In-house development focus over 3rd party exclusives. Is this the right decision??

[Steelmaker]

I think by now everyone understands that Sony is no longer interested in getting into a bidding war with M$ over 3rd party exclusivity. FF13 is going to be on the 360. It's a done deal. Instead, Jack Tretton has made it very clear that in-house developed titles will be where Sony puts their resources.

My question to you guys is, do you think this is the best strategy? I understand their reasons. Their thinking is that since 3rd parties are clearly determined to develop their titles for both platforms, it's going to be their own exclusive titles that will make the difference in consumer's choosing the PS3 over the 360. It's a sound strategy on the surface. However if you look deeper into the situation, I'm not so sure if it will pay off in the long run.

For one thing, all else is not equal in terms of 3rd party support. Sure, most all 3rd party titles that come out on the 360 come out on PS3 as well. However, things like timed exclusivity, features, and exclusive downloadable content are becoming quite a difference maker in the eyes of potential consumers. Up to now, all 3 of those have favored the 360. Yes, there have been some that have favored Sony but the lion's share has clearly gone to the 360. I could site examples but everyone here knows what they are. We've discussed them in great detail over the last year and a half. Plus we all know that very few (if any) multi-platform titles are being developed to take real advantage of the PS3 hardware. Sony touted their system as being the most advanced, most powerful hardware on the market. Yet no multiplatform title exemplifies this. At this point, 3rd parties are just making sure PS3 versions of their games are comperable to the 360 versions.

Another thing to consider is that for the most part, Sony's in house titles either have not lived up to the hype (speaking critically and sales numbers wise. Not necessarily based on my opinion or the opinion of anyone here on this forum) or are taking entirely too long to release. Now having said that, this could be entirely a mute point by this time next year. By then, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2, Motorstorm 2, Resistance 2, Ratchet and Clank: QFB, Socom, Wipeout HD, Home (hopefully), etc will all be out and hopefully they will all be every bit as wonderful as Sony is hyping them up to be. However what if they're not? Where does Sony go from there?

[Terjyn]

I gotta go with in-house is the way to go right now, if for no other reason than it is completely impossible to be taken over.

The world really is in a place where single platform 3rd party games are unlikely, there's far too much money being thrown around for it.

But Microsoft can't make a deal to get God of War III short of buying Sony outright, and as rich as Microsoft is I don't think they can manage that.

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

But Microsoft can't make a deal to get God of War III short of buying Sony outright, and as rich as Microsoft is I don't think they can manage that.

Hell no they can't manage that. Sony makes too much money off other things other than video games.

[mainman]

My answer isn't in there.

It should be both imo.

All Sony has to do is secure a handfull of 3rd party games exclusive to their machine. Those are the existing popular PS1/PS2 franchises like GTA, FF and Kingdom Hearts.

And ofcourse MGS, but Sony doenst have to worry about that. Kojima is a man of integrity, but I don't trust Konami though.

If I were Sony, yeah, I wouldn't make sure FF13 would stay exclusive, but I would try to get a timed exclusivity of 6 month's for the game's release for EU and NA.

Even if a game is not fully exclusive, a timed exclusivity of 6 months or 12 months has almost the same effect as if the game is a full exclusive.

[Psx0005]

I have faith that Sony will do well with internal game development. A lot of the titles that were done in-house such as Resistance, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, and Motorstorm did pretty well for the PS3 and with the focus on more internal development can only produce more games that are taking advantage of the PS3's architecture. I'd rather take the strengths of a game using the strengths of a system than a 3rd party game that has to cater to all systems out there and has to "dumb" itself down to make sure that every system can handle the game.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I think the whole thing is sort of a mixed bag.

Obviously keeping a BIG name 3rd party title (such as FFXIII) exclusive to PS3 would be preferable.

But with productions costs being so high and the install base for the system being relatively low (not bad, but not where Sony wants it to be), paying out the kind of money it would take to keep such a game exclusive to the PS3 would be too much of a financial risk.


I do think Sony focusing on making their own exclusive content (since the competition can't steal that away from them) is a good idea. The tough part is coming up with a game that will be SO awesome that it really makes people go out and buy the system in large numbers. But they that's the tough part. They have no way of knowing for sure which title could be a dud, and which will become a phenomenon.

Unfortunately none of the exclusive titles that they currently have on the market are the sort that are really driving sales on any kind of extreme level.

The God of War series is obviously popular, so the 3rd installment of that will help, but I'm still not sure of God of War on it's own would be enough to make tons of people shell out $400 for the system plus the cost of the game, accessories, etc.

But time will tell on that one.

[stockstar1138]

it isn't simply the right decision, its the only decision if Sony wants to stay in the game.

Developers have:

1. Ignored the PS3 better hardware to created crappy ports.

2. Fallen easy to bribes from MS (except the great Kojima).

Sony absolutely CANNNOT get into bidding wars with MS, they will lose everytime. The obvious decision is to ramp up production on IPs that will be fully optimized for the PS3 and MS can never steal these characters.

When I see games like Resistance, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Warhawk, etc. all being pushed out of Sony it is obvious to me that they have the talent and the diversity of having to go out there and pay big bucks to some 3rd party schmuck who might just give you a Haze.

A nice little side effect is that this will make the 360s "bribed games" look like absolute crap too.

Sony needs to get their act together though, they need to get everybody on the same page, and everybody needs to start acting more like Insomniac. NO MORE DELAYS!!! NO MORE CANCELIZATIONS!!! (rat race got canned too, i just learned).

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

it isn't simply the right decision, its the only decision if Sony wants to stay in the game.

Developers have:

1. Ignored the PS3 better hardware to created crappy ports.

2. Fallen easy to bribes from MS (except the great Kojima).

Sony absolutely CANNNOT get into bidding wars with MS, they will lose everytime. The obvious decision is to ramp up production on IPs that will be fully optimized for the PS3 and MS can never steal these characters.

When I see games like Resistance, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Warhawk, etc. all being pushed out of Sony it is obvious to me that they have the talent and the diversity of having to go out there and pay big bucks to some 3rd party schmuck who might just give you a Haze.

A nice little side effect is that this will make the 360s "bribed games" look like absolute crap too.

Sony needs to get their act together though, they need to get everybody on the same page, and everybody needs to start acting more like Insomniac. NO MORE DELAYS!!! NO MORE CANCELIZATIONS!!! (rat race got canned too, i just learned).

+1. Bravo!

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I'm still not sure of God of War on it's own would be enough to make tons of people shell out $400 for the system plus the cost of the game, accessories, etc. But time will tell on that one.

Yeah see that's one thing I still think is a problem for the PS3. True it has come down in price a lot but 399.99 is still 100.00 more expensive than what the PS1 and 2 LAUNCHED at. I know Sony said their focus would be on profitability but they need to get a 299.99 PS3 on the shelves as quickly as they can.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Yeah see that's one thing I still think is a problem for the PS3. True it has come down in price a lot but 399.99 is still 100.00 more expensive than what the PS1 and 2 LAUNCHED at. I know Sony said their focus would be on profitability but they need to get a 299.99 PS3 on the shelves as quickly as they can.

that price point is currently not feasible.

[Psx0005]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Yeah see that's one thing I still think is a problem for the PS3. True it has come down in price a lot but 399.99 is still 100.00 more expensive than what the PS1 and 2 LAUNCHED at. I know Sony said their focus would be on profitability but they need to get a 299.99 PS3 on the shelves as quickly as they can.

For the technology that's built into the PS3, I honestly don't think that $400 is unreasonable. And comparing PS1 and PS2 technology to PS3 technology is not honestly a fair assessment in regards to the pricing argument. Considering the highest end PS3 launched at $600 and Sony has managed to get the system down to $400 within 2 years should be noteworthy. Even with the cost of producing a PS3 coming down with smaller blu-ray diodes and cheaper Cell processor manufacturing, Sony still has to make a profit off the system this early in the game. It wouldn't be sound business for them to do otherwise this early in the life cycle of the console

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Psx0005

For the technology that's built into the PS3, I honestly don't think that $400 is unreasonable. And comparing PS1 and PS2 technology to PS3 technology is not honestly a fair assessment in regards to the pricing argument. Considering the highest end PS3 launched at $600 and Sony has managed to get the system down to $400 within 2 years should be noteworthy. Even with the cost of producing a PS3 coming down with smaller blu-ray diodes and cheaper Cell processor manufacturing, Sony still has to make a profit off the system this early in the game. It wouldn't be sound business for them to do otherwise this early in the life cycle of the console

You're right. It's not unreasonable. I paid full price for my 60gb system and I don't regret it for a minute!! However sticker shock is a very powerful thing. Joe Walmart does not stop to consider value, features, etc. He sees 399.99 versus 299.99 and think "well shoot, the 360 is the same thing and is 100.00 cheaper."

[Psx0005]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

You're right. It's not unreasonable. I paid full price for my 60gb system and I don't regret it for a minute!! However sticker shock is a very powerful thing. Joe Walmart does not stop to consider value, features, etc. He sees 399.99 versus 299.99 and think "well shoot, the 360 is the same thing and is 100.00 cheaper."

Exactly. One again, the old consumer line "you get what you pay for" gets played. I got my 60GB PS3 when they announced the price drop from $600 to $500. I wanted to get all the perks that the 60GB did since the 20GB didn't do it for me with its lack of features, and the rumor floating around was that the 20GB and 60GB's were being discontinued to make way for the upcoming 40GB and 80GB models. As luck would have it, Kaz Hirai announced about a couple days later that the rumor about the discontinuation of the 20GB and 60GB models were in fact, true.

[BIGSAPOTEER]

Me personally, I'd rather have 10 fantastic "In-house games" than 100 crappy "3rd party". There is a HUGE difference in quality between 1st and 3rd.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by BIGSAPOTEER

Me personally, I'd rather have 10 fantastic "In-house games" than 100 crappy "3rd party". There is a HUGE difference in quality between 1st and 3rd.

I think you mean you would rather have 10 fantastic exclusive games that are optimized for the PS3s power, than 100 crappy multi-plats.

After all the greatest game this generation was a 3rd party exclusive (Metal Gear Solid 4).

[BIGSAPOTEER]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

I think you mean you would rather have 10 fantastic exclusive games that are optimized for the PS3s power, than 100 crappy multi-plats.

After all the greatest game this generation was a 3rd party exclusive (Metal Gear Solid 4).

MGS4 is the lone exception. But yes what you said. I guess I have a problem expressing myself. At least that is what my wife tells me

[Hedchekr]

Sony needs to step it up to a whole notha level. In house development? Hmmm....for what? The sims oh I mean home? Come on every single thing Sony sells that is worth anything is overpriced (not say they don't make awesome products that usually don't fail), but come on they have very deep pockets loosen them up already.
494x_fakeps3ad.jpg

[Proteus]

I voted 'No' because at this point it is a bad decision.

Sony does not have enough creative first party studios to diversify the games line up enough to compete. It is that simple.

3rd parties bring valuable diversity to the table. MGS4 is a perfect example. There is NO ONE in Sony's family who could have even conceived of that title, much less produced it. They just do not have that kind of expertise nor the creative direction. It's an extreme example, but an example none-the-less.

Diversity breeds better quality every time. It's why multi-national/ethnic/gender workplaces are the single best scenario for ANY business and why 3rd parties need to be in play.

When looking back at Sony's in-house titles there are only a couple/few true stand outs... That is NOT enough to maintain interest from the gaming community for two years. I seriously only own a handful of Sony titles after nearly two years of having a PS3. They are, in some ways, superior, but being totally honest the games I have played and continue to play the most are NOT Sony titles. I'm pretty sure it's the same for many people (COD4 anyone? MGS4 anyone?).

Sony abandoning 3rd party developers is just going to give Microsoft a MUCH easier way to 'own' them. Without a competing bidder Microsoft can essentially pay a MUCH MUCH lower price to ensure that they get all the good DLC and maintain top AAA exclusives. They can also ensure that all non-Sony games look and play better on Xbox360 for far less cost. Instead of $50 million it will cost them $5million... tops. There needs to be a competitive bidder or M$ can simply run away with it all for a very low price. Sony CAN NOT survive off of it's in-house development.

The only way Sony could do this is if they owned about 25+ more development houses than they do so they could maintain a FULL AND ROBUST catalog of creative and groundbreaking titles... As opposed to the handful they have now (after even two years!!!). In other words, Sony can't pull it off now or anytime soon.

[DezNutz]

Originally Posted by Hedchekr

Sony needs to step it up to a whole notha level. In house development? Hmmm....for what? The sims oh I mean home? Come on every single thing Sony sells that is worth anything is overpriced (not say they don't make awesome products that usually don't fail), but come on they have very deep pockets loosen them up already.
Attachment 3035

What is with the series anti-Sony response and sig there? Everything Sony makes is overpriced? Do I really need to bring out the graph again to show you how much the PS3 is actually saving the average consumer, or how much they eat on each console, or how it is the best selling best priced blu-ray player on the market? Overpriced?

You want to talk overpriced, look at the 360, how much is that wi-fi gonna cost? A $100 upgrade hard drive? Pay to play online? yeah that is overpriced.

I think they got a good buisness model going, and obviously it is playing out just as they thought with less and less third party exclusives, and more first party games making the major difference between consoles with regards towards gaming.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by BIGSAPOTEER

Me personally, I'd rather have 10 fantastic "In-house games" than 100 crappy "3rd party". There is a HUGE difference in quality between 1st and 3rd.

Regardless of Sony's decision, you would still get those "10 fantastic 'in-house games'". You would just get to also know that you are getting not only the top AAA 3rd party titles but all the best DLC that comes with them if Sony played ball.

Kiss your DLC goodbye (it's the cheapest to 'buy' exclusivity too, afterall) if Sony doesn't get with the program.