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

[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 $.

[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?).

[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 stockstar1138

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 $.

They have more $$$ than M$. They just don't have the shareholders that possess the longer term loss tolerance.

[blu-rayfan101]

If Sony emptied their pockets a bit to get some exclusive games, they would get more back. Then they could use that and get more exclusives and even more money back. The cycle would never end, they would keep getting more.

[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).

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

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).

Yea, but people here have suggested that Sony should be rich enough to give us more then they do.
It seems they're holding back, when they could of give us more. Alot more then they are offering.

[BIGSAPOTEER]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

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).

Was it a cheese burger? And was it Haleys Comet?

[BIGSAPOTEER]

If Sony decided to give money to developers (ala MS), then the cost of that transaction would be transfered over to us. Once the PS3 catches up to the 360, MS will be paying less for exclusive content. And maybe a comet will come down and hit the burger the little kid was holding.

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by BIGSAPOTEER

If Sony decided to give money to developers (ala MS), then the cost of that transaction would be transfered over to us. Once the PS3 catches up to the 360, MS will be paying less for exclusive content. And maybe a comet will come down and hit the burger the little kid was holding.

I like it how you add more to the story. A better ending though I think.

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

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).

In my analogy, when I say "tiny burger" I meant LBP, Home, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, etc. All roll into one "tiny burger" from Sony. If their tiny burger is that huge already, imagine the size if they deliver us fully? It'll be huge.

[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?

[kingofgrills]

I think Sony is moving in the right direction. Besides overall pricing competitiveness, which is a no-brainer, Sony needs to lead on the following three points to be successful:

1) Make PS3 development easier - This will be the biggest determining factor for PS3's success within the 3rd party development community. The 360 is not as complex a machine, and given its architectural simularity to PCs, development is a snap. With looming deadlines and escalating budgets, developers will take the path of least resistance to getting a game on the street. Sony needs to step it up and make PS3 development just as easy in order to become the lead platform. As we all know there is much better success when multiplatform games lead on PS3, or are developed parallel to the 360 versions. I think COD4 and Burnout: Paradise have proven that one.

2) Keep pushing out high quality 1st party games - Sony has been working hard on expanding its 1st party development houses, and it shows through great games like Resistance: FOM, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, and Warhawk. The only better 1st party publisher is Nintendo, and 1st party games kept the N64 and Gamecube a float during those home console years.

At the same time Sony has been expanding its 1st party studio base, Microsoft has been shortening its list of 1st party developers by parting ways with leading shops Bungie (Halo), Bizarre Creations (Project Gotham Racing), and others. Clearly, Microsoft is choosing a different investment path by backing up the armoured truck full of cash to all interested development houses. By the way, do you know how the Netflix deal came about? Netflix's CEO became a member of Microsoft's Board of Directors approximately 16 months ago. Coincidence? Yeah, right.

3) Make PSN better than XBox Live - Yeah, XBox live has had a several year head start, and there's a ton of gamers on it each day. However, if Sony really wants to offer the best games and have a leg up, that's the one area where Microsoft is still leading the way. Sony has made up a tremendous amount of ground, but they need to provide several compelling reasons to attract a gamer from Live to PSN. Home will certainly be a part of the equation, but it won't solve it by itself. Plus, with a fully fleshed out online portal, the PS3 might start getting exclusive DLC from 3rd party games.

Anyway, I think those three things - better development tools, more 1st party games, and improving the online experience - are the key items Sony should focus on. And Sony should prioritize them in that order. If that doesn't work, Sony will need to get an armoured truck full of cash to visit 3rd party developers.