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

[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

[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.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by Proteus

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.

i don't know if we would be getting those 10 games, because Sony would have to be spending their money on getting the exclusives, they only have so much $.

[ToonyLoons]

Maybe we would have kept FFXIII if GTA4 would have sold better on the 360 then it did. Sony most likely looked at how much money they would have to spend to keep FFXIII exclusive vs the amount of sales that they might lose if they didn't. GTA4 sales were too close to even across the board and Sony still saw increasing sales of systems.

Of course any game that may be a possible system seller should be looked at and not brushed aside. The more systems you sale, the more consumers you have out there to buy the games and accessories to help you make your profit. And the larger install base you have, the easier it is for developers to make the choice to make a game on your system and maybe even consider exclusive deals.

Sony cannot forget about 3rd party support. But multiplatform support is better then no support. If you need a reminder, just look at the GameCube from last generation. Nintendo was just about the only company that supported that system, and you know how that story goes.

I will take 1st party games over multiplatform games most of the time anyway. 3rd parties seem more interested in getting out the yearly sequal to their game franchises and dont often push the envolope. Sure the games can be nice and every now and then you get a great sequal like COD4 or Burnout:Paradise. But most of the time it feels like rehashes to get people to open their wallet again.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Proteus

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

Huh?

Sony First Party Studios

Clap Hanz – Hot Shots Golf series
Polyphony Digital – Gran Turismo series, Omega Boost
SCE Japan Studio (Project SIREN Team, etc.) – Ape Escape series, LocoRoco
Team ICO – ICO, Shadow of the Colossus

SCEI Subsidiary Divisions

Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.

Incognito Entertainment – Twisted Metal series, Warhawk
Naughty Dog – Jak series, Uncharted
SCE Bend Studio (formerly Eidetic) – Syphon Filter series
SCE Foster City Studio – Jet Li: Rise to Honor
SCE San Diego Studio – The Mark of Kri, NBA '07
SCE Santa Monica Studio – God of War, Kinetica
Sony Online Entertainment LLC. – EverQuest
Zipper Interactive – SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs series

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd.

Bigbig Studios – Pursuit Force
Evolution Studios – MotorStorm
Guerrilla Games – Killzone series
SCE London Studio (includes Team SOHO & Camden) – The Getaway series, SingStar series
SCE Studio Cambridge (formerly Millennium Interactive) – MediEvil series, Primal
SCE Studio Liverpool (formerly Psygnosis) – Wipeout series, F1 series

Sony Computer Entertainment Korea Inc.

SCE Korea – EyeToy: EduKids, GloRace: Phantastic Carnival

THAT'S not diversified enough for you?

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.

You know this...how? It could be a matter of green-lighting certain/more projects.

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.

No. That's way many studios need to be in play...not necessarily 3rd parties. You are acting as if Sony internal studios are ONE group. They are not. They are many different groups under one umbrella. The individual minds and thinking of these people are most likely still there from when they were individual 3rd party studios (before Sony purchased them).

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.

Did you think it could be because more projects weren't green-lighted? When looking into the past, one should consider that the 3rd party exclusives were common. So, there was no need to FOCUS on 1st party development. The time has come when this is no longer the case.

I seriously only own a handful of Sony titles after nearly two years of having a PS3.

How long do you think it takes to create a game from scratch (for ANY studio)?

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?).

That sure isn't a lot of titles you mentioned. How many great 3rd party franchises can you name? Now, name how many have not appeared on the PS3. That's my point.

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.

It depends on your perspective. If you think expensive DLC is incredibly special instead of exclusive titles, then you might be correct. However, most people DON'T think that (sales numbers confirm that).

The 3rd party titles will generally make it to the PS3 anyway.

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.

Where are you getting your numbers from? BTW, you can bid on something without the intention of winning (if you even know it's up for bidding in the first place). Sony CAN NOT only survive off of in-house development EXCLUSIVES and 3rd party multiplatform titles, I believe it becomes a selling point.

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.

Yeah, 'cause we have seen TONS of ground-breaking games from 3rd party developers this gen, right?

Originally Posted by Proteus

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.

So, what would be stopping Sony from getting top AAA 3rd party titles? *looks at COD4, Oblivion, UT3, etc on shelf...then looks at upcoming games like the improved Bioshock, Mirror's Edge, FFXIII, etc*

I would trade DLC for full exclusive titles ANY DAY. Whom in their right minds wouldn't?