-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
"...The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry" - was Jack Tretton Right?
- Thread starter Empyrean Cocytus
- Start date
Online gaming blew up? Western developers in general were gaining a stronger following and audience as they were putting the games peoples eyes were drawn to and wanted, compared to Japanese developers? FPSs received a lot of marketing and focus, especially with CoD and Halo blowing up huge? I hope you're not going to try and argue that that was due to the 360 doing well against the PS3
Nope. It was clear what they were talking about was in the context of the video game industry. If you aren't arguing for a monopoly, then it's clear you failed to understand what they meant. There really isn't a need for you to keep arguing what you think Phantom Thief said. It's just dragging down the discussion.
Because the market wanted it. Just like in the 90's RPGs were the shit.
Japanese developers werent ready for the transition to HD. PS3 could have won and we still would have been inundated with FPS games because that's what the market wanted. Sony losing had very little to do with the decline in JP games.
Am I reading this correctly? Fanboys saying a Sony monopoly is a good thing?
For who? If anything, as seen by Sony's lazy PlayStation Classic effort, I'd rather not have them be the market leader overall. They get pretty sloppy and lazy from time to time.
For who? If anything, as seen by Sony's lazy PlayStation Classic effort, I'd rather not have them be the market leader overall. They get pretty sloppy and lazy from time to time.
To quote Obama, "we have less horses and bayonets". Contraction is expected due to the introduction of new technologies. Gens 3, 4, and 7 didn't have the huge proliferation of mobile computing devices that we have today so it's false equivalency. The market can be healthy and still see a contraction. You keep trying to take this to different places and I'll keep calling you out. All you had to do was simply admit that your claim that "Any environment where there is only one market leader is by definition unhealthy" was off. I even asked you to restructure that argument and all you needed to say was in my opinion, "......." and I was ready to move on. If you try to pass off an opinion as fact, I'll always call it out especially when it is used as the basis for your argument.
oh wow. you should really consider gamefaqs anyway, regardless of the year we're in. they still have a big community.
How big is Nintendos marketshare on said handheld market? If I want a handheld I won't buy a home console or a pc.
Honestly, I'm happy with the current competition and how all companies are ironing out their own niche. Heck, even Microsoft that I've never had any interest for is seen in high esteem by me now due to all their pro consumer practises and taking exciting steps like focusing on sub service for games and streaming. Nintendo is going all in on the hybrid concept I've always dreamed of, while Sony does their exclusives thing (which I don't care about personally but they obviously fill a big niche for a big demographic). Will be fun to see how things develop from here.
Again, it seems like being pedantic is your thing, so I'm going to leave you to it.
Well there are phones and, in this day and age, they're actually not a bad place to go for quality games on the go. There are even some traditionally handheld games or console games on them as well. It's not a coincidence that handhelds didn't do as well with the 3DS and the Vita compared to the PSP and the DS
i don't see how that has any relevance to this thread. are there any other major players in the market and do you see people saying it's best that nintendo wins? it's not nintendo's fault the other two aren't interested in that market.
The 360, especially with Gears of War and Halo 3, had a huge influence in the types of games that were made. Many developers saw it as the platform where the bulk of their revenue would come from and wanted to appeal to the audience.
Sure it "sold well" in consoles sold, but thats not all about platform health. It also had much lower software sales than 360, since most people just used their PS3 for exclusives, made way less revenue than the 360, and was all around a less profitable system. Sony lost a substantial amount of money on the console.
In my opinion the worst generation of gaming that I've personally experienced is the one that Sony also did poorly in.
Completely disagree that PlayStation's demographic is especially broad.. take out the shooters, dudebro single players and sports titles and what's left?
Older, younger and female player are completely underserved by PS4 imo
Older, younger and female player are completely underserved by PS4 imo
1980s Nintendo was a different beast. Since Sony entered the market in 1994 though, Sony has consistently been worse than Nintendo (or Microsoft) when it comes to censorship and content approval. Nintendo's been entirely hands off in this area for packaged 3rd party games since industry bodies (ESRB, CERO, PEGI, etc) formed to handle that aspect directly. Sony today even though is still meddling inconsistently here.
But those games would've blown up even if the PS3 outsold the 360 2 to 1, like the PS4 is compared to the XB1. Not everyone played Halo and Gears of War, not even on the 360, the PS3 audience was still big, the 360 audience wasn't only into shooters and sports games, and there was still a large variety of games that generation, with indie games finally beginning to gain prominence towards the end. Keep in mind that PlayStation gamers liked those games too and still do to this day. Japanese developers struggled because they weren't making the games people wanted to play on consoles for a whole bunch of reasons
Sure but that's more of a coincidence than anything else. Japanese developers would've struggled on consoles last gen regardless of the PS3 doing well. My point was more so that the audience on the PS3 was still active, even if it was a fair amount less active than the one on the 360, and PlayStation gamers, even now on the PS4, still go for and support Western games
Last edited:
I'd argue that the Xbox doing so well and the market being interested in FPS's are related. As does sony losing and the decline of jp games.
So reading comprehension fail then.... The very first mention of the word monopoly came from me. The statement initial statement I responded to did not quote another poster as a response but was a response to the OP. The OP asked the question, was Jack Tretton right when he said "the environment where playstation wins is best for the industry". Playstation winning a generation doesn't necessarily imply a monopoly and no one was discussing the concept of a monopoly prior to me mentioning it.
Man I miss Jack Tretton.
In a way I agree with him, since of the 3 platform holders imo Playstation has the broadest global public appeal, and if Playstation were to enter a big trough the whole market would follow into it.
In a way I agree with him, since of the 3 platform holders imo Playstation has the broadest global public appeal, and if Playstation were to enter a big trough the whole market would follow into it.
Sony has dominated 3 out of 4 gens. Seems to be great for the industry when it happens. When Sony didn't dominate Japanese devs suffered greatly. Now they are coming back.
Yea sure, you call it being pedantic, I call it making factually false statements that are still wrong even in the context of the discussion and then being too proud to own up to it.
I always see ppl pointing out that Sony and Ms need each other for competition, but that seemingly isn't the case for handheld gaming.
I just want to point out that many people in this thread agreeing with Jack Trenton here aren't saying they want a monopoly.
No one in this thread has advocated for that.
They do however feel that the market is at its best when Sony is the market leader. Feel free to disagree with that statement, but no one is asking for a monopoly. No one.
No one in this thread has advocated for that.
They do however feel that the market is at its best when Sony is the market leader. Feel free to disagree with that statement, but no one is asking for a monopoly. No one.
The FPS genre would have made it, no one is saying otherwise. But the excessive amount of forgettable, brown gray, white male soldier FPS/TPS games last gen was ridiculous. And those games performed solidly on the 360 as they were catering to the audience. I do recall sales of the PS3 versions of some games being remarkably lower but they still turned profit thanks to the success they found on Xbox.
This gen is far more balanced compared to last gen where the studio output of those kinds of games in that style was making me starting to lose interest in gaming.
I prefer when Sony is in the lead because I think they have the widest range of games which is good for the industry, and my preference as well. But it's best when everyone is doing well. Which kinda seems like the case now. Sony is leading but the industry as a whole is very healthy.
Seriously where did this narrative that ps3 struggling meant japanese devs struggled? They just weren't releasing good games, they didn't transition to HD fast enough, or their budgets were bloated af.
Gen 7 was the big move towards online gaming, which Japanese devs weren't interested in at the time. That is why CoD blew tf up as did other FPS games
Without Playstation, their would be higher consumer demand for the missing content on those platforms, and developers would fill that void.
I think it really doesn't matter all that much.
Oh, so it's true. I heard there was gonna be announcement on the 29th, and from what I read so far it seems like a paid expansion DLC with regards to the content coming to PS4. It'd be nice if they did a physical reprint cuz I ran the OT here, many people were stuck waiting for physical copies but no one ever mentioned whether they eventually got them. The game had like a 90%+ physical sell through... Not sure they ever reprinted.
Right, but I feel that when PlayStation is the market leader, Western and Japanese games do well. When Microsoft was the market leader, only western ones did. And I personally feel there is a correlation there.
I think at the time he was probably right, because Sony struck the best balance of developer inclusiveness and being consumer friendly. Nintendo still are the most consumer focused of the three, but they are not as good at working with other developers, whilst Microsoft has historically made a few major anti consumer moves. Sony was and is somewhere in the middle.
I actually think now Microsoft has cleaned up its act enough to say that the industry would be better off with them in the lead. But then I'd still have that worry that they'd squander that opportunity by doing something bad for the industry. That might be unfair though.
I actually think now Microsoft has cleaned up its act enough to say that the industry would be better off with them in the lead. But then I'd still have that worry that they'd squander that opportunity by doing something bad for the industry. That might be unfair though.
Why can it not be good though? We had the Sony stranglehold you described for 2 generations straight and gaming flourished during those times. There was never an indication that Sony was trying to actively screw over their customers unlike Microsoft during the XBO reveal. MS tried during a time of game passes, a struggling games industry, to destroy the used games market and lock customers into whatever they mandate on their platform. This was in a generation of selling slightly less consoles than Sony, so who knows what they would've done if they were actually "winning". They don't seem to care too much about the health of the overall industry or regions when given a position of power.
What you can say about Sony is they are often too slow on their own with changes but overall they don't squeeze out money out of customers for the sake of making money. Maybe it's the Japanese mentality within the company or the global/worldwide presence but I personally trust them more than any other company.
Even Nintendo had more draconian methods when dealing with 3rd parties during the NES/SNES era. The only remotely similar thing I know of Sony is demanding the IP ownership when developing with/for them, since they couldn't keep their PS1 mascots like Crash and Spyro.
No one else here has been talking about the handheld market. It is separate and distinct from the home console market.
And that's a very easy thing to say about Nintendo when their third party support has been abysmal for decades. And they still need additional regulation as we've seen by the proliferation of the very types of games Sony is smacking down.
Gen 7 was huge for Japanese devs? They sold substantially more hardware and software than they are today?
Imagine thinking the best outcome for this medium requires buying a proprietary box en masse and filling the coffers of a multinational corporation whose only mission is profiteering. Why does gaming produce so many shills? Even on this forum? Could you imagine someone saying wrt to the music industry, "support Columbia Records to help artists!" Embarrassing.
The best environment for gaming is one where independent creators are supported socially, culturally and financially and gatekeepers are sidelined and powerless.
The best environment for gaming is one where independent creators are supported socially, culturally and financially and gatekeepers are sidelined and powerless.
Obvious market domination by anyone is bad for everyone else, consumers included.
But he was right to an extent, I prefer a generation where Sony has the upper hand, such as the current one.
But he was right to an extent, I prefer a generation where Sony has the upper hand, such as the current one.
Sales of games across the board were lower on the PS3 compared to the 360, with few exceptions outside of Japanese games. It's not as if 360 gamers were all in on them and PS3 gamers weren't. They were very similar audiences and, even now, they're not that different
Right but that's more to do with Japanese developers finally finding their footing after a rocky transition from the last generation. They struggled pumping out notable titles just in general last gen. Like would their games have been better if the PS3 won?
Some are arguing profitability, some are arguing their taste in games. I think thats where the disconnect is.
Quick reminder that Microsoft never led a generation, gen 7's lead console was the Wii.
I think you just failed in general here. You brought up a monopoly and said how it was good in direct response to Phantom Thief saying having one industry leader would be bad. There was no reason to do this unless you either thought a monopoly would work for video games or were just trying to be pedantic.
Geez why am I bothering? You aren't arguing in good faith, you just trying to win this argument by ignoring what they meant.
From 1 data point in which online gaming was taking off which launched more fps style games with it taking a whole other gen to reestablish the more single player prone Japanese games?