[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"]

EvilTaru

Sorry to say but the fortune of the PS3's is Sony's responsiblity, not a development house, end of discussion. It's not SM's fault the lineup falls apart from the seams two years straight. Please don't tell me you are comparing the craftmanship of Jak X and Ratchet Deadlocked to GOW, because that's silly.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma didn't benefit at all from the PS3, which is similar to the treatment a port-up to GOW would be like. Until a next-gen action game actually usurps GOW 2, your points are all moot anyways. Will it be months? Years? And if there is a game that should of been on PS3, SOTC would be one of them. Like Yakuza, the game was pushing the PS2 too far, while GOW 2 pretty much hit the sweet spot. The fact of the matter is you guys are interested in SM compromising and selling out the franchise, I'm very glad they didn't do so. Look forward to COO in a couple of months and let it go.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

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.

EvilTaru

Third-party delays/non-commitments made things ALOT harder for the console's adoption rate in the first year, one wonders how long until their over-reliance on third-party games will come back to bite them in the ass and it finally has. The acquisition of Big Big and Evolution is showing that there is a change in Sony's attitude in terms of now trying to step up to bat themselves instead of deferring to third-party franchises to get people sitting on the fence in terms of buying a PS3 take that leap, Uncharted and Ratchet are both looking amazing, in terms of both gameplay and visuals.

As for Santa Monica making God of War II for the PS2, as much as some people might praise it as a smart financial decision, it's a smart decision for the producer in terms of securing her job, but it sure as effing HELL was NOT, REMOTELY, a good decision in terms of making sure the first year game library had that guaranteed-AAA title that people instantly recognize and want on the system, as Resistance, Warhawkand Motorstorm were basically unknown quantities at the time. And right now Santa Monica is still nowhere near able to contribute to the game library.

And god knows when God of War 3 will finally come out, all the studio cares right now is making sure THEIR game makes a buck when studios like Insomniac, Incog, Evolution (now a part of the Sony family)and Naughty Dog (ESPECIALLY Insomniac who put their necks out there with Resistance and was rightfully rewarded with great sales) are taking a chance with new IPs. It's total and complete BS how Santa Monica wanted to play it safe and let all the other teams do the hard work of building up that userbase. Had Santa Monica pulled a "wii zelda"-type stunt and essentially made God of War 2 sort of an HD-type game it would still have had decent sales as they will for sure more than break even at least, but more importantlyhad a really positive effect on the console that they will eventually depend very much on, it's extremely effing short-sighted. I'm mad that Phil and Shuhei let Shannon Studstill do such a thing but I'm much more angry at Studstill, SCAT and the rest of Santa Monica not seeing the big picture AT ALL. It's not like the PS3 came at the very last moment when they were wrapping up development, they WERE at one point deciding whether to make the game for the PS3 or the PS2 and they chose the easy way out.

Complete and utter BS.

This whole GOW 2 on PS3 is so flawed it isn't funny. I can tell that the GOW team is one of the most dedicated and hard-working studios in the business. They should be proud their game on 7 year old hardware can stand next to just about any game next-gen, particulary Ninja Gaiden 2. God of War 2 would have not changed the system's fortunes in Japan, it would not have made the system launch in the UK in November, it would have done much worse than the original sales wise. After GOW 1 you know there's no way in hell SM would think about doing a HD port-job. The only thing God of War 2 proves is that Sony had NO need to release the PS3 in 2006, AT ALL. None. The PS2 was holding serve just fine, and they could of pocketed the PS2/PSP profits all the way into holiday 2007.

Also Nintendo knew they needed a killer-app at launch and went with Zelda right after the Wii was conceptualized. Sony ASSUMED they would not need GOW 2 as long as the rest of the lineup delivered. Heavenly Sword was supposed to ship late holiday 06/early 07 I believe and they picked up NG, HAD DMC4 exclusive scheduled in 07 along with Genji at launch. That's a lot of action.

Also, say what you will about Insomniac, but they are not taking a CHANCE on anything, I'm sure Valve would attest to that. They have gotten more derative than ever lately.

[QUOTE="trifecta_basic"]

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.

rragnaar

Well that first point kills my blue-ray theory. But if I were in Sony's shoes I'd make a dumbed down console sans blue-ray still. It's a high-risk proposition but they have nothing to lose at this point, and they are going to find it almost impossible to make the system profitable in it's lifetime. Despite the numerous price drops it's still behind the curve, and I'd assume they are at there limit loss-taking wise with $399. $399 also opens up the slight possiblity of the new SKU's being unreliable, depending on how much Sony tries to cut corners we don't know about.

I thought blue-ray would help with games, but it's just one of those things that looks logical on paper but doesn't actually work out. You'd think something like the Orange Box or UT3 would be obvious beneficiaries of BR but they are behind schedule. Plus MS is in year 2 and they don' t have any major multi-disk releases outside the usual JRPG. Year 3 you may get a couple, but it looks like HD DVD isn't going to matter much until year 4. By then it looks like the HD-DVD Sku will be out. Really at BEST Blue-ray storage is going to be the equivalent of the Xbox 1's hardrive, which almost nobody used due to PS2 being the usual lead platform. The difference is the xbox had software to prove the hardrive was important out the GATE in Halo, where the PS3 really hasn't had a killer blueray app.

A programmer doesn't want to waste time programming for something that may not apply to anything they do in the future. That's the damning thing about the CELL that has been going around the grapevine for the last few months now. The 360 is still a "hard" system to program for, or Bungie wouldn't have been so conservative with Halo 3.

[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 is quite a different animal then E3. It's pretty much the PSP version on roids with some interesting design adjustments. There is no life count anymore and the quickens and shields are much easier to come by. So it pretty much is a score grinder, where the PSP version tried to mix in more traditional design. I can say the PSP version is a bit more strategic but the 360 version is more frantic and engrossing. Achievements are a big addition and it's the main reason to play the game in my opinion. If you aren't going for achievements you won't get much out of this game.

Some elements from the PSP version are now in the R4 mode(plays similar to Everyday Shooter) which is interesting. I haven't dived in to this mode too much though.

I haven't tried any of the music importer yet, and multiplayer is quite barren at this time. But since there is a 20 win achievement hopefully a decent crowd shows up.

No way. There are too many costs involved in developing and maintaining a platform. And we all know how much EA hates "unnecessary" costs.

Personally, I wish they would just do as one blog poster here suggested, and crumble like the Roman empire. It can't be long now.

...right?

OremLK

Who says they would follow MS or Sony's model?