Big budget titles: PS3 vs 360. MS fails making new i.ps profitable outside of Gears

[Two4DaMoney]

What's being discussed is titles that generate a profit(big or small) which ultimately decides a sequel/prequel. Please stick to that topic.

Microsoft's exclusives that received sequels/prequels are gears(new i.p), halo, fable, forza. That's 1 new i.p over a 7 year span. Correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't add alan wake because the 360 didn't make that a profitable series. It only became profitable once they released the PC version.

Sony's exclusives that received sequels/prequels. Infamous(new i.p.), Killzone, Little big planet(new i.p.), God of War, Resistance(new i.p.), Yakuza, gran turisimo, Uncharted(new i.p.), MLB: The show, Motorstorm(new i.p.), Ratchet & Clank, Heavy Rain(new i.p.). That's 6 new i.ps over a 6 year span. Expand that to 7 years and the list shoots up to 8 i.ps(possibly 10) given that The last of us and Beyond:Two souls are 2013 titles and Gurilla games and Sucker punch are making a new i.p(likely ps4 titles)

Say what you want about Sony but they have obviously found some kind of success in this area where MS hasn't. MS dropped the ball big time when it comes to this discussed area.

[radgamer420]

Crackdown is a new ip this gen and got a sequel (that flopped). I consider Horizon a new ip (despite using the Forza name)but that game has also flopped so far. So Gears would be the only profitable new ip but the number of new ips period would be 4. AW,Crackdown,Gears and Horizon. 3 out of 4 of those flopped. So yeah to point out Sony for making games "nobody buys" while praising the retail success of 360 exclusives is a bit disingenous.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Crackdown is a new ip this gen and got a sequel (that flopped). I consider Horizon a new ip (despite using the Forza name)but that game has also flopped so far. So Gears would be the only profitable new ip but the number of new ips period would be 4. AW,Crackdown,Gears and Horizon. 3 out of 4 of those flopped. So yeah to point out Sony for making games "nobody buys" while praising the retail success of 360 exclusives is a bit disingenous.

I agree. There is often a lot of cherry picking in those discussions.

[DarkVincent07]

Sony is MUCH more willing to take risks. The 360 has ended up with some good exclusives but even if Sony ones don't sell THAT well, they still seem to give them a good chance

[MATRIX 2]

Yeah, lets ignore Mass Effect which would have probably have gone nowhere if it wasn't for MS backing bioware.

[radgamer420]

I agree. There is often a lot of cherry picking in those discussions.

Agreed. And at the end of the day I enjoy both consoles for what they give me. I win as a gamer.

[radgamer420]

Yeah, lets ignore Mass Effect which would have probably have gone nowhere if it wasn't for MS backing bioware.

A valid point and as it turned out ME2 and ME3 hardly sold on PS3 and ME3 sold 4 times as many copies on the 360.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

A valid point and as it turned out ME2 and ME3 hardly sold on PS3 and ME3 sold 4 times as many copies on the 360.

To be expected when a game is heavily associated with the other console first.

[radgamer420]

To be expected when a game is heavily associated with the other console first.

Which really drives home the point Matrix made.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

I think MS could have made plenty of profitable IPs had it wished. All that was required is abit of risk taking and investment. MS saw that they weren't needed to sell the console however, so opted to invest in things that would appeal to demographics outside of core gaming.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Sony took more shots, so had more hits. Imagine if MS worked on things in the same spirit as TLOU and Beyond; spirit being key word...I mean new IP that is aggressive in its advancement and unique in character i.e not generic 3rd person shooters, FPS etc. I don't get it...MS seemingly has the most fertile soil and it chooses not to sow any seeds.

[radgamer420]

I think MS could have made plenty of profitable IPs had it wished. All that was required is abit of risk taking and investment. MS saw that they weren't needed to sell the console however, so opted to invest in things that would appeal to demographics outside of core gaming.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Sony took more shots, so had more hits. Imagine if MS worked on things in the same spirit as TLOU and Beyond; spirit being key word...I mean new IP that is aggressive in its advancement and unique in character i.e not generic 3rd person shooters, FPS etc. I don't get it...MS seemingly has the most fertile soil and it chooses not to sow any seeds.

Yeah their strategy seems to be to start a generation with strong exclusives which is when its most important and then let 3rd party dominate in the last half when having more exclusives isnt as important. The thing is that MS is sitting on alot of good existing ips but isnt doing anything with them.

[MATRIX 2]

I think MS could have made plenty of profitable IPs had it wished. All that was required is abit of risk taking and investment. MS saw that they weren't needed to sell the console however, so opted to invest in things that would appeal to demographics outside of core gaming.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Sony took more shots, so had more hits. Imagine if MS worked on things in the same spirit as TLOU and Beyond; spirit being key word...I mean new IP that is aggressive in its advancement and unique in character i.e not generic 3rd person shooters, FPS etc. I don't get it...MS seemingly has the most fertile soil and it chooses not to sow any seeds.

I think you are missing the bigger picture.

[AaronSOLDIER]

True but I'd say Sony is definitely lacking on the new IPs this gen also compared to previous gens (wheres all the Sony RPGs this gen? they had a ton of 1P/2P RPGs on the PS1).

[Soldier 95B]

Where have you all found the info that says which title is profitable? I googled to no avail.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[DeviousOne]

I haven't found and solid facts that support the argument in favor of either opinion

[Silver_Knight]

I love how Sony takes risks, however, MS doesn't have to take many risks apparently. They're doing well so they don't need it

[shingi70]

Crackdown
Horizon sub series
Lost Odyessy
Blue Dragon
Alan Wake
Ninety nine nights
Ninja blade
Kinect sports
Kinect adventure

Not to mention XBLA but this thread is about big budget titles


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[shingi70]

I think MS could have made plenty of profitable IPs had it wished. All that was required is abit of risk taking and investment. MS saw that they weren't needed to sell the console however, so opted to invest in things that would appeal to demographics outside of core gaming.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Sony took more shots, so had more hits. Imagine if MS worked on things in the same spirit as TLOU and Beyond; spirit being key word...I mean new IP that is aggressive in its advancement and unique in character i.e not generic 3rd person shooters, FPS etc. I don't get it...MS seemingly has the most fertile soil and it chooses not to sow any seeds.

Well you pretty much just said why they stopped.


Microsoft during the middle and tail end of this console vyvlred focused on three major aspects


1)Big Tent Pole releases
2)Kinect and Services
3)XBLA

The big tent pole releases are titles like Halo, gears, and forza brands that everyone knows and usually sell pretty well.

2)There was also a major push on kinect and services. Whereas Sony failed with the move Microsoft was able to grab the Wii market with kinect. This allowed them to grab a ton of non gamers and build up a pretty intense software ecosystem and getting even core developers to build on it. They also focused on services like no other getting stuff like HBO GO and WatchESPN. They also have delved into livestreaming with (E3, democratic and republic conventions, debates, election results and the VGAs).


All of that has gotten Microsoft a bigger audience than it would with just investing in gaming. I know several non gamers who are buying 360s for the various non gaming purposes. (Watchespn, smart glass, kinect TV, Nike+ fitness)

This video says it all on what Microsoft's goal is and have been working on for a while where others will have to play catch up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ld...e_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZh...e_gdata_player

3)While Microsoft has stopped with big retail new IP they have embraced their download platform and fund and publishers a variety of different games of original IP and ideas. They have embraced their download platform in a way that Sony uses retail for.






Also there are still new IP from Microsoft like the Kinect TV series and its evident by job postings that most of their development studios have gone through re hauls and are working on next gen as well s windows phone and windows 8.




Also as much as I hear about Microsoft not trying anything new from a pure tech and interface perspective Kinect and most importantly the WO way TV are ahead and more creative than anything Sony has done. Though its aimed at kids its an avenue that has a brought future and is an evolution of Kate and Milo. The way their packaging the content is also pretty interesting'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqKc...e_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q0R...e_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkJq...e_gdata_player



















Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[mynd]

We ignoring Viva Pinata franchise which spawned a TV series and 2 sequels?

Sony's exclusives that received sequels/prequels. Infamous(new i.p.), Killzone, Little big planet(new i.p.), God of War, Resistance(new i.p.), Yakuza, gran turisimo, Uncharted(new i.p.), MLB: The show, Motorstorm(new i.p.), Ratchet & Clank, Heavy Rain(new i.p.)

Gran Turismo? WTF? If thtas get in you list then so does Halo, Halo Wars, PGR 3 & 4, meh.
Motostorm, was and always has been a flop, it ruined the makers.

What you consider games that got sequels as being a defining factor of their success, is completely untrue.
You have zero proof any or all of any of those games actually made money,

And considering Sony has been loosing money this entire generations (sporadic profits aside), wheres your proof?

How new studios has Sony opened up recently?

None.
How many have they closed?

Tonnes.

Proofs in the pudding and all that.

Trying to prove Sony has made money out of games is an impossible task.

[radgamer420]

I haven't found and solid facts that support the argument in favor of either opinion

And you propably never will because tbh neither side has any solid proof of their argument. We're all just basically speculating here for the most part.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

lol Pretty much this^^.

[TGO]

One of the problems with Gears is its a 2nd party game
MS don't get all the dues they would get if iy was first party

Sent via Codec

[Yungstar 2006]

Say what you want about Sony but they have obviously found some kind of success in this area where MS hasn't. MS dropped the ball big time when it comes to this discussed area.

Halo 3 has outsold Resistance 1 + 2, Uncharted 1+2, Killzone 2 and God of War III COMBINED ... wow," boasts the Microsoft demagogue.

Read more at http://www.destructoid.com/ms-halo-3...va6xChiO3dm.99

just saying..

[Yungstar 2006]

Crackdown
Horizon sub series
Lost Odyessy
Blue Dragon
Alan Wake
Ninety nine nights
Ninja blade
Kinect sports
Kinect adventure

Not to mention XBLA but this thread is about big budget titles


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

of course its about big budget tittles, its the only way he could help make his point. a bit like when Sony add PS2 sales to PS3 to make it look better.

[Nitey]

I love how Sony takes risks

Agreed!

Some of their best games this gen have been games under the radar or games that no one buys