*The Reasons behind Sony's Struggles/Success of MS* THUS FAR

[Tuhan]

First off, this started out to be a simple response towards the Activision threatening Sony thread...but then I kinda just blew up, cause people in general are too naive and ignorant to look at the little facts.

Make some unique and decent games, then complain Activision.
Just because games sell millions, doesn't mean they're GOOD games. Big difference, and much deception, between a POPULAR and a GOOD game.

Price cut? Please.......... Activision = Money Whores. Money whores are too stingy to pay up some money and put time into a GOOD game. Instead they stick a POPULAR franchise title (That's been heavily ADVERTISED and media driven to death) on a game that isn't even good but sadly gains money easily because of its TITLE.


Milking series such as:
Tony Hawk
GH
ehhh...what else? ......Exactly my point.

Everyone on this forums knows that if you want to get some good results, you have to sacrifice. For developers and the PS3, they have to sacrifice time/hard work/money in order to produce a GOOD GAME. Only because, it's the PS3 and it is undoubtedly the most powerful console out there. However, there are a lot of people saying... such as forum veteran OM3GA who refers to the PS3 as "too expensive to develop for, and we're beginning to wonder if it's worth the effort to make games for it anymore." However, we've all seen the results with the time/effort/money put into a game for the PS3. The games don't lie. If it's easy...everyone would do it. If you want to develop a GOOD game...you have to use up some of your resources.



But, I know what some of you are saying:
"Tuhan, some of those BIG exclusives didn't sell well for the PS3!"
Uhh...WHEN THE HELL DOES A GAME'S SUCCESS DEPEND ON HOW WELL IT SELLS? We all know full well, that how a game plays determines its success. Unfortunately, this next-gen era has become so caught up and lost within NUMBERS and SALES...that we forget about how the damn GAME PLAYS!


*For the note, if you want to go into your own financial issues and the high price of the PS3...the 360 is cheaper blah blah blah..I won't even touch on that because money situations are different amongst every individual. I won't even mention the accessories you have to buy for the 360 and the features that are already available on the PS3

Also, this next statement IS the underlying factor in which why Sony is struggling. Advertising is the theme of this next-gen era. Sony has overlooked advertising their games at a healthy rate. I know I capped on next-gen era becoming engrossed with sales/advertising ...but I mentioned it because it has become excessive and the main focus of this era. However, if you don't mention your game at all, then how the hell are people going to know? There are some games Sony didn't advertise for enough, MGS4/KZ2 (But still they were really successful in their own ways, and are good games). And there are some games they didn't advertise for at ALL "Valkyria Chronicles" (My good friend Ghost808 knows full the whole jist behind this game...ask him for a second opinion on the game, and he'll say for sure it was a good OVERLOOKED game. This is surprising because whenever I have my chats with him he's always expecting games to be amazing within this next-gen era and seems to be never satisfied, for better words)

Microsoft on the other hand. Advertises their games and themselves...the most obvious:

Halo 3
http://kotaku.com/gaming
/advertising-age/how-microsoft-spent-10-million-selling-halo-3-298272.php

Google the sales results of H3 after the heavy advertising...it should explain itself. Is it a good game? Go click that "Search" button up there type up Halo 3 (reviews/opinions/etc.)...you should get a good explanation from your very own peers on how the game plays within these very forums.


If our economy wasn't so shitty as of right now, and our economy instead was booming, people and devs wouldn't be complaining about consoles being so high-priced. Lets face it, any company would be paranoid within these times...and I don't blame them.

Finally, why MS has been able to maintain an edge over Sony, Xbox Live.

What is Xbox Live? Xbox Live = Convenience.

Sony wasn't able to create a convenience with PSN such as xbox live, which (with cliche words) connects people and creates a community. Xbox Live is the ONLY thing I'm going to give the 360 over the PS3. Other than that, if Xbox Live wasn't there...forget it...360 = not as successful.
It sucks to play by yourself, and within this day and age with the internet...we can choose to play with the people we like.

This is for the vets... but ALL of you vets know why the real reason why SOCOM was successful FOR ITS TIME AND HARDWARE. It had convenient features, it drove for a tight-knit community, and it was fucking fun to play with your friends. I don't know a single person who would like to play SOCOM by themselves, that is if you were truly into the game.

For some closing words, this day and age in gaming is different. It's become media and sales driven, the 360 has capitalized on this...Sony is just getting their stride with the whole theme of this next-gen era. 360 has Xbox Live...but Sony has the upper hand on QUALITY games (Don't fight me on this, you will lose terribly and I will barrage you with proof/info comparing quality games PS3 vs. 360...or I have the trump card aka Mr. Zero2000 on standby)

Lastly, again ask yourselves this...putting the whole community/friends aspect aside...what truly determines the success of a game?

[Constantine]

First off, bashing Activision for poor games sounds like a bad idea since they're behind Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, Doom 3 and now they've paired up with Blizzard. But hey, that's your opinion so go for it.

You complain a lot about how this day and age is all about dollars. Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you but the gaming industry has always been about dollars. We're actually entering a renaissance at the moment if you ask me because of the availability of indie games and private developers rather than being forced into buy from only six developers since there are thousands of them now.

Money also definitely matters here. You say that the whole 360 being cheaper thing is not worth talking about, but I suggest you research the numbers on the statistics of the gaming audience. A lot of people cannot afford $600 for a system. When Sony dropped the price, sales increased. It's because 360 was cheaper (Microsoft actually took losses rather than profits to keep it under $400) and released sooner that was both it's crutch and best strategy.

By being released so soon, a lot of bugs remained as evident in the sheer number of red ringed 360s. However, because Xbox had championed what PC gamers had figured out so long ago being online play, Sony and Nintendo had no choice but to focus on them because it was obvious that the Xbox was running away with sales of online games, Halo being their cornerstone series. The PS3 was released months and months after the 360 which enjoyed healthy sales and picked up a big portion of the market. When the PS3's price tag was announced, there was a synchronized, global twitch of the eye because for $600, you could get a new computer, or possibly your first car. It was not a lot of money to some of us, but to most gamers that fell well outside of their price range. You also have to then realize that you needed to buy the HD cables (why they weren't included with the system I'll never know) and games which if you only bought one, would require at least $700 whereas with a 360, you could buy the premium system at launch price with a game and be ready to play for only ~$460.

In a way, it's extremely ignorant to claim that money has no reasoning when it comes to a good game. Sure plenty of good games have come from cheap development costs but those are rare. The companies with the most money can produce the biggest, most badass games. Bethesda is a good example. They spend years on their projects and end up selling gold, ensuring that they can continue to make more of it.

Sales of a game, as you pointed out, do not make a game good. I agree, but I think when so many people are buying a game, it says something about it. For example, someone may not like World of Warcraft or Halo 3, but both games have made insane sales figures with millions and millions of players and after all, isn't that what makes a game good? The amount of fun and enjoyment the gamer can get out of it? It's all personal preference, there isn't anything that determines a "good" game outside of your own opinion because we've all got our specific likes and dislikes. Developers have spent lots of money producing big budget games and flopped before, just like developers have spent little to no money and came up with something huge.

We are a money driven world and many of us live in money ruled cultures and it unfortunately does seep into gaming. However, that doesn't mean games have sucked more than before. If anything, it's a good thing because it means that companies can put more money towards realizing their biggest aspirations for games and ultimately, it means that we all win.

As for a conclusion to the whole PS3 vs. 360 junk, I really can't stand that fanboy jabbering. Both systems suck and both systems have their positives. It's all a matter of what you want. Both systems have some high quality games and both systems are capable of some really cool stuff. I understand the pain of seeing Sony struggle because I loved my PS2 and loathed the Xbox yet seeing the tables turned so drastically hurts. I personally bought my 360 because it was cheaper, had a much larger library, and it was out before the PS3 was. That's what did the PS3 in early on was it's price, limited library, and timing. However, now that it is gaining ground, we will see what happens. With big name exclusives still on the horizon like God of War 3, it could be a good year for Sony. They just had a very rocky start. We know it's more powerful than the 360, but I think most of us are still waiting for a game (can Heavy Rain be that game?) that proves to us just how powerful it can be.

[Midnight_Walker]

Originally Posted by Constantine

Sales of a game, as you pointed out, do not make a game good. I agree, but I think when so many people are buying a game, it says something about it. For example, someone may not like World of Warcraft or Halo 3, but both games have made insane sales figures with millions and millions of players and after all, isn't that what makes a game good?

Britney Spears and Jonas Brothers also sell millions and millions of records. Sales do not equal quality.

[Constantine]

Let me finish that quote for you since you willingly left out the explanation:

The amount of fun and enjoyment the gamer can get out of it? It's all personal preference, there isn't anything that determines a "good" game outside of your own opinion because we've all got our specific likes and dislikes. Developers have spent lots of money producing big budget games and flopped before, just like developers have spent little to no money and came up with something huge.

The whole point of that comment was that if millions of people like it, you cannot deny that it is quality to them. Like I already said, it's about personal preference. There are no such things as "good" and "bad" in terms of certainty since the concepts are subjective. Something that is good to you will not be good to me and vice versa. To millions of young girls, Twilight is quality. To the rest of us, it's not. The OP asked how to define quality in games and I gave my answer as "there is no measuring tool".

[OME6A]

In before Zero corrects you on EVERYTHING.

Here's the real reason Sony isn't this successful this time around: They gave their console the wrong name.

Instead of the PS3, it should be the PStoo. Too expensive for entry-level consumers, too costly and difficult to develop for, and too cumbersome to use.

[zero2000]

Originally Posted by OME6A

In before Zero corrects you on EVERYTHING.

Here's the real reason Sony isn't this successful this time around: They gave their console the wrong name.

Instead of the PS3, it should be the PStoo. Too expensive for entry-level consumers, too costly and difficult to develop for, and too cumbersome to use.

You are lucky. I don't feel like reading a wall of text right now. ;)

[NUN-PUNCHER]

Originally Posted by Tuhan

Sony has overlooked advertising their games at a healthy rate.

So...your saying that a Multi Million dollar company such as Sony is ignorant to the fact that they don't advertise ? I don't know about you but as of late I see commercials for InFamous every 2.5 seconds on TV. Other comercials for games are universal showing the emblems for all the systems it's available on when it's over.

You don't see PS3 console commercials like you used to , but you don't see them for the 360 either. Everybody and their grandmother knows what consoles are on the shelves these days.

[Midnight_Walker]

Originally Posted by NUN-PUNCHER

You don't see PS3 console commercials like you used to , but you don't see them for the 360 either. Everybody and their grandmother knows what consoles are on the shelves these days.

I see 360 ads reasonably often. Significantly, pretty much any multiplatform game ad ends with 'available on Xbox 360', and the logo. That may because I'm in foreign lands though.

[Go Pre]

The only thing you are going to say xbox has over the PS3 is XBL? Well that's fine because the ability to connect with my friends is the most important thing for me these days. Like somebody said before, a game being classified as good is a matter of opinion. People bash the hell out of the Halo series...but it is one of my favorite series of all time. I loved the story line and gameplay. People go crazy for Madden...but I think it is the least fun game on planet Earth. The arguments could be made all day for either side. The bottom line is that Microsoft has succeeded at putting out good game after good game for a while now and the proof is in the statistics. Millions of dollars in sales proves the satisfaction of the customer. The millions that pay their hard earned cash to play online is proof that the product works. If they were of low quality you wouldn't see millions shelling out money to play.

[.writer]

Can a ***** get a tl;dr, please?

[OME6A]

Originally Posted by .writer

Can a ***** get a tl;dr, please?

Your request is not in a computable syntax, good sir.

WTF are you asking for?

[.writer]

too long; didn't read

A summary of the textwall. Damn newfag!

[Tuhan]

Okay, first off I want you to keep these two types in mind throughout this post. Look at this post from both perspectives:

Casual Gamers
and
The Gamers

Originally Posted by Constantine

Money also definitely matters here. You say that the whole 360 being cheaper thing is not worth talking about, but I suggest you research the numbers on the statistics of the gaming audience. A lot of people cannot afford $600 for a system. When Sony dropped the price, sales increased. It's because 360 was cheaper (Microsoft actually took losses rather than profits to keep it under $400) and released sooner that was both it's crutch and best strategy.

Most obviously most people can't afford the price tag of the PS3 right on the spot. Also, (I'm dumb I should have mentioned this before) casual gaming has become another staple within this industry today. It doesn't take a genius that if you're a parent, you go to a store, and you see two consoles one with $400 price tag vs. one with a $600 tag, which one do you choose? Durrr...your natural instincts would go with the $400 dollar one.

Also, the reason why I don't want to get into the whole boogaloo with the prices and such, is because, like I said before, I was going to mention the accessories AFTER you buy a 360 vs. a PS3....but that's a whole nothing long wall of text I don't want to get into right now cause I literally just woke up about 10-15 minutes ago lol. But just for a teaser 360 accessories you have to buy afterwards:
-Wireless adapter (Why? The PS3 and Wii for Gods sakes has wireless)
-Batteries for the Contoller
-Rechargeable Batteries
-A decent headset (This may not apply to some, cause some are just fine with their default headset)
-Also, Xbox Live Accounts

And I have A LOT more on accessories. The stuff may seem minuscule at first, but it adds up over time. If you really want me to go into that...just ask.

By being released so soon, a lot of bugs remained as evident in the sheer number of red ringed 360s. However, because Xbox had championed what PC gamers had figured out so long ago being online play, Sony and Nintendo had no choice but to focus on them because it was obvious that the Xbox was running away with sales of online games, Halo being their cornerstone series. The PS3 was released months and months after the 360 which enjoyed healthy sales and picked up a big portion of the market. When the PS3's price tag was announced, there was a synchronized, global twitch of the eye because for $600, you could get a new computer, or possibly your first car. It was not a lot of money to some of us, but to most gamers that fell well outside of their price range. You also have to then realize that you needed to buy the HD cables (why they weren't included with the system I'll never know) and games which if you only bought one, would require at least $700 whereas with a 360, you could buy the premium system at launch price with a game and be ready to play for only ~$460.

Regarding the 360/bugs/RROD, simply put, it's no surprise since it is coming from a company who made Windows Vista.

The whole internet thing was a given, I'm MORE than sure all three big companies had an Online-Play in mind for their consoles...it was just a matter of how they were going to present it. Since the internet, in my honest opinion, is becoming almost necessity in our lives...the company that doesn't integrate/emphasize online play as much this generation wouldn't see as much light this generation. That's the honest truth, and that's why I stand by my statement before with 360 having an edge over the PS3 with Xbox Live. The mo'hos integrated and emphasized Live very well, and hats off to them. The whole HD cables deal is what I was going to touch on in my accessory thingie from above. The stuff you buy AFTER you buy the consoles. But, I will save that unless you want me to prove myself.

In a way, it's extremely ignorant to claim that money has no reasoning when it comes to a good game. Sure plenty of good games have come from cheap development costs but those are rare. The companies with the most money can produce the biggest, most badass games. Bethesda is a good example. They spend years on their projects and end up selling gold, ensuring that they can continue to make more of it.

Uhhh I wasn't ignoring the money factor with developing games (Or maybe I didn't mention it enough in my initial post). MONEY and developers such as Activision was the reason why I first made this thread. I probably didn't put enough into this segment...so it didn't come out quite well as I liked.

Sales of a game, as you pointed out, do not make a game good. I agree, but I think when so many people are buying a game, it says something about it. For example, someone may not like World of Warcraft or Halo 3, but both games have made insane sales figures with millions and millions of players and after all, isn't that what makes a game good? The amount of fun and enjoyment the gamer can get out of it? It's all personal preference, there isn't anything that determines a "good" game outside of your own opinion because we've all got our specific likes and dislikes. Developers have spent lots of money producing big budget games and flopped before, just like developers have spent little to no money and came up with something huge.

This is EXACTLY my point. WoW and H3. Two well KNOWN (That's the keyword here ,known) titles. If I'm just a regular dude and I kept my 360, what titles would I pick up right away? Hmm...most obvious would be the Gears, L4D, and Halo. Why? Because they're known. Obviously, like you said millions of people buying a game does say something....you are absolutely right. But, I'm not even going to go into the OTHER factors surrounding a person's mentality and INFLUENCE to buy a game.

We are a money driven world and many of us live in money ruled cultures and it unfortunately does seep into gaming. However, that doesn't mean games have sucked more than before. If anything, it's a good thing because it means that companies can put more money towards realizing their biggest aspirations for games and ultimately, it means that we all win.

Once developers these days have stopped trying to create Shooters...then we can both agree on developers being "aspired" to create their dream games. As far as I'm concerned...all we see today are shooters. (I'm talking about the FPS/TPS)

Other than Madden and GH I don't see developers trying to be innovative. Nowadays, if you're a dev and you create a shooter with nice graphics you can gain money quickly. Don't argue me on this because more than a majority of the games these days are shooters. I JOINED these forums because of a shooter, only because it was a great game...and we all know what I'm talking about. I'm an avid shooter person and I know I was REALLY REALLY good in my day, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to shooters. But, when it comes to a point where the shooters are rehashing and start copying other games, it is not INNOVATIVE and sucks. I.E. Games that copy COD4 with the sprint/knifing/etc mechanics. Want an example? The failed attempt by Slant 6 which is SOCOM Confrontation.

You can whip the Easy Button out on me and say "Well shooters are people's preferences these days, lol you fail" but it comes to show some kinda person you are with your Easy Button. Keep in mind, YOU don't get to choose what types of games developers create. You just buy what they create.

As for a conclusion to the whole PS3 vs. 360 junk, I really can't stand that fanboy jabbering. Both systems suck and both systems have their positives. It's all a matter of what you want.

I understand your pain when it comes to money and such. Also, like I said before I more than honestly believe that if this economy weren't so shitty we would see developers taking risks and creating other games...rather than going the safety route with shooters. Cause these days, any company can go down.

AND

I KNOW fan-boyism would be cut drastically. We wouldn't see such sides of people like OM3GA and Zero2000 who are well respected people on these forums.


For some final thoughts on this post, gaming today has become more and more geared towards the casual gamer with heavy advertising and releasing FRANCHISED TITLES. Don't be a dumbass and say that COD4/5 isn't aimed towards casual gamers and is not a hard game to pick up on...BECAUSE IT AIN'T. It is probably THE easiest "hardcore" game to pick up on. My older brother who wasn't a fan of shooters at all never played a shooter in his life before, but picked up the COD series with ease. Probably the biggest reason why COD has sold millions, because it reached out to the gamer who can just buy the game right away and rack up 50 kills a round. (But still go 20 deaths over kills the next game -_- )

The Madden Series? A mixture of Go Pre and what I said....the game is rehashed and is a another FRANCHISED TITLE. However, with the constant changes every year in the NFL...I can somewhat understand their side. But, that doesn't make-up for the rehashed gameplay.

Guitar Hero, Guitar Hero 2, Guitar Hero 3, Guitar Hero: Metallica, Guitar Hero: World Tour, Guitar Hero: Beatles, Guitar Hero: Mozart (Wait wtf?) Exactly where I'm getting at.

Lastly, if people want whip out the whole "Opinion" and "Preference" thing...we might as well kill ourselves cause this whole damn forums are opinion. Of course it varies from individual dammit. But that aspect is just the general meat of this whole thing. There are many other factors that come into play, that we take for granted and think are just meh (A friend telling you about a game, getting a game as a gift, etc. And these aspecst have even more factors that we have to look at! THIS WHOLE SHIET IS MADNESS!!!)

All in all, I'm not too sure what to say about this generation of gaming. There's just way too much on my mind. And I think it's just a whole mess. If you are going to go by numbers and sales to prove your point on the consoles, good job you won. But take this in mind...if you are going to go JUST by numbers and sales you are essentially placing yourself amongst those MILLIONs who are "satisfied". If your arguments are based upon satisfaction just because a game plays right for you the SINGLE individual...that doesn't prove anything. Again...I may have been really stupid for not emphasizing this a lot, but I'm focusing more on the quality of the game. Like I said in my first post...There's a big difference between a POPULAR game and GOOD game. Just like Midnight_Walker
using the Britney Spears and Jonas Brothers example. They're popular...not necessarily good. Yet again, I KNOW you will use that undecided response of "It's preference and people's opinion that they like Britney Spears and the Jonas Brothers." What kinda bullshit answer is that honestly? I know YOU all can take an overlooked underappreciated artist/groups and place em over the likes of The Spears and Jonas Brothers anyday.

My whole point is that there aren't enough quality games as of today. Quality > Quantity. I do believe that the PS3 has greater QUALITY games over the 360 any day. Take out the whole community/friends aspect and it'll take it A-N-Y D-A-Y. The 360 is smart to focus games on their Multiplayer aspect, while the single player only plays for about a good 5 hours on average. But like my good friend Ghost808 mentioned...there isn't enough games, and I think I understand his frustration a bit more with there simply not being enough games today. I'm frustrated because I was simply just dumbfounded when the Money ***** Activision threatened Sony to cut prices. If anything, take advantage of their god damn blu-ray and cell processor with your whored-in-money.

Gaahhhh. I don't post much at all nor am I active a lot, but I 'm going to make up for it with my thoughts in a single post rather than segmented throughout numerous clustered posts.

P.S.

To my good friend Nun...if you can name another other title on the PS3 that has been advertised on TV every other 2.5 seconds as much as inFamous I'd be glad to hear it.

[NUN-PUNCHER]

Originally Posted by Tuhan

To my good friend Nun...if you can name another other title on the PS3 that has been advertised on TV every other 2.5 seconds as much as inFamous I'd be glad to hear it.

Uhhh sure....
The Bigs w/ Dustin - Horse Jockey - Pedroia stills runs constantly everytime I watch a baseball game.

Resistance 2
Rachet & Clank
God of War 3 will surely get lots of commercial time


There really hasn't been many other PS3 exclusives that warrants lots of commercial time.
And I may be wrong but after some thought. Doesn't the developers have to pay for the advertising of their games ?? Anyone ?

[OME6A]

They advertised the hell out of LBP too.