The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, what is it that Sony has done for the industry? While Ninty fans boast about the company's 100 year legacy, dozens of consoles and scores of games, what does Sony have to say for itself?
The answer is simple. Massmarket gaming, advertising and finance.
Eh? Aren't those the three things that "hardcore" gamers hate the most? Massmarket morons allow poor games to sell while good ones drown, advertising allows poor games to sell, and financial considerations have meant that small developers have gone bust or been forces to give up on their dreams.
But these are things that should not be laughed at- they should be embrassed, for their is a good side to each...
The mass market gamer is not a complete moron. They may blindly buy Fifa 2002 third edition, but they do pump money into the industry. And it is this money that allows the developers of the world to create original game alongside their big budget licences. How else could developers possibly afford to create 3D games to te standards we demand today.
Likewise, advertising has it's plus points. It brings more non-gamers into gaming. No longer is gaming a hobby for spotty teenage boys- it's a recognised form of entertainment enjoyed just as widely as the cinema or TV.
And finance can only be a good things for gamers. When Sony broke into the industry they did so by pumping money into small developers to produce top quality, exclusive games. With every manufacturer forcd to do the same nowadays, it ensures that games will always be the most important thing for any console.
So, next time someone critises Sony for inventing massmarket gaming, just ask them how much it costs to develop the average game these days...
The answer is simple. Massmarket gaming, advertising and finance.
Eh? Aren't those the three things that "hardcore" gamers hate the most? Massmarket morons allow poor games to sell while good ones drown, advertising allows poor games to sell, and financial considerations have meant that small developers have gone bust or been forces to give up on their dreams.
But these are things that should not be laughed at- they should be embrassed, for their is a good side to each...
The mass market gamer is not a complete moron. They may blindly buy Fifa 2002 third edition, but they do pump money into the industry. And it is this money that allows the developers of the world to create original game alongside their big budget licences. How else could developers possibly afford to create 3D games to te standards we demand today.
Likewise, advertising has it's plus points. It brings more non-gamers into gaming. No longer is gaming a hobby for spotty teenage boys- it's a recognised form of entertainment enjoyed just as widely as the cinema or TV.
And finance can only be a good things for gamers. When Sony broke into the industry they did so by pumping money into small developers to produce top quality, exclusive games. With every manufacturer forcd to do the same nowadays, it ensures that games will always be the most important thing for any console.
So, next time someone critises Sony for inventing massmarket gaming, just ask them how much it costs to develop the average game these days...
Page:
Slow, what I meant was that there are lots of people who just come here and spam. By only letting regs and notables vote, you prevent these spammers from voting.
Unfortunately there's no way to differentiate between spamming newbies and proper posters, so neither can vote.
However, I still agree with the rule- few newbies are truely in a position to know who's made the biggest contributions to the forums going back potentially months or years.
Sonic
Unfortunately there's no way to differentiate between spamming newbies and proper posters, so neither can vote.
However, I still agree with the rule- few newbies are truely in a position to know who's made the biggest contributions to the forums going back potentially months or years.
Sonic
Cheers Outlaw, but nwbies can't vote. Tragic I know, but it stops idiotic spammers getting a chance to disrupt the flow of the forums!
Sonic
Sonic
I agree Sonic - the comparison with music and film is especially suitable. As games have entered the mainstream along with music and films, it was inevitable that more games would flood the market as producers looked for a quick buck. But generally, I agree. Consensus reached.
Well then! That's got my vote :-D
0utlaw wrote:
> Are you actually Sonic the Hedgehog? What's Dr Robotnik like?
>
> Whoops :-D
I am indeed. I run around naked all the time wearing only my speed shoes.
Oh, and before you start on the jokes, no, the ruby red colour of the shoes is not an indication of my sexuality- I'm just in touch with my feminine side
> Are you actually Sonic the Hedgehog? What's Dr Robotnik like?
>
> Whoops :-D
I am indeed. I run around naked all the time wearing only my speed shoes.
Oh, and before you start on the jokes, no, the ruby red colour of the shoes is not an indication of my sexuality- I'm just in touch with my feminine side
Are you actually Sonic the Hedgehog? What's Dr Robotnik like?
Whoops :-D
Whoops :-D
RM, this is exactly why I'm voting for you- you actually have strong (and fairly credible) opinions of your own...
I agree with most of the points you make, however:
With concern to massmarket morons pumping money towards original games for us lot, this is not completely untrue. Yes, usually the money that comes from games like Tomb Raider just go towards a sequal. However, big companies can take some of this capital and inject it into smaller projects. Sega, Konami and Capcom are perfect examples of this. The idea works far less well in the publisher driven market of the West though.
On the point of allowing the masses of poor games to be released, it is certainly an issue. However, name any industry that does not have this problem? All established entertainment industries have lots of mediocre acts- music and films being key examples.
Finally, it is true that Sony abandoned the "pure gaming" approach for the Ps2. However, they have been hit very hard by this. In Japan, game sales were falling far short of the required targets while console sales soared for months after release. However, they always knew that they'd make enough money off games over the 5 year lifetime of the console...
Until that is that MS announced the Xbox, and Nintendo actually made a serious go with the GC. Now Sony ARE beng forced to maintain good game support for the console- esp. with the bog guns that Ninty has pulled out.
Oh, and Pro Evo, the tone of your topic was hostile (or maybe that's just me), so I thought you'd just read the first paragraph and given up. However, the only new point you made was about MS joining in due to Sony's success- something that comes directly from Sony creating massmarket gaming.
Sonic
I agree with most of the points you make, however:
With concern to massmarket morons pumping money towards original games for us lot, this is not completely untrue. Yes, usually the money that comes from games like Tomb Raider just go towards a sequal. However, big companies can take some of this capital and inject it into smaller projects. Sega, Konami and Capcom are perfect examples of this. The idea works far less well in the publisher driven market of the West though.
On the point of allowing the masses of poor games to be released, it is certainly an issue. However, name any industry that does not have this problem? All established entertainment industries have lots of mediocre acts- music and films being key examples.
Finally, it is true that Sony abandoned the "pure gaming" approach for the Ps2. However, they have been hit very hard by this. In Japan, game sales were falling far short of the required targets while console sales soared for months after release. However, they always knew that they'd make enough money off games over the 5 year lifetime of the console...
Until that is that MS announced the Xbox, and Nintendo actually made a serious go with the GC. Now Sony ARE beng forced to maintain good game support for the console- esp. with the bog guns that Ninty has pulled out.
Oh, and Pro Evo, the tone of your topic was hostile (or maybe that's just me), so I thought you'd just read the first paragraph and given up. However, the only new point you made was about MS joining in due to Sony's success- something that comes directly from Sony creating massmarket gaming.
Sonic
AbsoluT Neó wrote:
> It is not Sony's fault that they cater for all gamer's and they know
> what it takes to be a market leader.
But they don't cater for all gamers, they hire out devlopers that do. That's why Nintendo will always have their own niche, and why Dreamcast ultimately failed. As for knowing what it take to be a market leader, that was achieved not only due to their superior marketiung techniques, but based on the success of other developers.
> It is not Sony's fault that they cater for all gamer's and they know
> what it takes to be a market leader.
But they don't cater for all gamers, they hire out devlopers that do. That's why Nintendo will always have their own niche, and why Dreamcast ultimately failed. As for knowing what it take to be a market leader, that was achieved not only due to their superior marketiung techniques, but based on the success of other developers.
Pro Evo Makes some Valid points which you dont have in your post Sonic, so how can you just dismiss them?
Sony have made a great impact on gaming otherise why would they be so successful? yes they may divuluge into massmarket gaming, advertising and finance..
but come on?
Do you think that both Nintendo and Microsoft are doing all this for fun?
Newsflash: Their all in it to make a profit and all believe what they are providing are the best for thier customers. I doubt Ninty and MS would have even made The Game Cube or the X-Box if Sony hadn't had become so popular in releasing the PS 2 and some of the best games anyone has ever seen.
Both Nintendo & Sega thought of Sony being a major competitor when if first released the PSX, what console has really been a rival to the PS 1? Just ask sega about their Dreamcast.
It is not Sony's fault that they cater for all gamer's and they know what it takes to be a market leader.
Sony have made a great impact on gaming otherise why would they be so successful? yes they may divuluge into massmarket gaming, advertising and finance..
but come on?
Do you think that both Nintendo and Microsoft are doing all this for fun?
Newsflash: Their all in it to make a profit and all believe what they are providing are the best for thier customers. I doubt Ninty and MS would have even made The Game Cube or the X-Box if Sony hadn't had become so popular in releasing the PS 2 and some of the best games anyone has ever seen.
Both Nintendo & Sega thought of Sony being a major competitor when if first released the PSX, what console has really been a rival to the PS 1? Just ask sega about their Dreamcast.
It is not Sony's fault that they cater for all gamer's and they know what it takes to be a market leader.
Page: