Sony: Microsoft is reliant on Shooters

[Something Amyss]

Wouldn't they be better off positively promoting their own products [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/7999747/Halo-Spartan-in-jetpack-flies-around-Trafalgar-Square.html] rather than attempting (and failing) to insult another company's?

Maybe, maybe not. Negative advertising has been around for decades now, and it's been around for a reason: It works. It's even been common in video games on one level or another (Genesis does what Ninten-Don't), and Sony's been doing it since the first Playstation console.

I'm not sure it's having the same effect now, with Sony being the last place console manufacturer (in the states, where a lot of this marketing is happening), but the question of "isn't positive better?" Might not have an obvious answer.

After all, look at politics. People bemoan mudslinging, but what do you remember from the last election. The positive ads, or the negative ones?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

http://play.tm/news/31889/sony-takes-jab-at-microsoft-says-360-is-reliant-on-shooters/

Well I thought that was obvious.

Looking over the list of franchises currently owned by Microsoft Game Studios, I'd point out that only a fraction of those games are shooters.

I'd further point out that said fraction accounts for a majority of the game sales.

That leads me to a reasonable conclusion: well made shooters sell well.

 

[Tzatziki3301]

"From Killzone to Eyepet"...

countered with "From Halo to Lips/You're in the Movies/Scene It/everything else that is a copy of what playstation has had for a while, because, well, there is only SO much you can do without it being 'a copy of X' in some way.

the grand irony of any argument from Sony, or Microsoft, lets be honest, is the majority of shooters these days are 3rd party and out on both...

whereas first-party lineups tend to be pretty similar. Kinect is different to move in a few ways, but the games are fairly exchangeable across the two in terms of what you actually do in them (though Kung Fu rider might be infinately improved if you had to actually play it with an office chair)

 

[Zing]

And the PS3 isn't?

Everything is shooter-centric these days on 360, PC, and PS3.

Third or first person, shooters are the norm!

Multi-platform games sure...but Microsoft are only bringing stuff like Halo and Gears of War. At least Sony are being innovative with titles like Heavy Rain and The Last Guardian.

 

[godofallu]

If you like shooters you get a 360, if you like Jrpg's you get a playstation. Doesn't everyone already know that?

I bought a 360 for JRPG's. Final Fantasy XIII coming to the 360 was the final selling point. Now, I use my 360 for Netflix, nothing more. Why? Because all that ever comes out is fuckin' shooters which I have never liked. Wish I had bought the PS3 now.

I don't remember JRPG's being the popular genre last gen, nope, last gen it was also shooters and the XBOX was full of them. It's the reason why the 360 is full of them, because they were king last gen. The only reason the 360 even has JRPG's on it is to promote console sales in Japan, which failed.

Which is why I said Xbox is about shooters, not JRPG's. Your disagreeing with me, while writing about how much you agree with me.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

huh. obvious is the obvious?

sony is turning into an apple advertiser...trying to point out obvious things about the competition instead of featuring their own products.

 

[Zarthek]

Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the Xbox BUILT for shooters?

Honestly I prefer shooters on the Xbox over the ones on the PS3, mostly due to a general better quality and a controller built a bit more towards shooter games.

However for racing games and certain RPG's (As an example) I very much prefer the PS3... I guess the PS3 is just spread out a bit more.

 

[Dexiro]

I agree but it's not a bad thing for people that like shooters.

I can't think of many Xbox exclusives that aren't shooters in some way really, other than Viva Pinata. The PS3's exclusive list has a lot more variety.

 

[G-Force]

I'm trying to understand the logic with Sony's statement as well as some of the posters. I think Sony's critique more so about how shooters have become a staple in the Xbox's library as opposed to saying that their company is too good to make shooters. If we look at Sony's exclusive library we can see that they too have made shooters themselves but I think what they were thinking that the proportion of Sony titles that don't involve shooting is much higher than Microsoft's.

PS3 Shooters
Resistance 1, 2
Uncharted 1, 2
Killzon 2, 3

PS3 Non Shooters
God of War
MGS4
Heavy Rain
Little Big Planet 1, 2
Demon Souls
3D Dot Heroes
Ratchet and Clack 1, 2
Mod Nation Races
Yakuza 3
Infamous

Meanwhile With Xbox you have most of their exclusive library revolve around the genere (of course I might be missing some other exclusive titles due to me not owning the system so I'm openly stating my bias here)

Xbox Shooters
Halo 3, ODST, Reach
Gears of War 1,2
Left 4 Dead 1,2
Orange Box
Mass Effect (though has HEAVY RPG elements)
Alan Wake (Has horror elements but mostly an action shooter)
Metro 2023

Non Shooters
Viva Pinata
Limbo
Crackdown
Lost Odyssey
Magnacarta 2
Halo Wars

 

[KaiRai]

And you didn't sell your console in the hope of MGS3 or Resistance playing your customer market?

Not played Resistance, but I gathered from my friends talking about it that it's some form of shooter.

 

[migo]

If you like shooters you get a 360, if you like Jrpg's you get a playstation. Doesn't everyone already know that?

I bought a 360 for JRPG's. Final Fantasy XIII coming to the 360 was the final selling point. Now, I use my 360 for Netflix, nothing more. Why? Because all that ever comes out is fuckin' shooters which I have never liked. Wish I had bought the PS3 now.

I don't remember JRPG's being the popular genre last gen, nope, last gen it was also shooters and the XBOX was full of them. It's the reason why the 360 is full of them, because they were king last gen. The only reason the 360 even has JRPG's on it is to promote console sales in Japan, which failed.

Which is why I said Xbox is about shooters, not JRPG's. Your disagreeing with me, while writing about how much you agree with me.

There is the point that up until 2008 there were no JRPGs on the PS3 period, and anyone who had a PS2 for JRPG purposes and had already played them all (except for P4) would have to buy a 360 to get the next RPGs. Of course looking at the back catalog of 360 RPGs they're not all that good, so by now there isn't any point in getting a 360 for them.

 

[Wintermoot]

and sony not? the ONLY console that doesnt rely on shooter is the wii (the PSP and DS family are handhelds not consoles)

 

[migo]

I'm trying to understand the logic with Sony's statement as well as some of the posters. I think Sony's critique more so about how shooters have become a staple in the Xbox's library as opposed to saying that their company is too good to make shooters. If we look at Sony's exclusive library we can see that they too have made shooters themselves but I think what they were thinking that the proportion of Sony titles that don't involve shooting is much higher than Microsoft's.

PS3 Shooters
Resistance 1, 2
Uncharted 1, 2
Killzon 2, 3

PS3 Non Shooters
God of War
MGS4
Heavy Rain
Little Big Planet 1, 2
Demon Souls
3D Dot Heroes
Ratchet and Clack 1, 2
Mod Nation Races
Yakuza 3
Infamous

Meanwhile With Xbox you have most of their exclusive library revolve around the genere (of course I might be missing some other exclusive titles due to me not owning the system so I'm openly stating my bias here)

Xbox Shooters
Halo 3, ODST, Reach
Gears of War 1,2
Left 4 Dead 1,2
Orange Box
Mass Effect (though has HEAVY RPG elements)
Alan Wake (Has horror elements but mostly an action shooter)
Metro 2023

Non Shooters
Viva Pinata
Limbo
Crackdown
Lost Odyssey
Magnacarta 2
Halo Wars

If you're counting Alan Wake as a shooter, MGS4 and Yakuza 3 are also shooters. You're also missing out on Dead Rising and Snoopy Flying Ace, and while Snoopy Flying Ace is a shooter, it's in a completely different category. Orange Box isn't exclusive.

 

[Paragon Fury]

u mad, sony?

But seriously, this is just Sony being butthurt over the fact that their FPSs and exclusives generally rate lower than those for Microsoft and sell less.

Add in that the only other thing Sony can really say they "have" above everyone else is a racing game, and you can see why they say stuff like this.

 

[G-Force]

If you're counting Alan Wake as a shooter, MGS4 and Yakuza 3 are also shooters. You're also missing out on Dead Rising and Snoopy Flying Ace, and while Snoopy Flying Ace is a shooter, it's in a completely different category. Orange Box isn't exclusive.

MGS4 is emphasis on Stealth and Yakzua 3 is a brawler. While Kazuma can shoot guns you rarely have a chance to do so. Look up gameplay footage and you're more likely going to see Kazuma punching people as opposed to shooting them.

Also Dead Rising is not an Xbox exclusive as there's the Wii port but then again that's Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop so it can be argued that Dead Rising is still an Xbox Exclusive.

 

[migo]

Chop Till You Drop isn't really Dead Rising, it's what you'd get if someone saw the success of Dead Rising and decided to make a knock off of it, except it happens to actually be made by the same people.

Point is, you can shoot guns in MGS4 and Yakuza 3, so they're just as much shooters as as Alan Wake. You can't have it both ways.

 

[lapan]

There are too many shooters out there in general. I myself will be happy when the shooter fad has passed and we can finally have more diverse games again. A shooter has to be really original to get me interested, all those generic "realistic" military fps don't do it for me.