Sony's software brilliance still isn't enough ( gamesindustry.biz )

IMO one of the problem that Sony has is that both SCEA and SCEJ don't really believe in what SCEE has done in the past. I mean Eyetoy, Singstar and Invizimals were new ideas and succesfull ones. Why not launching the ps3 with the move? Why Singstar doesn't have a Japanese version? Why don't push Invizimals and Singstar as much as SCEE does in Europe? Or why don't do something similar for your market? Then Nintendo comes with the wii and it's too late, Joysound and it's too late and possibly a Pokemon game that works with AR and it's too late again... SCEE has had many new ideas but Sony never believed in them.

P.S. Just to be sure to not be misunderstood, obviously Pokemon will still sell much more than Invizimals.
 
Sony's software problem is that they have the mindset of a third party. I know this sucks to hear, but the point of first party software is to move hardware, thus enticing third parties onto the platform. Third parties are the ones who are "allowed" to make experimental, low-appeal games.

On a spectrum, it goes something like:

Microsoft - Only publishes (retail) games that have a huge, broad appeal and should draw in consumers. This a) exands the base and b) doesn't step on any third party toes

Nintendo - Large focus on the same type of system moving games, but due to the nature of their platform(s) they can't guarantee third parties will fill all the holes, so you see a number of more "niche" games

Sony - A handful of "best in genre" titles (God of War/GT) but for the most part also-ran software or critically/core appealing stuff that won't move the system.

Sony's approach might be best for "us" in the short run (more awesome core-focused new games) but in the long run it stymies growth and reduces Sony's ability to make such games.
 
It's a reboot, and although certain people may find some similarities to Uncharted in some elements, the series neither pioneered nor popularized them. Naughty Dog has very deftly executed on a number of ideas, and Uncharted games' technical excellence is indisputable, but from the design (and narrative) perspective there's very little there that hasn't been done countless times before.

Personally, the only game at this E3 that reminded me of Uncharted, and not the games that inspired it, was The Last of Us, and the reasons for that are obvious (well, there's also that Adventurer FPS...).

Last of Us is more Uncharted than the new Tomb Raider? Yeah...right... I don't think we looked at the same E3-videos.

Would love to know which games did the Uncharted 2-formula before Naughty Dog did it. I would wanna play them.
 
Last of Us is more Uncharted than the new Tomb Raider? Yeah...right... I don't think we looked at the same E3-videos.

Would love to know which games did the Uncharted 2-formula before Naughty Dog did it. I would wanna play them.

FFXIII? Run in a straight line through pretty environments grinding enemies until you get to the next cinematic? All it really needed was a climbing mechanic and BOOM there ya' go. I guess it didn't really have set pieces either, though I imagine those are pretty difficult to implement into an RPG.
 
This is gonna be a somewhat controversial opinion... buuuuut... ALTERNATIVE THEORY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE TIME ASSAULT GO

What if it's got to do with Europe's pretty big bias against the Xbox? Several of my European friends have said that the states of things in Europe are generally pretty pro-Playstation or PC as opposed to Xbox. Obviously, anecdotal evidence isn't as valuable as statistical evidence, but I think it's a point of view worth considering.

If this is the case, and Europe is just biased against Microsoft (not counting Great Britain, which seems pretty positive towards the Xbox brand) and/or biased towards the Playstation... well, you'd see PS exclusives do better in Europe as opposed to Xbox exclusives.

In America, where there's no particular bias against Microsoft, perhaps then it comes down to the quality of the games, where Microsoft kinda easily comes out on top.

Forza is just a better driving game than GT5 (GT5 is the better sim, mind you, but sims and consoles aren't exactly best buds), Uncharted's gameplay is really weak, with poorly designed levels and boring weapons, as opposed to Gears' genre-defining gameplay (Gears 1, which I'm playing now, is horrible, though), and Halo pretty easily holds off Resistance and Killzone when it comes to first person shooter design.

Honestly, if games like Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, and Gran Turismo weren't exclusives, I don't think they'd have the reception they've got as exclusives. Contrast this with Forza, which got me into driving games, Halo, which defined shooter design on consoles (and has some of the best AI in shooters, period), and Gears of War, which spawned countless imitators.

I don't think Sony's exclusives have the strength to contend with Microsoft's, and the reason they don't do well in America is because America doesn't have a latent anti-Microsoft or Pro-Sony bias.

Again, this is me being the devil's advocate and all that. Could be totally off-base.

Trust me, Europe doesn't have any bias against Microsoft. People forget that there's really no "European videogame market", but many small markets that can be very distinctive.
In my opinion, it's just that the majority of the branches of Microsoft in each country simply don't know how to act in the entertainment space or see the videogames business as a hindrance forced on them by HQ ( since they are happy that most of their revenue comes from enterprise software/services ). This results in things like lack of effective marketing, sub-par localization efforts, little to no incentive to pay for basic Xbox Live (we don't have the services the US or even the UK has). So even if Xbox exclusives are well regarded, they alone aren't enough to bring the platform to same mass market levels of its competitors.

Across Europe at the beginning of this gen, PlayStation was synonymous with videogames. And before that, it was SEGA. And now the perception I have is that it's somewhat split between Nintendo and PlayStation.
 
Sony is still paying their huge mistakes with ps3, plus the lack of owning an instant multimillion selling franchise like mario/pokemon/halo. Plus competition targets more specific audience while they seem to focus on a wider but probably less 'compulsive' audience. They do reasonably well everywhere but lack the punch. But it is a matter of luck, not quality, that they find that ip that sells a zillion without even trying, until then they will have to keep delivering lots of software, which is good for the consumer in the end. Maybe won't care that much when they sell just because it is a halo or mario machine
 
FFXIII? Run in a straight line through pretty environments grinding enemies until you get to the next cinematic? All it really needed was a climbing mechanic and BOOM there ya' go. I guess it didn't really have set pieces either, though I imagine those are pretty difficult to implement into an RPG.

You could say thing about any game....even Crysis 2 or Halo etc. Pretty sad fanboy way of putting things in perspective.
 
Sony's software problem is that they have the mindset of a third party. I know this sucks to hear, but the point of first party software is to move hardware, thus enticing third parties onto the platform. Third parties are the ones who are "allowed" to make experimental, low-appeal games.

On a spectrum, it goes something like:

Microsoft - Only publishes (retail) games that have a huge, broad appeal and should draw in consumers. This a) exands the base and b) doesn't step on any third party toes

Nintendo - Large focus on the same type of system moving games, but due to the nature of their platform(s) they can't guarantee third parties will fill all the holes, so you see a number of more "niche" games

Sony - A handful of "best in genre" titles (God of War/GT) but for the most part also-ran software or critically/core appealing stuff that won't move the system.

Sony's approach might be best for "us" in the short run (more awesome core-focused new games) but in the long run it stymies growth and reduces Sony's ability to make such games.

which is why they made increasingly more games every year since launch?
 
What if there's a pro-Microsoft, anti-Sony bias in the US? I wouldn't know, I don't live there (I do live in Europe, though, and your friends are correct), but you shouldn't be writing off whole markets based on such presumptions.

Well, yeah, that's why I made it abundantly clear that I was playing the Devil's Advocate.

There's a LOT more nuance to the discussion, obviously.

For instance, I applaud Microsoft for being experimental--Fable's take on the RPG is a refreshing, interesting one, Viva Pinata is WEIRDLY fun, and games like Crackdown and Shadowrun are cool, but these games also have some pretty major flaws that work against them. It would be a challenge for me to call them great games.

Or, I could talk about how I feel like Infamous 2 is one of the best sandbox superhero games out there, how Festival of Blood and Journey are fantastic examples of digital exclusive games done right, or how each of God of War's... what, seven releases this generation have been fundamentally the same game (contrasted with Halo, which had games like Wars or ODST that deviated from the formula), and how that's okay!

I was just thinking that, in the absolute, most general terms, Europe seems to have a generalized dislike of Microsoft (maybe because of how Microsoft is perceived over there? America seems generally fine with Microsoft being a monopoly, but Europe seems to resent it a lot--it might not be a national thing at all, or maybe it's entirely national; I dunno), and the reason that PS3 games do well there is less because the games are good, and more because the only alternative is unthinkable to some sort of general Eurogamer mindset.

That said, I would say that I doubt a pro-Microsoft attitude is prevalent in the US, simply because Sony had a pretty good hold here in the US well. I'd actually chalk up the general biases of markets up to the way that their respective Sony departments have handled things (SCEE vs SCEA), but I don't have enough experience with either of them to be sure.

Sony's software problem is that they have the mindset of a third party. I know this sucks to hear, but the point of first party software is to move hardware, thus enticing third parties onto the platform. Third parties are the ones who are "allowed" to make experimental, low-appeal games.

On a spectrum, it goes something like:

Microsoft - Only publishes (retail) games that have a huge, broad appeal and should draw in consumers. This a) exands the base and b) doesn't step on any third party toes

Nintendo - Large focus on the same type of system moving games, but due to the nature of their platform(s) they can't guarantee third parties will fill all the holes, so you see a number of more "niche" games

Sony - A handful of "best in genre" titles (God of War/GT) but for the most part also-ran software or critically/core appealing stuff that won't move the system.

Sony's approach might be best for "us" in the short run (more awesome core-focused new games) but in the long run it stymies growth and reduces Sony's ability to make such games.

Microsoft pushes a broader variety of games overall than Sony, I think, with a huge emphasis on non-core and digital releases. In addition, they rely more on third-party, timed-exclusives, and just don't care all that much about exclusives in general. Sony, on the other hand, is deeply entrenched in the whole "must have core exclusives" mindset, so they release a lot of exclusives, but this results in an imbalance; Microsoft picks up these developers known for making really, really great games (Remedy, Epic, Bungie), and Sony's out there releasing a lot of 7/10 games like Twisted Metal, Uncharted, and Starhawk.

Microsoft is known for shooters, for example, but Sony's actually released more, iirc. Sony's are just more forgettable.

Trust me, Europe doesn't have any bias against Microsoft. People forget that there's really no "European videogame market", but many small markets that can be very distinctive.
In my opinion, it's just that the majority of the branches of Microsoft in each country simply don't know how to act in the entertainment space or see the videogames business as a hindrance forced on them by HQ ( since they are happy that most of their revenue comes from enterprise software/services ). This results in things like lack of effective marketing, sub-par localization efforts, little to no incentive to pay for basic Xbox Live (we don't have the services the US or even the UK has). So even if Xbox exclusives are well regarded, they alone aren't enough to bring the platform to same mass market levels of its competitors.

Across Europe at the beginning of this gen, PlayStation was synonymous with videogames. And before that, it was SEGA. And now the perception I have is that it's somewhat split between Nintendo and PlayStation.

Fascinating. Thanks for this.
 
IMO one of the problem that Sony has is that both SCEA and SCEJ don't really believe in what SCEE has done in the past. I mean Eyetoy, Singstar and Invizimals were new ideas and succesfull ones. Why not launching the ps3 with the move? Why Singstar doesn't have a Japanese version? Why don't push Invizimals and Singstar as much as SCEE does in Europe? Or why don't do something similar for your market? Then Nintendo comes with the wii and it's too late, Joysound and it's too late and possibly a Pokemon game that works with AR and it's too late again... SCEE has had many new ideas but Sony never believed in them.

P.S. Just to be sure to not be misunderstood, obviously Pokemon will still sell much more than Invizimals.

This is a problem that Sony has always had. Even going back to the PSone era they'd have games that were successful in one region that Sony wouldn't even publish in another. This annoying way of doing things is the main reason that they ended up basically losing the Souls series. Hopefully this will be something that Kaz works to fix.

Another big problem is that Sony seems to have no idea of just how many IP's they have. They have quite a few IP that were successful at one time that are just dead now. Not because they dropped off but because Sony seemingly forgot about them.
 
It's sad that gamers consistently say that what they want more than anything is games, but when sony brings the games they don't jump on board.

I do agree that Sony have failed in marketing majorly compared to the other gaming companies. If they had good marketing, they should have easily surpassed MS.

As they are, they are in a good position, but in 3rd place none the less.
 
It is always a little sad to see Sony pump out so many different games but, especially this generation, but no real Gears/Halo/Mario levels of run away success from any new IPs, the closest probably being Uncharted.

untitledmvx52.png


And that's GT5's sales after one year. It's always been known as a series with extremely long legs. In 2010 GT4 finally surpassed GT1 as the best second best selling game in these series.

I'm always a little surprised seeing GT sales figures, i could be wrong but aren't Zelda total series sales around like 62m or something, I never really considered that GT would have outsold one of the most well known game series.

But then these days some figures don't look so big when a CoD game is selling like 20m per title each year, lol.
 
But they hadn't been done with the same level of polish that Uncharted did them at.

So?


It's never about doing it first or else you wouldn't be be crediting Gears as being innovative since it certainly wasn't the first one to use its cover system. But it was the first to do it really well and make it a success.

I never said it was about being the first, it's more about being the first to popularize. Uncharted popularized practically none of its gameplay or presentational elements (although it did set the new bars in many regards), most of them were widely used before Uncharted, so it's no surprise that they remain popular after Uncharted as well.


How many games would've had that hotel destruction sequence as a cutscene or a QTE? Yet they figured out a way to give you control over Drake during it. You see that in other games now.

We've had proper interactive cutscenes in many games and series before, some, like Metal Gear Solid and Half-Life, very popular and influential.


And you really didn't look at Star Wars 1313 and see Uncharted all over it?

Not at all. Like I already said, I saw games that Uncharted took those ideas from. Uncharted is a very popular franchise now so it's no surprise that many people say "oh, that looks like Uncharted", but all those games are just taking ideas from the same sources that have been around us all this time. Again, we're not talking about some obscure games, but proper, widely known blockbusters.

I'm not saying that Uncharted's success inspired no one, but it's hardly one of the most influential series of this generation, let alone the one it will be remembered by.
 
Do Sony's handheld titles have the mass appeal of Nintendo's? I would say no. Consumers will buy a 3DS because Mario. Will consumers buy a Vita because of Sound Shapes?
 
Do Sony's handheld titles have the mass appeal of Nintendo's? I would say no. Consumers will buy a 3DS because Mario. Will consumers buy a Vita because of Sound Shapes?

Of course not, gamers say they want new IPs, but they really just want the same old thing recognisable games.
 
Not at all. Like I already said, I saw games that Uncharted took those ideas from. Uncharted is a very popular franchise now so it's no surprise that many people say "oh, that looks like Uncharted", but all those games are just taking ideas from the same sources that have been around us all this time. Again, we're not talking about some obscure games, but proper, widely known blockbusters.

I'm not saying that Uncharted's success inspired no one, but it's hardly one of the most influential series of this generation, let alone the one it will be remembered by.

Not at all hahaha, it looks like Uncharted in Space...I say Uncharted is way more influential than Gears. What a failure of a post.
 
Must be another forum where users were shitting up thread after thread with killzone, uncharted and gt5 gif's....

gifs of games? the only time we had those lately were in OT and gif related threads.
if you two actually believe that sony fans are the worst thing in this forum, you're just as blind as sony fans defending sony about their financial situation.
gaf in general can get pretty chaotic and very unpleasant with all the hate in some threads, but the hyperbole is really strong this generation.
 
It's sad that gamers consistently say that what they want more than anything is games, but when sony brings the games they don't jump on board.

I do agree that Sony have failed in marketing majorly compared to the other gaming companies. If they had good marketing, they should have easily surpassed MS.

As they are, they are in a good position, but in 3rd place none the less.

It is not sad if those gamers are just not interested in what Sony is bringing. It is not just as simple as "games". I sold my PS3 before a price drop came and there are 2 games i am interested in but not enough to regret my decision.
 
It is not sad if those gamers are just not interested in what Sony is bringing. It is not just as simple as "games". I sold my PS3 before a price drop came and there are 2 games i am interested in but not enough to regret my decision.

Yea well that's great. I didn't even bother buying the Wii or 360. PS3 & PC FTW!
 
I'm always a little surprised seeing GT sales figures, i could be wrong but aren't Zelda total series sales around like 62m or something, I never really considered that GT would have outsold one of the most well known game series.

But then these days some figures don't look so big when a CoD game is selling like 20m per title each year, lol.

It's a racing game so it never really gets the media attention that a new Zelda will get. At least not with the games media. I guess that's why you see Kaz doing quite a few interviews with magazines like Car and Driver as well as Motortrend. In general GT relies heavily on marketing outside of typical gaming sites.

Not at all. Like I already said, I saw games that Uncharted took those ideas from. Uncharted is a very popular franchise now so it's no surprise that many people say "oh, that looks like Uncharted", but all those games are just taking ideas from the same sources that have been around us all this time. Again, we're not talking about some obscure games, but proper, widely known blockbusters.

I'm not saying that Uncharted's success inspired no one, but it's hardly one of the most influential series of this generation, let alone the one it will be remembered by.

I don't really know what else to say if you aren't even seeing the Uncharted inspiration in Star Wars 1313. In the games case its absolutely in your face.
 
Maybe if I never played Mass Effect or any other third person perspective cover shooter I would be more inclined to agree with you. Then again, maybe not. Hahaha.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-06-07-star-wars-1313-the-force-uncharted
Star Wars 1313 Preview: The Force Uncharted

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/05/e3-2012-star-wars-1313-move-over-drake
E3 2012: Star Wars: 1313 -- Move Over Drake

http://www.shacknews.com/article/74194/star-wars-1313-gameplay-trailers-enter-uncharted-territory
Star Wars 1313 gameplay trailers enter Uncharted territory
 
Maybe if I never played Mass Effect or any other third person perspective cover shooter I would be more inclined to agree with you. Then again, maybe not. Hahaha.

If only Shepard was half as athletic as the main character in Star Wars 1313...you can't even jump in Mass Effect.

The main character in SW1313 is an exact copy of Nathan Drake...he is jumping around on space ships instead of trucks and killing Storm Troops in exactly the same way as Drake. I saw no robotic or clunky Mass Effect in there.

Keep fighting the good fight though.
 
As usual allot of people in the thread have no idea what they are talking about .
It's funny that in allot of Sony threads you see people saying Sony has no big IP compare to MS .
When they have games that match all of MS IP in sales expect Halo because GT sold less this gen .
Also i am talking WW sales it does not matter where most of the sales come from because all companies talk about WW sales for both software and hardware .

Sony problem this gen has always been hardware price they got away lucky in EU because MS drop the ball there but in NA they were never able match them until it did not matter anymore.
Sony has there work cut out for them next gen but if anything PS3 has showed them that having a system so expensive compare to others not going to work no matter who you are .
 
That's ridiculous. Conceptually, Uncharted is mostly a patchwork of ideas lifted from earlier games (and films). Tomb Raider is supposed to be inspired by Uncharted now? Maybe in a bizarro world.

You can't say Uncharted won't be remembered or used as inspiration and then say this when people prove you wrong. No one wishes Uncharted wasn't being copied more than me, but it is what it is. E3 was full of that shit.
 

this proves my point. This video also applies to that Tomb Raider game...


BTW I am not harping on any of these games. I actually pre-ordered Tomb Raider after E3. But to say that Uncharted hasn't influenced the industry is a complete bull shit...
 
Uncharted and Gears have been hugely influential this generation. You'd be foolish to argue against that.

I'd say the most influential games this gen are (in no particular order) are Call of Duty (fast paced twitch action) Gears of War (cover mechanics) Uncharted (linear set pieces) and Wii Sports (motion based minigame collections).

Rewatch E3 from this year and basically everything is some variation of those games.
 
I'd say the most influential games this gen are (in no particular order) are Call of Duty (fast paced twitch action) Gears of War (cover mechanics) Uncharted (linear set pieces) and Wii Sports (motion based minigame collections).

Rewatch E3 from this year and basically everything is some variation of those games.

Yeah, that looks about right.
 
So why aren't consumers buying Vita for Uncharted and Wipeout?
well, maybe when uncharted o wipeout sell like pokemon or mario. just see what happens in japan with MH. they need a ww appealing franchise like mario. in fact 3ds start selling well mario appeared. plus mh plus price drop.
 
I'd say the most influential games this gen are (in no particular order) are Call of Duty (fast paced twitch action) Gears of War (cover mechanics) Uncharted (linear set pieces) and Wii Sports (motion based minigame collections).

Rewatch E3 from this year and basically everything is some variation of those games.

yea let's just forget how hard Naughty Dog and Ubisoft worked on making their characters flexible and athletic instead of 400 pounds fatass space marines. Set pieces my ass...
 
I'd like for every character to be as mobile as Drake. Not sure how that could be seen as a bad thing. Being able to jump, climb, hang, and the like mid fight is a great thing. Its hard to be satisfied with straight cover-based shooting these days.
 
I'd like for every character to be as mobile as Drake. Not sure how that could be seen as a bad thing. Being able to jump, climb, hang, and the like mid fight is a great thing. Its hard to be satisfied with straight cover-based shooting these days.

And that's one of the best things about Uncharted. And one thing other devs want in their game.
 
I fail to see how Sony make brilliant software imo, Resistance, Killzone, Infamous are all average at best with Infamous being above average. There are way better alternatives to most of the games they have made this gen.

For me the only truly great exclusives they have put out are Valkryia Chronicles which was done by a 3rd party, and Ratchet and Clank A Crack in Time. Demons Souls is probably the best out of the lot.

I agree for the most part that some of Sony's first party titles this gen are vastly overrated by both the press and the gaming community...I bet games like LBP, Killzone 2/3, Infamous and Motorstorm would've get way less attention and lower scores by the reviewers if they were multiplatform - exclusivity to a specific platform and/or great presentation surely helped some titles to get more praise than they deserved this gen, of course this does not only apply for Sony but also (to a smaller degree though) for MS (Fable 3, Crackdown 2, Halo Reach) and Ninty (Donkey Kong Country Returns, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess).

Don't get me wrong though PS3 has some excellent exclusive games like Journey, Shatter, Siren Blood Curse, Wipeout HD, Demon's Souls, Resistance 1/3, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted 2 & R&C: Crack in Time it's that I don't see how is Sony's exclusive line-up so much better than Ninty's or MS's...bigger exclusive library sure but better overall? I don't think so.
 
well, maybe when uncharted o wipeout sell like pokemon or mario. just see what happens in japan with MH. they need a ww appealing franchise like mario. in fact 3ds start selling well mario appeared. plus mh plus price drop.

This is a problem both MS and Sony have compare Nintendo .
 
I'd like for every character to be as mobile as Drake. Not sure how that could be seen as a bad thing. Being able to jump, climb, hang, and the like mid fight is a great thing. Its hard to be satisfied with straight cover-based shooting these days.
Yeah going back from games like Uncharted and Vanquish to gears was tough, I need mobility as well.
 
I agree for the most part that some of Sony's first party titles this gen are vastly overrated by both the press and the gaming community...I bet games like LBP, Killzone 2/3, Infamous and Motorstorm would've get way less attention and lower scores by the reviewers if they were multiplatform - exclusivity to a specific platform and/or great presentation surely helped some titles to get more praise than they deserved this gen, of course this does not only apply for Sony but also (to a smaller degree though) for MS (Fable 3, Crackdown 2, Halo Reach) and Ninty (Donkey Kong Country Returns, Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess).

Don't get me wrong though PS3 has some excellent exclusive games like Journey, Shatter, Siren Blood Curse, Wipeout HD, Demon's Souls, Resistance 1/3, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted 2 & R&C: Crack in Time it's that I don't see how is Sony's exclusive line-up so much better than Ninty's or MS's...bigger exclusive library sure but better overall? I don't think so.

WTF?? inFamous is one of the best open world games I have played this gen. And I played almost all of them except for Crackdown. If anything the inFamous series deserves more attention (except for that Dracula add on)

Doughnut_Drake.jpg


j/k :p

ohahaha I forgot about the fat Drake model. It's always fun to see one during a random multiplayer match :D
 
WTF?? inFamous is one of the best open world games I have played this gen. And I played almost all of them except for Crackdown. If anything the inFamous series deserves more attention (except for that Dracula add on)

inFamous: Festival of Blood was way, way better than inFamous 2.
 
This is a problem both MS and Sony have compare Nintendo .
but ms has no portable console. yet. now we will see if mario can push a 300€ console like wii u or for home consoles that would need to be cod or halo.
plus smartphone cheap gaming gets also a huge portion of the pie these days. many just feel no need to go after a handheld anymore.
 
Top Bottom