Viewing Thread:
"Sony's strategy...."

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

I think the point is that developers have a choice. Have the flexibility of creating code from scratch, or use middleware to cut down on development time. Middleware doesn't have to lead to similar games. Ultimately it depends on what the end developers want to do with it, which parts of the functionality they want to use, and if they are going to tweak any of the functionality. Yes, one option is to be 'lazy' and use it 'out of the box', but that's hardly different than creating a proprietary engine, and then using that as a basis for a number of sequels. Which is what goes on anyway, on *all* platforms.

As for choosing games for the best consoles, I wish that was the case as well. But publishers and developers have to make money somehow, and no doubt need a cash cow or two to fund those games that are 'risks'.

ah yes, Middleware has been used, and as Wookie has said, developers only need to do all the coding etc. once for a series, but this kind of links to Sonics other topic 'Middleware killing originality' in that, on the PS2 if developers are using the same game engine over and over to get the game costs down and make the game faster then the game is going to be similar to the last game with that engine. Same with middleware. If lots of developers start using the same middleware, then the games are obviously going to be different, but will share some similar traits.

Ultimately you talk of the PS2 being able to get slowly better and better as the years go by (as developers unlock the potential of the Vector Units) but at the same time you are saying that games will not be too costly and take too long on PS2 due to middleware. But if developers use the middleware, then they won't push the PS2s hardware, because much of the code they will be using for the game will already be done for them, so they'll never (or certainly take much longer) unlock the vector units potential. Equally, if they don't use the middleware, or their previous game engines, they will unlock the vector units much quicker, but games WILL cost more, and WILL take longer.

I know the GameCube is easy to develop for, and from what I have heard the Xbox is easy to develop for too. Now we must attempt to agree on one thing. Because of this development studios will have to put more money into making a game for PS2 than for the other two systems (assuming they were making the same game, from scratch) Now, there is going to be a risk there, bigger than with the other two systems, just like developing on the N64 had much larger risk than developing on the PSX. Now, I understand what you are trying to say, about PS2 having a larger userbase, but one thing remains. A large proportion of the PS2s userbase (probably the majority, but I can't tell) are casual gamers. Casual gamers are unpredictable. They will often buy established franchise titles, but apart from that can be very unpredictable. I mean 'The Weakest Link' and 'Who wants to be a Millionnaire?' did well, but I don't think 'Big Brother' sold at all well, even though it was described as 'a nationwide phenomenom' (even if it was utter pants)

So therefore, if a developer has this game idea, and isn't sure if it will work or not, they are not likely to go with the higher development costs (and therefore risk) of the PS2. They are more likely to go with the Xbox or GameCube, because they will have to put less money into developing it, and if it flops they don't lose as much money, and if it succeeds, they can port it to other systems anyway.

Oh, and Wookie, you said you hope the future of gaming isn't going to be reduced to companies paying developers to release their games on their system. Well I hope the future isn't developers making games on the most popular system out there just because they can get bigger profit margins. I hope developers will develop for the games machine they think they can create the best games for.

I kind of agree on the comparisons between the N64 and the PS2. Though the major difference being, that even if the PS2 is hard to develop for, there is a lot of money in the PS2 current and future customer base. Developers will get over problems, because they'll know it's worth it. In the N64's case, the customer base wasn't so big. At the end of the day, the prospect of profit will help overcome any development difficulties.

And in any case, as mentioned by Wookiee, Criterion have written middleware already being used in several games (and I believe Sega are doing the same, though I don't know whether they are making it available to anyone else). So other developers certainly have the option to start from the ground up, or to get a helping hand.

Sony has already established its user base and as far as i am concerned sony don't have any risks really, money is eveything (well almost!) and sony have it, i can't see the PS dying like sega's machines did, if anyone i say nintendo could be in trouble because so many people now trust sony all thanks to the success of the psone, and ninetendo don't have massive 3rd party support like the PS2 and the xbox does, i will probably end up getting a GC for the quality games that do come out though!
I can agree with wookie, if its hard to develop for then why are people who havent already invested still wanting to develop for it?, its because its a great machine that posses a lot of power, many developers still don't know how far they can push it, and for me thats good to know that people havent yet got very much out of it, it should hopefully means games will gradually improve until the Ps3 comes out.
You just can't imagine a sony system failing unless something went horribly wrong! and thats enough for me, but sony are safe as long as they play their cards right!

===SONICRAV---> wrote:
You seem
> to be quoting from my history of Sega posts ;)

Did I? Never seen your post before. Cant remember where I heard about the Saturn being developed as a 2D console and then changed to 3D due to the PS1.

But where is there risk? There's a large user base with (generally, according to the usual target audience surveys) lots of spare cash burning a hole in their pocket. If a game is good, it will sell.

I understand what you're saying, and generally I would agree - but I still don't buy into this "PS2 is hard and expensive to develop for". Initially, yes, it may have been costly and time consuming for developers to come up with routines and libraries for their games... but not any more. You only have to develop something once, and then you tweak what you have.

At least three titles I've bought recently use Criterion's Renderware development system - which will have greatly reduced development costs and times for the developers concerned. So, over time, development costs fall. PS2 may well have been expensive to develop for initially, but we're now a year on, developers have their libraries, and development costs are unlikely to be much higher than any of the other systems.

There will always be the odd developer who is happier with one system than another. Some don't like the PS2, many are still quoted as saying "it's not hard, just different".

With (over) 20 million PS2's sold, if only 1% of owners buy a copy of the game, that's 200,000 copies - and at an average price of £40, that's a cool £8,000,000 they earn, and few games cost anywhere near that to develop. If any developer wants to turn completely away from that kind of income to make a quick buck elsewhere simply because it's a little less difficult, then I say good riddance to them. If they're not willing to put in a little extra effort it takes to make a game worth buying, then I don't want their games, whichever platform they're on.

That said, of course, there aren't many developers turning away from the PS2; they are developing for other systems (which I have no problem with), but they're not abandoning the PS2 - and they're not likely to. In fact, the only two significant PS2 'losses' (The Matrix and Resident Evil) were obtained via significant financial incentives - so neither can really be chalked up to developer platform preference. And if the future of gaming should come down to who can afford to buy off the developers (which I sincerely hope it doesn't), you can pretty much guarantee that Sony will not be the worst off.

And of course it could be said that the arguments are being twisted and turned to suit the discussion at hand. I mean, combine the above with the fact that PS2 owners "are all casual gamers who have no interest in quality and will buy any old crap" and there surely can't be any risk to the developers. :-)

adrian wrote:
The Saturn that was
> released was thrown together at the last minute due to teh PS1. The Saturn
> started its life as a 2D based system, but as soon as Sega heard Sony were
> releasing a 3D games system, they had to throw in some 3D capabilities into the
> Saturn. Thats why the Saturn couldnt produce the same type of graphics as the
> PS1.

You seem to be quoting from my history of Sega posts ;)

BUT, the Saturn had, and indeed HAS, games which are easily as good looking as the PSx.. the problem was that the system, as you say, was put together too quickly, thus making it impossile to get power out of. However, if you look at the Saturn games that did come out, they had graphics that could EASILY compete against the PSX... some were even better!

Sonic

That was a good topic, and I think that PS2 and XBOX are going to be pretty equal come Q4 2002. Personally, I fell that GC has no chance, but seeing these pics of some RPG on IGN.com has provoked my interest.

Oh yeah, and did I mention I got 1,939,750 on Garibaldi?

The PS2 has been succesful partly due to the fact that all the great games came out on it anyway, shoddy system or not :-D

Sibs wrote:
> The PSX... now I wasn't actually talking about the leap from Megadrive/Snes to
> PSX, I was talking over the PSXs lifespan. Eg. games released at the beginning
> of the PSXs lifespan and games released towards the end didn't see HUGE
> graphical improvement (sure, some, but not anywhere near as much of improvement
> as the N64 saw)


Ok, yes suppose your right. The N64 did have a greater graphically improvement throught its life. I think this was mainly due to the expansion pak. PS1 also did see a big leap in graphics. Put Tekken 1 or Ridge Racer in your PS1 then try out Tekken 3 or Ridge Racer 4. You will be suprised at how rubbish Tekken 1 looks compared to Tekken 3. I played Tekken 2 and then Tekken 3 after each other and the graphical leap was pretty noticanbly.

I also tried GT1 then played the GT3 demo, and wow was that an improvement.