[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"] Ya ok alienate all the other developers and close your doors and when you want to release a new console you have to kiss some serious arse and build your rep up with the public. Ya thats pretty smart i remember a company that did that called sega. Do they still make consoles?
my post was not what I actually think, it was more "in a different situation" because obviouslly the ps3 does have a lot of third party support, it was more of a what if sunny boy, oh and don't compare sony to sega Hold on dont compare Sony to Sega! Sony is making the same mistakes Sega did with the Sega Saturn and later on with the dreamcast. The Saturn; too complexed of a system, too hard to program for, and Sega lost almost all 3rd party support because of price, programming, and attitude. The ps3 is following the same mold. major difference is sony can actually recover from their mistakes this gen since they are a multi billion dollar company and the sony brand is a lot bigger than sega ever was so yes don't compare themActivision thinks about no longer supporting sony.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Hey, I have both 360 and ps3 i have 65 360 games compared to9 for my ps3[QUOTE="TroyM1"]
[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
He doesn't say anything about PS3 owners not buying games. That is your own editorializing. He says the PS3 is losing momentum, which I'm not certain is true, but I agree it is way overdue for a price drop to stimulate new sales. THEN he says that it is expensive to develop for, and the the wii and 360 CONSOLES are selling better.
The reason games on those consoles generate a better return is because of the larger user base for BOTH, and because they are cheaper to develop for therefore meaning more profit per game sold.
There is no evidence that PS3 owners don't buy games.
ZIMdoom
So? I fail to see what your point is or what it has to do with my comments.
Do you type your own posts? "No evidence" I am an example.I have hardly any third party games for the ps3 but for my 360 I have tons cause they have a higher resolution and mostly play better . Thats my excuse for attatchment rate for my ps3[QUOTE="Next-Gen-Tec"]Reasons this is bad: MW2. If this happened Sony would be in the **** Damn, 10 billion? I didn't know Activision was worth so much. SolidTy
Considering how much Activision made with the previous COD's being available on the PS3, this would hurt them. Not to mention the game is due now in about 5 months, and Infinity Ward has spent over a year and a half on the PS3 version, just to flush it down the toilet?
Doesn't make sense, your comment or Activision's. If Activision pulled the plug, it would be on games that don't have much or any PS3 dev time.
No, my comment makes sense. I was talking about the effect it would have on the PS3, not Activision.[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] okay let's state the obvious. No console no matter how bad they're doing is never third party free, just look at mediocre consoles like the dreamcast, n64 and gamecube which were very fail for third parties jet they still got support, soo there really is no reason for activition to abondon the ps3, if they want to release less games for it fine then, but no games altogether? really? yeah like I'm going to beleive thatedo-tensei
I highly highly doubt thatActivision will abandon the PS3, so I wasn't arguing with you about that. I was challenging your assertions that because of your opinion that Sony has the best first party games, somehow that will make them able to survive without third parties.
"what if" man, what if, which can indeed happen since sony's first party just keeps getting bigger, just look at how many quality games developed from sony come out each year, so I do think it's posible for sony to survive on it's own(if only they weren't loosing so much money on hardware though)Why do you keep bringing the subjective quality factor in? What matters is not whether the first party titles are martketable enough to stand on their own.
Absence of Proof isn't Proof of Absence. Deals are being made, it's fine, that's the tactic that's chosen, but it's a no brainer to see what's happening, especially with GOOGLE available, and just reading about Fallout 3 DLC, for starters, or MV2 DLC on Google. It's not a big deal, but if you don't believe these companies are working out deals then, don't.[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]
I see accusations of "MS paid' flying around often but I rarely actually, scratch that, never, see any proof for it...
And...let's not act like the 360 doesn't have a great deal of first party content coming...
The_Game21x
As far as 1st party content, there is a lot less than their should be and has been in the past...but I guess it all works out, since all these companies are so gracious to give DLC and Timed Exclusives, it all works out. I didn't mean the 360 had no 1st party content, my bad, I was quick to type, since I'm in multiple forums right now.
Somehow the stars are aligned. HEre's a link, although I don't know if any links will convince you short of seeing Bill Gates handing over a briefcase of money in a parking lot to an Activision Employee wearing Guitar Hero Peripherals. It's all good.
http://www.totalvideogames.com/Modern-Warfare-2/news/Modern-Warfare-2-Maps-360-Timed-Exclusives-14187.html
Like I said, it's all good. :)
Never said there wasn't any proof, just that I haven't seen any, ever.
As far as whether or not deals are being made, that much is obvious. Whether or not these deals involve money changing hands, remains to be seen.
When it comes to 1st party content, E3 showed us that there's plenty of that on the way in the form of Crackdown 2, Forza 3, Halo ODST, Halo: Reach and so on. As far as whether or not that's "enough" is purely opinion based.
Money whether in the form of advertising, or just a direct deposit. Eh.
Those 4 games you mentioned are nice (Especially since we knew about most before E3), but that's not much. It's not like those games are coming out this year.Less 1st party, more 3rd party timed exclusives/DLC, is what I see.
I read Rare has been assigned to Natal, which will take up that Devs time, if one doesn't dig or buy Natal.
Uh thats the reason why they might drop it, the CEO claims the return on investment is far lower then the 360.After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.
whatisazerg
[QUOTE="SolidTy"][QUOTE="Next-Gen-Tec"]Reasons this is bad: MW2. If this happened Sony would be in the **** Damn, 10 billion? I didn't know Activision was worth so much. Next-Gen-Tec
Considering how much Activision made with the previous COD's being available on the PS3, this would hurt them. Not to mention the game is due now in about 5 months, and Infinity Ward has spent over a year and a half on the PS3 version, just to flush it down the toilet?
Doesn't make sense, your comment or Activision's. If Activision pulled the plug, it would be on games that don't have much or any PS3 dev time.
No, my comment makes sense. I was talking about the effect it would have on the PS3, not Activision.No, what I'm saying is that INFINITY WARD has committed about 75% of their time making a PS3 game, and you are suggesting that game now won't see the light of day.
That isn't logical, what is logical is future COD/MW's, before IW spends A year and a half making that next game.
[QUOTE="TroyM1"]Hold on dont compare Sony to Sega! Sony is making the same mistakes Sega did with the Sega Saturn and later on with the dreamcast. The Saturn; too complexed of a system, too hard to program for, and Sega lost almost all 3rd party support because of price, programming, and attitude. The ps3 is following the same mold. major difference is sony can actually recover from their mistakes this gen since they are a multi billion dollar company and the sony brand is a lot bigger than sega ever was so yes don't compare them Recover? They are losing billions every year with thier television and game consoledivisions. Look it up. Sony maybe a bigger company but atleast sega can make thier own games.[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] my post was not what I actually think, it was more "in a different situation" because obviouslly the ps3 does have a lot of third party support, it was more of a what if sunny boy, oh and don't compare sony to sega edo-tensei
It's BECAUSE they care about money so much, that they are considering pulling the plug on Sony... Like the man said, the amount of money they spend developing for PS3/PSP doesn't justify the return that they see on that investment... in short, the cost(s) of developing for Sony console(s) exceeds the financial return...After seeing the other thread about Activision possibly charging for online features in COD MW2, I'm convinced this won't happen..... Activision obviously cares about money too much to stop putting their titles on the PS3.
whatisazerg
[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]
I highly highly doubt thatActivision will abandon the PS3, so I wasn't arguing with you about that. I was challenging your assertions that because of your opinion that Sony has the best first party games, somehow that will make them able to survive without third parties.
"what if" man, what if, which can indeed happen since sony's first party just keeps getting bigger, just look at how many quality games developed from sony come out each year, so I do think it's posible for sony to survive on it's own(if only they weren't loosing so much money on hardware though)Why do you keep bringing the subjective quality factor in? What matters is not whether the first party titles are martketable enough to stand on their own.
well we know they stand out on their own but sony still needs to market their games better which is a big problem for them because sadly good sales for anything gaming related now is how well they are presented since games are very expensive now[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]Here's the quote...it's not just that sony is losing market share, but PS3 owners don't buy games and the games cost too much to make them as good as a 360 game. The target is Sony, the once-dominant hardware maker. "I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation," he says. ZIMdoom
He doesn't say anything about PS3 owners not buying games. That is your own editorializing. He says the PS3 is losing momentum, which I'm not certain is true, but I agree it is way overdue for a price drop to stimulate new sales. THEN he says that it is expensive to develop for, and the the wii and 360 CONSOLES are selling better.
The reason games on those consoles generate a better return is because of the larger user base for BOTH, and because they are cheaper to develop for therefore meaning more profit per game sold.
There is no evidence that PS3 owners don't buy games.
Yes there is...look at attach rates and you'd know. Many PS3 were sold as bluray movie players with no interest in games whatsoever. Where as not a single wii or 360 was sold just to watch movies.[QUOTE="SolidTy"][QUOTE="Next-Gen-Tec"]Reasons this is bad: MW2. If this happened Sony would be in the **** Damn, 10 billion? I didn't know Activision was worth so much. Next-Gen-Tec
Considering how much Activision made with the previous COD's being available on the PS3, this would hurt them. Not to mention the game is due now in about 5 months, and Infinity Ward has spent over a year and a half on the PS3 version, just to flush it down the toilet?
Doesn't make sense, your comment or Activision's. If Activision pulled the plug, it would be on games that don't have much or any PS3 dev time.
No, my comment makes sense. I was talking about the effect it would have on the PS3, not Activision.Your comment doesn't make sense even if Activision were to pull the plug, because they would in all likelihood pull the plug after Modern Warfare 2 releases. I think the chances that Activision would pull the plug on thePS3 are not that great, but the chances of them pulling the plug on PS3 Modern Warfare 2 is close to zero.
No, my comment makes sense. I was talking about the effect it would have on the PS3, not Activision.[QUOTE="Next-Gen-Tec"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]
Considering how much Activision made with the previous COD's being available on the PS3, this would hurt them. Not to mention the game is due now in about 5 months, and Infinity Ward has spent over a year and a half on the PS3 version, just to flush it down the toilet?
Doesn't make sense, your comment or Activision's. If Activision pulled the plug, it would be on games that don't have much or any PS3 dev time.
SolidTy
No, what I'm saying is that INFINITY WARD has committed about 75% of their time making a PS3 game, and you are suggesting that game now won't see the light of day.
That isn't logical, what is logical is future COD/MW's, before IW spends A year and a half making that next game.
Well yeah, we all know or atleast are 99% sure that Activision won't do anything. I wasn't suggesting anything, it was all hypothetically speaking of Activisions suggestions.[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"]Hold on dont compare Sony to Sega! Sony is making the same mistakes Sega did with the Sega Saturn and later on with the dreamcast. The Saturn; too complexed of a system, too hard to program for, and Sega lost almost all 3rd party support because of price, programming, and attitude. The ps3 is following the same mold.
major difference is sony can actually recover from their mistakes this gen since they are a multi billion dollar company and the sony brand is a lot bigger than sega ever was so yes don't compare them Recover? They are losing billions every year with thier television and game consoledivisions. Look it up. Sony maybe a bigger company but atleast sega can make thier own games. lol sony make more and better games than sega and they are big enough to bounce back, as simply as that if you want to ignore that then that's your problem and don't lecture me on sony's finances since bussiness never stays the same I'm sure their divitions will pick up steam in the future. Why you ever thought nintendo would come back and sell what they sell now 5 years ago?[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="stiltzsy"]Here's the quote...it's not just that sony is losing market share, but PS3 owners don't buy games and the games cost too much to make them as good as a 360 game. The target is Sony, the once-dominant hardware maker. "I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation," he says. stiltzsy
He doesn't say anything about PS3 owners not buying games. That is your own editorializing. He says the PS3 is losing momentum, which I'm not certain is true, but I agree it is way overdue for a price drop to stimulate new sales. THEN he says that it is expensive to develop for, and the the wii and 360 CONSOLES are selling better.
The reason games on those consoles generate a better return is because of the larger user base for BOTH, and because they are cheaper to develop for therefore meaning more profit per game sold.
There is no evidence that PS3 owners don't buy games.
Yes there is...look at attach rates and you'd know. Many PS3 were sold as bluray movie players with no interest in games whatsoever. Where as not a single wii or 360 was sold just to watch movies.Yep and now that bluray players are getting cheaper and the ps3 is not it will be worse for sony unless they get a heafty price drop and warm up to these developers[QUOTE="SolidTy"]Well yeah, we all know or atleast are 99% sure that Activision won't do anything. I wasn't suggesting anything, it was all hypothetically speaking of Activisions suggestions.No, what I'm saying is that INFINITY WARD has committed about 75% of their time making a PS3 game, and you are suggesting that game now won't see the light of day.
That isn't logical, what is logical is future COD/MW's, before IW spends A year and a half making that next game.
Next-Gen-Tec
Yeah, nothing may happen, but if it does go sour, anything that's almost done Activision will try to profit from, and then shut down PS3 development. It's a crazy world, I guess Sony may bow to the pressure.
I think the Recession coming this gen really hurt Sony the most, being so expensive and all.
[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] "what if" man, what if, which can indeed happen since sony's first party just keeps getting bigger, just look at how many quality games developed from sony come out each year, so I do think it's posible for sony to survive on it's own(if only they weren't loosing so much money on hardware though)edo-tensei
Why do you keep bringing the subjective quality factor in? What matters is not whether the first party titles are martketable enough to stand on their own.
well we know they stand out on their own but sony still needs to market their games better which is a big problem for them because sadly good sales for anything gaming related now is how well they are presented since games are very expensive nowHow do you know ifthey stand on their own when 3rd party titles are not eliminated from the equation? I doubt that even titles that sell alot more than the Sony first party titles can stand on their own. A console needs both first party titles and third party titles .For Sony's first party titles to be able to entirelytake up the slack of third party titles which comprise a hell of alot more of the overall library, they would have to sell in a godly fashion and they would have to make up more of the library than they do.
[QUOTE="TroyM1"]Recover? They are losing billions every year with thier television and game consoledivisions. Look it up. Sony maybe a bigger company but atleast sega can make thier own games. lol sony make more and better games than sega and they are big enough to bounce back, as simply as that if you want to ignore that then that's your problem and don't lecture me on sony's finances since bussiness never stays the same I'm sure their divitions will pick up steam in the future. Why you ever thought nintendo would come back and sell what they sell now 5 years ago?What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer.[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] major difference is sony can actually recover from their mistakes this gen since they are a multi billion dollar company and the sony brand is a lot bigger than sega ever was so yes don't compare themedo-tensei
[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]
Why do you keep bringing the subjective quality factor in? What matters is not whether the first party titles are martketable enough to stand on their own.
well we know they stand out on their own but sony still needs to market their games better which is a big problem for them because sadly good sales for anything gaming related now is how well they are presented since games are very expensive nowHow do you know ifthey stand on their own when 3rd party titles are not eliminated from the equation? I doubt that even titles that sell alot more than the Sony first party titles can stand on their own. A console needs both first party titles and third party titles .For Sony's first party titles to be able to entirelytake up the slack of third party titles which comprise a hell of alot more of the overall library, they would have to sell in a godly fashion and they would have to make up more of the library than they do.
so good games are not good games anymore? huh? Sony develops exellent gamers that's a fact and that alone makes them stand on their own in the game bussiness, but marketing and hype is still the most crussial part of that formula, just look at halo, it singlehandedly kept the 360 alive last gen. Sony has to work on their marketing that was my point[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"] Recover? They are losing billions every year with thier television and game consoledivisions. Look it up. Sony maybe a bigger company but atleast sega can make thier own games.
lol sony make more and better games than sega and they are big enough to bounce back, as simply as that if you want to ignore that then that's your problem and don't lecture me on sony's finances since bussiness never stays the same I'm sure their divitions will pick up steam in the future. Why you ever thought nintendo would come back and sell what they sell now 5 years ago?What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer. stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitable[QUOTE="TroyM1"]What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer. stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitableanswer my question. What games did Sony actually develop by themselves? Its a simple question.[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] lol sony make more and better games than sega and they are big enough to bounce back, as simply as that if you want to ignore that then that's your problem and don't lecture me on sony's finances since bussiness never stays the same I'm sure their divitions will pick up steam in the future. Why you ever thought nintendo would come back and sell what they sell now 5 years ago?edo-tensei
[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] well we know they stand out on their own but sony still needs to market their games better which is a big problem for them because sadly good sales for anything gaming related now is how well they are presented since games are very expensive nowedo-tensei
How do you know ifthey stand on their own when 3rd party titles are not eliminated from the equation? I doubt that even titles that sell alot more than the Sony first party titles can stand on their own. A console needs both first party titles and third party titles .For Sony's first party titles to be able to entirelytake up the slack of third party titles which comprise a hell of alot more of the overall library, they would have to sell in a godly fashion and they would have to make up more of the library than they do.
so good games are not good games anymore? huh? Sony develops exellent gamers that's a fact and that alone makes them stand on their own in the game bussiness, but marketing and hype is still the most crussial part of that formula, just look at halo, it singlehandedly kept the 360 alive last gen. Sony has to work on their marketing that was my point1. When did I ever say good games are not good games anymore? How in the world did you get that from my statement? And what does this have to do with anything?
2. The statement that Sony develops excellent games is not a fact. It is an opinion. While one person might think Sony makes excellent games, another person might think they don't. Are you really telling me that "Sony develops games" is a statement of objective truth? For the last time, your subjective opinion is not relevant.
3. Halo did do alot in helping the 360 stay afloat, but they still needed third party support. And they got enough to stay afloat, just not enough to compete with Sony.
[QUOTE="TroyM1"]What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer. stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitablecmon you think sony is goddly Sony cant even make there own games its all subbed out to 1st 2nd and third parties . Sony does'nt have a creative bone in thier body[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] lol sony make more and better games than sega and they are big enough to bounce back, as simply as that if you want to ignore that then that's your problem and don't lecture me on sony's finances since bussiness never stays the same I'm sure their divitions will pick up steam in the future. Why you ever thought nintendo would come back and sell what they sell now 5 years ago?edo-tensei
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece
If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony. - Bobby Kotick
Cookigaki thinks this could be bad for sony.
Cookigaki
iam sure sony will drop the price before 2011 if they didnt make any profit he would have done that already
Activision must have no respect for Sony to make such comments.
[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]
How do you know ifthey stand on their own when 3rd party titles are not eliminated from the equation? I doubt that even titles that sell alot more than the Sony first party titles can stand on their own. A console needs both first party titles and third party titles .For Sony's first party titles to be able to entirelytake up the slack of third party titles which comprise a hell of alot more of the overall library, they would have to sell in a godly fashion and they would have to make up more of the library than they do.
so good games are not good games anymore? huh? Sony develops exellent gamers that's a fact and that alone makes them stand on their own in the game bussiness, but marketing and hype is still the most crussial part of that formula, just look at halo, it singlehandedly kept the 360 alive last gen. Sony has to work on their marketing that was my point1. When did I ever say good games are not good games anymore? How in the world did you get that from my statement? And what does this have to do with anything?
2. The statement that Sony develops excellent games is not a fact. It is an opinion. While one person might think Sony makes excellent games, another person might think they don't. Are you really telling me that "Sony develops games" is a statement of objective truth? For the last time, your subjective opinion is not relevant.
3. Halo did do alot in helping the 360 stay afloat, but they still needed third party support. And they got enough to stay afloat, just not enough to compete with Sony.
lolwut? how is uncharted or killzone or gow games not quality games because it's all subjective? That's why we need review scores because if it was decsided by randon then no game is a good game because not everyone likes it. One thing is that YOU don't like a certain game and the fact that that game is still a quality game weather it's your thing or not. Ms could have survived by halo alone last gen because they had a great quality game with hype and good marketing, it may not have happened but it's definitelly possible[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"]What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer.
stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitablecmon you think sony is goddly Sony cant even make there own games its all subbed out to 1st 2nd and third parties . Sony does'nt have a creative bone in thier body oh my god you give me a headache! I haven't seen so much fail in along time, and to think I actually took you seriously when you were talking about sony's finantial state lol[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]
That was still early in the PS3's lifespan. They probably thought Sony would pull around by now. They are starting to at least. They got the solftware line-up. All they need now is a beefy enough price cut to impact the market and intice the giant known as the PS2 community to buy PS3's. If Sony somehow managed to completely pull over it's PS2 community into the current generation of Sony hardware, then they'd be the force that they used to be. Activision wouldn't dare make a statement such as what they have.mythrol
I honestly think a large section of PS2 owners have already made their next gen. console decision. (my numbers aren't current but. . .) As of the time the next gen consoles were all released the PS2 had sold about 100 million units. The Original Xbox sold about 25 million. The Gamecube sold about 20 million. So for the life of last gen about 145 million consoles were sold.
So far this gen the Wii has sold about 50 million, the 360 has sold about 31 million, and the PS3 has sold about 23 million. A total of about 104 million units sold. If we go by last gen and say there was about a 25% increase in the video game market that means that roughly 181 million consoles will be sold through the lifetime of this gen. With that said we're well over halfway through the main timeline of these systems and over half of all purchases have been made. The Wii has already sold about 2.5x's more than the Gamecube. The Xbox 360 has sold about 1.2x's the amount of the original Xbox. All this growth has to come from somewhere and it seems to be from the pocket of Sony.
Two words: Casual Gaming. This term didn't exist in the last generation. Gaming as a whole has become much more socially accepted this generation. I'll reckon alot othe industries growth has come from newcomers to gaming. I'm sure your still at the cery least partially right.
[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"]What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer.
stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitablecmon you think sony is goddly Sony cant even make there own games its all subbed out to 1st 2nd and third parties . Sony does'nt have a creative bone in thier body what the heck do you think ist and 2nd parties are? those are studios making games sony completely owns just like ms and nintendo, how long have you been gamming?What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer.
TroyM1
You could easily have spent doing this research years ago, the information is still the same.
ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and God of War for starters.
[QUOTE="TroyM1"]
What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer.
You could easily have spent doing this research years ago, the information is still the same.
ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and God of War for starters.
don't even bother this guy is going loco this news really made him lose it[QUOTE="TroyM1"]cmon you think sony is goddly Sony cant even make there own games its all subbed out to 1st 2nd and third parties . Sony does'nt have a creative bone in thier body oh my god you give me a headache! I haven't seen so much fail in along time, and to think I actually took you seriously when you were talking about sony's finantial state loli must be cause you cant answer a simple question. You have not a clue what your talking about. A company cannot existwithout 3rd party support. And the whole Ms and Halo is bs microsoft lost tons upon tons of money on hardware but gained a crapload of3rd party support and yes Halo sold only 4 or 5 million copies, while thats good it would have never kept the company afloat. The success of the original xbox was its games attatchment rate and accesories. but in the end they lost money.MS was basically a start-up company in console gaming they were supposed to lose money the first round. Now there making a bunch. Sony has been around the block a few times and they are screwing up.[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitableedo-tensei
[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] so good games are not good games anymore? huh? Sony develops exellent gamers that's a fact and that alone makes them stand on their own in the game bussiness, but marketing and hype is still the most crussial part of that formula, just look at halo, it singlehandedly kept the 360 alive last gen. Sony has to work on their marketing that was my pointedo-tensei
1. When did I ever say good games are not good games anymore? How in the world did you get that from my statement? And what does this have to do with anything?
2. The statement that Sony develops excellent games is not a fact. It is an opinion. While one person might think Sony makes excellent games, another person might think they don't. Are you really telling me that "Sony develops games" is a statement of objective truth? For the last time, your subjective opinion is not relevant.
3. Halo did do alot in helping the 360 stay afloat, but they still needed third party support. And they got enough to stay afloat, just not enough to compete with Sony.
lolwut? how is uncharted or killzone or gow games not quality games because it's all subjective? That's why we need review scores because if it was decsided by randon then no game is a good game because not everyone likes it. One thing is that YOU don't like a certain game and the fact that that game is still a quality game weather it's your thing or not. Ms could have survived by halo alone last gen because they had a great quality game with hype and good marketing, it may not have happened but it's definitelly possible*facepalm*
1. Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 are quality games in some people's opinion and they are not quality games in other people's opinion. There can be no objective truth when discussing the "quality" of games, because the quality of games is in the realm of subjectivity.I really don't see how you can not understand that. The difference between opinion and fact is elementary school stuff.
2. Reviews are merely one person's opinion. Nothing more.
3.I really like both Killzone and Uncharted 2, but even if I didn't, you can't say that something is quality in spite of my opinion and act like that is a fact. The only thing that you can say is that you disagree. Why? Because the statement that Uncharted is a great game is a subjective statement and thus I cannot be "wrong" for not liking it and you are not "right" for liking it. We merely have different opinions. Whether Uncharted is a quality game or not depends entirely on the opinion of the person playing it. It's good to some people and not good to others. Even if reviews determine that Uncharted is quality, that is merely a collection of opinions.You're trying to put a truth value on a statement of opinion, which is inherently fallicious.
4. First party titles are small in number so there needs to be third party titles to fill out a console's library.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"][QUOTE="TroyM1"]
What games did Sony of america or japan actually make by themselves. Last time i checked smartguy Sony was a Hardware developer not a software developer.
edo-tensei
You could easily have spent doing this research years ago, the information is still the same.
ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and God of War for starters.
don't even bother this guy is going loco this news really made him lose itCuz, they are first and second party games duh Sony didnt make those games. Did Microsoft make HAlo?[QUOTE="TroyM1"]cmon you think sony is goddly Sony cant even make there own games its all subbed out to 1st 2nd and third parties . Sony does'nt have a creative bone in thier body oh my god you give me a headache! I haven't seen so much fail in along time, and to think I actually took you seriously when you were talking about sony's finantial state lol[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] stop that crack son! brain dameage inevitableedo-tensei
You don't seem to understand the difference between the realm of subjectivity and the realm of objective fact, so I don't think you have any room to talk about anybody failing.
[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"]cmon you think sony is goddly Sony cant even make there own games its all subbed out to 1st 2nd and third parties . Sony does'nt have a creative bone in thier body
oh my god you give me a headache! I haven't seen so much fail in along time, and to think I actually took you seriously when you were talking about sony's finantial state loli must be cause you cant answer a simple question. You have not a clue what your talking about. A company cannot existwithout 3rd party support. And the whole Ms and Halo is bs microsoft lost tons upon tons of money on hardware but gained a crapload of3rd party support and yes Halo sold only 4 or 5 million copies, while thats good it would have never kept the company afloat. The success of the original xbox was its games attatchment rate and accesories. but in the end they lost money.MS was basically a start-up company in console gaming they were supposed to lose money the first round. Now there making a bunch. Sony has been around the block a few times and they are screwing up. that's bussiness dude nintendo was on top once as well and they failed as well when playstation came around, now they are back on top again. It's still possible for one of the big three to be successful only bey their 1st part games
[QUOTE="TroyM1"]i must be cause you cant answer a simple question. You have not a clue what your talking about. A company cannot existwithout 3rd party support. And the whole Ms and Halo is bs microsoft lost tons upon tons of money on hardware but gained a crapload of3rd party support and yes Halo sold only 4 or 5 million copies, while thats good it would have never kept the company afloat. The success of the original xbox was its games attatchment rate and accesories. but in the end they lost money.MS was basically a start-up company in console gaming they were supposed to lose money the first round. Now there making a bunch. Sony has been around the block a few times and they are screwing up. that's bussiness dude nintendo was on top once as well and they failed as well when playstation came around, now they are back on top again. It's still possible for one of the big three to be successful only bey their 1st part gamesI see you changed your statment to first party games not sony games "Good" .I agree I never said sony would bow out of the console market they'll still be around, but pissing off developers is not a good thing either.[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] oh my god you give me a headache! I haven't seen so much fail in along time, and to think I actually took you seriously when you were talking about sony's finantial state loledo-tensei
[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]
1. When did I ever say good games are not good games anymore? How in the world did you get that from my statement? And what does this have to do with anything?
2. The statement that Sony develops excellent games is not a fact. It is an opinion. While one person might think Sony makes excellent games, another person might think they don't. Are you really telling me that "Sony develops games" is a statement of objective truth? For the last time, your subjective opinion is not relevant.
3. Halo did do alot in helping the 360 stay afloat, but they still needed third party support. And they got enough to stay afloat, just not enough to compete with Sony.
lolwut? how is uncharted or killzone or gow games not quality games because it's all subjective? That's why we need review scores because if it was decsided by randon then no game is a good game because not everyone likes it. One thing is that YOU don't like a certain game and the fact that that game is still a quality game weather it's your thing or not. Ms could have survived by halo alone last gen because they had a great quality game with hype and good marketing, it may not have happened but it's definitelly possible*facepalm*
1. Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 are quality games in some people's opinion and they are not quality games in other people's opinion. There can be no objective truth when discussing the "quality" of games, because the quality of games is in the realm of subjectivity.I really don't see how you can not understand that. The difference between opinion and fact is elementary school stuff.
2. Reviews are merely one person's opinion. Nothing more.
3.I really like both Killzone and Uncharted 2, but even if I didn't, you can't say that something is quality in spite of my opinion and act like that is a fact. The only thing that you can say is that you disagree. Why? Because the statement that Uncharted is a great game is a subjective statement and thus I cannot be "wrong" for not liking it and you are not "right" for liking it. We merely have different opinions. Whether Uncharted is a quality game or not depends entirely on the opinion of the person playing it. It's good to some people and not good to others. Even if reviews determine that Uncharted is quality, that is merely a collection of opinions.You're trying to put a truth value on a statement of opinion, which is inherently fallicious.
4. First party titles are small in number so there needs to be third party titles to fill out a console's library.
I think you're the one that doesn't get it lol. Again just because a game doesn't appeal to someone does not, and I mean does not mean that that game doesn't have great game elements in it. You're trying to spin things to your point, because I could care less for wow but that doesn't mean I ignore the good things it has, your thinking is flawed. *DOUBLE FACEPALM!!!*[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="TroyM1"]i must be cause you cant answer a simple question. You have not a clue what your talking about. A company cannot existwithout 3rd party support. And the whole Ms and Halo is bs microsoft lost tons upon tons of money on hardware but gained a crapload of3rd party support and yes Halo sold only 4 or 5 million copies, while thats good it would have never kept the company afloat. The success of the original xbox was its games attatchment rate and accesories. but in the end they lost money.MS was basically a start-up company in console gaming they were supposed to lose money the first round. Now there making a bunch. Sony has been around the block a few times and they are screwing up.
that's bussiness dude nintendo was on top once as well and they failed as well when playstation came around, now they are back on top again. It's still possible for one of the big three to be successful only bey their 1st part gamesI see you changed your statment to first party games not sony games "Good" .I agree I never said sony would bow out of the console market they'll still be around, but pissing off developers is not a good thing either. 1st party is sony troym1 it's that simple, and sony isn't really pissing off activition, it's actually the other way around, they know sony can't lower the price so they put preassure this way, they are acting like biachhhsWell at least by system wars standards this is pretty high on the :lol: factor. The largest 3rd party developer saying they may stop supporting one of the consoles.rybe1025Gotta laugh at all the people posturing and saying they wouldnt care if it happend lol It would be devestating.
Reminds me of the sheep during the GC generation, "Dont care about no third parties as long as we got us some Metroid Mario and Zelda!" lol
don't even bother this guy is going loco this news really made him lose itCuz, they are first and second party games duh Sony didnt make those games. Did Microsoft make HAlo?[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]
You could easily have spent doing this research years ago, the information is still the same.
ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and God of War for starters.
TroyM1
SONY made ICO, SotC, and GoW dude.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment