obvious.

 

[gofreak]

What I am saying is most developers always say that. Go back and read old articles right before or at beginning of each generation. It's common sense they you would put most developement into the company that won last generation, but they also want to be relatively safe in case it fails, and so, they also invest into other possible competitors. The OP just tells us what's obvious.

With the N64, solid support was less than forthcoming, even early on..

Ultimately, if your point is that publisher support would change if Sony were to emerge no longer the leader, then of course I agree. But the likelihood of that is..? Publishers are placing bets here, to a degree, but they're not exactly risky ones, IMO. And in a way it's like a vicious circle - strongest publisher support will greatly increase the odds of establishing one platform as the leader, which will secure continued publisher support, which will...

 

[myzhi]

With the N64, solid support was less than forthcoming, even early on..

Ultimately, if your point is that publisher support would change if Sony were to emerge no longer the leader, then of course I agree. But the likelihood of that is..? Publishers are placing bets here, to a degree, but they're not exactly risky ones, IMO. And in a way it's like a vicious circle - strongest publisher support will greatly increase the odds of establishing one platform as the leader, which will secure continued publisher support, which will...

You are getting to far ahead of yourself. I never said Sony would loose. All I am saying is that of course "Most developers will invest most resources into the current market leader." It's common sense. The OP is just stating/ posting the obvious. You don't have to just look at console gaming just for examples. Most people will develope for Windows Vista. Why you think? USC won two titles in a row, why do you think most thought they would win a third? If you could advertise with Coke, Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper, which would most do?

As for N64, you need to look. Most developers were on board. Only after the machine were release that people begin to realize that it wasn't close to it's hype. Remember, "Project Reality," "SGI graphics," and etc. Not to mention cartidge format was it's death bed.

 

[Andrew2]

Lies mixed with gibberish.

Reason 1 is the gibberish, reason 2 is the lies.

Go on Xbox live and see how long it finds you to find a proper gamer, its ALL casuals. For something they dont care about they sure use it a lot.

Show me some data that would suggest console online gaming is showing significant growth?

 

[gofreak]

You are getting to far ahead of yourself. I never said Sony would loose. All I am saying is that of course "Most developers will invest most resources into the current market leader." It's common sense. That's stating the obvious which OP is saying.

Well, ok. I guess it's just nice to have some confirmation of that.

Not to mention cartidge format was it's death bed.

Well, that's one of those extraordinary issues that can help break that cycle of support and success that I was talking about earlier. I guess the point is, Sony really hasn't put a foot wrong yet (mostly, at least!), let alone made such a catastrophic misjudgement.

 

[Piepz]

No it won't.

Just like it wasn't last generation.

yes, it will, you ignorant freak.

 

[myzhi]

Well, ok. I guess it's just nice to have some confirmation of that.



Well, that's one of those extraordinary issues that can help break that cycle of support and success that I was talking about earlier. I guess the point is, Sony really hasn't put a foot wrong yet (mostly, at least!), let alone made such a catastrophic misjudgement.

Why the need for confirmation about something so obvious / simple. 1) Don't put all your eggs into 1 basket. 2) Ratio it out base on previous history. Doesn't take a genius to understand this.


Has Sony made a major blunder. Only time will tell. Nintendo sure as hell didn't think so with cartidge. I wouldn't bet against Sony though.

 

[maximum360]

I'm sure online gaming will definitely have more penetration this time around. It's just the nature of things. As broadband becomes more commonplace and affordable more gamers will get on board. (It's not blazing speed but you can get ~700k connection for $15 from Verizon and others.)

Hopefully the PS3 does have a decent online network (at least they have XBL as a standard to shoot for).

 

[DenogginizerOS]

When it comes to sports titles, I believe EA has no intention right now to go beyond what they have done with the X360 development for the PS3. So, X360 will be the "bottleneck" at least early on for PS3 EA Sports titles. Sounds like the new MOH will go that way as well.

As far as online goes, if Sony gets behind it more, broadband subscriptions in NA would increase. The lack of a unified effort by all console developers to really push online gaming combined with the high costs of broadband internet subscriptions have made this growth slower than expected. Hopefully, the dreams of the PS2's online designs will materialize on the PS3.

 

[monkeymagic]

If all major updates (MSG4, GTA4, FFXIII, DMC3, and etc.) were scheduled only for X360 & Revolution, you think people would still wait for PS3?

Too many ifs and pie in the sky dreams.

The publisher doesn't hold all the power in this relationship and neither does the platform owner.

They won't leave Sony and Sony won't fuck them.

Too bad for MS and their supporters but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Luckily for Nintendo they don't have to rely on 3rd parties like MS does so they're not up shit creek when major publishers like EA publically state that they're treating everyone but the PS3 as second class citizens.

yes, it will, you ignorant freak.

:lol

 

[VeryHungryCaterpillar]

reason 2 is the lies.

Go on Xbox live and see how long it finds you to find a proper gamer, its ALL casuals. For something they dont care about they sure use it a lot.

Xbox owners are not the definition of all gamers. Reason #2 is still legitimate.

 

[Kasra]

Who were the publishers? Capcom? Konami?

 

[myzhi]

Too many ifs and pie in the sky dreams.

The publisher doesn't hold all the power in this relationship and neither does the platform owner.

They won't leave Sony and Sony won't fuck them.

Too bad for MS and their supporters but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Luckily for Nintendo they don't have to rely on 3rd parties like MS does so they're not up shit creek when major publishers like EA publically state that they're treating everyone but the PS3 as second class citizens.

I love it when people came and post w/o understanding WTF I was talking about. I was replying to someone stating reason why Nintendo & Sega are not top dog anymore was not because of lack of 3rd party support. Thus, my reason for asking what would happen if Sony lost those exclusive games. I wasn't stating anyway they would. Read more next time.

 

[Confidence Man]

I somehow doubt any EA game will be exclusive to anyone.

 

[monkeymagic]

I wasn't stating anyway they would. Reading more.

Yes I know full well what you were saying - it happened to Sega and Nintendo therefore it can happen to Sony blah blah blah.

Rest assured it won't.

The market is different today.

The market leader is different today.

Further comparisons to Sega and Nintendo's fall from grace are irrelevant.

 

[AirBrian]

When I read this I really want to ask a follow-up question. Is EA really gonna have PS3 exclusives? Did they even have PS2 exclusives this generation? And I'm not talking about "FIFA 06: Road to the World Cup"-style exclusives, but actual meaningful exclusives.

DISNEY GOLF
F1 CAREER CHALLENGE
ISLAND XTREME STUNTS
KESSEN
LEGO SOCCER MANIA
MARCH MADNESS 2002
RUGBY
RUGBY 2004
SHOX
SIMPSON'S SKATEBOARD
SLED STORM
SWING AWAY GOLF
THEME PARK ROLLER
X-SQUAD

Pre-GCN/XBX:

F1 CHAMP. SEASON 2000
FIFA 2001
KNOCKOUT KINGS 2001
MADDEN NFL 2001
NASCAR 2001
NBA LIVE 2001
NHL 2001
SSX
TRIPLE PLAY BASEBALL

 

[Drek]

SHOCKING.


Developers stating that they will make most games for the company with most systems last generation. This has never happen before. That's why Nintendo & Sega are still at the top. Ooh wait... :lol



If Sony freaks up, people will drop them. There are no loyalties. It's a business.

But here's the big clincher, the PS3 isn't far away, X360 is already out, and the Rev is left as the only big unknown for 3rd parties. Many companies are already heavily invested in the PS3 as their principle platform, and in the modern industry its much more expensive to shift systems than it used to be (what with dev kits being tens of thousands of dollars, systems requiring drastically different implementation for maximum output, differing online interfaces, etc.).

While its always possible that focus can shift to a different console, Sony has put themselves in a position to prevent that, largley thanks to the sunken costs 3rd parties have already put into focusing on PS3. The real advantage to Sony is that the early leaning is in their favor, which they expect to result in an early edge in marketshare. At that point the second and third generations of big name, big money 3rd party titles will have to go to the PS3 in order to maximize audiance, and therefore return.

As for 3rd party distaste with online gaming, well, they need to start implementing it in the right games in the right fashions. They need to stop having dillusions of grandure regarding what can go into an online model. Most games should have basic Vs. and Co-Op modes as well as downloadable content (not all of it free). Advertising shouldn't be so shunned in login interfaces either, since they cover the overhead continually through the online community's life. MMOs are a bad idea for consoles right now if you ask me. A few big names, like WoW and FFXI can succeed, but lesser names are a horrible waste of resources.

 

[myzhi]

Yes I know full well what you were saying - it happened to Sega and Nintendo therefore it can happen to Sony blah blah blah.

Rest assured it won't.

The market is different today.

The market leader is different today.

Further comparisons to Sega and Nintendo's fall from grace are irrelevant.

I don't need to be assured. I have owned every system since orginal Nes / SMS. Who ever is leader matters zilch to me. Assurance seems to be something you seem to need though. :lol

 

[myzhi]

But here's the big clincher, the PS3 isn't far away, X360 is already out, and the Rev is left as the only big unknown for 3rd parties. Many companies are already heavily invested in the PS3 as their principle platform, and in the modern industry its much more expensive to shift systems than it used to be (what with dev kits being tens of thousands of dollars, systems requiring drastically different implementation for maximum output, differing online interfaces, etc.).

While its always possible that focus can shift to a different console, Sony has put themselves in a position to prevent that, largley thanks to the sunken costs 3rd parties have already put into focusing on PS3. The real advantage to Sony is that the early leaning is in their favor, which they expect to result in an early edge in marketshare. At that point the second and third generations of big name, big money 3rd party titles will have to go to the PS3 in order to maximize audiance, and therefore return.

Have no idea where people get the idea I think Sony was even remotely going to fail. REPEAT: All I state was "It's common sense for 3rd parties to put most of their investments into the current leader. " Do you people need developer quotes, like in OP, to realize this? That's all I was saying. People can really read into things. :lol

If, big if, Sony fails (won't happen). Companies will easily shift to different console.. Better then going down with sinking ship

 

[TheJollyCorner]

I think you are just having a difficult time trying to communicate this... because you lost me, too.

 

[kaching]

REPEAT: All I state was "It's common sense for 3rd parties to put most of their investments into the current leader. " Do you people need developer quotes, like in OP, to realize this?

Common sense to you isn't necessarily common sense to everyone else, myzhi. The topic wasn't started expressly for your benefit.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Have no idea where people get the idea I think Sony was even remotely going to fail. REPEAT: All I state was "It's common sense for 3rd parties to put most of their investments into the current leader. " Do you people need developer quotes, like in OP, to realize this? That's all I was saying. People can really read into things. :lol

Live and learn my man....

 

[snatches]

I find it really odd that EA would make the statement that they have more games in development for PS3 than XB360. Can anyone name a title that came out for PS2 but not XB in the last 2 years? I can only think of the opposite occuring with Oddworld: Stranger, and that was because it was designed from the ground up as an XB exclusive before EA picked up the publishing rights......

 

[Pimpwerx]

Online gamers represent an inconsequential percent of console userbases. There are not enough people playing online to make a console viable right now. I believe there are 7M between Live and PS2, which would be a colossal failure of a console.

The argument for online play has been about the importance to the hardcore. If anyone has been using online gaming as a lynchpin to success this gen, they are smoking crack. The penetration just isn't there yet. It won't be there at the end of this gen either. I expect numbers to grow, but anything around 10M would be amazing IMO. I'm not talking about combined either, but if you could attract 10% of the PS3 userbase to go online, then you're talking about an actually viable option. Because now you have a large enough userbase to sell copies of online-only games, plus you still have the 80-90% of the userbase sitting there to buy traditional games.

Online gaming (like HDTV) won't matter a damn bit in the long run. It may be important tot he 360, but the 360 isn't exactly the odds-on favorite going into the next-gen either. Without good online support, the PS3 is still gonna romp. Love it or leave it, it's the way things will be until broadband penetration reaches saturation. PEACE.

 

[Nick Laslett]

When I read this I really want to ask a follow-up question. Is EA really gonna have PS3 exclusives? Did they even have PS2 exclusives this generation? And I'm not talking about "FIFA 06: Road to the World Cup"-style exclusives, but actual meaningful exclusives.

On top of the games already listed EA gave PS2 games exclusive online mode until 2004.

Pretty big for stuff like Madden, not so cool for SSX3 and James Bond Everything or Nothing.

They also had a few key timed exclusives.

Medal of Honor: Frontline was exclusive for 6 months. EA were also very good at keeping quiet the Xbox/GC port.

Lord of the Rings: Two Towers was exclusive for at least 3 months. But crucially this was over Christmas. PS2 got the game in November before the 2nd film hit. Xbox & GC didn't get it until after Christmas.

 

[krypt0nian]

Doubting online penetration this gen is simply foolish. But I see why those who do are spinning it that way.

World of Warcraft proves that the casuals are ready for online today.

 

[LAMBO]

2 things have to happen for online gaming to get big on consoles.

1. Highspeed internet needs to come down in price. I think $50 a month is a good deal considering all the content i get fromn the internet, but still many people don't see it that way.

2. It has to be super easy to hook up the console to the internet. Everyone's console is in the living room, but how many people have their router or pc in their living room? The ps3 is making the right step offering wireless access out of the box, but even then people have to buy and setup wireless routers.

 

[ypo]

WTF EA? PS3 exclusive games? EA obviously doesn't know the video game business like some of the analcysts here.

 

[gofreak]

WTF EA? PS3 exclusive games? EA obviously doesn't know the video game business like some of the analcysts here.

It's worth noting, again, that EA having more titles in development for PS3 wouldn't necessarily mean that it's getting exclusive titles. Games can be made and released on one platform and then later released on another, for example (as EA has done before, as has been pointed out).

 

[ypo]

That's true, but I think the chance of some excluvies is pretty high. I mean the system is not even out yet and it already has more games being made for it.

 

[xaosslug]

Most of the people that buy PLAYSTATION consoles are casual gamers, they have friends in RL, are not social shut-ins. They don't need a game to be online to enhance their gaming experience, but what they do demand/like are better, more diverse multi-player games.

What I think most people think "everybody wants" is more what they themselves do. Online gaming hasn't really taken off in comparison to gaming as a whole. Sure, it's growing and if any console can help it really catch fire it's PLAYSTATION. But there just isn't any huge demand for it beyond online being something XBOX has over PLAYSTATION, really. Not in PLAYSTATION's fanbase at least.

What I'm saying is I can understand how Sony wouldn't put any real importance in online as it didn't really impact last gen, prob. won't this gen. Though, I do see Sony offering a comprehensive online setup above and beyond last gen to limit XBOXes holdovers.

MULTI-PLAYER IS TEH FUTURE!

 

[jedimike]

2 things have to happen for online gaming to get big on consoles.

1. Highspeed internet needs to come down in price. I think $50 a month is a good deal considering all the content i get fromn the internet, but still many people don't see it that way.

2. It has to be super easy to hook up the console to the internet. Everyone's console is in the living room, but how many people have their router or pc in their living room? The ps3 is making the right step offering wireless access out of the box, but even then people have to buy and setup wireless routers.

1. The idiots paying $50 a month for broadband are the same idiots that pay $22 a month for dial-up.

2. Computers are not super easy to connect to the internet, yet upwards of 80% of all computers are on the internet and most of those are through broadband.

On-line console gaming is in it's infancy. There is no reason why consoles can't achieve the same on-line penetration percentage as computers. Especially when they start to become multi-dimensional devices. Things like voice comms, Media Center, and eventually video chat will help drive that.

Also, we're starting to see games that are not typically what we consider on-line games take off. For example Geo Wars. There is no head-to-head play, but without an on-line network the game would not be a fraction of what it is today. Gamer achievements, high score leaderboards, and the ability to download the game in the 1st place are enabling this to become the XBL Arcade game of choice.

If developers are not implementing some sort of on-line aspect into their games, then they are not seeing the potential of their games or their customers. I know every 360 game has to have an on-line aspect and he games will be better because of it.