Sony's Developer Muscle

[GangstaB]

if i had to rate the first party devs it would go

Nintendo for the simple fact that without them their consoles would of died out years ago

sony

Microsoft

with microsoft closing in on sony

[Ricokillercon]

if i had to rate the first party devs it would go

Nintendo for the simple fact that without them their consoles would of died out years ago

sony

Microsoft

with microsoft closing in on sony

Um what does microsoft have in their first party....

I can only name 2 games Halo and Gears of War...and that just FPS....

[Mael Duin]

if i had to rate the first party devs it would go

Nintendo for the simple fact that without them their consoles would of died out years ago

sony

Microsoft

with microsoft closing in on sony

Um what does microsoft have in their first party....

I can only name 2 games Halo and Gears of War...and that just FPS....

Gears of War isn't 1st party game. From Wikipedia I got the list of 1st party developers:
* Bungie - Halo series, Myth series, Marathon series
* Ensemble - Age of Empires series
* FASA - Shadowrun, Crimson Skies, Mechassault series, Mechwarrior series.
* Lionhead - Black & White series, The Movies, Fable series.
* Rare - Perfect Dark series, Kameo, Killer Instinct, Banjo series
* Feel Plus - This studio was set up specifically to help Mistwalker in the development of Lost Odyssey.
* Aces Game Studio - Combat flight Simulator series and Flight Simulator series

While there are great games, when people are praising Microsofts 1st party games, they mostly only see Halo. If we take that game out, then 1st party games aren't that good anymore. From Sonys games, if we take God of War out, Sony still has some system sellers, like Gran Turismo and SOCOM.

[CrownOfLove]

Gears of War isn't 1st party game. From Wikipedia I got the list of 1st party developers:
* Bungie - Halo series, Myth series, Marathon series
* Ensemble - Age of Empires series
* FASA - Shadowrun, Crimson Skies, Mechassault series, Mechwarrior series.
* Lionhead - Black & White series, The Movies, Fable series.
* Rare - Perfect Dark series, Kameo, Killer Instinct, Banjo series
* Feel Plus - This studio was set up specifically to help Mistwalker in the development of Lost Odyssey.
* Aces Game Studio - Combat flight Simulator series and Flight Simulator series

Wow, microsoft has alot of great first party games. The trouble is, alot of the best ones aren't on the xbox, but the PC.

[guybrush]

Yeah and with many of these games I feel they loose something when played on a console. IMO strategy games, football management games and even some FPS games are far better on the PC than on a console. Even if they did port a title like Black & White or the Movies onto the 360 I couldnt see myself playing it

[CrownOfLove]

Yeah and with many of these games I feel they loose something when played on a console. IMO strategy games, football management games and even some FPS games are far better on the PC than on a console. Even if they did port a title like Black & White or the Movies onto the 360 I couldnt see myself playing it

Yes i agree. I could never get the hand of all those age of empires type games on a console. I could see them working on the DS though, and maybe the wii aswell.

[Lefein]

Gears of War isn't 1st party game. From Wikipedia I got the list of 1st party developers:
* Bungie - Halo series, Myth series, Marathon series
* Ensemble - Age of Empires series
* FASA - Shadowrun, Crimson Skies, Mechassault series, Mechwarrior series.
* Lionhead - Black & White series, The Movies, Fable series.
* Rare - Perfect Dark series, Kameo, Killer Instinct, Banjo series
* Feel Plus - This studio was set up specifically to help Mistwalker in the development of Lost Odyssey.
* Aces Game Studio - Combat flight Simulator series and Flight Simulator series

Wow, microsoft has alot of great first party games. The trouble is, alot of the best ones aren't on the xbox, but the PC.

It does kinda seem like MS splits its own fanbase in a way. After all, in a few months an NVidia 7900 might cost $400 and then all you'd need is to upgrade your PC to get most of the best XBox games..

That probably isn't the most sound business theory. But hey, who am I to judge?

[fireras]

I don't think the Xbox 1st party games appeal to me....I mean they have some great studios in Rare, Bungie & Lionhead but apart form Halo & PD most of the other games either suck or doesn't work well on the box.

[thekingofkings]

That was the point I was trying to make back in the first post. He was saying only Sony fans would buy Sony games. So I said well then that's exactly the same truth if not MORE with Nintendo then.

Well that' basically the opposite of what i said.

Just in case you missed, i it responded to your post on the previous page with sales figures that demonstrate my point well.

Can we agree that the majority of people who buy systems aren't hardcore sony, microsoft or nintendo fans? Most people who own consoles are just casual gamers who are the type of people who purchase mostly EA games and movie licence games. Now if you look at the top best selling games on the ps2, the majority of them are third party games.

If you look at the gamecube best selling games, 9 out of 10 of them are developed by nintendo themselves, which basically shows that basically everyone who owns a gamecube owns many nintendo games. So unless you want to tell me that every single person who owns a gamecube is a hardcore nintendo fan, then i'm afraid you have to contend that you are wrong.

You're fighting a losing battle here man. I think everyone on this forum with any knowledge of the videogame industry will tell you that nintendo franchises are the most populiar sellers on nintendo consoles, that's what's kept them alive over the years. I own a Ds, and all five games i own are developed by nintendo. I didn't buy them because they were nintendo games, but becasue they were the best games on the system. If nintendo stopped developing games for their consoles then all their consoles would surely fail.

I think sony are obviously excellent developers, but i just don't think their developed games are as core to their systems as nintendo's are to theirs.
Please tell me, do you disagree with that statement?????

No I don't, BUT I am confused.

The original statement was that only SONY diehards buy Sony games which I was saying is not true, and to make my point I said well if this is true then this also needs to be said about Nintendo. It was to kind of say like that was a bad statement.

You and I got our wires crossed I think and ended up confusing each other. At least I know I am now in regards to this post.

[CrownOfLove]

No I don't, BUT I am confused. Laughing

The original statement was that only SONY diehards buy Sony games which I was saying is not true, and to make my point I said well if this is true then this also needs to be said about Nintendo. It was to kind of say like that was a bad statement.

You and I got our wires crossed I think and ended up confusing each other. At least I know I am now in regards to this post.

well the orginal statement was

Sony is nothing without developers like Atlus, Konami, Level 5, etc... Their first party titles would probably only attract the brand loyalist.

I was mostly refering to the

Sony is nothing without developers like Atlus, Konami, Level 5, etc...

part of it.

But i think you were probably refering to the

heir first party titles would probably only attract the brand loyalist.

part of it.

You responded with

Funny that's exactly how Nintendo are.

I disagree with you, but i also disagree with that original part of the post. I think that the majority of sony developed titles don't only atract hardcore fans. But i defiantly don't think Nintendo's only atract hardcore fans either, as nintendo's attract basically everyone who owns a gamecube.

[udontneed2know]

Nintendo wouldn't survive without its first party titles. They are always the best selling and the only real system sellers both the N64 and Gamecube ever had. Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon. Those are the system sellers for Nintendo.

Whereas for Sony Gran Turismo, Grand Theft Auto, Guitar Hero, Final Fantasy, God of War, and the assortment of other titles were the big system sellers for the Sony brand.

Microsoft sold almost all its systems with the Halo franchise and nothing else. Early Xbox buyers may have looked at titles like Jet Grind Radio or Panzar Dragoon Orta, but those kinds of buyers had the system collecting dust for the rest of its lifespan.

[fireras]

M$ sold a couple of systems also based on the face that the xbox recieved PC ports....so people without a "thugged out" could get a chance to experience the game on their console....atleast thats what I did with Farcry but that's after I had originally bought the dawn thing to play.....Halo 2 **sighs**

[udontneed2know]

Speaking about developer muscle got me thinking about old Sony games.

Someone needs to kick the guys who made Colony Wars and tell them to make one on the PS3.

[Ricokillercon]

Sony also made legends of dragoon...that was a great game....

[killzone_71]

Nintendo wouldn't survive without its first party titles. They are always the best selling and the only real system sellers both the N64 and Gamecube ever had. Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon. Those are the system sellers for Nintendo.

Whereas for Sony Gran Turismo, Grand Theft Auto, Guitar Hero, Final Fantasy, God of War, and the assortment of other titles were the big system sellers for the Sony brand.

Microsoft sold almost all its systems with the Halo franchise and nothing else. Early Xbox buyers may have looked at titles like Jet Grind Radio or Panzar Dragoon Orta, but those kinds of buyers had the system collecting dust for the rest of its lifespan.

nintendo games are for every age level... thier games are more of arcade games so more people will often have fun with nintendo games and they are very wholesome and very fun to play and when you play with 4 players and more, then the party got started.

[Steroyd]

@CrownOfLove

Have you noticed anything about all of Nintendo's "system sellers"?

They're all franchises that have existed 20 years ago (with Star Fox being the most recent one started on the Snes i think ).
It makes me wonder if Nintendo had the same game mechanic with a different face (Like Mario 64, which isn't Mario 64 but a new character) would it's pulling power be as strong as Nintendo's first party are today.

Also if Sony (be more accurate the devs) didn't drop Spyro and Crash Bandicoot I wonder if they wouldn't be that far behind in terms of Iconic status...

[CrownOfLove]

@CrownOfLove

Have you noticed anything about all of Nintendo's "system sellers"?

They're all franchises that have existed 20 years ago (with Star Fox being the most recent one started on the Snes i think ).

I wouldn't say all their franchises existed 20 years ago. Animal Crossing, Super smash bros and pikmin have all been sucessful and they only came out recenetly. Also Pokemon, which is one of their biggest licenses, is newer then that, though i suppose it is still about 10 years old now.

It makes me wonder if Nintendo had the same game mechanic with a different face (Like Mario 64, which isn't Mario 64 but a new character) would it's pulling power be as strong as Nintendo's first party are today.

Well i think if mario 64 didn't have mario in, it wouldn't be a worse game. It just wouldn't sell aswell. And i think in general, the mario, zelda, metroid games are all excellent games, and the fact that nintendo uses well recognised brands just means more people will buy it.

Also, with the exception of Mario Party, i dont think they repeat their licenses in the way that EA does. That is, releasing slight updates which are effectively the same game. In many licenses they almost reivent the whole game by turning it into 3D. Super Mario 64 was very different to Super Mario World. Zelda OOT was very different to Zelda ALTTP. And more recently Metroid Prime might aswell have been a completely different game to Super Metroid.

I suppose you could say the same thing with PS3. If the Ps3 was made by sony, but called the JS1 would it sell aswell? Probably not, becasue there are so many people out there who are familiar and are fans of the Playstation brand.

Also if Sony (be more accurate the devs) didn't drop Spyro and Crash Bandicoot I wonder if they wouldn't be that far behind in terms of Iconic status...

What happened with those game licences? The sony developed ones for the ps1 were mostly great games, but the third-party developed ones for the ps2 were pretty bad.

I think they could possibly be as big licenses as mario and co if sony could keep up the quality of the games, which is a hard thing to do. I think the majority of the ps2's big iconic games were third party. And i think it's possible that the same might happen with the ps3.

[Ricokillercon]

Spyro and Crash where first party...until Naughty Dogg sold the rights...which ruine those games....

[Steroyd]

I wouldn't say all their franchises existed 20 years ago. Animal Crossing, Super smash bros and pikmin have all been sucessful and they only came out recenetly. Also Pokemon, which is one of their biggest licenses, is newer then that, though i suppose it is still about 10 years old now.

True Nintendo have brought Newer fresh titles onto the Nintendo Brand but you have to admit Pikman and Animal Crossing aren't as strong as the likes of Mario, Zelda or Metroid.
Of course Newer titles will be up there with them like Nintendogs you just have to find that unique and popular game that best fits the system, like how Mario 64 best suited the Analogue stick.

Sony's first party line-up doesn't keep franchises for that long (Gran Turismo being the sole survivor) to build such a said fanbase, so you can't exactly market it as the figure head of your console, mostly third party games are still standing from yesteryear (MGS, FF etc)

Also, with the exception of Mario Party, i dont think they repeat their licenses in the way that EA does. That is, releasing slight updates which are effectively the same game. In many licenses they almost reivent the whole game by turning it into 3D. Super Mario 64 was very different to Super Mario World. Zelda OOT was very different to Zelda ALTTP. And more recently Metroid Prime might aswell have been a completely different game to Super Metroid.

I dunno they don't make the same game only slightly updated but they sure as hell rape Mario.

You've got a genuine proper Mario platformer Mario Sunshine, he's the figure head of Super Smash Brothers all well and good then.

Then we have.

Mario Tennis, Mario Power Tennis.
Mario Golf.
Mario Football.
Mario DDR.
Mario, Peach & Luigi appearing in EA's NBA game.
Mario, Peach & Luigi appearing in EA's SSX on tour game.

I'm sorry but if EA had one character that was universally recognisable by all they'd sure as hell rape that character like Nintendo are doing to Mario i see no difference between the two IMO, except the occasional different Mario Platformer like Paper Mario. (i used "Mario Platformer" and "different" in the same sentence ).

While the jump from 2D to 3D was great for the N64, although they havn't been that impressive from 3D to 3D.

Mario 64 > Mario Sunshine ...Meh
Lylat Wars > Star Fox Adventures ...
Donkey Kong 64 > Donkey Konga ...WTF!?!
Mario Party 4 Mario Party 5,6,7... 22
Zelda OoT > Zelda WW .... (Zelda TP should put a smile on my face if it doesn't... i'm not buying a wii out of Protest).

[CrownOfLove]

dunno they don't make the same game only slightly updated but they sure as hell rape Mario.

You've got a genuine proper Mario platformer Mario Sunshine, he's the figure head of Super Smash Brothers all well and good then.

Then we have.

Mario Tennis, Mario Power Tennis.
Mario Golf.
Mario Football.
Mario DDR.
Mario, Peach & Luigi appearing in EA's NBA game.
Mario, Peach & Luigi appearing in EA's SSX on tour game.

I'm sorry but if EA had one character that was universally recognisable by all they'd sure as hell rape that character like Nintendo are doing to Mario i see no difference between the two IMO, except the occasional different Mario Platformer like Paper Mario. (i used "Mario Platformer" and "different" in the same sentence ).

I dunno, i don't really see the mario sports games as the same as the mario platformers. Like for me, mario 64 and mario kart are completely different licences. Mario isn used in a hell of alot of games, but to be fair, most of them are exceptional in their genre and including mario in them just helps them to sell. Also nintendo doesn't actually develop most of the mario sports games.

While the jump from 2D to 3D was great for the N64, although they havn't been that impressive from 3D to 3D.

Mario 64 > Mario Sunshine ...Meh

I actually loved mario sunshine, i don't think it was as original as mario 64, but i actually found it to be a funner game and it was defiantly the best platformer i played last gen.

Lylat Wars > Star Fox Adventures ...

I thought star fox adventures was exceptional also, but i did perfer Lylat wars.

Donkey Kong 64 > Donkey Konga ...WTF!?!
Mario Party 4 Mario Party 5,6,7... 22

I havn't played donkey konga, but i wholeheartadly agree with you on Mario Party.

Zelda OoT > Zelda WW .... (Zelda TP should put a smile on my face if it doesn't... i'm not buying a wii out of Protest).

YOU DIDN'T LIKE WW????
Though it wasn't as long as OOT, it was still one of the best games i've ever played and possibly the best game i played last gen.