Sony as a developer is pretty overrated.

And this

http://www.g4tv.com/games/publishers/scea/5364/

and this

http://www.g4tv.com/games/publishers/sony-computer-entertainment/5718/

and this

http://www.g4tv.com/games/publishers/sony-electronics/5719/

and this

http://www.g4tv.com/games/publishers/sony-interactive-studios-america/7152/

according to your own source...

Give it up butthurted lems, you don't know what you're talking about.

TLHBO

@dynamitecop:

Then by your definition, Metroid Prime, the Other M, and the new Donkey Kong Country games are 3rd party because Nintendo didn't make them by themselves. The only games Nintendo actually makes are Mario, Zelda and Pokemon. Retro Studios and Tecmo helped them with other games.

Nintendo is the only company that does that anymore. It's not uncommon to have other developers make games for your IP's. Microsoft and Nintendo do it too.

"PUBLISHERS"

I'm just using the same source GarGx1 used and for which you told him that he understood what you were talking about. So what is it lem? Too butthurted to think clearly? I think you're getting confused.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the question "Sony as a developer is pretty overrated"? Where I don't necessarily agree with that, Everquest is the mother of the modern MMO and I've spent many hours playing Planetside 1 and 2. Sony's only in house developer was Sony Online Entertainment (now spun off as Daybreak Games). All their other games are developed by outside companies funded by Sony. If Sony went bust today Naughty Dog and GG would be snapped up by another publisher in the blink of an eye.

From your post count you're either new here or a ban dodger but just so as you know a "Lem" is an Xbox fan, I don't think I even inferred anything about Xbox in my post.

He was highlighting the fact that some of the in-house developed games have been for PC... You're too stupid to know what you're looking at and posted those links thinking it was all Sony developed games when the reality is most are simply published.

It's not me who is getting confused, your posting is on level garbage with QuadKnight, if I didn't know any better I'd say you two are one in the same.

Guy is delusional. Clearly doesn't know what he posts.

Yeah , lets be honest.

Nintendo used to shit all over SONY in NEs/SNES era when SONY didnt even exist AND in N64 era when SONY was a newcomer.

While Nintendo started to playing super safe with the very same experiences every generation SONY was providing new IP , again and again and again and again.

Sure , some of them were bad or decent at best but some of them redefined their respective genres when Nintendo was keep delivering the very same experiences over and over and over and over ... Beeeeh.

With that being said im not taking away how talented Nintendo is to what they offering but what they really offering. Aside N64 era which was the big leap from 2D to 3D and their games finally felt fresh and epicly good and the fact that with GAMECUBE their tried very few new IPs what the hell they offered different the last 15 years compared to what SONY offered ?

Not even close ... So we have Nintendo that "shits all over SONY" because of 2-3 ONE OF THE SAME AAA caliber games ( that hardly meeting AAA to begin with , check for example at metacritic all AAA Wii U titles ) per generation and not SONY on NINTENDO when they try to deliver new IPs over and over ? Ok !!!!! Whatever!

All im saying is ... TOP 10 RATED games for Wii U this very moment , go check on Gamespot and laugh hard ! Thats Nintendo for you.. A spike of high rated , one of the same games , then ..... bye bye aligator.

Well if Sony gets bust today those companies can be snatched by other publishers but the companies owned by Sony could also cease to exist and sell the IPs to other developers. The same with SOE games, the IPs could be snatched by other publishers or developers so the distinction is basically moot.

oh gosh...

stop posting...

Companies now are made of many other companies, divisions, offices, etc. Everything that is developed somewhere where they are the owner is developed by them. It seems logic is not your forte which is not surprising for a lem but come on, you can do better boy.

Don't try to silence the Truth just because you get butthurted by it.

"Naughty Dog became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment"

"Subsidiaries are the separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation, regulation, and liability. For this reason, they differ from divisions, which are businesses fully integrated within the main company, and not legally or otherwise distinct from it."

Please be quiet.

ok sure. I was actually giving you a hint that what you posted made zero sense....

Go ahead knock yourself out... spread 'teh Truth'.

That's a legal matter, notice how the definition doesn't include anything about how it functions differently in a development cycle. Sony still calls the shots since they are their employees. Again you're grasping at straws just because you get butthurt by anything made by Sony.

A subsidiary is a detachment from the parent company and a complete legal separation, it operates as its own 'independent' company. Now in the end Sony can dictate what happens with them via a board and shareholders, but they are not one in the same, they are not a division of Sony...

Also no, Naughty Dog employees are employees of Naughty Dog, their paychecks are issued by and through this company, not Sony. This isn't grasping at anything, this is how businesses function, you just think it has more simplicity than it actually does,

Sony had to sell all the SOE I.P's when they spun off the division. No one is going to buy a developer with no access to their back catalogue, the I.P's are far more valuable than the developer.

Tell me if Naughty Dog employees are not employees of Sony why is it that their employment is controlled by Sony? You really have a butthurted bundle of confusing twists stored in that head of yours.

http://www.naughtydog.com/work

"It is the policy of Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (SCEA) to provide equal employment opportunity for all applicants and employees. SCEA does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, veteran status, marital status, or any other category protected by applicable federal and state law. SCEA also makes reasonable accommodations for handicapped and disabled employees."

Exactly, the name of the developer and its legal status is just that. In the end the developer is made by the individuals and their IPs and a subsidiary or division of Sony is made up by individuals hired by Sony and Sony's IPs so the difference is basically moot. In the end Sony mostly calls the shots equally, the only difference is a legal one.

Sony has very little say in what Naughty Dog does with the games themselves. Sony is the parent company and publisher. Not the developer.

Okay let me make this a little more simple for you to understand, that is an employment disclaimer for protection, it's a legal necessity on the part of Sony to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits filed through employment at Naughty Dog...

i.e. It's so Sony can separate themselves from any liability brought down via Naughty Dog discriminating against possible applicants by disclaiming their legal stance on the matter... It recuses them of legal liability as the parent company from being sued on behalf of their subsidiaries employment operations.

This is basic...

XD XD XD

I wasn't aware that you worked for Naughty Dog and have inside knowledge about how Sony handles the company. Stop trying to save your embarrassing illogical wordplay. Unless you work there you have no idea how they handle things and everything on that website points to the fact that Sony is involved in the process of hiring their own employees for their own companies. Naughty Dog is OWNED by Sony not merely hired by them.

People don't know the difference between 1st party and 3rd party. 1st party game ≠ 1st party studio

Any game funded by Nintendo/MS/Sony is considered 1st party. The same money goes into developing the games, whether it's an in house studio or not. For example Smash Bros Wii U, Bloodborne, and Forza Horizon 3 are all 1st party games despite being developed by 3rd party studios.

I think Phil Spencer knows the definition of a 1st party game better than some random guy named Dynamitecop, since Phil considers ReCore to be 1st party.

Sony has a few good games, but I'd say the top games in just about any genre are not Sony developed/published games.

Personally, I think they've gotten worse over the years. Nowadays Sony rarely even makes a game I'd like to play whereas in the PS1 and PS2 days it was worth having tons of Sony games up on the shelf for display.

@dynamitecop: By that notion GM doesn't develop any vehicles, and you would probably agree just to be correct.

What we are saying is that it would be nice if Sony actually created their own in-house games and show why they are the current leader in system sales.

Throughout history, they haven't been responsible for their own consoles successes, which is sad.

3rd parties carry the load.

Seriously, where is their Halo equivalent (Killzone is not it) or their lineup of characters that Nintendo has?

Minimal effort maximum gain = Sony.

So basically, what makes Sony great are a bunch of games that stopped existing a decade ago.

What was Sony's Mario 64 or Halo moment? Oh wait they've never had one, unless you count GTA (they didn't make that either).

Halo is a bad example considering it wasn't until late in development that it became Xbox exclusive. It was originally announced by Steve Jobs for Mac and Windows. It became exclusive after Microsoft acquired Bungie.

huh, what? If you're saying that as an opinion then you're an idiot. If you're saying that as a "fact" then you're even more of an idiot.

ICO? SotC? Uncharted 2? Uncharted 4? Demon's Souls (colaboration between From Software AND Sony Japan Studios)? Jak and Daxter? Ratchet and Clank? God of War? Gran Turismo? and yes, TLoU is a classic, you like it or not.

You like this franchises or not, its ONLY your opinion. Now the fact is: These games were very well received critically and are often on many people's "best games" list.

Your opinion alone isnt worth sh*t in the bigger spectrum of things.

Personaly I find most Nintendo games overrated aswell but I can respect the love they get both by common opinion as critics alike.

So more games developed by other studios than Sony's own in-house talent? Gotcha

TLOU might be revolutionary if you like the Video in Games more than the Game in Video Games.

Most of the franchises or companies you listed haven't relevant in years.

What a petty thread. Wow

Thats factually wrong. Do you guys even do research or just go by what comes to your mind first?

Ico and SotC are both regarded as some of the best games ever made. Gran Turismo has seen better days but its legacy is undeniable. Jak and Daxter is a platformer classic. I know you dont like Uncharted or GoW but your personal opinion is irrelevant. Fact is U2, TLoU and GoW games are often present on many people's and critics "best games" lists. That is a sign of a "classic" to me.

Nintendo has a better record of game development? Sure. Now saying Sony has done nothing when developing all time classics is just factually wrong and just screams of "fanboy" to me

this.

ND, Polyphony Digital AND SONY JAPAN are in-house 1st party studios... wtf are you talkin about?

Being relevant in years or not, their legacy its undeniable. Only a stupid fanboy would deny it. You talk about Nintendo, what have Nintendo done recently worth to be called a "classic"?

Wow, just wow!

Lol some of you guys need a course in business. While it is petty, studios that they acquire to develop games on their behalf are not true in house developed games by Sony. The studio "develops" (makes the game) and Sony gets the money from it. Sony gets the money, they get their name on the box because they published it (funded it), and the studio that made the game gets listed as the developer.

you are correct in that 3rd parties did most of the heavy lifting for the PS1 and 2 and sonys own game dev efforts werent huge. when they went multiplat with the 360 and PC it really didnt help the PS3. they did go multiplat before of course but it was usually a case of the PS version came out first since the other consoles had a very small market share.

but sony have put out some great games in the past. like wipeout, GT (the series is a bit outclassed now but on the PS1 and 2 they were big sellers), god of war (1 was a fun game and a pleasent surprise.), LBP, ICO, SOTC and loco roco. horizon also looks promising.

their focus on "emotional gaming" is a concern though and the amount of wailing music at their last E3 was a bit of a facepalm. its a bit of a one trick pony.

3D Mario World

There have been very few Sony franchises that I've truly enjoyed. There have been some and that's why I said ALMOST 100%. Love me some inFAMOUS and Ratchet & Clank. God of War is OK sometimes. I also feel the Jak games and Uncharted are on the weaker side of things. The Last of Us was quite good though.

In terms of all time classics in the public's eye, I'd say Shadow of the Colossus has a very strong chance and maybe The Last of Us.

So much diversity....

Famous for no Shadows: Cinematic Third person Action

Out of Order 800: Cinematic Third Person Action

Uncharted 4: Cinematic Third Person Action

Bloodborne: Third Person (though that I give you it's an RPG not really falling into the cinematic galore)

Horizon: Zero Dawn: Third Person Cinematic Action (Uncharted with Robo Dinosaurs)

Detroit: Cinematic Third Person

God of War: Cinematic Third Person Action

The Last Guardian: Not a shooter but definitely Third person

Naughty Duds next: Cinematic Third Person Action.....

Days Gone: Cinematic Third Person Action

Spider-Man(LOL): Cinematic Third Person Action

So what is a game "made" by a company? Considering ALL hardware companies have separated teams of people working on their games? Should the CEO be the one making the game or what?

The differences between subdivisions and subsidiaries are merely legal, the control the company has on the teams making the games can vary but is not something that comes with the legal definition so it's a moot differentiation for this discussion.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-wholly-owned-subsidiaries-divisions-32631.html

"A wholly owned subsidiary, on the other hand, is a completely separate entity from the main business. Although this business is technically separate from the larger business, the owners of the larger business still retain full control over this smaller business, giving them the ability to guide the subsidiary's actions."

...

"Businesses often elect to create wholly owned subsidiaries instead of sticking with the perhaps easier-to-handle division setup because doing so gives them tax breaks."

That's basically the only difference.

I can't imagine Puppeteer could be much better than Knack either. I can't imagine many platformers being much worse than Puppeteer. The level design and controls were both extremely poor.

While I disagree somewhat since I loved Crash Bandicoot 3, Spyro the Dragon, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, and Sly 2, I still think that Nintendo's first party history is unrivaled.

Sony has made some great games, the problem I have with them is they take waaaay too long to bring them out (blah blah take as long as you want to make a 10 game-- whatever. TLG is pushing 10 years thats a bit much) and Sony in general has what feels like is a disconnect from their fans. They announce projects and just drop them or put them on indefinite hold with zero feedback. Maybe its because they are Japanese, with a conservative corporate culture, but one of the reasons I prefer Xbox is how they interact with the fans.

Its subjective, but just look at how their conference presentations are. Sony's conferences are like boardroom meetings with guys wearing ties.

@brah4ever: crash bandicoot? Spyro the dragon? Rathet and clank? Twisted metal? Parappa the rapper? Jak and Daxter? Sly cooper? Infamous? Socom? Uncharted? Last of us? Littlebigplanet? Gran turismo?

Go home OP, you're drunk.

Rated highly...may be but which one of these are classics? What did any of these do for gaming that haven't already been done 100x before? All you listed were shitty imitations of other popular and great franchises.

EDIT: Just read the later posts and found you arguing with Nya over Second party games. Quite funny because I distinctly remember you arguing with Char that there are no Second Party games and it's an industry coined term - something which is Nya is saying now.

@dynamitecop: are you retarded?

This is still going on? Come on, lems. Move on.