The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why was the Playstation so successful?
Well, that’s an easy one. It was by far the easiest and cheapest console to develop for and Sony offered great commercial benefits for developers to develop on their console. With this large library of games and big advertising budget, it was bound to outsell the competition.
Now, why is the PS2 so successful?
I think we can all agree that a large amount of the PS2’s success was simply due to that of the Playstation- consumers wanted “the next PS” and developers knew the console would get a big market share.
However, I think it’s fair to say the console has not lived up to everything it promised. Developers have found that game development costs are far higher than they would have been on other machines, but will stick to the console simply because they have invested so much money in it. Many developers even said that they didn’t support the Dreamcast simply because they had too much money invested in the PS2.
Of course, all this means that the PS2 will have a high consumer base and a great library of games… it isn’t the PS2 I’m concerned with…
What I’m concerned with is the next Sony console- let’s call it the “PS3”.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox will sell well- it certainly won’t sell more units than the PS2, but it’ll have a fairly sizeable portion of the market. And the console seems to offer developers everything they want- cheap development costs thanks to the PC architecture, good support and a good audience.
Now, what will happen when the next generation of consoles begins to be produced… who will developers turn to?
Well, in all honesty, I think that if the PS2 had been released as Sony’s first console it would have flopped- the “revolutionary” architecture allows you to get more into games, but also raises development costs above an acceptable level. Seeing this, if the PS3 follows suite, you could easily see developers not wanting to continue developing for the console.
One of the problems with the PS2 is that Sony made so many false promises… if you see the original demos, they show photo-realistic graphics and superbly complex graphics.
Unlike the PSX age, developers will have another console to chose to develop for (the N64 wasn’t really a true competitor), and unlike the PS2 age, developers can no longer be blinded by fake demos, or indeed, by the simple fact the the console will have the largest user base. In fact, the “Ybox” and PS3 will both have an equal chance of getting the biggest user base.
If Microsoft continues to offer huge marketting budgets, low development costs and great support, and Sony still use the “revolutionary” architecture in the PS3, then Sony could be in trouble. If the consoles launch at about the same time, then Sony really would have a struggle…. For the first time in several generations of consoles, developers would have a choice.
Sonic
Well, that’s an easy one. It was by far the easiest and cheapest console to develop for and Sony offered great commercial benefits for developers to develop on their console. With this large library of games and big advertising budget, it was bound to outsell the competition.
Now, why is the PS2 so successful?
I think we can all agree that a large amount of the PS2’s success was simply due to that of the Playstation- consumers wanted “the next PS” and developers knew the console would get a big market share.
However, I think it’s fair to say the console has not lived up to everything it promised. Developers have found that game development costs are far higher than they would have been on other machines, but will stick to the console simply because they have invested so much money in it. Many developers even said that they didn’t support the Dreamcast simply because they had too much money invested in the PS2.
Of course, all this means that the PS2 will have a high consumer base and a great library of games… it isn’t the PS2 I’m concerned with…
What I’m concerned with is the next Sony console- let’s call it the “PS3”.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox will sell well- it certainly won’t sell more units than the PS2, but it’ll have a fairly sizeable portion of the market. And the console seems to offer developers everything they want- cheap development costs thanks to the PC architecture, good support and a good audience.
Now, what will happen when the next generation of consoles begins to be produced… who will developers turn to?
Well, in all honesty, I think that if the PS2 had been released as Sony’s first console it would have flopped- the “revolutionary” architecture allows you to get more into games, but also raises development costs above an acceptable level. Seeing this, if the PS3 follows suite, you could easily see developers not wanting to continue developing for the console.
One of the problems with the PS2 is that Sony made so many false promises… if you see the original demos, they show photo-realistic graphics and superbly complex graphics.
Unlike the PSX age, developers will have another console to chose to develop for (the N64 wasn’t really a true competitor), and unlike the PS2 age, developers can no longer be blinded by fake demos, or indeed, by the simple fact the the console will have the largest user base. In fact, the “Ybox” and PS3 will both have an equal chance of getting the biggest user base.
If Microsoft continues to offer huge marketting budgets, low development costs and great support, and Sony still use the “revolutionary” architecture in the PS3, then Sony could be in trouble. If the consoles launch at about the same time, then Sony really would have a struggle…. For the first time in several generations of consoles, developers would have a choice.
Sonic
Page:
Wookie, my point is that Middleware is no less expensive than going from ground zero up....
Anyway, Sibs is right... the word "Playstation" is synonymous with gaming, and this is where the majority of casual gamers will go... Oh, and it plays DVDs you know!
Sonic
Anyway, Sibs is right... the word "Playstation" is synonymous with gaming, and this is where the majority of casual gamers will go... Oh, and it plays DVDs you know!
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Wookie, you've quoted the wrong figures...
I'm sorry, but how can they be "wrong" figures? It's from the RenderWare site, and is one of the packages they offer. Obviously there will be more inclusive, more expensive deals - as with all licensed software.
The point is, it doesn't *have* to be stupidly expensive. Even with a physics engine at £250,000, a potential £8 million in sales will still recover that, and then some. Surely you're still looking at at least a couple of million profit from the average game?
The only real problem I see with the licensing is that it's the smaller companies who may *need* the extra support require the more expensive packages, while the bigger companies - who probably don't need the support - pay less. While it is always necessary to pay more to get more, in this situation that seems to be the wrong way round.
Anyway, this discussion has sparked an interest in me... and I've mailed Criterion to ask for information on the packages and costings available for RenderWare. *If* the respond, I'll post it here - though I suspect Sonic may already know. :-)
> Wookie, you've quoted the wrong figures...
I'm sorry, but how can they be "wrong" figures? It's from the RenderWare site, and is one of the packages they offer. Obviously there will be more inclusive, more expensive deals - as with all licensed software.
The point is, it doesn't *have* to be stupidly expensive. Even with a physics engine at £250,000, a potential £8 million in sales will still recover that, and then some. Surely you're still looking at at least a couple of million profit from the average game?
The only real problem I see with the licensing is that it's the smaller companies who may *need* the extra support require the more expensive packages, while the bigger companies - who probably don't need the support - pay less. While it is always necessary to pay more to get more, in this situation that seems to be the wrong way round.
Anyway, this discussion has sparked an interest in me... and I've mailed Criterion to ask for information on the packages and costings available for RenderWare. *If* the respond, I'll post it here - though I suspect Sonic may already know. :-)
that thing about Sony, I can agree on Wookie, although people do often criticise Sony for bringing nothing new, blah blah blah, they have brought new stuff, but I still do not think they are as innovative with new ideas for games as Nintendo or Sega.
And the fact remains that yes, although you may say that casual gamers must obviously exist on other platforms (and they do) that a casual gamer is still more likely to go out and buy the PS2. And because of this on PS2 series often thrive which, may have been good initially, but have had nothing new added to them. Going by the definition we agreed on these casual gamers WILL still buy the next title in the series, even though it is practically the same as the last one. Good examples of this are the Fifa series (most of the time, all they do is add a new stadium, and update names and stats) and the Tomb Raider series which seems to thrive off adding largers breasts with every sequel. Now a 'hardcore' (well informed) gamer is unlikely to buy a sequel if it is practically the same game as they played last time, but a casual gamer is pretty likely to. This pretty much encourages developers to just stick with a 'winning' formula. And I know what you are going to say, Nintendo, Sega, Rare, have all stuck with winning formulas, but they don't really do it to such an exent. They use franchise titles, but usually do add some extra gameplay elements.
Anyway, I am not saying that we should all stop buying PS2s because only casual gamers buy them or anything, because there ARE great games for the PS2, and even now Nintendo seem to be trying to tempt casual gamers with the 'short and sweet' strategy (something, which I feel if they implement it in the Mario and Zelda franchises is a mistake) but I am saying that developers in the future could be tempted more and more to do games for the casual gamers, and this could definitley effect the quality of games for the rest of us.
Anyway, I think I may well have strayed off of any point I was initially trying to make, so I'll shut up now.
And the fact remains that yes, although you may say that casual gamers must obviously exist on other platforms (and they do) that a casual gamer is still more likely to go out and buy the PS2. And because of this on PS2 series often thrive which, may have been good initially, but have had nothing new added to them. Going by the definition we agreed on these casual gamers WILL still buy the next title in the series, even though it is practically the same as the last one. Good examples of this are the Fifa series (most of the time, all they do is add a new stadium, and update names and stats) and the Tomb Raider series which seems to thrive off adding largers breasts with every sequel. Now a 'hardcore' (well informed) gamer is unlikely to buy a sequel if it is practically the same game as they played last time, but a casual gamer is pretty likely to. This pretty much encourages developers to just stick with a 'winning' formula. And I know what you are going to say, Nintendo, Sega, Rare, have all stuck with winning formulas, but they don't really do it to such an exent. They use franchise titles, but usually do add some extra gameplay elements.
Anyway, I am not saying that we should all stop buying PS2s because only casual gamers buy them or anything, because there ARE great games for the PS2, and even now Nintendo seem to be trying to tempt casual gamers with the 'short and sweet' strategy (something, which I feel if they implement it in the Mario and Zelda franchises is a mistake) but I am saying that developers in the future could be tempted more and more to do games for the casual gamers, and this could definitley effect the quality of games for the rest of us.
Anyway, I think I may well have strayed off of any point I was initially trying to make, so I'll shut up now.
Wookie, you've quoted the wrong figures...
The £1000 renderware platform is the bottom of the range. You get no support, no monthly upgrades, and no tech help. Even so, it's still £1000 for each person who uses it, for each game it's used in development on, for each platform.
At the other end, the top physics engines cost up to £250,000 for full support and upgrades!
That said, most good publishers will buy the £50,000 option.
And trust me, it's just as expensive... Edge ran a huge special feature on the matter.
Sonic
The £1000 renderware platform is the bottom of the range. You get no support, no monthly upgrades, and no tech help. Even so, it's still £1000 for each person who uses it, for each game it's used in development on, for each platform.
At the other end, the top physics engines cost up to £250,000 for full support and upgrades!
That said, most good publishers will buy the £50,000 option.
And trust me, it's just as expensive... Edge ran a huge special feature on the matter.
Sonic
Will there ever be a PS3? I can't see the graphics getting any better then the PS2.
What the hell hapened in here? long discussion? in the sony forum?! enjoy it while it lasts...ooopss...another idiot has spoiled a thread...
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> In fact, there's a great line in a recent issue of Edge
> which they could all do with reading; I'm at work now,
> but I'll quote it tonight if I remember.
And here it is - from Edge issue 105 (Xbox special), page 39, first paragraph.
"A true gamer doesn't like Sony Computer Entertainment. A real videogame player doesn't own a living room with a PlayStation in it. A genuine electronic entertainment connoisseur would rather step away from the comforting security of virtual worlds altogether than face the thought of having to play the tidal wave of shallow, massmarket PS-branded software engulfing the world's populace.
A True Gamer needs to grow up.
SCEI is a business. So are Sega, Microsoft and Nintendo (the latter, in particular, frequently reminds journalists of this very fact). Sony didn't enter the industry because of some uncontrollable philanthropic urge to spread the potential splendour of interactive digital pursuits to the masses. It did it to make money.
No surprises there, then. The strategy included the targeting of a demographic group that until then had been quite content with just music and films, and in the process making a mockery of the niche market Sega and Nintendo had previously concentrated on. Of course, popularity has its price and the possibility of beautifully crafted software being ignored in favour of craftily marketed hideousness preying on the uninformed becomes increasingly real - the past two Christmas best sellers (Tomorrow Never Dies and Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire?) painfully illustrate this.
What is remarkable, however, is the continued opposition the company faces from within devoted gaming circles. Irrational accusations regularly fly, leading a casual observer to conclude that SCEI must be responsible for bringing some terrible plague into the videogaming community.
It's one - admittedly skewed - view. True, too many PS titles consist of shockingly underdeveloped code clinging desperately to a licence. Too many are depressingly exploitative sequels. Too many are poor imitations of depressingly exploitative titles. But amidst this sea of greed, oysters can be found, and experienced gamers shouldn't have too much trouble knowing where to dive for the PaRappas, Ape Escapes, FantaVisions and Xis, to name but four innovative and delightfully divergent in-house Sony productions.
In this area, SCEI is largely beyond reproach. It may have arrived on the scene without heritage but it's certainly been active in its attempts at encouraging PS licensees to broaden their development horizon by coming up with more than just the standard diet of racing, sports and 3D adventure titles. And it's efforts continue."
I think that's more than enough quoting, but the article goes on for several pages and details just how original and innovative Sony have been since arriving on the scene, and how much they still plan to bring. Which rather flies in the face of Sony having brought nothing of value to the industry.
And all this from an independent, unbiased magazine. Shocking stuff - what is the world coming to? :-)
> In fact, there's a great line in a recent issue of Edge
> which they could all do with reading; I'm at work now,
> but I'll quote it tonight if I remember.
And here it is - from Edge issue 105 (Xbox special), page 39, first paragraph.
"A true gamer doesn't like Sony Computer Entertainment. A real videogame player doesn't own a living room with a PlayStation in it. A genuine electronic entertainment connoisseur would rather step away from the comforting security of virtual worlds altogether than face the thought of having to play the tidal wave of shallow, massmarket PS-branded software engulfing the world's populace.
A True Gamer needs to grow up.
SCEI is a business. So are Sega, Microsoft and Nintendo (the latter, in particular, frequently reminds journalists of this very fact). Sony didn't enter the industry because of some uncontrollable philanthropic urge to spread the potential splendour of interactive digital pursuits to the masses. It did it to make money.
No surprises there, then. The strategy included the targeting of a demographic group that until then had been quite content with just music and films, and in the process making a mockery of the niche market Sega and Nintendo had previously concentrated on. Of course, popularity has its price and the possibility of beautifully crafted software being ignored in favour of craftily marketed hideousness preying on the uninformed becomes increasingly real - the past two Christmas best sellers (Tomorrow Never Dies and Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire?) painfully illustrate this.
What is remarkable, however, is the continued opposition the company faces from within devoted gaming circles. Irrational accusations regularly fly, leading a casual observer to conclude that SCEI must be responsible for bringing some terrible plague into the videogaming community.
It's one - admittedly skewed - view. True, too many PS titles consist of shockingly underdeveloped code clinging desperately to a licence. Too many are depressingly exploitative sequels. Too many are poor imitations of depressingly exploitative titles. But amidst this sea of greed, oysters can be found, and experienced gamers shouldn't have too much trouble knowing where to dive for the PaRappas, Ape Escapes, FantaVisions and Xis, to name but four innovative and delightfully divergent in-house Sony productions.
In this area, SCEI is largely beyond reproach. It may have arrived on the scene without heritage but it's certainly been active in its attempts at encouraging PS licensees to broaden their development horizon by coming up with more than just the standard diet of racing, sports and 3D adventure titles. And it's efforts continue."
I think that's more than enough quoting, but the article goes on for several pages and details just how original and innovative Sony have been since arriving on the scene, and how much they still plan to bring. Which rather flies in the face of Sony having brought nothing of value to the industry.
And all this from an independent, unbiased magazine. Shocking stuff - what is the world coming to? :-)
hmm... interseting theory that Wookie... not sure it'd work in practice, but interesting...
I will still buy the "PS3" i like playstation better
Sibs wrote:
> oh, but Wookie, why do Nintendo have the biggest casual gamers following? Just
> wondering why you thought that?
Okay...
I said:
"If you buy a game simply because "it's by Sony/EA/Nintendo/Sega/Shigsy/Kojima" or "it's Tomb Raider/Sonic/Mario/Metal Gear so it must be good" then, quite frankly, you're an idiot"
You said:
YES! Exactly! Well that is the trait of the casual (sorry 'un-informed') gamer! They do no research into a game before buying it just go, "oh the latest in the series, I'll get that"
Our survey said... :-)
My point was that, if you take at face value some of the posts by Ninty's on here, Nintendo and Rare have never made a bad game between them - one of the 'casual gamer' traits!
> oh, but Wookie, why do Nintendo have the biggest casual gamers following? Just
> wondering why you thought that?
Okay...
I said:
"If you buy a game simply because "it's by Sony/EA/Nintendo/Sega/Shigsy/Kojima" or "it's Tomb Raider/Sonic/Mario/Metal Gear so it must be good" then, quite frankly, you're an idiot"
You said:
YES! Exactly! Well that is the trait of the casual (sorry 'un-informed') gamer! They do no research into a game before buying it just go, "oh the latest in the
Our survey said... :-)
My point was that, if you take at face value some of the posts by Ninty's on here, Nintendo and Rare have never made a bad game between them - one of the 'casual gamer' traits!
Page: