Viewing Thread:
"Sony Killed The Games Industry"

I posted this in "Prime" then I realised no-one would read it...so i decided to post it here as well...bring on the vitriolic comments.


Controversial headline eh? I know what you're thinking - "Unbeliever has clearly lost his mind. The games industry is better than it ever has been and with games like Vice City and Pro-Evo, Sony has single-handedly revitalised the games industry. So stuff that in your pipe and go away you Nintendo zealout."

Not so.

I'll explain why....

Cast your mind back to the halcyon days of the Megadrive and the SNES, when there were a wealth of good playable games out there. Some games were lucky enough to be ported over to another platform but generally they retained their host platform and were enjoyed by persons who owned either console. Yes, there were the usual mundane arguments over one console being "better" than another but as anyone knows, the strength of a console can only be judged on the quality of the games for the console. Anyone got a 3DO?

Developers were given free reign with their games without producers looking over their shoulders muttering about reaching projected sales targets and threatening to can the game before it gets released due to "rising costs" or "bad previews". Everyone was happy. Games got released, sometimes a few weeks late, and honest reviews came out because games mags didn't have to rely on companies' advertising to keep them in business - it was the gameplayers that supplied them with their money based on how many mags were sold.

Going off on a tangent for a moment, I don't know if anyone remembers, but THQ was one of the worst games developers ever and constantly received major criticism due to their lack-lustre poor games that were released. Nowadays it amazes me how far THQ has come but they were rubbish ten years ago. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, games weren't necessarily better than nowadays BUT (and this is a big but) there were far less below average, sub-standard rushed releases. People stuck with either Sega or Nintendo and didn't trust any other games company do to the industry justice. Any companies that thought otherwise soon found out the hard way - The Amstrad GX-4000 sank without a trace, the Amiga CD-32 disappeared without a whimper, the Jaguar was scuttled faster than Titanic. These being just a few examples. I remember when a company tried to release a handheld to rival the monchrome Gameboy (the name escapes me). The games were poor and it soon failed like its' predecessors.

So who do I blame for this? Sony, of course.

So why the heavy heart? Well, games were a niche market - much smaller than the vast profits in other entertainment industries, platforms were cheaper to develop for and a company's success wasn't marked by the amount of games franchises that it could get hold of - games didn't generally sell on the basis of the name of a game (although the Mario games were an exception as were the Sonic range) - they got judged on the playability. If a company released a bad game, it wouldn't sell well but the company wouldn't be forced out of business by it. Indeed, they'd re-double their efforts to get a quality product out and to tweak and refine it until it was perfect and then release it to the unsuspecting public and sit back and bask in the glow of critical acclaim when they'd satisfied gamers with their product.

We also saw a new age in re-invention and originality. Prince of Persia featured the most amazing fluidity ever witnessed, Flashback and Another World took the same feature and improved on it, Disney games were GOOD. Yes, hard to believe but Castle of Illusion was one of the Megadrive's finest moments. 2-D shoot-em-ups were in their prime and platformers constantly strove to establish the essential purchase, from Decap Attack to Quackshot - there was something for everyone. Populous entered the fray and everyone wanted to be God. Sim City amazed with it's accurate management system and FIFA reared its' ugly head! There was a game to satisfy everyone's tastes.

So, backtrack to 1995 (or rather, fast forward to 1995) when the Sony Playstation was first released. It came out with games like Ridge Racer and Destruction Derby that amazed gamers with arcade style graphics and soon became one of the biggest, most successful gaming platforms of all time. It lasted for over 7 years, something almost unheard of in such a volitile market and the company went from strength to strength. Marketing sold more Playstations than anything else and "casual gamers" got recognised for what they were. Parents played their son's/daughter's (let's not discriminate eh?) consoles. More people got into games and the industry as a whole got bigger with vast turnover margins.

So, what gives? Why the "ill-informed pompous" rant against the company that allegedly "kick started the games industry"?

Simple. People noticed. Games had more turnover and generated more income than any other entertainment industry in 2002. Bigwigs realised that it was big business rather than in the old days when they wanted to please customers with a great product. Even Bill Gates sat up, noticed and decided to get in on ther act. Games sold these days are more often than not on their title rather than quality. It's all a question of style over substance. Nowadays, games companies generally spend less time on developing games for consoles (of course there are exceptions). They obtain big licenses (James Bond, anyone?) and make a game to fit the license. They have deadlines to meet and if they don't reach them, there's no more financial support from the producers. So they release a substandard game that sells on its' name when they could have taken longer and released a great game. The Two Towers and Harry Potter are prime examples. Games developers are judged on their success by each release. Indeed one bad selling game could force a company out of business. Look at Rage Software, for example.

The hype associated with games and consoles was too much - Sega's Dreamcast breathed its' last breath while the PS2 was lauded. Why? The DC had the same, if not better architecture (don't argue with me on this one because I don't care about system stats as I said before) and the game were as good, if not better - Skies of Arcadia, Rez, Virtua Tennis etc. Sony forced Sega out of the market with its' slick marketing campaign and a load of false hype - the "emotion engine" turned out to be nothing but a chip, the "Third Place" was a foolish notion that no-one understood and only the success of killer titles sold it well. The Getaway was a flawed concept that couldn't live up to the hype it generated. Developers release sub-standard games that are hurriedly rushed into development for the host platforms. Then they get the multi-format treatment in an effort to maximise sales so now we don't get one below average game released, but THREE. On every console. So now we get three rubbish versions of Turok Evolution instead of one.

So what do we have these days? An over-saturated market with a wealth of generic games. Generic racing games, generic fighting games, generic sports games and generic 3-D adventure games. All below average, all wasting space on the shelf...and all selling mostly due to its' title name. I could count the number of decent games on each console on my hands. Why? When each console had over 100 games for it? Why are only about 5% of those games any good?

So who ruined the games industry? Sony. By selling so many consoles with their debut console, they shot themselves in the foot. Games players deserve better than this.

I don't care if no-one agrees with me on this touchy subject but i'll vent my frustration as much as I like about this subject. Next time you go into your GAME or EB shops (that probably weren't even there 6-7 years ago) look around you and look at the games everywhere. Look at the shelf space designated to poor games. Look at how the industry is suffering and then laugh as you buy your copy of Nightfire - because you're not to blame are you?

Sony have raised awareness of the games industry and helped push the quality of graphics and sound to the limits. Without them gaming would have probably evolved in the same way, via Nintendo, Sega or through another 3rd party (maybe Atari coming back as they did through Midway). Needless to say that it was just timing and the backing of a large company with enough idea of advertising to push it.

What would have happened if gaming had stayed as it was? Well, we may have seen another Mario game and a few more 2D games, then Sega would have still brought out their Saturn, with all the games that it hosted, including Tomb Raider from Core. This would have created a stir, as the console did, before Nintendo released the N64 (both consoles had been worked upon way before release).

Then either;

Due to their lack of major advertising and public acceptance of gaming, the consoles would not have sold as well and many games companies we see now would not exist. Sega and Nintendo would still be on these consoles now or at least only just releasing new consoles, probably with a lot lower specs than Gamecube or PS2 as the lack of support would be lower. Many remakes would be made, many companies would not bother getting into the market, people would be laughed at for playing games at such a late age.

Or

Either Sega or Nintendo, or another party who were watching the market (like Sony were) decide to up the ante and really sell their console, perhaps linking it to clothing ranges or football, or something else cool as Sega started to do anyway. This would have meant more sales, more people on board and eventually support from major firms as the sales increased. Profit would continue to drive the market, as it always had, and you would be playing games like Grand Theft Auto III on a Sega console.

Damn joke scared them off. Ah well.

I'm a supporterboy!

*Jumps into the darkness to avoid backlash of coments against bad joke*

fanboy

Well the GC has about the same AAA titles as the PS2. The only difference being the PS2 has been out for a year and a half longer than the GC.

However, I'm not arguing which is the best console. I'm saying Sony has brought about such a mainstream awareness of videogames that we get too many below average titles brought out for EVERY console. And that's Sony's fault because without their marketing and over the top hype many of these third party developers wouldn't be even making games. As a consequence, we get rushed releases that in no way justify purchasing. Sony opened the games market to more "casual gamers" who don't really care what product they buy as long as it's got a decent name/license attributed to it.

And for people who say it's always been like that...well they're wrong. Yes, there have been times in the past when games have been poor that were released in the past but NEVER as many as are released in this day and age. And I put the blame on squarely on Sony's shoulders. Agree or disagree, I don't care.

*thinks of strategic way to avoid debating*

I agree.

Flebu wrote:
> MY opinion (which everybody knows, but only EL BLokey seems to be
> using):
>
> Everybody likes different types of games. FOr example, I hate Gran
> Turismo, because of it's realism, I prefer the "Hey, that's
> Impossible" effect of games, like a talking waterpump, or blowing
> up hundreds of tanks and helicopters with mere rockets, etc.

Yeah, but if we didn't debate, life would be boring.

El Blokey wrote:
> J-42 wrote:
> I wouldn't say GC has the worst games
>
> Stop there. It has the least classics IMO (and a few others from other
> forums).

List of classics:

Mario, all of em.
Metroid, when it comes out.
Super Monkey Ball,
Star wars rogue leader,
Zelda Windwaker,
Resident Evil,
Eternal Darkness.
TS2.

*Ahem*

MY opinion (which everybody knows, but only EL BLokey seems to be using):

Everybody likes different types of games. FOr example, I hate Gran Turismo, because of it's realism, I prefer the "Hey, that's Impossible" effect of games, like a talking waterpump, or blowing up hundreds of tanks and helicopters with mere rockets, etc.

What does it say?