Sony: Microsoft is reliant on Shooters
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That just blew my mind... I would have never guessed.
But seriously...most games these days are shooters, or are RPG games that have FPS combat. That's just where everybody is at during this gen I guess. Personally I prefer the fantasy sword and magick part of games more, but that's just me.
Microsoft's big titles are shooter, but those generally sell so I guess people still want FPS games. There are some RPG games out there, though I have to say I probably play more PS2 and Xbox games then I do the newer gen. Other then MGS4 and Demon's Souls (when I'm ready to break another controller), nothing on either conosle has really been incrediable.
But seriously...most games these days are shooters, or are RPG games that have FPS combat. That's just where everybody is at during this gen I guess. Personally I prefer the fantasy sword and magick part of games more, but that's just me.
Microsoft's big titles are shooter, but those generally sell so I guess people still want FPS games. There are some RPG games out there, though I have to say I probably play more PS2 and Xbox games then I do the newer gen. Other then MGS4 and Demon's Souls (when I'm ready to break another controller), nothing on either conosle has really been incrediable.
Agreed.Onyx Oblivion said:
Most PS3 and 360 games as of later have been shooter based. My last few PS3 and 360 purchases have been shooters. *sigh*
MAG, SOCOM, MW2, Halo:Reach
Where's my RPG's at?!
Wow, this console war is getting really petty. They should spend more time focused on their own product, less on the competitor's.
It's hard to say that Sony's "miles behind" when the only exclusive shooters MS has, off the top of my head, are Halo and Gears of War, neither of which I'm all that impressed by. Meanwhile, Sony has exclusives like Killzone, Resistance, Ratchet and Clank, and Uncharted, all of which are, at least on some level, "shooters".
Pretty stupid argument from Sony.
It's hard to say that Sony's "miles behind" when the only exclusive shooters MS has, off the top of my head, are Halo and Gears of War, neither of which I'm all that impressed by. Meanwhile, Sony has exclusives like Killzone, Resistance, Ratchet and Clank, and Uncharted, all of which are, at least on some level, "shooters".
Pretty stupid argument from Sony.
Meh, still seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me. Open mouth insert foot Sony.Zachary Amaranth said:
It's marketing. Even when not running an ad campaign, it's still marketing. It also doesn't hurt that they have more "big" franchises that aren't shooters, while Microsoft has a lot of brown shooters with chest high walls, but the truth is really irrelevant to marketing.canadamus_prime said:
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?Zachary Amaranth said:
And the point of this release is...what? To insult the other company? Does that bring over new fans or something?
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.scnj said:
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?
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.Saucycardog said:
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.
"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)
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)
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.
sony is turning into an apple advertiser...trying to point out obvious things about the competition instead of featuring their own products.
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.
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.
