Source says Sony is pleading with third-party devs not to abandon the PS3

http://gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=142068&lid=VideoGameNews&pos=1

"One piece of news that came out this week was that Sony pleaded with third-party developers not to abandon its struggling [PS3] platform," wrote Dean Takahashi of the San Jose Mercury News.

"That change in attitude is a marked difference compared to the arrogance of past years," the game journalist added. "The argument is that the PS3 will show its strength as developers learn how to make games for it."

Takahashi cited "insider information" when contacted by GamePro for source clarification.

In August, Sony admitted in a report by GamePro that the PS3 can be more difficult to develop for given its propriety and complex Cell processor. Subsequently, several PS3 ports get released several weeks, if not months after an Xbox 360 counterpart. Often times the PS3 version receives significantly lower review scores than Xbox 360 versions.

Assuming Takahashi is right, it's easy to see how developers could be frustrated with the PS3 thus far. It hasn't sold well, which makes it difficult to sell games on. And development requires more money (for now at least) given the console's finicky technology.

Inrelated news, Video Business reported earlier this month that the newly announced 40GB PS3s will be in short supply as Sony purportedly makes more money when selling higher-end models.

Talk about being humbled or the mighty falling. Let's hope the new price drops turn things around. If that doesn't help than I wonder what will.

They are not going to leave...Its just they are going be Xbox to 360's PS2 :lol:

They aren't going to leave to speak. They just aren't going to be the primary beneficionary anymore.

Ps3 got reemed.FlaminDeath

If I'm a developer, the most I'd give the PS3 would be a port of a 360 game. I wouldn't even factor the PS3 into the equation if I was choosing between a game that I would target at the Wii or 360. It is simply too niche a console, without a clear demographic. Not sure how many developers "begging" can dissuade.

Sorry Sony, but I think the damage is pretty much irreversible. You were screwed the moment the phrase "six hundred dollars" escaped your lips.

The PS3is lucky that it can share cross platform games with the 360 and PC. Something the more successful wii cannot.

It's hard to feel sorry for Sony if this is what it has come to. They entered this generation thinking gamers wouldbuy anything they wanted us to buy.

It should have always been about the games first, Sony. If you end up getting another try after this generation is over, I hope you remember that lessonand never forget it.

Highest development cost for lowest potential market = really bad math for 3rd party developers. Then consider the vicious circle that Sony is in - you need good games to sell consoles, but developers only release good games on machines that will guarantee sales ($$).

Sony is screwed. Just look at last months sales numbers and realize that the latest $100 price drop is going to have a minor effect this month (since it's the second $100 price drop in 3 months). Microsoft is going to pull a suprise price cut out of their hat next month or late October, so the Aracde SKU lines up better with the Wii and the PS3 price still looks astronomical, and Sony is left with nowhere to move to and no killer games in sight (another $100 price cut in december?...make it a quarterly thing maybe...).

You watch what happens in the spring of 2008. There is no way 3rd party developers are going to be hanging onto the PS3 then, after the bloodbath Sony goes through during the holiday season. It's going to get trounced, there is nothing Sony can do and developers are going to have no choice but to move resources to a place where they can make a profit.

The PS3is lucky that it can share cross platform games with the 360 and PC. Something the more successful wii cannot.

gaminggeek

Actually, it can't. I won't get into arguing the pros/cons of the cell architecture, but lets just say that while it's closer to 360/modern PC game development than it is single core (last gen) architecture....it's still miles away. The PS3 architecture has almost nothing to do with any PC or console or anything coming in the future. Its code is almost completely non-portable. Look at the PS3 game delays or 'issues' developers have to see this. The weakening position of the PS3 is going to hurt it even more too, cause the higher ups are not going to give people time to reach perfection on a money losing system. The PS3 ports that do come about are going to get less and less polish, if things keep up.

The Wii's advantage is that it's a Gamecube with effects and new wheels. Developers can port last gen games, and will probably never write a new game engine for the console (easy money). Ok, but to gamers that's not an advantage at all, cause it promotes lazy, crap games and rehashed stuff from last gen (at new game prices, no less). Look at the Wii's (pretty bad, imo) third party support, and this is becoming extremely obvious.

If I'm a developer, the most I'd give the PS3 would be a port of a 360 game. I wouldn't even factor the PS3 into the equation if I was choosing between a game that I would target at the Wii or 360. It is simply too niche a console, without a clear demographic. Not sure how many developers "begging" can dissuade.

Sorry Sony, but I think the damage is pretty much irreversible. You were screwed the moment the phrase "six hundred dollars" escaped your lips.

Oilers99

I understand your position, but I disagree. If the PS3 followed your strategy of carving out a rut and then staying within the rut, it would be this generation's GC. I would prefer that it be this generation's Xbox, trying to compete in all areas (sure, platformers never really took off on the Xbox, but MS published a couple of them) and competing in areas the other guys don't bother to compete in. Given the state of its competitors and all of Sony's first and second party talent, there is a lot of space for the second half of the strategy.

The X360 has the broadest library, but there are genres which haven't fared well on the X360 (platformers and jrpgs spring to mind), which might continue to be the case since MS is scaling back its first party publishing and third parties mostly content themselves with catering to the demonstrated tastes of a userbase. And Nintendo is apparently content with cranking out old franchises and minigame collections.

However, an important question is if the PS3 can become profitable for Sony.Some systems with small marketshares such as the GC and PSP have been profitable, but some, such as the Xbox and Saturn, haven't.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"]

If I'm a developer, the most I'd give the PS3 would be a port of a 360 game. I wouldn't even factor the PS3 into the equation if I was choosing between a game that I would target at the Wii or 360. It is simply too niche a console, without a clear demographic. Not sure how many developers "begging" can dissuade.

Sorry Sony, but I think the damage is pretty much irreversible. You were screwed the moment the phrase "six hundred dollars" escaped your lips.

CarnageHeart

I understand your position, but I disagree. If the PS3 followed your strategy of carving out a rut and then staying within the rut, it would be this generation's GC. I would prefer that it be this generation's Xbox, trying to compete in all areas (sure, platformers never really took off on the Xbox, but MS published a couple of them) and competing in areas the other guys don't bother to compete in. Given the state of its competitors and all of Sony's first and second party talent, there is a lot of space for the second half of the strategy.

The X360 has the broadest library, but there are genres which haven't fared well on the X360 (platformers and jrpgs spring to mind), which might continue to be the case since MS is scaling back its first party publishing and third parties mostly content themselves with catering to the demonstrated tastes of a userbase. And Nintendo is apparently content with cranking out old franchises and minigame collections.

However, an important question is if the PS3 can become profitable for Sony.Some systems with small marketshares such as the GC and PSP have been profitable, but some, such as the Xbox and Saturn, haven't.

The difference is that with the original XBOX, Microsoft had the strategy of an underdog from day one. They came into it ready to build their own sports games (should EA drop them) and bought the pieces for game genres's their console wasn't being supported in.

Could Sony do that with the PS3? I think their ego would now let them, but the timing won't allow it. That's not a switch you flip - that's a long term strategy. For Sony to now go out and secure top rated exclusives for the PS3 would be next to impossible (think KOTOR or Halo from the old XBOX). Those games were secured before the PS2 was even released. Any games with big sales potential, now, will target the lead consoles. Just like XBOX got the scraps of the PS2.....the PS3 is getting scraps.

I don't think Sony can recover. Look at Sega and never compare anyone to Nintendo. Sega got stupid with new hardware (32X / Saturn) releases and nobody trusted them anymore. I think Sony is on the path to the destruction with the PS brand. When it busts, no one is going to trust the PS4 when it comes out either. Nintendo, on the other hand, is an exception to every rule in gaming and the console business. Sony is not Nintendo....Micrsoft can replace them, and pretty much has now.

The difference is that with the original XBOX, Microsoft had the strategy of an underdog from day one. They came into it ready to build their own sports games (should EA drop them) and bought the pieces for game genres's their console wasn't being supported in.

Could Sony do that with the PS3? I think their ego would now let them, but the timing won't allow it. That's not a switch you flip - that's a long term strategy. For Sony to now go out and secure top rated exclusives for the PS3 would be next to impossible (think KOTOR or Halo from the old XBOX). Those games were secured before the PS2 was even released. Any games with big sales potential, now, will target the lead consoles. Just like XBOX got the scraps of the PS2.....the PS3 is getting scraps.

I don't think Sony can recover. Look at Sega and never compare anyone to Nintendo. Sega got stupid with new hardware (32X / Saturn) releases and nobody trusted them anymore. I think Sony is on the path to the destruction with the PS brand. When it busts, no one is going to trust the PS4 when it comes out either. Nintendo, on the other hand, is an exception to every rule in gaming and the console business. Sony is not Nintendo....Micrsoft can replace them, and pretty much has now.

Hulabaloza

I agree with you about MS building to be the underdog, but with the notable exception of sports games, Sony has a good amount of first/second party coverage and they are clearly willing to reach out to promising but unproven developers. Nintendoclearlysees no need to reach outand post-Bungie, it seems like all of MS's big acquisitions seem to be from Nintendo (and that well has dried up unless Miyamoto is looking for a new job).

Your Sony/Sega analogy doesn't hold. Commerical failure alone doesn't hurt hardware makers, poor support (something Sega was certainly guilty of with the Saturn, 32X, Sega CD and the Genesis towards the end of its life) does. In their treatment of the PSP and the PS3, Sony is acting more like Sega did in the SMS days than they did in the 32X/Sega CD/Saturn days.

Yes, Sony is not Nintendo, and that is the highest compliment I can pay them, since there is no sign that they are clinging to old franchises. Aside from the makers of Gran Turismo and probably the makers of SOCOM, other Sony developers have debuted/are debutting with new IP such as Resistance, Uncharted, White Knight Story and Infamous rather than debuting with the sequels to the PS2 games they became famous for. And unlike Nintendo in the GC days Sony is forging alliances with new talent (Media Molecule, thatgamecompany, Ninja Theory) not shedding old talent (SK, Rare).

As for whether or not MS can replace Sony, the X360 is clearly the true successor to the PS2 even though understandably for a system only two years old, the library isn't quite as broad. I am just explaining why I think the PS2 will be the Xbox of its generation and not the GC. Both were runner-ups, but the Xbox boasted a broad library with many original games (KOTOR, Halo, Crimson Skies, Otogi, Forza) whereas the GC boasted a narrow library in which 60% of the games were Mario games (even third parties were publishing Mario games).

it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!

it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!gamingqueen

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!UpInFlames

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

What you wrote is true and it makes me angry in a big way as they've let Microsoft go unpunished for releasing a badly manufactured and broken console (with a ridiculously low average life expectancy).

All they needed to do was launch it at a price point which would allow it to compete with Microsoft's broken console. As others said, now it might be too late.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!UpInFlames

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

So once ps3 sells more devs have no problem making games for it right? Is the price that's hurting its sales or the system being difficult for making games? And why do they say multi-plats look better? Is the company so stupid to include cell without knowing the consequences or sell untis for cheap even though it cost them more to make?

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!bugsonglass

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

What you wrote is true and it makes me angry in a big way as they've let Microsoft go unpunished for releasing a badly manufactured and broken console (with a ridiculously low average life expectancy).

All they needed to do was launch it at a price point which would allow it to compete with Microsoft's broken console. As others said, now it might be too late.

At this moment in time, I'd rather be forced to send my Xbox 360 in for repair twice a year for the rest of this entire generation, than be stuck with only a PS3.

So once ps3 sells more devs have no problem making games for it right? Is the price that's hurting its sales or the system being difficult for making games? And why do they say multi-plats look better? Is the company so stupid to include cell without knowing the consequences or sell untis for cheap even though it cost them more to make?gamingqueen

All of these problems roll up into one major issue which ultimately leads third-party developers to reach a simple conclusion - develop games for the Xbox 360 in mind.

Obviously Sony was blinded with arrogance (as Nintendo was in its day) and thought that things would go as smoothly for the PS3 as they did for its predecessors. They were wrong.

The GC wasnt that bad.

I mean, it lost last gen, but it had a decent library and sold a lot, just because it was nintendo.

Ps3 is just doing beyond awful, its released like 5 different PS3's with different prices, and I dont understand it.

The game library isnt necessarilly bad, its just, half of the games are already on 360, and at better quality.

system is difficult to develop for, and because of low sales, why should a DEv. even make games for it when they could sell millions on the 360?

I dotn understand the Wii either, the game line up is crap, but apparently its really fun... But inexpensive.

Hats off to Microsoft for making the winning console, thats half broken, even. The game selection is incredible, thats why its winning.

I agree with a guy above, Ide rather send in my xbox360 in for repairtwice a year then play the ps3 the whole gen.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!gamingqueen

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

So once ps3 sells more devs have no problem making games for it right? Is the price that's hurting its sales or the system being difficult for making games? And why do they say multi-plats look better? Is the company so stupid to include cell without knowing the consequences or sell untis for cheap even though it cost them more to make?

From the way I see it, the console was too expensive to begin with, so it didn't sell very well. That was the first problem because it lead to Sony having the lowest userbase on its console, and developing games for the console with the least amount of sales isn't exactly attractive to developers to begin with. The second problem is that the PS3 is more difficult to develop for than other consoles, which means more time and money has to be put into creating a games for it. Again, not an attractive outlook for developers, especially not with the costs of development already being so high as they are.

Simply put: bad PS3 sales + hardest console to develop for = unattractive for 3rd party developers.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!Kazona

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

So once ps3 sells more devs have no problem making games for it right? Is the price that's hurting its sales or the system being difficult for making games? And why do they say multi-plats look better? Is the company so stupid to include cell without knowing the consequences or sell untis for cheap even though it cost them more to make?

From the way I see it, the console was too expensive to begin with, so it didn't sell very well. That was the first problem because it lead to Sony having the lowest userbase on its console, and developing games for the console with the least amount of sales isn't exactly attractive to developers to begin with. The second problem is that the PS3 is more difficult to develop for than other consoles, which means more time and money has to be put into creating a games for it. Again, not an attractive outlook for developers, especially not with the costs of development already being so high as they are.

Simply put: bad PS3 sales + hardest console to develop for = unattractive for 3rd party developers.

This is what I figured was happening behind the scenes. I mean, it doesn't take much to add two and two together. Square and Konami execs were publicly saying they might have to release their games on other platforms recently, then they fell silent, and now we have a $400 PS3. I'm sure Sony is trying to keep those developers in the fold, and I think this price drop is possibly their last chance to do it. If this doesn't have a drastic effect on the state of the system, I think there are going to be some bombshells dropped in Q1 '08.

Sony made the right (and only) move with the price drop. Thing is, this has been a perfect storm of worst case scenarios for Sony. You have the Wii still selling out nearly a year after launch. You have the PS2 still selling doubly what the PS3 is. You have the 360 with a super-strong holiday lineup that includes Halo. You have a PS3 base that isn't buying third-party games a whole lot better than the Wii base is. You have a public and media that has a very negative perception of the system.

The thing is, Metal Gear isn't going to save the system. I don't think Metal Gear made the PS2 either. Let's face it, the Playstation brand's strength has always been strength through diversity - a ton of great games that no one else had, and with the cost and risk being like it is this generation, it just doesn't make sense for developers to marry themselves to any console. I think Sony saw this coming to a degree, and that's why they've been so hardcore about getting first-party IPs in the stable, but I don't think they thought it would happen this fast or this hard.

I've gotten to the point where I don't know what will help the system. Like I said, the price cut is good, and I don't think the lack of backwards compatibility is going to hurt them as much as others do. Speaking for myself, this is the first system that I've had for a year and only had two games for, both of which are first-party exclusives. This is such a stark contrast to the me that had almost ninety percent of my multiplatform experiences on the PS2 last gen.

It's not all bad, though. I could see the system outselling the 360 in '08 (due to price and a budding library), and that would be a good start, but possibly too late. Surrendering two holiday seasons usually sets things in stone, and they would have to outsell the 360 by more than a few thousand units each month to make a dent in the lead -- a close sales race with the PS3 outselling the 360 by 50,000 a month means they'd never gain the lead due to the gulf in sales numbers right now. In order to come back strong, they need to outsell the 360 by the hundreds of thousands for months on end, and I don't know that that is a possibility given the state of things. Plus, they still have to deal with the Wii in that scenario, which is an animal that can't be fought with conventional software from what I can tell.

Oddly enough, I think the similarities to the 360 are what is helping Sony right now. Basically, if the 360 gets a game, it doesn't take a whole lot to make a PS3 version of the 360 version. In that sense, I think Sony should be very glad that the 360 hasn't tanked, or they would be in worse trouble than they are, IMO.

The GC wasnt that bad.

I dotn understand the Wii either, the game line up is crap, but apparently its really fun... But inexpensive.

Shmiity

If you liked the GC, why don't you like the Wii? In terms of hardcore games it is better off than the GC was at this stage. Right now it has Paper Mario, Zelda and Metroid and Super Mario Galaxy and SSBM are en route.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!bugsonglass

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

What you wrote is true and it makes me angry in a big way as they've let Microsoft go unpunished for releasing a badly manufactured and broken console (with a ridiculously low average life expectancy).

All they needed to do was launch it at a price point which would allow it to compete with Microsoft's broken console. As others said, now it might be too late.

So you mean...Lets forget the last two generations of crappy Sony Hardware...Disc Error anyone? People were surprized PS3 was well made. Not to mention unlike Sony...MS fessed up to it. 3Year Warrenty.

Anyways on to the topic

To be frank, About all that can be said is. Sony has to be thankful to MS. Because its the only reason why its getting games. Multiplats between PC/360/PS3. Someone mentioned already...Skate on PS3 sold like 30k copies while 360 sold 175k. Close to 6x the difference.

And for the most part...why would a developer waste thier time? Most Expensive. Hardest to develop for. No software sales for the most part. Its just not pretty...they are looking to be identical to what the Cube was last gen except switch the numbers in NA dn Europe lol. Your buying it for those 1st party and few 3rd party exculsives. Not much else.

[QUOTE="Shmiity"]

The GC wasnt that bad.

I dotn understand the Wii either, the game line up is crap, but apparently its really fun... But inexpensive.

CarnageHeart

If you liked the GC, why don't you like the Wii? In terms of hardcore games it is better off than the GC was at this stage. Right now it has Paper Mario, Zelda and Metroid and Super Mario Galaxy and SSBM are en route.

As fanboy-ish as that may sound, I own a Wii, love Nintendo's franchises, and still can't bring myself to dust it off when I have the likes of Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect just waiting to be played.

You know what? This is really starting to remind me of the Saturn days. Only Sony was actually convincing devs not to dev on the Saturn at all. It was looked at as a deving nightmare due to its "Duel Core Styled" technology and "Lack of Tech Support" which really translated into shoddy ports if it got one at all. Most if not all the multiplats shared by the saturn and the PSX sold more on the Sony machine which just adding more fuel to the flame.

The same can be applied today. The reason Sony is in the pickle that they are in right now is a combination of 4 things.

1. Price - Self Explanatory

2. Dev Environment - i.e. The Cell architecture which takes alot of time and money to take advantage of in a time where dev costs are going through the roof.

3. Brand Name Recognition - Relying on the "Playstation" name to instantly propel them to the top spot from the jump.

Last but not least........drum roll please......................

4. Gross underestimation of the Competition - No one on God's green earth can defend this one. Sony clearly underestimated MS and the Ninty BIG TIME. This kinda ties in with number 3 but takes on a life of its own when studied. All they saw was a 100 million+ PS2 userbase that they thought they had eating out of their hands so what do they do? Totally ignore MS and Ninty's strategies until reality started setting in. And it started setting in pretty early for Sony.

They never imagined that the Wii would be doing the hardware numbers that it is currently doing all because of its architecture and the fact that it's by Nintendo. Then they look on over to MS who not only started to snag what once were PS only games but now these shared games are starting to appeal better visually on the 360. Not to mention sell more units. Who in their right mind would have thought that Madden 360 would have outsold the PS3 and PS2 versions? That right there is the tell tale mark of where things are headed.

Sony's only hope now is that the $400 model appeals to enough people between now and the time top tier 3rd party games like MGS4 is supposed to launch or you might wake up to read some disturbing news. This holiday season is CRUCIAL for Sony. Let me repeat that....this holiday season is CRUCIAL for Sony.

[QUOTE="Hulabaloza"]

The difference is that with the original XBOX, Microsoft had the strategy of an underdog from day one. They came into it ready to build their own sports games (should EA drop them) and bought the pieces for game genres's their console wasn't being supported in.

Could Sony do that with the PS3? I think their ego would now let them, but the timing won't allow it. That's not a switch you flip - that's a long term strategy. For Sony to now go out and secure top rated exclusives for the PS3 would be next to impossible (think KOTOR or Halo from the old XBOX). Those games were secured before the PS2 was even released. Any games with big sales potential, now, will target the lead consoles. Just like XBOX got the scraps of the PS2.....the PS3 is getting scraps.

I don't think Sony can recover. Look at Sega and never compare anyone to Nintendo. Sega got stupid with new hardware (32X / Saturn) releases and nobody trusted them anymore. I think Sony is on the path to the destruction with the PS brand. When it busts, no one is going to trust the PS4 when it comes out either. Nintendo, on the other hand, is an exception to every rule in gaming and the console business. Sony is not Nintendo....Micrsoft can replace them, and pretty much has now.

CarnageHeart

I agree with you about MS building to be the underdog, but with the notable exception of sports games, Sony has a good amount of first/second party coverage and they are clearly willing to reach out to promising but unproven developers. Nintendoclearlysees no need to reach outand post-Bungie, it seems like all of MS's big acquisitions seem to be from Nintendo (and that well has dried up unless Miyamoto is looking for a new job).

Your Sony/Sega analogy doesn't hold. Commerical failure alone doesn't hurt hardware makers, poor support (something Sega was certainly guilty of with the Saturn, 32X, Sega CD and the Genesis towards the end of its life) does. In their treatment of the PSP and the PS3, Sony is acting more like Sega did in the SMS days than they did in the 32X/Sega CD/Saturn days.

Yes, Sony is not Nintendo, and that is the highest compliment I can pay them, since there is no sign that they are clinging to old franchises. Aside from the makers of Gran Turismo and probably the makers of SOCOM, other Sony developers have debuted/are debutting with new IP such as Resistance, Uncharted, White Knight Story and Infamous rather than debuting with the sequels to the PS2 games they became famous for. And unlike Nintendo in the GC days Sony is forging alliances with new talent (Media Molecule, thatgamecompany, Ninja Theory) not shedding old talent (SK, Rare).

As for whether or not MS can replace Sony, the X360 is clearly the true successor to the PS2 even though understandably for a system only two years old, the library isn't quite as broad. I am just explaining why I think the PS2 will be the Xbox of its generation and not the GC. Both were runner-ups, but the Xbox boasted a broad library with many original games (KOTOR, Halo, Crimson Skies, Otogi, Forza) whereas the GC boasted a narrow library in which 60% of the games were Mario games (even third parties were publishing Mario games).

I think the system so far is most like the Saturn. Tough to develop for, overpriced and loaded with late, inferior ports.

The Gamecube also had a higher profile lineup. Sunshine, Animal Crossing, Metroid Prime and Smash Brothers were availible within the first year. Insomniac's games have made the biggest splashes, but these are B-level franchises at most, at least in marketing terms...

All the sure-games have slipped into 08. Home misses it's launch, and we know how long it took XBL to get out of niche status.

This all comes back to Blue-ray...if it did what it needed to do Sony could strip blue-ray and other components and have a chance at a comeback. But now Sony needs the PS3 to stand a chance in the format war, because Toshiba is getting awfully close to getting HD-players under $200. Studios will shy away from exclusive deals because really all people do when a movie they want is on a different format is buy the DVD, like I did with Transformers. So when Sony looks back they'll see Blue-ray may have harmed the PS3 more then it helped it. By the time HD media gets mainstream cheap it's hard to say if optical media will even be viable.

This all comes back to Blue-ray...if it did what it needed to do Sony could strip blue-ray and other components and have a chance at a comeback. But now Sony needs the PS3 to stand a chance in the format war, because Toshiba is getting awfully close to getting HD-players under $200. Studios will shy away from exclusive deals because really all people do when a movie they want is on a different format is buy the DVD, like I did with Transformers. So when Sony looks back they'll see Blue-ray may have harmed the PS3 more then it helped it. By the time HD media gets mainstream cheap it's hard to say if optical media will even be viable.

trifecta_basic

I can't really argue with those statements. As much as I've grown to love and appreciate the quality of Blue Ray the truth is that 95% of consumers don't give a ****. The penetration of HDTV owners is so low that Sony's pushing of the medium, basically forcing it down the consumer's throats, really wasn't a very smart move. It's almost as if they thought forcing Blue Ray on consumers would make them in turn by HDTVs.

FYI, Paramount opted to totally abandon Blue Ray which is why Transformers is HDDVD only. As soon as theirinventory of Blue Ray films is depleted, there will be no more Paramount releases on Blue Ray.

I think the system so far is most like the Saturn. Tough to develop for, overpriced and loaded with late, inferior ports.

The Gamecube also had a higher profile lineup. Sunshine, Animal Crossing, Metroid Prime and Smash Brothers were availible within the first year. Insomniac's games have made the biggest splashes, but these are B-level franchises at most, at least in marketing terms...

All the sure-games have slipped into 08. Home misses it's launch, and we know how long it took XBL to get out of niche status.

This all comes back to Blue-ray...if it did what it needed to do Sony could strip blue-ray and other components and have a chance at a comeback. But now Sony needs the PS3 to stand a chance in the format war, because Toshiba is getting awfully close to getting HD-players under $200. Studios will shy away from exclusive deals because really all people do when a movie they want is on a different format is buy the DVD, like I did with Transformers. So when Sony looks back they'll see Blue-ray may have harmed the PS3 more then it helped it. By the time HD media gets mainstream cheap it's hard to say if optical media will even be viable.

trifecta_basic

They can't take Blu-Ray out now. For one, they'd have to recall every game they've printed. For two, I think that would be a bigger blow to them than anything else. Pulling Blu-Ray would be admitting defeat on two fronts.

Besides any of that, I think Blu-Ray will hurt them in the short run, but really help them in the long run. Too many developers that are working on 360 games are starting to run out of room. I don't intend to turn this into system wars, but games are getting bigger, and I don't think DVD is enough to last through this generation. It is fine for the Wii, and it is fine for linear games on the 360, but what happens when you make a sandbox sty!e game on the 360 and you run out of room. That is a bigger problem than a console 'being hard to program for', considering that not every 360 has an HDD to install to.

Besides any of that, while I agree that the PS3 must be harder to program for than the 360, I think that in most cases it is just hard to port a game designed for the 360 over to the PS3. Ground up PS3 games seem to be just fine. I realize I'm coming off as being a defensive fanboy, but I just don't think it is all doom and gloom for Sony. They just had a price drop, they have a decent holiday lineup, and a fantastic 2008 ahead of them.

rragnaar

They totally can't take out Blu-ray, I agree. And besides, at this point, the price is $400, so it isn't like removing Blu-ray is going to help anything, because if the system doesn't spike at $400, it's not going to at all. Taking out Blu-ray isn't even a possibility.

Sandbox games I could see being an issue for DVD, but there are so few of them that I don't know how much it'll matter long-term.

And yeah, you're not being a defensive fanboy. You've made a $600 investment and want to see a return on the investment. Hell, I'm in the same boat. There is very much a side of me that would like to see Sony kick ass this season and into next year. And it definitely isn't doom and gloom either way -- the PS3 isn't going anywhere, even if it does stay where it is. Third place has equated to 20+ million systems sold in the past, and that's not all that bad, because even those systems had kick ass exclusives that warranted the purchase.

But I'm also angry at Sony. I'm angry because everyone in the world told them this would happen, and they did it anyway. And I'm also resentful that they came so woefully unprepared for the generation. They've had one of the slowest starts of any generation in recent memory. And then they've made critical errors, like putting God of War II on the PS2 instead of making it for the PS3, which made no sense to me at all.

Sony will be fine either way, though. I don't think there's any way that they'll be as prolific as they were with the PS1 and PS2, but that doesn't make them dead by any means.

Sony will pick upwith both consoles. Just as the psp sales are picking up, the ps3 will pick up too and for the same reason. I can't say why though I know i'm not allowed to say the reason why it will but it's not FF nor mgs.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]They can't take Blu-Ray out now. For one, they'd have to recall every game they've printed. For two, I think that would be a bigger blow to them than anything else. Pulling Blu-Ray would be admitting defeat on two fronts.

Besides any of that, I think Blu-Ray will hurt them in the short run, but really help them in the long run. Too many developers that are working on 360 games are starting to run out of room. I don't intend to turn this into system wars, but games are getting bigger, and I don't think DVD is enough to last through this generation. It is fine for the Wii, and it is fine for linear games on the 360, but what happens when you make a sandbox sty!e game on the 360 and you run out of room. That is a bigger problem than a console 'being hard to program for', considering that not every 360 has an HDD to install to.

Besides any of that, while I agree that the PS3 must be harder to program for than the 360, I think that in most cases it is just hard to port a game designed for the 360 over to the PS3. Ground up PS3 games seem to be just fine. I realize I'm coming off as being a defensive fanboy, but I just don't think it is all doom and gloom for Sony. They just had a price drop, they have a decent holiday lineup, and a fantastic 2008 ahead of them.

Shame-usBlackley

They totally can't take out Blu-ray, I agree. And besides, at this point, the price is $400, so it isn't like removing Blu-ray is going to help anything, because if the system doesn't spike at $400, it's not going to at all. Taking out Blu-ray isn't even a possibility.

Sandbox games I could see being an issue for DVD, but there are so few of them that I don't know how much it'll matter long-term.

And yeah, you're not being a defensive fanboy. You've made a $600 investment and want to see a return on the investment. Hell, I'm in the same boat. There is very much a side of me that would like to see Sony kick ass this season and into next year. And it definitely isn't doom and gloom either way -- the PS3 isn't going anywhere, even if it does stay where it is. Third place has equated to 20+ million systems sold in the past, and that's not all that bad, because even those systems had kick ass exclusives that warranted the purchase.

But I'm also angry at Sony. I'm angry because everyone in the world told them this would happen, and they did it anyway. And I'm also resentful that they came so woefully unprepared for the generation. They've had one of the slowest starts of any generation in recent memory. And then they've made critical errors, like putting God of War II on the PS2 instead of making it for the PS3, which made no sense to me at all.

Sony will be fine either way, though. I don't think there's any way that they'll be as prolific as they were with the PS1 and PS2, but that doesn't make them dead by any means.

cause the number of people who had ps2 was 10000000000000X more than the people who will buy a ps3.

cause the number of people who had ps2 was 10000000000000X more than the people who will buy a ps3.

gamingqueen

That's still the case, so by that logic they should just put everything on the PS2 instead of the PS3. Yeah, not a good idea, in my opinion.

Sony has been doing good things with both the PSP and PS3 since after E3... the question is the damage too late?

Also, the same could be said for the Wii. First we have a massive influx of games. Oh... they almost all suck. Hmm... is the Wii such a good thing to develop for?

The 360 is the only console with a stable game consumption rate (regardless of the stability of the system, people buy games for the 360 more than any other system).

Clearly developers around the world see this with the exception of Square for the most part.

The 360 is the only console with a stable game consumption rate (regardless of the stability of the system, people buy games for the 360 more than any other system).

Clearly developers around the world see this with the exception of Square for the most part.

SemiMaster

Well, a lot of Square's business is in Japan, and the 360 is pretty much done there. Also, Square has to be seeing what is happening to JRPGs on the 360 and that has to give them pause. I'm not saying the Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata are in the same league as Final Fantasy, but those games absolutely tanked on the 360.

It's not just a matter of Square being stubborn about releasing games on the 360, it's that Square may have damn good reasons not to. The base buys the hell out of most anything but JRPGs so far, and based on what I've seen, there's no way I'd be thinking about releasing a JRPG on the 360 if I was Square.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

The 360 is the only console with a stable game consumption rate (regardless of the stability of the system, people buy games for the 360 more than any other system).

Clearly developers around the world see this with the exception of Square for the most part.

Shame-usBlackley

Well, a lot of Square's business is in Japan, and the 360 is pretty much done there. Also, Square has to be seeing what is happening to JRPGs on the 360 and that has to give them pause. I'm not saying the Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata are in the same league as Final Fantasy, but those games absolutely tanked on the 360.

It's not just a matter of Square being stubborn about releasing games on the 360, it's that Square may have damn good reasons not to. The base buys the hell out of most anything but JRPGs so far, and based on what I've seen, there's no way I'd be thinking about releasing a JRPG on the 360 if I was Square.

Eternal Sonata has done better than Blue Dragon did by far.

And I'm pretty sure half of Final Fantasy sales come from places OTHER than Japan, namely North America and Europe.

They totally can't take out Blu-ray, I agree. And besides, at this point, the price is $400, so it isn't like removing Blu-ray is going to help anything, because if the system doesn't spike at $400, it's not going to at all. Taking out Blu-ray isn't even a possibility.

Sandbox games I could see being an issue for DVD, but there are so few of them that I don't know how much it'll matter long-term.

And yeah, you're not being a defensive fanboy. You've made a $600 investment and want to see a return on the investment. Hell, I'm in the same boat. There is very much a side of me that would like to see Sony kick ass this season and into next year. And it definitely isn't doom and gloom either way -- the PS3 isn't going anywhere, even if it does stay where it is. Third place has equated to 20+ million systems sold in the past, and that's not all that bad, because even those systems had kick ass exclusives that warranted the purchase.

But I'm also angry at Sony. I'm angry because everyone in the world told them this would happen, and they did it anyway. And I'm also resentful that they came so woefully unprepared for the generation. They've had one of the slowest starts of any generation in recent memory. And then they've made critical errors, like putting God of War II on the PS2 instead of making it for the PS3, which made no sense to me at all.

Sony will be fine either way, though. I don't think there's any way that they'll be as prolific as they were with the PS1 and PS2, but that doesn't make them dead by any means.

Shame-usBlackley