Support NeoGAF

[MarshMellow96]

Honestly it looks mediocre and probably should have been a $40 PSN game

As someone who could never get into Warhawk it's actually alright. I'm not sure if it has 'mass appeal' or anything like that, though. I don't think Sony is sure either.

As for it being a $40 PSN game, I could go either way. It's a fantastic conceit, but I'm not sure if the rest of the world is ready for that.. In the UK millions are being spent on getting everywhere up to 2Mb. Where fibre optic is actually being rolled out, the copper wire in homes isn't being replaced.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The guy from the LA Times is the best of the bunch, and the only one making much sense.

Sony haven't had a good multiplayer focused exclusive in a generation where multiplayer is king.

That's one of their biggest faults.

Sony have had plenty of great multiplayer focused exclusives, significantly more than Microsoft, even.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

The Vita game is probably Call of duty.

Unannounced.

Personally i am going with RDR side story.

 

[Coolwhip]

Why does this host always look stoned?

 

[Arnie]

What?

Sony have had plenty of great multiplayer focused exclusives, significantly more than Microsoft, even.

They haven't had anything that is special enough to force people to adopt the console en masse and stick with it. Not like a Halo, or a Gears.

People buy 360s for Halo multiplayer, similarly for Gears. People don't buy PS3s because their friends are hooked on Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, or any other exclusive you care to mention. They just don't.

And this is the generation where multiplayer really superseded singleplayer as the main player in true, mass market success.

 

[Banana Kid]

Vita pricedrop too crazy?

I can't wait to be an ambassador.

 

[paskowitz]

What?

Compared to Halo and Gears... he is right (the way MS has paid for COD DLC exclusivity that is is basically and exclusive). For Sony, Uncharted's MP never caught traction. Socom... well we know how that went. Killzone did alright, but never reached huge levels of success. Warhawk was more of a cult hit than a mainstream success. And on and on.

 

[Pachterballs]

I personally don't think any console side system seller AAA+ franchise will translate into sales for vita.

they're kind of in an odd place that they can't get out of.

Vita just needs to price drop.

 

[Arnie]

Compared to Halo and Gears... he is right (the way MS has paid for COD DLC exclusivity that is is basically and exclusive). For Sony, Uncharted's MP never caught traction. Socom... well we know how that went. Killzone did alright, but never reached huge levels of success. Warhawk was more of a cult hit than a mainstream success. And on and on.

Exactly my point.

 

[Sealda]

Patcher is like bossing everyone around. Its funny how everyone show him tons of respect too.

 

[ilikesanta]

Shane Satterfield said "(Sony) did everything right." Immediately says how Sony did a bunch of stuff wrong.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

They haven't had anything that is special enough to force people to adopt the console en masse and stick with it. Not like a Halo, or a Gears.

People buy 360s for Halo multiplayer, similarly for Gears. People don't buy PS3s because their friends are hooked on Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, or any other exclusive you care to mention. They just don't.

And this is the generation where multiplayer really superseded singleplayer as the main player in true, mass market success.

Well that's quite a bit different than saying they haven't had any good multiplayer experiences. Just because their multiplayer experiences haven't been as popular as something like Halo doesn't mean they aren't good. That's like claiming Microsoft has no good racers just because Forza sells a fraction of what Gran Turismo does.

We all know that Forza is a great racing franchise, but a lot of factors determine success, one of which is being the first-to-market mover that establishes an entire genre. Halo did that on consoles with the FPS. If a game like Halo were to release today as a new IP after the genre had already been rather cluttered, it wouldn't be a huge seller either.

Also, exclusive games seldom sell systems upfront. The effect of exclusives is a minor effect that occurs month-to-month and can add up significantly over the years. There's just not a large spike upon release. Even something like Halo barely spikes system for a month (maybe a 30% boost).

Would all of those Xbox 360 sales during the first year been as high as they were, if they didn't know that Halo was coming on the way? People buy systems in anticipation for exclusives well in advance, and well after release. It's hard to quantify the effect of exclusives because of this fact.

 

[Truespeed]

I've always wondered about Satterfield's hair. Is it a comb over or just his hair style?

 

[Penguin]

Well that's quite a bit different than saying they haven't had any good multiplayer experiences. Just because their multiplayer experiences haven't been as popular as something like Halo doesn't mean they aren't good. That's like claiming Microsoft has no good racers just because Forza sells a fraction of what Gran Turismo does.

We all know that Forza is a great racing franchise, but a lot of factors determine success, one of which is being the first-to-market mover that establishes an entire genre. Halo did that on consoles with the FPS. If a game like Halo were to release today as a new IP after the genre had already been rather cluttered, it wouldn't be a huge seller either.

Also, exclusive games seldom sell systems upfront. The effect of exclusives is a minor effect that occurs month-to-month and can add up significantly over the years. There's just not a large spike upon release. Even something like Halo barely spikes system for a month (maybe a 30% boost).

Would all of those Xbox 360 sales during the first year been as high as they were, if they didn't know that Halo was coming on the way? People buy systems in anticipation for exclusives well in advance, and well after release.

That isn't 100% true
Isn't the launch of Halo 3.. one of the few times the Xbox 360 outsold the Wii during its peak years?
And we see notable bumps during the release of anticipated titles.
Now Halo ODST and Reach, are different beasts because that audience is already on board.

 

[chickdigger802]

Really damn curious how Sony is gonna convince folks to jump ship from 360 to PS4 next year.

Some way to convert achievements to trophies? Are those information 'public'? I know giantbomb can track those.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

That isn't 100% true
Isn't the launch of Halo 3.. one of the few times the Xbox 360 outsold the Wii during its peak years?
And we see notable bumps during the release of anticipated titles.
Now Halo ODST and Reach, are different beasts because that audience is already on board.

360 sales

Aug 2007 - 276k

Sep 2007 - 527k

So, it nearly doubled sales for a month, and that was the first Halo title on the 360. It's definitely a boost, but I wouldn't really call it massive.

But the real question is, how many 360's sold in the months prior to, and after, the release of Halo 3? A shitload more than 527k. Which is why I think it's meaningless to simply look at how well a console sells just in the month of a big release.

 

[Syphon Filter]

I cant see why Michael thinks Sony will reveal ps4 first. I think Sony would hope MS doesn't reveal theirs as long as possible. I don't think Sony wants the next gen to start yet to recoup as much money as possible.

 

[Penguin]

360 sales

Aug 2007 - 276k

Sep 2007 - 527k

So, it nearly doubled sales for a month, and that was the first Halo title on the 360. It's definitely a boost, but I wouldn't really call it massive.

You wouldn't call doubling your monthly sales as massive boost?

What would be a massive boost in your eyes then?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You wouldn't call doubling your monthly sales as massive boost?

What would be a massive boost in your eyes then?

If if doubled those sales for months and months and months like what happened with the Wii at launch. Without Wii Sports, the Wii would have done significantly worse for a long time.

But that wasn't really my point.

I think Halo 3 had a huge effect on console sales, it just wasn't primarily shown during launch month, but rather the pre and post launch sales, which many would claim weren't obviously noticeable.

 

[Arnie]

Well that's quite a bit different than saying they haven't had any good multiplayer experiences. Just because their multiplayer experiences haven't been as popular as something like Halo doesn't mean they aren't good. That's like claiming Microsoft has no good racers just because Forza sells a fraction of what Gran Turismo does.

It was poor wording on my part then; perhaps the word I was looking for was 'exceptional'. Sony haven't had any exceptional online exclusives this generation, despite having a smattering of 'good' ones.

We all know that Forza is a great racing franchise, but a lot of factors determine success, one of which is being the first-to-market mover that establishes an entire genre. Halo did that on consoles with the FPS. If a game like Halo were to release today as a new IP after the genre had already been rather cluttered, it wouldn't be a huge seller either.

This is an absolute myth. Halo sells as well as it does because of it's quality as an FPS, not because of it's release date. Halo establishing itself as a quality series so early in the genre's life cycle definitely helped, but it wouldn't sell as well as it does if it didn't uphold that quality.

Also, exclusive games seldom sell systems upfront. The effect of exclusives is a minor effect that occurs month-to-month and can add up significantly over the years. There's just not a large spike upon release. Even something like Halo barely spikes system for a month (maybe a 30% boost).

Would all of those Xbox 360 sales during the first year been as high as they were, if they didn't know that Halo was coming on the way? People buy systems in anticipation for exclusives well in advance, and well after release. It's hard to quantify the effect of exclusives because of this fact.

I'm not terribly sure how this point links into mine, in fact I agree with you here, franchises sell systems. The 360 sold because of Halo, and Gears. People play them day in, day out and that's largely all they play. That and Call of Duty. Building online universes is integral to systems these days and Sony have not done that.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It was poor wording on my part then; perhaps the word I was looking for was 'exceptional'. Sony haven't had any exceptional online exclusives this generation, despite having a smattering of 'good' ones.

If "exceptional" and "good" are quantified by sales and not some sort of subjective quality, sure. I'd agree.

This is an absolute myth. Halo sells as well as it does because of it's quality as an FPS, not because of it's release date. Halo establishing itself as a quality series so early in the genre's life cycle definitely helped, but it wouldn't sell as well as it does if it didn't uphold that quality.

No, it's not myth. And that's not a slight @ Halo. I love the Halo franchise, but if it was a new IP in 2012 after Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. took the world by storm, it would not have anywhere near the amount of popularity that it does today. Ditto for Gran Turismo. Forza's quality is arguably just as good (or at least similar) to Gran Turismo, but its sales are negligible in comparison.

Quality and sales aren't some sort of linear relationship. There's tons of marketing, timing, and other factors involved.

 

[Pranay]

Totally Agree with what Arnie said.

 

[Arnie]

If "exceptional" and "good" are quantified by sales and not some sort of subjective quality, sure. I'd agree. .

The two are intrinsically linked. I don't like where this is headed, I've got the horrible suspicion that you're about to argue that Sony have some unsung darling of an exclusive that's as well crafted as a Halo or a Gears in the online space.

 

[Parmenides]

I don't think Sony would launch a new console next year with a possibility of having TLOU, GOWA, Quantic Dream new game, TLG next year.

Why not?

Sony's new management team set a three-year plan for the PlayStation business built around the PS3,Vita and PSN.Sony will target an operating income margin of 8% in its Game business in the fiscal year ending March 31,2015 (FY 2014).They will be ready to launch a new console during that particular fiscal year.

Morover,the PS3 turned five,just a few weeks ago, in its most important region,the PAL market (around 27 million PS3s sold), which never cared about HD consoles until the PS3 showed up,and it's bigger and more price sensitive than the US market.

In contrast,the Xbox 360 is about to turn seven in its biggest market.What does it mean? the US market will shrink faster from now on.Furthermore,despite the phenomenal,and probably unsustainable, Xbox 360 sales in the US over the last couple of years,the PS3 is the most shipped console since January 2010,including handhelds,so the pressure is on for Microsoft.

PS4 would really launch a full season before xbox?

Time will tell,but I'd say zero chance.

I respect what Mr. Pachter has to say, however I think it's a gut feeling that comes with the american mindset that the PS3 is a failure and the Xbox 360 is amazing, thus Sony's last hope to get back in the game is the mythical first-mover advantage.

Sony is sticking to its guns.Over the last few months,SCE bosses have stated repeatedly that they will be the last to make an announcement and launch a new product.Those guys have lots of games under development for the PS3 slated for 2013. They know that the console is still expensive,particularly for PAL consumers,and they're well aware of the curse of the first-mover when it comes to the home console market since 1988.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The two are intrinsically linked. I don't like where this is headed, I've got the horrible suspicion that you're about to argue that Sony have some unsung darling of an exclusive that's as well crafted as a Halo or a Gears in the online space.

They are linked to some degree, but they're not necessarily as strongly associated as you believe. I just gave you a perfect example of that, and you ignored it. I suspect because you actually do believe Microsoft has "better" games than Sony in the online space, and that this is validated by sales rather than what I'm suggesting, which is that Microsoft had a huge first-to-market mover position, to go along with their great quality, which amplified their userbase to these experiences, while the PS3 wasn't necessarily founded upon it and have tried playing catch-up with many similarly great games, but with good, but not amazing sales results.

As for the quality of multiplayer, I don't see how Killzone's MP wasn't just as good as Halo (and I greatly enjoy both games). Ditto for Uncharted's mp versus Gears. The Uncharted series has also sold something like 17 million, with the majority of that figure coming from the two titles that had online multiplayer. I think it was a significant factor.

 

[Pranay]

The series which had a bit of potential was killzone [killzone 2 had a good multiplayer where i thought , the 3rd entry would pretty much reach more higher standards] but killzone 3 killed it and resistance 2 killed the resistance franchise as well, resistance 3 was great but by then the series was pretty much.



An Iconic multiplayer game is what sony is lacking.

Starhawk is a good game but still its still not enough.

 

[Arnie]

As for the quality of multiplayer, I don't see how Killzone's MP wasn't just as good as Halo (and I greatly enjoy both games). Ditto for Uncharted's mp versus Gears. The Uncharted series has also sold something like 17 million, with the majority of that figure coming from the two titles that had online multiplayer. I think it was a significant factor.

I'll tell you exactly why:

Because Halo offers a completely unique experience that combines excellent mechanics with an extremely effective matchmaking system designed for consoles and is playable at both a very accessible level, and at a higher more competitive level.

I reached the top rank in Killzone 2 and it was a mess. Whilst the heavy controls gave the game a slightly unique feel, the core of the game didn't really click. It certainly wasn't accessible to the less competitive players, and at the highest level it didn't offer the depth in core gameplay that Halo does.

The server browser system was good for the gamer who knew exactly what they wanted, and the quick match option was good for those who didn't want to wait, but neither of these were as effective as Halo's matchmaking as getting people grouped based on skill. Killzone 2 often devolved into lots of spawn camping as one team massively dominated the other, resulting in a very unsatisfactory gameplay experience.

That you think the difference between those two franchises in terms of sales success is marketing and the time in which the IP was invented is pretty astonishing.

Honestly, and I'm going to speak bluntly, that you think these two franchises are of equal quality in terms of their online offerings is frightening, and pretty much disqualifies you from the topic of discussion we're having. I could post such an extensive dissection of why your other points in that previous post were also incorrect, but I don't have the time nor the energy and you clearly don't really understand what I mean when I talk about an 'exceptional' multiplayer experience.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I'll tell you exactly why:

Because Halo offers a completely unique experience that combines excellent mechanics with an extremely effective matchmaking system designed for consoles and is playable at both a very accessible level, and at a higher more competitive level.

I reached the top rank in Killzone 2 and it was a mess. Whilst the heavy controls gave the game a slightly unique feel, the core of the game didn't really click. It certainly wasn't accessible to the less competitive players, and at the highest level it didn't offer the depth in core gameplay that Halo does.

The server browser system was good for the gamer who knew exactly what they wanted, and the quick match option was good for those who didn't want to wait, but neither of these were as effective as Halo's matchmaking as getting people grouped based on skill. Killzone 2 often devolved into lots of spawn camping as one team massively dominated the other, resulting in a very unsatisfactory gameplay experience.

That you think the difference between those two franchises in terms of sales success is marketing and the time in which the IP was invented is pretty astonishing.

Honestly, and I'm going to speak bluntly, that you think these two franchises are of equal quality in terms of their online offerings is frightening, and pretty much disqualifies you from the topic of discussion we're having. I could post such an extensive dissection of why your other points in that previous post were also incorrect, but I don't have the time nor the energy and you clearly don't really understand what I mean when I talk about an 'exceptional' multiplayer experience.

Halo 1 didn't have match making. It didn't have online multiplayer. It had local online, and you could effectively rig it so that the experience was played on XboxConnect or whatever it was called. There was no ranking system. But the bottom line is that Halo, as a series, became immensely popular with Halo 1. All of those features you listed came with Halo 2, which further increased the popularity of the series. Furthermore, Killzone 3 resolves the qualms you raise with Killzone 2, from controls, to matchmaking, lobbies, etc.

Honestly I'm going to speak bluntly, but that you think Halo and Gears are somehow significantly and radically better at online than Killzone or Uncharted tells me far more about where your preferences lies than anything else.

Continuing this discussion won't provide because you don't seem to be partial to one particular platform and don't appear to be looking at the situation objectively.

 

[Arnie]

Honestly I'm going to speak bluntly, but that you think Halo and Gears are somehow significantly and radically better at online than Killzone or Uncharted tells me far more about where your preferences lies than anything else.

:lol

 

[Boss Man]

Killzone's multiplayer is not as good as Halo...

Halo is popular mostly because it controls so well, Killzone is the exact opposite of that.


Resistance: Fall of Man could have become a part of this discussion if Insomniac hadn't dropped the ball with R2 though.

 

[Arnie]

Killzone's multiplayer is not as good as Halo...

The two aren't even close, which makes James Ford's argument even more absurd.

 

[legacyzero]

I love this new, NON G4 Adam Sessler.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The two aren't even close, which makes James Ford's argument even more absurd.

They're not even very comparable at all, I just don't see how one has amazing MP while the other isn't anywhere near as good. They both seem very top-tier at what they do.

CoD is the same deal, fun for different reasons. If we're going to use your argument, CoD has the best online in the business and makes Halo look like a joke in comparison, yet I'm not a big fan of it while I love Halo. But at least I can recognize that CoD is top-tier as well at the experience it provides, which happens to be very appealing for a lot of folks.

 

[Uno Venova]

I really never knew a multiplayer game could be vastly, objectively better than another.

 

[Loudninja]

I feel like we are still stuck in 2007 and 2008.

 

[SykoTech]

They don't need to be announcing portable versions of any of their first party series. The reality is that the people that love those games don't want to play them on a small screen. They'll never take off in the way that the console titles do. No matter how much Sony may try to get that idea to work. And that doesn't just apply to Sony titles as Capcom learned that the hard way with Revelations.

Couldn't agree more. That's the reason I'm not very interested in either the Vita or 3DS. Because all of the games that interest me are just portable versions of franchises I'd rather have or have already experienced on consoles. Exciting new experiences that I can't find on consoles are what would get me more enthusiastic about handhelds, like Gravity Rush.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I wish Versus was going to be at E3... sadly it is a pipe dream.

there was one e3 where they said it wouldn't be there and we got some gameplay footage behind closed doors. Never forget.

 

[VideoMan]

Pachter smiling : "There is one big title on the Vita that hasn't been announced that I'm excited about".

This might be Soul Sacrifice. GT usually tapes these shows weeks in advance so it's possible that it wasn't announced yet when this was recorded.

 

[Chuck Norris]

This might be Soul Sacrifice. GT usually tapes these shows weeks in advance so it's possible that it wasn't announced yet when this was recorded.

I doubt he knows anything about whats happening in Japan, and if he did I don't see why it would appeal to him

 

[Acrylic7]

Killzone 2's multiplayer is fantastic. Its on Gears 1 level in terms of fun.

KZ2 was Sony's system seller but they were to stupid and incompetent to bring it to peoples attention.
You cant expect something to be as successful as another competitors multiplayer game when you cant even give the customer a headset to communicate with and a decent commercial.

KZ2 multiplayer is the hands down the best multiplayer experience I have had with my ps3.
KZ3 is as bad as Haze

 

[chickdigger802]

This might be Soul Sacrifice. GT usually tapes these shows weeks in advance so it's possible that it wasn't announced yet when this was recorded.

Does SS really seem like a game Pac would be 'smiling' about? 'gamers' would be smiling, but dudes in suits would be more 'errr... this ain't mass market appeal'.

 

[theBishop]

The guy from the LA Times is the best of the bunch, and the only one making much sense.

Sony haven't had a good multiplayer focused exclusive in a generation where multiplayer is king.

That's one of their biggest faults.

I don't know how you can say this. It's true they haven't had a blockbuster online smash like Call of Duty, but how many of those are there on any platform?

Sony has published several online-only games this generation (star/warhawk, Mag, Payday: The Heist), AAA games with strong online components (resistance, killzone, uncharted), MMOs (Freerealms, DC Universe), user-created content (LBP, Modnation, Infamous 2), and online experiences that don't fit in an existing bucket (Twisted Metal, Journey, Eye of Judgement).

Some of these games had problems, but many of them were great examples of Sony doing multiplayer right. There's no question Sony hasn't had the same success with PSN that Microsoft had with Xbox Live, but you can't say it wasn't a priority for them.

 

[Raoh]

You're not the only one. They probably have to re-upload it again.

I"m starting to think it was a selling point since xbox shut down their original console prematurely.

Some say the 360 was first, was it really first if it was more of a reboot?

MS said this time they will hold on to 360 until 1 past whatever sony does release wise.

 

[Acrylic7]

Some of these games had problems, but many of them were great examples of Sony doing multiplayer right. There's no question Sony hasn't had the same success with PSN that Microsoft had with Xbox Live, but you can't say it wasn't a priority for them.

They made some good games, but they were doing it wrong.
If I was trying to push multiplayer games to be anywhere near a success as Halo or Gears, I would at least have the common sense to give my gamers a cheap headset out of the box. Something till this very day is not accomplished.
I couldn't imagine playing Gears or Halo without a headset. Thats like 60% of the fun out of the window.
That little Headset practically made xbox Live what it is today. Not joking.

 

[theBishop]

They made some good games, but they were doing it wrong.
If I was trying to push multiplayer games to be anywhere near a success as Halo or Gears, I would at least have the common sense to give my gamers a cheap headset out of the box. Something till this very day is not accomplished.
I couldn't imagine playing Gears or Halo without a headset. Thats like 60% of the fun out of the window.
That little Headset practically made xbox Live what it is today. Not joking.

Yeah, that's a good point. But I think Sony bungled voice because it's a mess to configure. They support practically every usb or bluetooth headset, which are nearly ubiquitous. They also bundled a decent headset in several online-centric games. When we talk about shit that could be improved with a firmware update, I'd put headset configuration near the top of the list.

And as with many problems on PS3, this issue has been fixed on Vita, where every unit has a microphone and works with no user-input.

 

[B.O.O.M]

I don't know how you can say this. It's true they haven't had a blockbuster online smash like Call of Duty, but how many of those are there on any platform?

Sony has published several online-only games this generation (star/warhawk, Mag, Payday: The Heist), AAA games with strong online components (resistance, killzone, uncharted), MMOs (Freerealms, DC Universe), user-created content (LBP, Modnation, Infamous 2), and online experiences that don't fit in an existing bucket (Twisted Metal, Journey, Eye of Judgement).

Some of these games had problems, but many of them were great examples of Sony doing multiplayer right. There's no question Sony hasn't had the same success with PSN that Microsoft had with Xbox Live, but you can't say it wasn't a priority for them.

Thank you! Agreed 100%

And I'm sure PS All stars will join the list

@Arnie: Argue all you want but the quality of a mp component is extremely subjective especially if the gameplay is different between the titles. For example I enjoy UC3 MP than both Halo or Gears. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the fact that others may prefer those other games. It's all about preferences as all these games are of high quality.

 

[Boss Man]

Honestly, I think Sony's problems this gen have everything to do with marketing. It might not even be that they're doing it poorly so much as Microsoft is just doing it really well.

There are a ton of great games on PS3, and a lot of them are only on PS3. If you're on NeoGaf, you know how great the PS3 has become. If you're not, then you probably don't even know what the difference is and just know that Xbox is a lot more popular.

So what can Sony do at E3? Unless it's something truly groundbreaking, whatever they do at E3 doesn't matter. The type of gamers who are tuning into E3 already know about PS3. They need to focus a lot more on advertising.

Talking purely about NA sales btw.

 

[BY2K]

Geoff's Twitter.

Just arrived back in LA - no filming this week, just looking at new games set for E3 and planning out Spike's coverage.

He's already at L.A for E3? That's sick early.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Geoff's Twitter.



He's already at L.A for E3? That's sick early.

Judges week. Publishers getting their games out early for press folk to try out to save them the hassle during E3, and so they can vote for Best of E3 stuff. Jeff Gerstmann is there too.

 

[BY2K]

Judges week. Publishers getting their games out early for press folk to try out to save them the hassle during E3, and so they can vote for Best of E3 stuff. Jeff Gerstmann is there too.

So THAT'S how IGN leaked Donkey Kong Country Returns!

Or do they still keep those games secrets? (The makers, I mean.)