Microsoft: “We won” 2011 in Australia, not Sony

[Pestilence]

I said Sony had less faith, not that they didnt have any faith
And yes MS is sitting on a goldmine, and they are stupid for not bringing someo of them back.
But I thought you were arguning for less old IP more new IP?

I'm pretty sure the point he was making is that Sony has both. Plenty of new IP and plenty of hits from the PS2 era that they've brought back.

[mynd]

I'm pretty sure the point he was making is that Sony has both. Plenty of new IP and plenty of hits from the PS2 era that they've brought back.

And the point would be that MS has done the same.

[sainraja]

....and I thought your point regarding Sony was that they weren't bringing their old IP's back (that they had less faith in them - Ratchet, Killzone, Sly, and even Warhawk is an older IP of Sony's), hmm, well, let me take that back, I am not sure what your point is/was because you keep hopping around.

You've said two things in this topic. Sony does not introduce new IP's and that Sony has not brought back old IP's. We pointed out to you that they DID introduce new IP's start of this generation and that they have brought back older IP's....when we speak of older IP's, you start talking about new IP's and when we speak of new IP's, you say that they haven't brought older IP's..etc...

From my point of view, Sony introduced new IP's at the start of this generation and continued them. I don't think they need to do the same every year. Now they are introducing The Last of Us, etc. I think they have the right balance of new/old IP's. They don't need to follow Microsoft's path.

Having one or two blockbuster title isn't a bad thing.....neither is having a bunch of different IP's that you release over the course of the year (new or old.)

[Soldier 95B]

I have often posted that I have come VERY close to buying a 360 actually, because I love what it does with streaming media. I love the Kinect integration with the dash and how Bing can do movie searches with voice and all that other stuff. The amount of content that you can watch on there is outstanding.

Well, I personally would not ever buy an Xbox or Kinect if that is all you wanted to use it for. If the games on the Xbox do not appeal to you, then I would honestly avoid the Xbox. Most of what you can get on Xbox can be found on your PS3 or PC then.

Then I learned that I would have to have gold membership to have access to subscription services and it turned me off.

Even though they can be found for $38 (that is all I pay), it would not be worth it if you were only using Kinect with say Netflix or Hulu. Waste of money.

There is no excuse for releasing 3 core games in 2011 when Sony had over a dozen imho.

There were more than 3 core games on the Xbox 360 in 2011, and not just multiplatform. There were more than 3 exclusive games that were core and released on the Xbox 360. And no, I am not just talking about $60 tuesday release first party on disk games.

I'm disappointed with their strategy because it's the only thing stopping me from buying one. I won't do it, I wont add to their sales when they rely heavily on 3rd party to deliver to the gamers.

That is how they have been since the Xbox was invented. And it will continue that way.

This is the dozen game scoming fo rthe PS3 this year:

Starhawk
Twisted Metal
Jack & Daxter Collections
Tales of Graces F
Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time
Hyperdimention Neptunia MKII
Yakuza: Dead Souls
Ni no Kuni
Sorcery
???Dust 514
???The Last Guardian
???The Last of Us
???Agent

So Sony has no exclusives that appeal to me in 2012 (unless Last of Us makes it). That is fine, I have plenty of games on my PS3 to keep me busy on it (GT5 mostly). Oddly enough, I will be buying all of the 360 exclusives this year...but not because they are 360 exclusive, but because because they appeal to me.

Thats the thing, exclusives should not get a free ride simply because they are exclusive

Man hug here.

Agreed.. practically all my purchases this year will be 3rd party. Exclusives are good and all but the games I want the most aren't exclusives. 2012 looks to be another great year of games. Too many to buy. I may have to get another Gamefly membership..lol

Most of mine are third party as well.

I don't see anyone posting in the PS3 section...WITHOUT A PS3...whining about decisions Sony makes.

Well, Mynd doesn't have a PS3 and he posts there...and whines on occasion . but nothing extreme

well said. All this "MS abandoning the core talk" is ridiculous IMO. When I look at what games are available and whats coming, i see core games galore.

Man hug 2 here.

I am so jealous of Starhawk though, it looks like its going to be the nearest thing to Battlefront this generation.

I have the beta. Not that good IMO. However, I can see how some align with Battlefront. Oh man I love Battlefront.

I don't agree, they need to be offering the consumer more variety, and more to the point (imho) rewarding the consumer for choosing that companies product over the other by offering a product that you can only play when you bought their console. People can downplay the importance of exclusives all they want, but they are what distinguishes a console and gives it it's character and as a consumer this is important, TO ME.

I agree with this. Exclusives are what really sets the consoles apart. Xbox = Halo, Nintendo = Mario, Playstation = Gran Turismo. Everyone associates each brand with a respective game...at least us hardcore gamers. Now, if you can only afford..or only choose to have one console, you need to look and see which one meets your gaming needs more. For Ghost, the PS library of exclusives meets his needs. For me, the 360 library of exclusives meet my needs more than the PS3 exclusives, but I want both so I own both. But in the end, each console needs a product to differentiate itself from another. Have Xbox Live's popularity or PSN's free offering is not enough to try to sell your console to a consumer. While the Xbox apps are a great addition, it is it NOT gaming...and we are buying consoles first and foremost to game on.

When I say they are abandoning the core, of course I don't mean to imply that there are no core games on the 360. As you said, that is ridiculous. However, it is clear to most here that there has been a dramatic shift in focus for the company from the hardcore gamers to the casuals.

I think most of us are not on that same page because, what we are seeing is that Microsoft is still focused on core, but they ADD casual as well. It's not like the Xbox went from ... oh instead of 100 core games this year, we will do 80 core and 20 casual. What I am seeing is 100 core + 20 casual. I see no problem with that.

In the early years MS were pumping out core exclusives

Actually, they weren't They haven't since Xbox 1 was released. It has always been a few here and there. Now on PC, I can't comment.

Yes there is Halo 4 this year, and Gears, Forza and Halo last year, but when you look at the over all picture, it is not a priority for MS to produce and release the type of games that gamers like us on this forum want to play.

But they do, and have...and pretty much the same amount each year since Xbox 1 debuted.

You say Sony mix hasnt changed at all (which is bs)but what has MS done for ips? Halo, Forza, Fable, Gears. Rinse and repeat. Yawn.

Both companies rinse and repeat that is for sure.

Mass Effect ip is multiplatform now. Those others with the exception of maybe Crackdown are pretty sad and pretty much bombed.

That is how I feel about Motorstorm, Resistance 3, etc. Sad and bombed. Not everyone has the same taste in games ore exclusives.

[radgamer420]

I never claimed that everybody has or should have the same tastes. I merely expressed mine.

[Soldier 95B]

I never claimed that everybody has or should have the same tastes. I merely expressed mine.

I know. I was just babbling.

[radgamer420]

I know. I was just babbling.

lol Its all good.

[mynd]

....and I thought your point regarding Sony was that they weren't bringing their old IP's back

No I didnt say that at all.

(that they had less faith in them - Ratchet, Killzone, Sly, and even Warhawk is an older IP of Sony's), hmm, well, let me take that back, I am not sure what your point is/was because you keep hopping around.

I really do love how people will change the past based on the future.
It ridiculous, its like you guys havent lived the past 5 years.

You honestly belive titles like Sly and Twisted Metal show Sony had faith in their older IP's.
Oh please, faith is getting them out the door 5 years after you start the generation?
Ratchett and Clank is of course the exception to the rule.
But if you honestly belive Sony back games like Twiseted Metal and Sly from the start of this generaiton then you must have lived in a different past 5 years than me.

You've said two things in this topic. Sony does not introduce new IP's and that Sony has not brought back old IP's.

What a load of shit, I never said any of that.
I said neither of them had introduced new IP in a long time, Im fucked if I know how you can twist that into Sony doesnt introduce any new IP.

We pointed out to you that they DID introduce new IP's start of this generation and that they have brought back older IP's....when we speak of older IP's, you start talking about new IP's and when we speak of new IP's, you say that they haven't brought older IP's..etc...

From my point of view, Sony introduced new IP's at the start of this generation and continued them. I don't think they need to do the same every year. Now they are introducing The Last of Us, etc. I think they have the right balance of new/old IP's. They don't need to follow Microsoft's path.

What Microsofts path exactly?
Who launched the last new IP title this generation?

Having one or two blockbuster title isn't a bad thing.....neither is having a bunch of different IP's that you release over the course of the year (new or old.)

And no one is denying that, th sall come about because I mentioned that neither had introduced new IP in a while and you read that as "Sony hasnt introduced new IP this generation".
I then mention that Sony had shown less faith in bringin back older IP's.
This is Sony a company that could tap any of it s multitude of IP's. A company with 2 generaitons worth of gaming franchises to tap, and we didnt even get a Jak and Dax, or Sly cooper in the first 5 years of its exsistence?

[Soldier 95B]

I am still looking for the all New IP that Microsoft is releasing called Ryse. Another core for those concerned.

[mynd]

They are doing extremly well in the XBLA space as well, between Alan Wake, and Deadlight, they seem to be at least stil funding the higher class Live Arcade games...

[Soldier 95B]

XBLA went from Space Invader HD remakes to class leading downloadable digital content that is for sure. I am glad they have Shadow Complex 2 in development as well. I am so moist over that game.

Right now, Alan Wake: American Nightmare is my number one title I am looking forward to this year so far. Followed closely by Ghost Recon Future Soldier and Black Ops 2.

[radgamer420]

I am still looking for the all New IP that Microsoft is releasing called Ryse. Another core for those concerned.

Theres not even a release date for that game. I havent seen any footage or anything since last years E3. I'm interested in it though but theres been rumors that it will be a next gen title instead.

[MATRIX 2]

XBLA went from Space Invader HD remakes to class leading downloadable digital content that is for sure. I am glad they have Shadow Complex 2 in development as well. I am so moist over that game.

Right now, Alan Wake: American Nightmare is my number one title I am looking forward to this year so far. Followed closely by Ghost Recon Future Soldier and Black Ops 2.

says hi.

[Soldier 95B]

says hi.

I stand corrected. That is indeed in my top 5.

[sainraja]

No I didnt say that at all.

I really do love how people will change the past based on the future.
It ridiculous, its like you guys havent lived the past 5 years.

You honestly belive titles like Sly and Twisted Metal show Sony had faith in their older IP's.
Oh please, faith is getting them out the door 5 years after you start the generation?
Ratchett and Clank is of course the exception to the rule.
But if you honestly belive Sony back games like Twiseted Metal and Sly from the start of this generaiton then you must have lived in a different past 5 years than me.



What a load of shit, I never said any of that.
I said neither of them had introduced new IP in a long time, Im fucked if I know how you can twist that into Sony doesnt introduce any new IP.

What Microsofts path exactly?
Who launched the last new IP title this generation?



And no one is denying that, th sall come about because I mentioned that neither had introduced new IP in a while and you read that as "Sony hasnt introduced new IP this generation".
I then mention that Sony had shown less faith in bringin back older IP's.
This is Sony a company that could tap any of it s multitude of IP's. A company with 2 generaitons worth of gaming franchises to tap, and we didnt even get a Jak and Dax, or Sly cooper in the first 5 years of its exsistence?

What I want to ask you is that, why should they introduce their older IP's at the beginning of the generation? I think introduced newer IP's towards the beginning is the right way to go.

Secondly, I never denied that you said the same of Microsoft. I don't see how that matters when I was only speaking about Sony's IP (that I do know of.) Someone else is welcome to address your point about Microsoft if they disagree.

You've said many times in the past that Sony needs to introduce new IP's, if you didn't mention that in this thread, I apologize, I thought you had. When people have pointed out to you that they have, you point to their sequels to prove that they're no longer new IP's....to which someone corrected you and I think it was rad who did, by pointing out that he was TALKING about this generation as a whole (he was clarifying that Sony has introduced new IP's this generation -- he wasn't speaking about a specific year.)

Then you start talking about how Sony does not have faith in their older IP's since they haven't introduced them....when the fact is, they are and they have. I've pointed that out to you. The time they choose to do it is irrelevant but I still pointed out games that came earlier on in the generation.

Again, I didn't read that as Sony hasn't introduce any new IP.....I saw you mentioned Microsoft as well. I just didn't respond to that. I know about Sony's older IP's.....not Microsoft so I couldn't have spoken to that if I wanted to.

[I OU a Beatn]

Despite being one of the best publishers in the industry, and managing to bring out critical hit after critical hit, Sony has failed to produce huge chart-topping games like Gears of War and Halo. Outside of Gran Turismo, Sony’s IPs have yet to hit the big time, partially due to poor marketing – something that Sony’s Worldwide Studios President has taken notice of.When questioned by GameInformer why Microsoft were able to sell just one game in 2011, Gears of War 3 (although, to be fair, they did have other games), and it still managed to sell more than all of Sony’s products combined, Shuhei Yoshida admitted that their increased lineup stretched marketing funds and focus (emphasis added):

It’s a combination of many things. First, we have to be very honest about our games’ quality as well. We love our games, but we can point out many issues when you look at the titles individually.
Another thing is focus. When you have ten games coming out in a year compared to two or three, how much focus you get from our business and marketing side is very hard. From a portfolio side, we were very excited about the games we had last year, but we probably diluted support for each title.

He was then asked whether Sony could end up producing less games. After talking about Sony’s love for new IPs he closed with an admission that the company should develop fewer games and support them more (emphasis added):

It’s easy to say, “Yeah, let’s make three games a year.” But game development is dynamic. You cannot plan to do that. You already have to have a certain number of games in the pipeline hoping they hit in a certain year. We love working on new IPs. It’s really hard to predict when these games get finished.
It’s a challenge, but I think we could and probably should be focused on a smaller number of titles so each one gets the best support.

With titles like The Last Guardian - which sadly is unlikely to sell well – being stuck in development for years, and games like Resistance 3 failing to pass a million sales, Sony’s plan to release a huge number of quality games doesn’t seem to be working for them. And, when you factor in the fact that Microsoft has managed to top the NPD six months running with the help of a fewer number or far higher marketed products, it’s understandable why the cash-strapped company might want to release fewer games. Unfortunately, while a drop in Sony-produced content might be good for their bank balance, it certainly isn’t good for gamers – titles like Heavy Rain and Flower would never have been funded by a different publisher.With the PlayStation 4′s release drawing ever closer, it’ll be interesting to see which route Sony decides to adopt – tons of games, little marketing or a few games with tons of marketing. I know which one I’d prefer.

I figured this kind of tied in with a previous argument in this thread about the number of Sony's exclusives vs the number of MS' exclusives. Even Sony agrees!

[mynd]

What I want to ask you is that, why should they introduce their older IP's at the beginning of the generation? I think introduced newer IP's towards the beginning is the right way to go.

Who said they had to? You take one comment, which was simply that, a comment, and read a hell of a lot more into it than was ever posted.
For whatever reason, you appear to be on crusade of justice and right for things never even said or implied.

I never passed judgement on Sonys lack of faith in bringing back IP's, nor did I imply it.
I never said it was a good thing, I didnt say it was bad thing either, I simply said that had shown less faith in it.
If anything it was justificaiton for Sony having more new IP, as studios had moved onto new projects.

Secondly, I never denied that you said the same of Microsoft. I don't see how that matters when I was only speaking about Sony's IP (that I do know of.) Someone else is welcome to address your point about Microsoft if they disagree.

"when I was only speaking about Sony's IP",
What?
YOU werent speaking about anything, you were saying I had said this thing.
Of which, as I have repteadly told you. I never said anything of the sort.

You've said many times in the past that Sony needs to introduce new IP's, if you didn't mention that in this thread, I apologize, I thought you had. When people have pointed out to you that they have, you point to their sequels to prove that they're no longer new IP's....to which someone corrected you and I think it was rad who did, by pointing out that he was TALKING about this generation as a whole (he was clarifying that Sony has introduced new IP's this generation -- he wasn't speaking about a specific year.)

Again, I never said they hadnt created new IP.
Yes Rad pointed out that they created new IP, then procedded to say that MS had only done Gear sand Alan Wake.
Which as I pointe dout was not true.
Now how you get from that discusison to "neither had created new IP's this generation" is beyond me.
It really is.

Then you start talking about how Sony does not have faith in their older IP's since they haven't introduced them....when the fact is, they are and they have. I've pointed that out to you. The time they choose to do it is irrelevant but I still pointed out games that came earlier on in the generation.

Oh god. I fele like Im stuck in a time loop.

Again, I didn't read that as Sony hasn't introduce any new IP.....I saw you mentioned Microsoft as well. I just didn't respond to that. I know about Sony's older IP's.....not Microsoft so I couldn't have spoken to that if I wanted to.

And again, no one said anything about Sony or Microsoft not introducing new IP this generation.
Nor did any one pass judgement on weather that was a good thing or a bad thing.
Sony choose to get studios focusing on newer IP this gen rather than older IP.
I understand that, I'm not sure why you cant.
They put faith in Uncharted, not Jak and Dax.
They put faith in inFamous not Sly.

I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing at all.

[sainraja]

You're misunderstanding me or I haven't done a good job in communicating what I have been trying to say. So, let's recap...

You go, Sony and Microsoft haven't introduced new core IP's in years....

I havent seen any new core IP's from either in years.

I think The Last of US is probably the first from either for a very long time.

radgamer says wait a minute, that's not quite true because Sony has introduced....

Uncharted, Infamous, Motorstorm, Heavy Rain and Starhawk are new this generation for example. I already said more than once that I'm talking about new ips brought this gen not just recently. Although we do have The Last of Us coming. But MS has brought Gears and Alan Wake so far for new core ips this gen.

He makes it a point to say that he's talking about THIS generation.

To that, you say......oh Microsoft brought back IP's from last gen, look....Sony didn't! (notice how you just went from talking about new ip's to old ip's..?

MS bought us:

Mass Effect
Viva Pinata
Crackdown
Lost Odeysey
Blue Dragon
Kameo
Lips

They had some strong IP from last gen, some of it they bought back.
Sony clearly has less faith in their IP from the PS2 era.

So rad goes....wait a sec....that's not quite true either because Sony has brought back older IP's just like Microsoft...

Mass Effect ip is multiplatform now. Those others with the exception of maybe Crackdown are pretty sad and pretty much bombed. And talking about less faith in ips from last gen just take a look at all the old ips MS is sitting on and where are they all? MS clearly has no faith in their IPs from the Xbox era. And Sony did bring back IPs from their PS2 days. What do you think Twisted Metal, GOW, Killzone, etc. are?

And then I join and say....let's not forget Sly....Sony's also bringing that back.

They are also bringing back the Sly series, which is from the PS2 era. We've also had Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4 (before someone says anything, the new status of the IP didn't stop mynd from mentioning Mass Effect.)

In response to that, you say...

Huh?
Sony didnt fund and publish Metal Gear Solid 4, nor was it a new IP.

So, now, we've gone from no new IP in years, to no old IP, to that's not a new IP. I can let this one slide, as it was a misunderstanding (you didn't get my Mass Effect comparison.)

How did that happen?

--

I'll ignore all that and end the conversation by saying the following (a bit of a repeat.) Sony had the right balance of introducing new & old IP's this generation. They may not have found a COD or Halo...but that's hasn't stopped them from introducing other IP's such as The Last of Us, etc.

I am not saying that you find something wrong with that. This conversation has gone from point to the next and a bit confusing at this point.

EDIT

I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing at all.

And I don't think I was implying that you said that. I think I got too focused on the back and forth.....doesn't matter. Moving on....

[mynd]

You're misunderstanding me or I haven't done a good job in communicating what I have been trying to say. So, let's recap...

You go, Sony and Microsoft haven't introduced new core IP's in years....



radgamer says wait a minute, that's not quite true because Sony has introduced....

Err no, what I said was true, becuase I said the original satement, and I never defined "a few years" as being "the start of this generation".

Whos putting what words into whos mouth, and who is changeing the "subject" here again exactly.

I said "in a few years" and Rad says "Well they have this gen".
Fair enough, but that is "NOT" what I said now was it.

Honestly, its like saying "the sky is blue today" and some one piping up "yeah but it was grey yesterday".
Did I say it wasnt?

He makes it a point to say that he's talking about THIS generation.

and thats fine, I made the point that I wasnt talking about from the begining of the generation.
We both understand each other, all is well.

To that, you say......oh Microsoft brought back IP's from last gen, look....Sony didn't! (notice how you just went from talking about new ip's to old ip's..?

What WTF?

I said "sony didnt"?
Where did I say that?
What I said was, Sony didnt bring as many back (implying that frees up the devs to develop on NEW IP).
Is this really that hard to understand.
You cant have both, you cant have Naughty Dog working on Jak and Dax AND Uncharted can you?

So rad goes....wait a sec....that's not quite true either because Sony has brought back older IP's just like Microsoft...

To which I say, yes they did, I never said they didnt.

And then I join and say....let's not forget Sly....Sony's also bringing that back.

At which point i point out that making sly now, is not the same as making sly instead of INfmaous.

In response to that, you say...



So, now, we've gone from no new IP in years, to no old IP, to that's not a new IP. I can let this one slide, as it was a misunderstanding (you didn't get my Mass Effect comparison.)

Yes it was, we have discussed that one.

How did that happen?

--

I'll ignore all that and end the conversation by saying the following (a bit of a repeat.) Sony had the right balance of introducing new & old IP's this generation. They may not have found a COD or Halo...but that's hasn't stopped them from introducing other IP's such as The Last of Us, etc.

I am not saying that you find something wrong with that. This conversation has gone from point to the next and a bit confusing at this point.

EDIT



And I don't think I was implying that you said that. I think I got too focused on the back and forth.....doesn't matter. Moving on....[/COLOR]

I have no view on weather Sony had the right balance or not, just like I don thave a view on weather MS had the right balance of not.
Thats entirley subjective.

All I was commenting on was the fact that Sony chose to get their software houses working on new IP instead of thier older IP.

Sony had the right balance of introducing new & old IP's this generation.

The ony people who can truley judge that is Sony.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

You're misunderstanding me or I haven't done a good job in communicating what I have been trying to say. So, let's recap...

You go, Sony and Microsoft haven't introduced new core IP's in years....



radgamer says wait a minute, that's not quite true because Sony has introduced....


He makes it a point to say that he's talking about THIS generation.

To that, you say......oh Microsoft brought back IP's from last gen, look....Sony didn't! (notice how you just went from talking about new ip's to old ip's..?

So rad goes....wait a sec....that's not quite true either because Sony has brought back older IP's just like Microsoft...

And then I join and say....let's not forget Sly....Sony's also bringing that back.



In response to that, you say...



So, now, we've gone from no new IP in years, to no old IP, to that's not a new IP. I can let this one slide, as it was a misunderstanding (you didn't get my Mass Effect comparison.)

How did that happen?

--

I'll ignore all that and end the conversation by saying the following (a bit of a repeat.) Sony had the right balance of introducing new & old IP's this generation. They may not have found a COD or Halo...but that's hasn't stopped them from introducing other IP's such as The Last of Us, etc.

I am not saying that you find something wrong with that. This conversation has gone from point to the next and a bit confusing at this point.

EDIT



And I don't think I was implying that you said that. I think I got too focused on the back and forth.....doesn't matter. Moving on....[/COLOR]

+rep

[sainraja]

What WTF?

I said "sony didnt"?
Where did I say that?
What I said was, Sony didnt bring as many back (implying that frees up the devs to develop on NEW IP).
Is this really that hard to understand.
You cant have both, you cant have Naughty Dog working on Jak and Dax AND Uncharted can you?

No, no....and forgive me for putting it like that. Let me clarify that point a little bit more. You were saying Microsoft had some strong IP from last generation that they brought back. After saying that, you mention Sony and how they have less faith in their older IP's.

Yes. You did not say that Sony did not bring back older IP's. All you suggested was that they had less faith. The disagreement is that no, Sony brought back quite a few of their old IP's back, even if you remove Sly from the picture.

We've got Killzone, God of War, Warhawk, Ratchet and Socom, etc. More recently they have announced Twisted along with Sly. I don't understand how that shows less faith in older IP's. You can go ahead and disregard Twisted/Sly -- removing those titles does not take away from this point. I think the time of announcement and release is irrelevant when the generation isn't over yet.

As for comment on Sony's balance of new and old. I think we can comment on it, simply by observing what they did. They announced new IP's towards the beginning and released sequels to those IP's later. They release those along with some of the older ones. Now, they are bringing back even more....

You can argue that I don't know if that was Sony's strategy....I don't think that matters. We know they released new IP's at the start of the beginning.

They did it when the PS3 released with Resistance, followed that up with Lair and Heavenly Sword (even if those were not considered successful and mind you they haven't released sequels to those -- only saying this because you have a problem with some IP's that they continue, which in your eyes haven't been successes), point being....those were new IP's.

Now, the a few years does not mean the start of this generation point, I mentioned in one of my posts that you can get away by saying Sony or Microsoft hasn't introduced new IP in years by picking a specific year...

Why do they both need to introduce a new IP every year to be credited that they introduce new IP's?

I am tired of using the word IP....we don't need to continue this conversation but I don't mind if you want to, if there is something I can respond to, I will. I know what you were trying to say now. I was just explaining where I was coming from. We see things differently.

[mynd]

No, no....and forgive me for putting it like that. Let me clarify that point a little bit more. You were saying Microsoft had some strong IP from last generation that they brought back. After saying that, you mention Sony and how they have less faith in their older IP's.

Yes. You did not say that Sony did not bring back older IP's. All you suggested was that they had less faith. The disagreement is that no, Sony brought back quite a few of their old IP's back, even if you remove Sly from the picture.

We've got Killzone, God of War, Warhawk, Ratchet and Socom, etc. More recently they have announced Twisted along with Sly. I don't understand how that shows less faith in older IP's. You can go ahead and disregard Twisted/Sly -- removing those titles does not take away from this point. I think the time of announcement and release is irrelevant when the generation isn't over yet.

As for comment on Sony's balance of new and old. I think we can comment on it, simply by observing what they did. They announced new IP's towards the beginning and released sequels to those IP's later. They release those along with some of the older ones. Now, they are bringing back even more....

You can argue that I don't know if that was Sony's strategy....I don't think that matters. We know they released new IP's at the start of the beginning.

They did it when the PS3 released with Resistance, followed that up with Lair and Heavenly Sword (even if those were not considered successful and mind you they haven't released sequels to those -- only saying this because you have a problem with some IP's that they continue, which in your eyes haven't been successes), point being....those were new IP's.

Now, the a few years does not mean the start of this generation point, I mentioned in one of my posts that you can get away by saying Sony or Microsoft hasn't introduced new IP in years by picking a specific year...

Why do they both need to introduce a new IP every year to be credited that they introduce new IP's?

I am tired of using the word IP....we don't need to continue this conversation but I don't mind if you want to, if there is something I can respond to, I will. I know what you were trying to say now. I was just explaining where I was coming from. We see things differently.

I'll reply with this little fact for you:

Sonys strong IP's (based on best selling PS2 games).


Gran Turismo
Jak and Daxter
Ratchet & Clank
SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs
God of War

How many of those got an outing within 24 months of the PS3's launch?

2 (SOCOM and R&C)

how many got an outing in the first 36 months of the PS3

2 (SOCOM and R&C)

You can argue Sony has bought back IP's etc all you want, but what I said Ive backed up by the facts.
They had less faith in their stongest IP's.

2 franchise out of their 5 in the first 36 months?

Then they followed that up by giving SOCOM fans and awefull game not even developed by Zipper.

Its not a hard formula to follow, take your strongets IP's and lead with them.


So nothing I said was incorrect at all.

[sainraja]

I'll reply with this little fact for you:

Sonys strong IP's (based on best selling PS2 games).


Gran Turismo
Jak and Daxter
Ratchet & Clank
SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs
God of War

How many of those got an outing within 24 months of the PS3's launch?

2 (SOCOM and R&C)

how many got an outing in the first 36 months of the PS3

2 (SOCOM and R&C)

You can argue Sony has bought back IP's etc all you want, but what I said Ive backed up by the facts.
They had less faith in their stongest IP's.

2 franchise out of their 5 in the first 36 months?

Then they followed that up by giving SOCOM fans and awefull game not even developed by Zipper.

Its not a hard formula to follow, take your strongets IP's and lead with them.

So nothing I said was incorrect at all.

You can be selective and pick a specific year and get away with saying that. I've already said this before. I think the timing of release for old or new IP is irrelevant. You need to take the entire generation into the picture -- the start of the gen to now and what happens going forward.)

Sony wanted to lead the start of the generation with new IP's and that is what they did.

We had Resistance in 2006. We had Uncharted in 2007 and Little Big Planet in 2008. They did release some older IP's along with those titles. Now we have three series that the PS3 identifies with.

X360 saw the release of Gears of War in 2006. That's one of the new IP's that the 360 identifies with. If Microsoft had released more new IP's, like Sony has. It would have more new IP's to identify with.

The PS3 is associated with Nathan Drake, Sack Boy along with Kratos, etc. I think Sony's has the right balance (I know that I have mentioned mostly new IP's with this post, but I've already pointed out old IP's that they released, you're just being nit-picky regarding those to support your point that Sony has less faith.)

If they had less faith in their old IP's, we wouldn't have seen the release of God of War, Warhawk, Ratchet etc. You haven't given a good reason to support your opinion of Sony having less faith. The timing doesn't matter and you also mentioned how they were the best selling games on the PS2. So, you think Sony went, oh these titles were too successful, let's not release them for the PS3 or release them later?

Doesn't make sense.

Just because they did not release Jak & Daxter? Why should they have forced naughtydog to work on that when they created a new successful IP for Sony in the likes of Uncharted?

Sony's done fine in terms of the games they released this generation.

[mynd]

You can be selective and pick a specific year and get away with saying that. I've already said this before. I think the timing of release for old or new IP is irrelevant. You need to take the entire generation into the picture -- the start of the gen to now and what happens going forward.)

How can it be irrelevant when talking about the amount of faith they put into the product compared to someone else.
if you dont bring out as many of your lead products as quickly as someone else, then you show less faith in them than they did.

Sony wanted to lead the start of the generation with new IP's and that is what they did.

And no one is arguing that, that is infact what we have said.

We had Resistance in 2006. We had Uncharted in 2007 and Little Big Planet in 2008. They did release some older IP's along with those titles. Now we have three series that the PS3 identifies with.

X360 saw the release of Gears of War in 2006. That's one of the new IP's that the 360 identifies with. If Microsoft had released more new IP's, like Sony has. It would have more new IP's to identify with.

Viva Piniata and Crackdown dont get a mention why exactly?

The PS3 is associated with Nathan Drake, Sack Boy along with Kratos, etc. I think Sony's has the right balance (I know that I have mentioned mostly new IP's with this post, but I've already pointed out old IP's that they released, you're just being nit-picky regarding those to support your point that Sony has less faith.)

If they had less faith in their old IP's, we wouldn't have seen the release of God of War, Warhawk, Ratchet etc. You haven't given a good reason to support your opinion of Sony having less faith. The timing doesn't matter and you also mentioned how they were the best selling games on the PS2. So, you think Sony went, oh these titles were too successful, let's not release them for the PS3 or release them later?

<sighs>
They had less faith than MS, period.
They didnt bring them back as quickly, thats undisbutable.
Just because a company brings them back at a later date, that could be for a pleathora of reasons, including a regime change.
Do they have more faith in them now? Clearly they do now. That doesnt cancel out the fact that they didnt at earlier stages compared to MS.

Doesn't make sense.

Just because they did not release Jak & Daxter? Why should they have forced naughtydog to work on that when they created a new successful IP for Sony in the likes of Uncharted?

Sony's done fine in terms of the games they released this generation.

No one ever said they hadnt.
But the facts are they showed less faith than MS did in their leading IP.

[JVH]

The fact ? Really ? Fact is Sony still had ps2 out on the market and games sold well on that for a couple of years in the ps3´s life. They had no need rushing in with old ip´s...
Ms had poor sales with the original xbox (compared to ps2) so they had to choose another strategy.
Ps3 was a perfect platform for sony to use with new ip´s. It has nothing to do with having "less" faith.