The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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)
Anyway, on the price issue, yes it is about profit, but also about RISK. Developers are less likely to want to risk much on the PS2 simply because it costs so much to develop for. They are much more likely to stick with sure fire hits like established franchises. Consoles with less risk attatched will see more risky games released on them, and will therefore get more variety of games. Developers won't be as worried about losses, and if it turns out to be a success they can port over to the PS2 later. This is what Nintendo did purposely with the N64. You had to pay Nity loads to get rights to make N64 games, so that all games would be first rate. Of course this just meant lack of support. Sony now have the some problem, but it is development costs, not licencing fees that are too high. This will mean the more creative/inventive games and those with new, untested ideas are more likely to go to rivals with lower development costs.
Maybe a developer has the potential of higher profits on PS2 but also the potential of higher losses...
Anyway, on the price issue, yes it is about profit, but also about RISK. Developers are less likely to want to risk much on the PS2 simply because it costs so much to develop for. They are much more likely to stick with sure fire hits like established franchises. Consoles with less risk attatched will see more risky games released on them, and will therefore get more variety of games. Developers won't be as worried about losses, and if it turns out to be a success they can port over to the PS2 later. This is what Nintendo did purposely with the N64. You had to pay Nity loads to get rights to make N64 games, so that all games would be first rate. Of course this just meant lack of support. Sony now have the some problem, but it is development costs, not licencing fees that are too high. This will mean the more creative/inventive games and those with new, untested ideas are more likely to go to rivals with lower development costs.
Maybe a developer has the potential of higher profits on PS2 but also the potential of higher losses...
Sibs wrote:
PSX- Easy and cheap to develop for. Didn't see huge leaps (come on,
> be honest) in graphical capability.
Well the PS1 was released in 1994 in Japan, so compared to the current market of the SNES and Mega Drive it certainly was a massive leap in graphical performance. The PS1 had superior graphically abilities to the PC and even the Sega Saturn. 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.
PS2 maybe harder and move expensive to develop for but all the consoles require alot more money for development, as games now take much longer to make and with more people working on the game.
The PS2 may be the most expensive out of the 3 next-gen consoles but its not the expense thats the issue, its profit. If the PS2 outsells the GC by 3 to 1 and a game costs £2 million to make on a GC and £3 million on the PS2. The GC copy may only sell a 3rd of what the PS2 could sell. So the PS2 game would see a larger profit therotically.
PSX- Easy and cheap to develop for. Didn't see huge leaps (come on,
> be honest) in graphical capability.
Well the PS1 was released in 1994 in Japan, so compared to the current market of the SNES and Mega Drive it certainly was a massive leap in graphical performance. The PS1 had superior graphically abilities to the PC and even the Sega Saturn. 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.
PS2 maybe harder and move expensive to develop for but all the consoles require alot more money for development, as games now take much longer to make and with more people working on the game.
The PS2 may be the most expensive out of the 3 next-gen consoles but its not the expense thats the issue, its profit. If the PS2 outsells the GC by 3 to 1 and a game costs £2 million to make on a GC and £3 million on the PS2. The GC copy may only sell a 3rd of what the PS2 could sell. So the PS2 game would see a larger profit therotically.
hmm... no mention of GC though... Yeah, the PS2 and GC are in opposite postions from what they were with PSX and N64 (from a hardware perspective anyway)
PSX- Easy and cheap to develop for. Didn't see huge leaps (come on, be honest) in graphical capability.
PS2- Hard to develop for, but lots of room for improvement through the Vector Units.
N64- Hard to develop for but room for improvement through the vector units (and the expansion pack)
GC- Easy to develop for and cheap, but will probably not see huge leaps and bounds in graphical improvement (like with N64)
So, the two companies have effectively switched places. Unfortunately Ninty still lack some 3rd party support because some developers are now working on PS2 simply because 'that's where teh money is', but Nintendo are winning back developers. However some things are constant. Sony have arrived early in this race, and it seems they will continue to be early starters with the next next-gen consoles too. Nintendo are also going all out for games (no DVD playback, etc.) Ultimately this could help or hinder them. It really depends on your perspective.
Also, yeah I agree that if PS2 had been Sonys first console it would flop. Few developers would go work on an unestablished console, when it is that hard (and costly) to develop for. Sony would have suffered possibly an even worse game drought than the N64!
Anyway, if Sony do continue this then they may be forced to back out due to lack of support, because few casual gamers are going to stick with Sony if they have few games, and neither will hardcore gamers because Sony have few exclusive titles and franchises, while Nintendo got by in the N64 years with hardcore fan base because of all their 1st and 2nd party titles. Sony has no such luxury.
Anyway, I have probably ranted on long enough, and I doubt you Sony fans are interested in my 'biased' rantings, because I am a childish Nintendo fan.
;-)
PSX- Easy and cheap to develop for. Didn't see huge leaps (come on, be honest) in graphical capability.
PS2- Hard to develop for, but lots of room for improvement through the Vector Units.
N64- Hard to develop for but room for improvement through the vector units (and the expansion pack)
GC- Easy to develop for and cheap, but will probably not see huge leaps and bounds in graphical improvement (like with N64)
So, the two companies have effectively switched places. Unfortunately Ninty still lack some 3rd party support because some developers are now working on PS2 simply because 'that's where teh money is', but Nintendo are winning back developers. However some things are constant. Sony have arrived early in this race, and it seems they will continue to be early starters with the next next-gen consoles too. Nintendo are also going all out for games (no DVD playback, etc.) Ultimately this could help or hinder them. It really depends on your perspective.
Also, yeah I agree that if PS2 had been Sonys first console it would flop. Few developers would go work on an unestablished console, when it is that hard (and costly) to develop for. Sony would have suffered possibly an even worse game drought than the N64!
Anyway, if Sony do continue this then they may be forced to back out due to lack of support, because few casual gamers are going to stick with Sony if they have few games, and neither will hardcore gamers because Sony have few exclusive titles and franchises, while Nintendo got by in the N64 years with hardcore fan base because of all their 1st and 2nd party titles. Sony has no such luxury.
Anyway, I have probably ranted on long enough, and I doubt you Sony fans are interested in my 'biased' rantings, because I am a childish Nintendo fan.
;-)
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: