Sony: Microsoft is reliant on Shooters
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Videogame company relies on most popular format to drive sales! Shock!
Next up: Fish, a crippling dependency on water?
Next up: Fish, a crippling dependency on water?
It is actually a shooter and an RPG. The combat it uses is shooter based with (very) heavy RPG elements but it also has Gear, Levels, conversation trees and all that other RPGish goodness that we all know and love. Being a shooter and being an RPG are not exactly mutually exclusive.Valkyrie101 said:
I do commend you on not assuming I was being serious, though the 12 year old's with twitch reflexes and their parent's money, obviously do make up a percentage of the console's income stream, of course.Altorin said:
But yes, shooting games are like sandwiches in cafes, they're the basic which you know everyone's going to buy because it's something easy you can get into.
Only problem with video games is that the sandwiches cost just as much as the damn lobster thermidor...
This just in: Big name companies need to shut their big dumb mouths and stop verbally attacking eachother, it fools no one and makes them look stupid. Hey sony how about you make good on your word and work on some games that aren't all shooters to prove us all wrong.
Next week tune in when I eat my own leg. Back to you Melissa!
Next week tune in when I eat my own leg. Back to you Melissa!
I was referring to RPG being its primary genre. It has shooter elements (namely the shooting), but for me, a shooter is a game that exists purely because of the shooting, e.g. CoD or Halo, where the whole point is to ventilate some unpleasant people.Canid117 said:
It's really an action RPG, in that it includes quite a lot of combat, but ultimately the point of the game is the RPG side.
Then how do they explain Kinect? The most useless medium of control for a shooting game that I've seen.
They've got two big shooters: Halo and Gears. Meanwhile, they spent most of last E3 trying to sell Kinect.Saucycardog said:
sony is still miles behind ms when it comes to shooters, and most of ms shooters are wholly generic cheap knock offs, where sonys main shooters are all AAA productions they lack the over glut of b and c grade shooters that flood the xbox market to get a few bucks off the teen boys that play that system in droves.
Are you being serious?cerebus23 said:
OT: Stupid thing to say. As most of the thread has pointed out, you just have to look at the titles sony is pushing to see the idiocy of the statement. Personally I dislike what seems to be a recent spike in negative advertising.
Well ... PC controls work best for shooters ... but PCs tend to just get console ports of shooters whilst getting some nice RTS/RPG love as well. I know there are exceptions to the rule ... but I think PC gamers have much more diversity despite having the best (hands down) controls for shooters.
so I don't understand the argument of MS controller = better than Sony ... therefore shooters are better/naturally more prevalent on this console.
If that was the case PCs would be inundated with much more than just console ports if that were the case. Particularly given most modern gaming rigs could kick 7 types of shit out of both the Xbox and PS3 combined. (Edit) From a graphics and gameplay perspective anyways....
so I don't understand the argument of MS controller = better than Sony ... therefore shooters are better/naturally more prevalent on this console.
If that was the case PCs would be inundated with much more than just console ports if that were the case. Particularly given most modern gaming rigs could kick 7 types of shit out of both the Xbox and PS3 combined. (Edit) From a graphics and gameplay perspective anyways....
Is Sony still hurting from when Killzone was vaunted as "THE HALO KILLER" and fell very short of earning its hype-title? Sounds likes some sour grapes to me.
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.