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

[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

[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.

[Hedchekr]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

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.

No my bad you are totally right the PS3 is worth the money and I tell everyone who is in the market for a Blu-ray player to buy a PS3 for that reason. I was more talking about other products, I know its not part of Sonys gaming division, But you know the money Microsoft is dealing out isn't from thier gaming divison either thats all I am saying.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

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.

I agree with you 100% that the PS3 is a TOTAL FREAKIN' STEAL and by far the best value in gaming and multimedia out there bar none; however...

Perception is everything and Joe Six-pack still only sees it as a 'gaming console' and when priced next to other 'gaming consoles' on the shelf it looks VERY overpriced. This is partly due to Sony dropping the ball huge (especially early on) in properly branding the device and it's features, but also Microsoft's ability to embellish and over state theirs.

Either way, the perception is real and regardless how much the informed argue the un-informed will continue to perceive it as a overpriced 'gaming console' unless Sony can learn to re-brand better (perhaps this is why so much emphasis on the video download thing now?).

[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.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Proteus

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

I somewhat agree. I've said this before though: instead of paying for games, Sony should consider investing in their 3rd parties and collecting stock, something it will be much harder for Microsoft to do. Start with Squeenix and Namco.

If they copy Microsoft's methods using funds from the other divisions of the company as a whole, the result will be both companies losing more billions.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I somewhat agree. I've said this before though: instead of paying for games, Sony should consider investing in their 3rd parties and collecting stock, something it will be much harder for Microsoft to do. Start with Squeenix and Namco.

If they copy Microsoft's methods using funds from the other divisions of the company as a whole, the result will be both companies losing more billions.

I agree. In fact, I'd take it one step farther and suggest that Sony start buying enough stock in some major players (much like EA, Activision and Ubisoft have been doing) to be a 'controlling owner' and try and get more studios locked under their brand. Top AAA studios.

[Blu-Generation]

I think Sony is following the philosophy of "Don't spend too much" to win.

It's goes like this.

Kid: "Mom, i'm still hungry."

Mother: "You just ate already"

Kid: "...yea, but only one tiny burger."

Mother: "It's better than nothing."

Kid: "Could we please order one more? I'll pay you back later."

Mother: "No, we don't want to spend too much."

Kid: "But you're rich."

Mother: "So! We gotta save up for the future."

Kid: "But what if the world ends tomorrow?"

Mother: "Then we'll worry about that when it happen."

A meteor strike their home the next day, and they die. End of story.

It seems Sony is going with the "I rather lose then spend to win" attitude.

[bkbluray]

Originally Posted by Blu-Generation

I think Sony is following the philosophy of "Don't spend too much" to win.

It's goes like this.

Kid: "Mom, i'm still hungry."

Mother: "You just ate already"

Kid: "...yea, but only one tiny burger."

Mother: "It's better than nothing."

Kid: "Could we please order one more? I'll pay you back later."

Mother: "No, we don't want to spend too much."

Kid: "But you're rich."

Mother: "So! We gotta save up for the future."

Kid: "But what if the world ends tomorrow?"

Mother: "Then we'll worry about that when it happen."

A meteor strike their home the next day, and they die. End of story.

Sorry, but that's a bad analogy. Sony's obviously giving us more than just one "tiny burger." They only have so much money they can invest in games. Unfortunately, instead of developers volunteering the make PS exclusive games, the third-party games go to the highest bidder. I think it was a tough choice Sony had to make when it decided to pursue the first-party games more, but honestly it's going to take a massive amount of money for each blockbuster game to only come to one system, especially if that system is clearly not on top (i.e. competition with Wii and 360).