Sony: Microsoft is reliant on Shooters
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sony is right, though you have to look beyond the most recent events to see that. I think the PS-2 succeeded because it had a good mix of generes on the system, as opposed to just focusing on lowest common human denominator shooter games. The PS-2 was pretty much the go-to system for things like RPGs and Survival Horror.
Microsoft seemed to be beating the PS-3 at it's own game with the 360 to begin with. When things like "Lost Odyssey" came out it was pretty much beating the RPG drum where Sony had very little on the market except for a few shooters like "Resistance". I say this as someone who owns both consoles.
As time goes on however and Sony seems to be picking up in the long term (as they said they would) you see the same niches beginning to return. Sony has seen the release of a number of decent, niche RPGs like "Cross Edge", and "Trinity Universe" without any 360 equivilents (despite some early plans). They also have the upcoming "DC Universe Online" and "Free Realms" products, where Microsoft has yet to be able to get an MMORPG off the ground largely due to their unwillingness to work with MMORPG developers to make it viable.
In comparison, it seems that Microsoft's new big titles, or upcoming ones, are indeed all shooters. "Modern Warfare: Black Ops", and "Halo: Reach" for example.
As more of these "secret projects" developers are working on are revealed, we'll see if this remains true, but right now it does seem like this is how things are playing out for the moment.
Honestly, I think what might be turning the tide here is these upcoming MMORPGs. Console players have wanted some for a long time, and pretty much all of the MMORPGs planned for release (especially on the 360) wound up getting deep sixed horribly. If Microsoft continues with it's current plan, and Sony seizes the console MMO market, that's probably going to doom Microsoft even into the beginning of a new hardware generation if we wind up with MMO addicts sticking with the PS-3 for the next five years or so (expansions allowing) just for that. Once the chips are down, simply coming up with competing MMOs isn't going to work out too well either, as many people can tell you, things like WoW, or Everquest Before it, become juggernauts because once invested due to the time involved few people are willing to run off to the newest, slightly prettier collection of flashing lights at the drop of a hat. Even if they do, most ultimatly wind up coming back to their drug... errr MMO, of choice after a bit of flirtation.
Microsoft seemed to be beating the PS-3 at it's own game with the 360 to begin with. When things like "Lost Odyssey" came out it was pretty much beating the RPG drum where Sony had very little on the market except for a few shooters like "Resistance". I say this as someone who owns both consoles.
As time goes on however and Sony seems to be picking up in the long term (as they said they would) you see the same niches beginning to return. Sony has seen the release of a number of decent, niche RPGs like "Cross Edge", and "Trinity Universe" without any 360 equivilents (despite some early plans). They also have the upcoming "DC Universe Online" and "Free Realms" products, where Microsoft has yet to be able to get an MMORPG off the ground largely due to their unwillingness to work with MMORPG developers to make it viable.
In comparison, it seems that Microsoft's new big titles, or upcoming ones, are indeed all shooters. "Modern Warfare: Black Ops", and "Halo: Reach" for example.
As more of these "secret projects" developers are working on are revealed, we'll see if this remains true, but right now it does seem like this is how things are playing out for the moment.
Honestly, I think what might be turning the tide here is these upcoming MMORPGs. Console players have wanted some for a long time, and pretty much all of the MMORPGs planned for release (especially on the 360) wound up getting deep sixed horribly. If Microsoft continues with it's current plan, and Sony seizes the console MMO market, that's probably going to doom Microsoft even into the beginning of a new hardware generation if we wind up with MMO addicts sticking with the PS-3 for the next five years or so (expansions allowing) just for that. Once the chips are down, simply coming up with competing MMOs isn't going to work out too well either, as many people can tell you, things like WoW, or Everquest Before it, become juggernauts because once invested due to the time involved few people are willing to run off to the newest, slightly prettier collection of flashing lights at the drop of a hat. Even if they do, most ultimatly wind up coming back to their drug... errr MMO, of choice after a bit of flirtation.
yes i am entirely serious, well aside from the teen boys jab.
non AAA fps games are cheap and quick to make, AAA fps games take as heavy an investment as any other AAA game. but a b and c grade shooters are just lazy and cheap games that can be pushed out the door in a hurry. and if they sell decent they make money. your halos and cods and kz etc need to be hits to make money.
you mean to say that killzone, uncharted and not triple AAA titles? MGS is not even a shooter it is a stealth action game and critics would say it is just an interactive movie but it is not a fps. lest learn your games please. sony does not pump out the fps of the month like microsoft does, certainly not the sheer degree that ms does it.
non AAA fps games are cheap and quick to make, AAA fps games take as heavy an investment as any other AAA game. but a b and c grade shooters are just lazy and cheap games that can be pushed out the door in a hurry. and if they sell decent they make money. your halos and cods and kz etc need to be hits to make money.
you mean to say that killzone, uncharted and not triple AAA titles? MGS is not even a shooter it is a stealth action game and critics would say it is just an interactive movie but it is not a fps. lest learn your games please. sony does not pump out the fps of the month like microsoft does, certainly not the sheer degree that ms does it.
Couldn't agree more. And I really don't understand why. Before the Wii was released, Sony and Microsoft were talking shit, but when it was released, Microsoft shut up and got down to it. Sony however, just couldn't stop talking smack about everyone else, and are still going now. It's getting a bit much.Altorin said:
Really once Gears 3 comes out and the PS3 gets Steamworks, the influx of shooters on both consoles will be about even, then there won't be anything left to say other than "shooters are more popular on the 360".Scrumpmonkey said:
But hyperbole isn't cool or wanted.
If you can go through an entire game killing like, no one i wouldnt call it a shooter, because shooting isn't the main focus.cerebus23 said:yes i am entirely serious, well aside from the teen boys jab.
non AAA fps games are cheap and quick to make, AAA fps games take as heavy an investment as any other AAA game. but a b and c grade shooters are just lazy and cheap games that can be pushed out the door in a hurry. and if they sell decent they make money. your halos and cods and kz etc need to be hits to make money.
you mean to say that killzone, uncharted and not triple AAA titles? MGS is not even a shooter it is a stealth action game and critics would say it is just an interactive movie but it is not a fps. lest learn your games please. sony does not pump out the fps of the month like microsoft does, certainly not the sheer degree that ms does it.
This is exactly what I was going to say. How many 360-exclusive shooters are there anyway? Seriously, I can only think of Halo, Gears, Left 4 Dead and Mass Effect (which is going multi-platform so it shouldn't count), and that list isn't as long as the PS3's list of shooter exclusives. I'm thinking Sony's just pissed that the 360 has much, MUCH more commercial success in the genre than they do.Scrumpmonkey said:
You're totally right Sony, you just keep putting amazing RTSs and deep, involving RPGs on the PS3...oh wait...
I count it as half and half.Robbie McLennan said:
OT: Whats with all the flames all of a sudden Sony? I dont remember you doing this before?
Sony are right about this, even though it was pretty obvious.
I kind of like how balls out Sony are going to disparage Microsoft, it makes for fun reading. Especially reactions from the Xbox community, its like Sony are trolling. I love it.
I kind of like how balls out Sony are going to disparage Microsoft, it makes for fun reading. Especially reactions from the Xbox community, its like Sony are trolling. I love it.
I don't mean to say that sony does not make AAA shooters. However, there are Xbox exclusive AAA shooters aswell as PS3 ones. You used Halo as an example. So, both produce AAA shooters.cerebus23 said:yes i am entirely serious, well aside from the teen boys jab.
non AAA fps games are cheap and quick to make, AAA fps games take as heavy an investment as any other AAA game. but a b and c grade shooters are just lazy and cheap games that can be pushed out the door in a hurry. and if they sell decent they make money. your halos and cods and kz etc need to be hits to make money.
you mean to say that killzone, uncharted and not triple AAA titles? MGS is not even a shooter it is a stealth action game and critics would say it is just an interactive movie but it is not a fps. lest learn your games please. sony does not pump out the fps of the month like microsoft does, certainly not the sheer degree that ms does it.
Where I disagree is with the idea that pushing out sub-par shooters is something only MS does.
I'm not actually sure what you're talking about in part of the last paragraph, snce I never mentioned MGS. I'm guessing this refers to someone else.