The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
...mine just went through the roof. I just saw in-game footage of Killzone 2 and it was unbelievable. Get a copy of this months PSW, there are about 10 different titles and the majority of them look brilliant. So now I know there's be plenty of titles I want to play, and that isn't even including GTA, I can't wait for PS3, supposing it is £300.
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
> Your point is irrelevant since you're focusing on completely the
> wrong console battle. Not my fault you assumed I meant the Cube.
I didn't.
> I'm talking about the N64 era when Nintendo had everything
> going for them but were beaten by a new competititor with a new
> approach. The same thing I forsee happening with MS and Sony this
> time around due to Sony's inflexible stance.
Nintendo have pretty much always been as I described, using their mascots a litle too much, it just went into hyperdrive as they realised they were failing.
And, what exactly did Nintendo have going for them? Obviously Sony had more, otherwise they wouldn't have succeeded, would they? For one thing, Nintendo kept with cartridges, when Sony used cheaper to produce and therefore cheaper to buy CDs.
When the hell did this get twisted into a debate on who'll win the next generation console battle, anyway? My original point was that you seemed to be placing speed of arrival on top of your list of reasons for buying something, and it seemed a bit stupid.
> Your point is irrelevant since you're focusing on completely the
> wrong console battle. Not my fault you assumed I meant the Cube.
I didn't.
> I'm talking about the N64 era when Nintendo had everything
> going for them but were beaten by a new competititor with a new
> approach. The same thing I forsee happening with MS and Sony this
> time around due to Sony's inflexible stance.
Nintendo have pretty much always been as I described, using their mascots a litle too much, it just went into hyperdrive as they realised they were failing.
And, what exactly did Nintendo have going for them? Obviously Sony had more, otherwise they wouldn't have succeeded, would they? For one thing, Nintendo kept with cartridges, when Sony used cheaper to produce and therefore cheaper to buy CDs.
When the hell did this get twisted into a debate on who'll win the next generation console battle, anyway? My original point was that you seemed to be placing speed of arrival on top of your list of reasons for buying something, and it seemed a bit stupid.
Hedfix wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> Now, it's clear to see the Ninty loving people still know absolutely
> nothing about the games industry per se :).
>
> Explain.
Nintendo fans, as a generalisiation, believe that the games drive software, and that the games are made on the whim of the developers making games with the utmost creativity and guile.
This is in fact false, and the console manufacters open slots to developers to produce games of a certain genre which suits their own line up.
Nintendo governs this rigourously, and Sony can't becasue it doesn't have as many first party development intrests to make sure it's recouping 60% of all the major releases on the platform.
That's why it has special relationships with a few major third party developers who will have little or no impact on Nintendo's own franchises, such as Capcom with Resi 4.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> Now, it's clear to see the Ninty loving people still know absolutely
> nothing about the games industry per se :).
>
> Explain.
Nintendo fans, as a generalisiation, believe that the games drive software, and that the games are made on the whim of the developers making games with the utmost creativity and guile.
This is in fact false, and the console manufacters open slots to developers to produce games of a certain genre which suits their own line up.
Nintendo governs this rigourously, and Sony can't becasue it doesn't have as many first party development intrests to make sure it's recouping 60% of all the major releases on the platform.
That's why it has special relationships with a few major third party developers who will have little or no impact on Nintendo's own franchises, such as Capcom with Resi 4.
Hedfix wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> The games came to the Sony platforms becasue of the good business
> practises from Sony. The actual games themselves were nothing to do
> with this.
>
> So Sony just made the console and went 'There you go - use it if you
> want I don't care'? :D
Pretty much, Sony first party support at the launch of the PS1? That'd be non existent then :).
> No publisher except Nintendo were committed solely to the Nintendo
> platforms as a priority, with stock shortages apparent on the
> system,
> as we see with the Gamecube today.
>
> As a priority? Apart from Acclaim then and possibly some others. But
> let's just stick with Acclaim because that does the job.
And Acclaim are, eh, bust, that'd be right too.
> Nintendo allowing others, eventually, to make their own cartridges
> was to try to get some of the business back from Sony and almost
> forced after EA started producing their own cartridges for the Mega
> Drive, the ones with the yellow tabs on them.
>
> Sorry which is it? Sony's Playstation or the megadrive? It's not like
> they were both launched at the same time.
EA only started producing their own carts eventually for the Mega Drive, it wasn't a striahgt after release thing. I distinctly remember NHL 96, which would be after the laugh of the PS1.
> At the end of the day, you could pull it all apart if you want but
> it's clear that Sony gained the jump on Nintendo and Sega, and ask
> any publisher in the industry, it was because of the manufacturing
> agreements, turn-around and returnability of Sony CD-Rom production.
>
> And the fact the end product wasn't completely crap. Oh and it had
> games people actually wanted to play and it managed to offer the best
> deal out of the 3DO, CDi and Saturn. But of course you forgot about
> Phillips and EA didn't you?
>
> Well that was one muddled post with inaccuracies and bits left out...
Not really, but if that's the way you want to look at it fair enough. Agreed it wasn't a full break down of the state of the industry with fully accurate dates for every single momentus event. Was simply trying to give a bit of an insight into what actually happened, with the major players. I did, in fact leave out the CDi, 3DO, Amiga CD and even the 32X and Mega CD, as they had little bearing on the relationship with Nintendo and Sony with game publishers.
If you want to write an exhaustive critique of the industry in the 90s, feel free :).
> Bonus wrote:
> The games came to the Sony platforms becasue of the good business
> practises from Sony. The actual games themselves were nothing to do
> with this.
>
> So Sony just made the console and went 'There you go - use it if you
> want I don't care'? :D
Pretty much, Sony first party support at the launch of the PS1? That'd be non existent then :).
> No publisher except Nintendo were committed solely to the Nintendo
> platforms as a priority, with stock shortages apparent on the
> system,
> as we see with the Gamecube today.
>
> As a priority? Apart from Acclaim then and possibly some others. But
> let's just stick with Acclaim because that does the job.
And Acclaim are, eh, bust, that'd be right too.
> Nintendo allowing others, eventually, to make their own cartridges
> was to try to get some of the business back from Sony and almost
> forced after EA started producing their own cartridges for the Mega
> Drive, the ones with the yellow tabs on them.
>
> Sorry which is it? Sony's Playstation or the megadrive? It's not like
> they were both launched at the same time.
EA only started producing their own carts eventually for the Mega Drive, it wasn't a striahgt after release thing. I distinctly remember NHL 96, which would be after the laugh of the PS1.
> At the end of the day, you could pull it all apart if you want but
> it's clear that Sony gained the jump on Nintendo and Sega, and ask
> any publisher in the industry, it was because of the manufacturing
> agreements, turn-around and returnability of Sony CD-Rom production.
>
> And the fact the end product wasn't completely crap. Oh and it had
> games people actually wanted to play and it managed to offer the best
> deal out of the 3DO, CDi and Saturn. But of course you forgot about
> Phillips and EA didn't you?
>
> Well that was one muddled post with inaccuracies and bits left out...
Not really, but if that's the way you want to look at it fair enough. Agreed it wasn't a full break down of the state of the industry with fully accurate dates for every single momentus event. Was simply trying to give a bit of an insight into what actually happened, with the major players. I did, in fact leave out the CDi, 3DO, Amiga CD and even the 32X and Mega CD, as they had little bearing on the relationship with Nintendo and Sony with game publishers.
If you want to write an exhaustive critique of the industry in the 90s, feel free :).
Hedfix wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> Now, it's clear to see the Ninty loving people still know absolutely
> nothing about the games industry per se :).
>
> Explain.
> Bonus wrote:
> Now, it's clear to see the Ninty loving people still know absolutely
> nothing about the games industry per se :).
>
> Explain.
Bonus wrote:
> The games came to the Sony platforms becasue of the good business
> practises from Sony. The actual games themselves were nothing to do
> with this.
So Sony just made the console and went 'There you go - use it if you want I don't care'? :D
>
> No publisher except Nintendo were committed solely to the Nintendo
> platforms as a priority, with stock shortages apparent on the system,
> as we see with the Gamecube today.
As a priority? Apart from Acclaim then and possibly some others. But let's just stick with Acclaim because that does the job.
>
> Nintendo allowing others, eventually, to make their own cartridges
> was to try to get some of the business back from Sony and almost
> forced after EA started producing their own cartridges for the Mega
> Drive, the ones with the yellow tabs on them.
Sorry which is it? Sony's Playstation or the megadrive? It's not like they were both launched at the same time.
>
> At the end of the day, you could pull it all apart if you want but
> it's clear that Sony gained the jump on Nintendo and Sega, and ask
> any publisher in the industry, it was because of the manufacturing
> agreements, turn-around and returnability of Sony CD-Rom production.
And the fact the end product wasn't completely crap. Oh and it had games people actually wanted to play and it managed to offer the best deal out of the 3DO, CDi and Saturn. But of course you forgot about Phillips and EA didn't you?
Well that was one muddled post with inaccuracies and bits left out...
> The games came to the Sony platforms becasue of the good business
> practises from Sony. The actual games themselves were nothing to do
> with this.
So Sony just made the console and went 'There you go - use it if you want I don't care'? :D
>
> No publisher except Nintendo were committed solely to the Nintendo
> platforms as a priority, with stock shortages apparent on the system,
> as we see with the Gamecube today.
As a priority? Apart from Acclaim then and possibly some others. But let's just stick with Acclaim because that does the job.
>
> Nintendo allowing others, eventually, to make their own cartridges
> was to try to get some of the business back from Sony and almost
> forced after EA started producing their own cartridges for the Mega
> Drive, the ones with the yellow tabs on them.
Sorry which is it? Sony's Playstation or the megadrive? It's not like they were both launched at the same time.
>
> At the end of the day, you could pull it all apart if you want but
> it's clear that Sony gained the jump on Nintendo and Sega, and ask
> any publisher in the industry, it was because of the manufacturing
> agreements, turn-around and returnability of Sony CD-Rom production.
And the fact the end product wasn't completely crap. Oh and it had games people actually wanted to play and it managed to offer the best deal out of the 3DO, CDi and Saturn. But of course you forgot about Phillips and EA didn't you?
Well that was one muddled post with inaccuracies and bits left out...
The games came to the Sony platforms becasue of the good business practises from Sony. The actual games themselves were nothing to do with this.
No publisher except Nintendo were committed solely to the Nintendo platforms as a priority, with stock shortages apparent on the system, as we see with the Gamecube today.
Nintendo allowing others, eventually, to make their own cartridges was to try to get some of the business back from Sony and almost forced after EA started producing their own cartridges for the Mega Drive, the ones with the yellow tabs on them.
At the end of the day, you could pull it all apart if you want but it's clear that Sony gained the jump on Nintendo and Sega, and ask any publisher in the industry, it was because of the manufacturing agreements, turn-around and returnability of Sony CD-Rom production.
No publisher except Nintendo were committed solely to the Nintendo platforms as a priority, with stock shortages apparent on the system, as we see with the Gamecube today.
Nintendo allowing others, eventually, to make their own cartridges was to try to get some of the business back from Sony and almost forced after EA started producing their own cartridges for the Mega Drive, the ones with the yellow tabs on them.
At the end of the day, you could pull it all apart if you want but it's clear that Sony gained the jump on Nintendo and Sega, and ask any publisher in the industry, it was because of the manufacturing agreements, turn-around and returnability of Sony CD-Rom production.
Hedfix wrote:
> Nintendo can only look in at themselves to find out how they fell
> behind, and it HAS NOTHING to do with the actual games.
>
> Actually it has somethingto do with the games as there are many
> factors - one of which is the games. If the Playstation's had a
> catalogue of entirely rubbish games then Nintendo/Microsoft would be
> the market leader.
Agreed.
Running a tight and well organised ship is all well and good, but it doesn't make any difference if the end product is rubbish.
> Nintendo can only look in at themselves to find out how they fell
> behind, and it HAS NOTHING to do with the actual games.
>
> Actually it has somethingto do with the games as there are many
> factors - one of which is the games. If the Playstation's had a
> catalogue of entirely rubbish games then Nintendo/Microsoft would be
> the market leader.
Agreed.
Running a tight and well organised ship is all well and good, but it doesn't make any difference if the end product is rubbish.
Bonus wrote:
> Now, it's clear to see the Ninty loving people still know absolutely
> nothing about the games industry per se :).
Explain.
> Nintendo had already lost to Sony before it even launched the N64,
> becasue very few people except Nintendo themselves were committed
> solely to making games for that console, and here's why.
People? Businesses you mean. As I recall the N64 had quite a few publishers.
> Nintendo and Sega had an almost medevil business cartell running to
> make sure they maximised their profits from low numbers of game
> sales. They made publishers pay for games in advance, per cart. So,
> when a developer and publisher agreed the game was fit to go Gold,
> they sent an order to Nintendo for all the cartridges they thought
> they could sell through in stores.
>
> Nintendo themselves made every cartridge which appeared on their own
> consoles, and this process took a minimum of 8 weeks to happen, and
> sometimes up to 12. So, for anyone to release a game for Christmas,
> they had to have their order into Nintendo by the end of August
> really to make sure it hit the shelves. Meaning publisher and
> developer alike had a 2 to 3 month black whole before making any
> money from their own hard work.
>
Nope Nintendo allowed some publishers licences to manufacture their own games.
> So, if the game sold more than expected, the developer and publisher
> couldn't capitalise on this before Christmas, as they had to wait 8
> to 12 weeks for more cartridges. If the game sold less than
> expected, then tough, Nintendo didn't want to know.
>
> Now, Sony came along with it's PS2 between the SNES and N64, and it
> brought a whole new business practice to the table. Sony was already
> producing a vast amount of music cd's, so it had the facilities
> worldwide to produce discs at a 2 to 4 week turnaround for any
> developer and publisher combination in the world, at a higher number
> of units than Nintendo could manage. It also allowed publishers to
> leave payments to the company until after the games had actually
> sold, and even RETURN units which didn't seel, without having to pay
> for them.
>
> Publishers love Sony for this and the amount of money supplied by
> Sony and publishers all over the world to market and sell the PS1 and
> PS2 as a lifestyle device worked wonders. This publisher relationship
> has not soured, and no other console manufacturer has been able to get
> the same publisher support as Sony have. This was dented slightly by
> the difficulty of developing for the PS2, but if Sony maintain their
> business practise, and deliver a relatively easy to use platform for
> the next generation, they'll mop up again as publishers, developers
> and Sony themselves are in a business environment suited to making
> profits from the throughput of software.
Yep, agreed.
Whether they'll get the bigger market-share against MS remains to be seen though.
>
> We can see where MS went wrong with Xbox Live, they forced people
> into working their way, hence why it took so long for EA to come on
> board,
Except the rather large company Ubisoft (and activision among others) were more than happy to jump on board.
I think you'll find it's EA's inflexibility that caused them to have issues with live, they wanted to host their own servers and get rid of XSN sports. EA are all about the money where MS were tryingto provide quality of service: this is why EA's servers were pretty poor upon Burnout 3's release.
> Nintendo can only look in at themselves to find out how they fell
> behind, and it HAS NOTHING to do with the actual games.
Actually it has somethingto do with the games as there are many factors - one of which is the games. If the Playstation's had a catalogue of entirely rubbish games then Nintendo/Microsoft would be the market leader.
> Now, it's clear to see the Ninty loving people still know absolutely
> nothing about the games industry per se :).
Explain.
> Nintendo had already lost to Sony before it even launched the N64,
> becasue very few people except Nintendo themselves were committed
> solely to making games for that console, and here's why.
People? Businesses you mean. As I recall the N64 had quite a few publishers.
> Nintendo and Sega had an almost medevil business cartell running to
> make sure they maximised their profits from low numbers of game
> sales. They made publishers pay for games in advance, per cart. So,
> when a developer and publisher agreed the game was fit to go Gold,
> they sent an order to Nintendo for all the cartridges they thought
> they could sell through in stores.
>
> Nintendo themselves made every cartridge which appeared on their own
> consoles, and this process took a minimum of 8 weeks to happen, and
> sometimes up to 12. So, for anyone to release a game for Christmas,
> they had to have their order into Nintendo by the end of August
> really to make sure it hit the shelves. Meaning publisher and
> developer alike had a 2 to 3 month black whole before making any
> money from their own hard work.
>
Nope Nintendo allowed some publishers licences to manufacture their own games.
> So, if the game sold more than expected, the developer and publisher
> couldn't capitalise on this before Christmas, as they had to wait 8
> to 12 weeks for more cartridges. If the game sold less than
> expected, then tough, Nintendo didn't want to know.
>
> Now, Sony came along with it's PS2 between the SNES and N64, and it
> brought a whole new business practice to the table. Sony was already
> producing a vast amount of music cd's, so it had the facilities
> worldwide to produce discs at a 2 to 4 week turnaround for any
> developer and publisher combination in the world, at a higher number
> of units than Nintendo could manage. It also allowed publishers to
> leave payments to the company until after the games had actually
> sold, and even RETURN units which didn't seel, without having to pay
> for them.
>
> Publishers love Sony for this and the amount of money supplied by
> Sony and publishers all over the world to market and sell the PS1 and
> PS2 as a lifestyle device worked wonders. This publisher relationship
> has not soured, and no other console manufacturer has been able to get
> the same publisher support as Sony have. This was dented slightly by
> the difficulty of developing for the PS2, but if Sony maintain their
> business practise, and deliver a relatively easy to use platform for
> the next generation, they'll mop up again as publishers, developers
> and Sony themselves are in a business environment suited to making
> profits from the throughput of software.
Yep, agreed.
Whether they'll get the bigger market-share against MS remains to be seen though.
>
> We can see where MS went wrong with Xbox Live, they forced people
> into working their way, hence why it took so long for EA to come on
> board,
Except the rather large company Ubisoft (and activision among others) were more than happy to jump on board.
I think you'll find it's EA's inflexibility that caused them to have issues with live, they wanted to host their own servers and get rid of XSN sports. EA are all about the money where MS were tryingto provide quality of service: this is why EA's servers were pretty poor upon Burnout 3's release.
> Nintendo can only look in at themselves to find out how they fell
> behind, and it HAS NOTHING to do with the actual games.
Actually it has somethingto do with the games as there are many factors - one of which is the games. If the Playstation's had a catalogue of entirely rubbish games then Nintendo/Microsoft would be the market leader.
£300?
I'm anticipating about as much as I would anticipate getting herpees from a small Phillipino boy. I might change my tune though when I 'clap' (ho ho ho) eyes on the next GTA.
I'm anticipating about as much as I would anticipate getting herpees from a small Phillipino boy. I might change my tune though when I 'clap' (ho ho ho) eyes on the next GTA.
Exactly.
Nintendo were beaten by a new competitor with a fresh approach.
This is what I've been saying all-along.
They still had a chance to come back before they released the N64, but they didn't change their way of operating enough to make a difference.
Don't know where Nintendo loving comes into it though... that comment wasn't really aimed anywhere. Unless you're assuming I'm a Nintendo lover/fanboy, which I am not.
Infact, explain what you meant by that: I've a feeling it'll make me laugh.
Nintendo were beaten by a new competitor with a fresh approach.
This is what I've been saying all-along.
They still had a chance to come back before they released the N64, but they didn't change their way of operating enough to make a difference.
Don't know where Nintendo loving comes into it though... that comment wasn't really aimed anywhere. Unless you're assuming I'm a Nintendo lover/fanboy, which I am not.
Infact, explain what you meant by that: I've a feeling it'll make me laugh.
Page: