Support NeoGAF

[duk]

ever since KK left, it seems that 3rd party relationships have gone downhill

 

[Vinci]

ever since KK left, it seems that 3rd party relationships have gone downhill

It's not like the 3rd parties hate Sony. They're just doing what's financially responsible for them.

 

[el Diablo]

I fail to believe Sony's spiel about titles too hard to keep from going multiplatform... This is more from incompetent 3rd party relations. Sony, for some reason, decided to become the new Nintendo, and focus on 1st party, which isn't all bad. But what probably gets a lot of Sony gamers mad is the fact that Sony HAS been securing 3rd party exclusives, but so many of them have been from developers who produce games of unsure quality. Instead of a surefire Squaresoft hit, we get Folklore, Genji, Heavenly Sword, Lair, and Haze. Not all of those titles are "bad," but they fail to measure up to what Square could produce. All of those are third party. Insomniac is independent, as is Sucker Punch, and all of their offerings are exclusive at the moment. Media Molecule is 3rd party, as is Quantic Dreams. Evolution Studios was independent during the development of the first MotorStorm... Level 5 is 3rd party as well. So with all of that said, I definitely don't believe Sony when they say that they can't lock up 3rd party exclusives and that it is too hard.

I recall a story where supposedly Rockstar wanted to ink a time exclusivity deal for GTA 4, but Sony was 'too busy,' or something along those lines. That seems the story of the day to how Sony seems to be reacting to many of the powerhouse 3rd party studios.

Now, losing Final Fantasy was a big blow, but what pissed me off was when some Sony exec was interviewed and he sort of nonchalantly stated that they have no rpgs in development... If you're going to lose your biggest RPG and arguably exclusive and have nothing in development to replace that, then you end up looking really incompetent. The PS3 has essentially become what I didn't particularly care for with the original X-Box... The PS3 can almost be renamed the shooterstation. We got Haze, Resistance 1 and 2, Socom (even though it's 3rd person), MAG, Killzone 2. On the other hand, we have, what, 1 RPG secured by Sony?

Basically, Sony used the Playstation brand as a sacrificial lamb to their Blu-Ray god, and now, they are getting what we see today. In using the PS3 as a trojan horse for Blu-Ray, Sony has essentially lost nearly all of their 3rd party exclusives. If PS3 released at a reasonable price, was easy to develop for and showed significantly more power than the 360, then you bet we'd still have so many of their exclusives. Instead, due most likely to Blu-Ray, we get a system with a behemoth price, inhibiting its ability to sell, and thus, secure 3rd party exclusives as easily as it once did. The first party titles do look wonderful, but why are we still getting inferior multiplatform ports? In summation, Sony really has a lot to do to fix their 'it's all about the games' situation. If they don't, they may win the Blu-Ray war, but have demolished one of their most profitable and long-lasting brands in the Playstation.

Quit crying and play your FPS, action platformers, racers. All Americans play these and LOVE them, this is how Sony will win the US market!

 

[beat]

Come on. It's not nearly the same thing this gen. Clue for you: Everything's going multiplatform. It's NOT like that gen at all. Games were going exclusively to the PS1 because they went to a CD-ROM format as opposed to being stuck on a cart. And THAT is why many 3rd parties went exclusive. Cart vs. CD. You think SE wanted to release FFVII on 20 carts for example? The system had the distinct advantage here.

So if only there had been two CD-ROM consoles at that point, everything woulda been multi?

You make me sad.

 

[KingJ2002]

it's business.

sony has been losing exclusives because the ps3 didnt sell as well as expected and with rising costs of development third parties must look to middleware and multiplatform releases to turn a profit.

Sony should not look at this as a clear negative. Sure they lost a franchise that help build the playstation brand... but at the same time this should be an opportunity for them to go in an create a rpg franchise strong enough to move consoles. it's not like final fantasy will not be on the ps3 (the ps3 might deliver the better experience). sony should just take a note from nintendo and not let third parties dictate your sales. People buy nintendo consoles for nintendo games... sony should make sure people are doing the same with their product... and with games like killzone 2 and little big planet... they're on the right track.

 

[avaya]

The reason behind Sony's strategy is perfectly sound.

Paying an ever increasing fee for exclusivity of the same titles is unsustainable. The return on investment from PS2 for Sony is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. It had far better economics than any razor-bladed console has ever had, save PS1.

Securing effective 2nd party exclusives ahead of established names is a strategy for the long term success of the business. They should be cheaper and could be the next breakout hit. Rinse and repeat of the same franchises only leads to stagnant growth. Sony were trying to go for the next breakout title. They did this successfully with PS1.

Almost like Nintendo but not quite.

The reason this didn't work again is because Sony wanted EVERYTHING. They wanted to to use the machine to win the high-def war without taking the necessary hit to ensure competitveness in the videogames market.

They thought they could get away with being late late late and they thought their friends at Namco and Square would sit by and wait.

They wanted their cake and to eat it too. Tough shit.