But these are textbook examples of them respecting the legacy and history of their brand? How can they not be?
-
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.
Why does Sony seemingly not respect its own legacy and history?
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
But these are textbook examples of them respecting the legacy and history of their brand? How can they not be?
Tons of electronics you use sells for money open source software (especially when it's BSD licensed given that the BSD license does allow for it )
By the way the emulator Nintendo used for its NES classic mini was based on a staging core of Higan developped for another low powered SoC the guys at NERD when they made Canoe just made it better and polished it up to the standards of quality that Nintendo asked of them.
Again there is nothing wrong in using Open Source especially when (just like both Nintendo and Sony) you're a very heavy investor in it.
Although with the PSone Classic I have to agree that this time around it was a real rushed job.
OP
OP
Larger issue: why include new Dante instead of classic Dante? Why have Big Daddy or Isaac? How exactly are they associated with the history or legacy of PlayStation?
The whole thing reeked of a Trjan Horse marketing ploy.
Sony as a company just constantly puts out something new and leave the old behind. It's somewhat understandable from the 'electronics company' aspect, just that it doesn't necessarily translate well where character franchises and such may exist. Playstation itself was the "new" that went on top, and no real effort was made to capture initial PS classics. As a result no one cares about Toro, Jumping Flash is a dead franchise, Arc the Lad is a gacha game. Certainly doesn't help that these games played second fiddle to major third party games that were able to establish themselves.
This is kinda what I'm thinking too. Cash grabbing at its finest.
I mean. Jim Ryan said it himself "who wants to play this old shit". That wasn't his exact quote but cmon that's what he really meant. I wish we had more classic ps1-ps2 games on PS4 but they don't really care. Their still beating their competition & still making big profit without their classic games. Hopefully the PS5 will have BC or classic games available for digital download but I'm not holding my breath.
New Dante is probably what Capcom let them have to hype up their new DmC game. Same with Big Daddy / Isaac. It's probably the people that those IP owners gave them on the cheap without spending a fortune.
OP
OP
Because it's not representative of the larger attitude they have towards the history of the brand, which is easily highlighted when looking at macro level examples such as PSC, PSASBR, and statements made by their own execs.
There is nothing proven extremely popular let alone Original Xbox BC. The only game ever charting because of this was one Xbox 360 game. One.
Eh, I wouldnt change the way Sony have been these past few years, they have delivered some astounding and era defining AAA exclusives. Could they erm ¨respect their legacy¨ in a more apparent way with how they have handled some aspects of their business? Sure. But they are so forward thinking and all about making the next blockbuster Playstation series while evolving their business that its understandable how they have made a few missteps concerning things like BC.
Once Ken Kutaragi left Sony, they lost interest in maintaining their legacy. He had a real passion for backwards compatibility and really respected the games that had come before.
From the point in which he left, Sony lost interest in the past and desperately chased Microsoft, as well as their "game of the month" mentality and strategy during the 360 era (Though ironically, Microsoft have now moved away from this!)
But yeah, the loss of Krazy Ken was a big blow to the part of Sony that actually really cared about their legacy. Today Sony only care as far as it can be exploited for easy money.
From the point in which he left, Sony lost interest in the past and desperately chased Microsoft, as well as their "game of the month" mentality and strategy during the 360 era (Though ironically, Microsoft have now moved away from this!)
But yeah, the loss of Krazy Ken was a big blow to the part of Sony that actually really cared about their legacy. Today Sony only care as far as it can be exploited for easy money.
OP
OP
Which brings me to: clearly Sony didn't want to spend the money necessary to make an actual celebration of their brand.
The OP has a good point in some respects. I'm honestly surprised they put out the PS Classic knowing full well that it has barely any of the games one would associate with the word "classic". If anything, it hurts its legacy. It's possible to create new franchises and ideas like they've been doing superbly this gen, while simultaneously respecting their past.
That said, I do like their efforts with the remasters. SotC was top notch and I'm hyped for MediEvil. In that regard, they're better than Nintendo who simply want to sell you the same games over and over for an overpriced amount.
That said, I do like their efforts with the remasters. SotC was top notch and I'm hyped for MediEvil. In that regard, they're better than Nintendo who simply want to sell you the same games over and over for an overpriced amount.
To me, the PS1 is more than a bunch of launch-window titles and extreme sports games licensed on the cheap.
OP
OP
Microsoft has released statistics on a frequent basis that has highlighted just how popular this feature is. The sales of NES and SNES Classics highlight just how popular legacy content is.
As much as you would like to deny that, that is the truth.
This, they could've done it. I have no doubt about that if fucking Nintendo can get Cloud and Snake (Alucard too considering his AT). It's clear they didn't invest much in the project
Honestly, I wouldn't have either. The characters that they wanted probably would have cost a fortune and, should the game have failed, they would have ended up with worse of a flop on their hands.
Nintendo got third party characters by their third installment of a gangbusters franchise that they knew would sell. You didn't see them shelling out cash for characters for Smash 1
How isn't it? It seems to me you just want to discuss the bad examples and brush aside the good examples, of which there are many.
OP
OP
Then it's clear it was a cheap cashgrab, and not an actual celebration of their legacy, which is what I said...
They don't give a f because they can't earn enough money to put actual effort.
2 COD games charting in NPD doesn't mean much. And it's a 360 games, not PS2 and PS1. PS3 emulation is probably impossible for PS4.
Sony remasters some fan favorites and that's all.
2 COD games charting in NPD doesn't mean much. And it's a 360 games, not PS2 and PS1. PS3 emulation is probably impossible for PS4.
Sony remasters some fan favorites and that's all.
OP
OP
There are great larger scale examples, such as their PS Classics initiative on the PS3 and PSP which I myself highlighted in the OP.
Single game remasters and remakes are not among them. That's like saying EA respects Burnout's legacy because they released Burnout Paradise Remastered.
Wait, what? No, it didn't. Check my post; there's no edit mark on it, and it's the same one you quoted.
I don't know why, but it sure does fucking suck. PS1 is probably the one console that shaped me as a game enthusiast more than any other. I actually really like the game list for the PS1 Classic because it highlights the diversity of the system that I really loved, but it's a shame that it appears to run somewhat poorly. And I would rather just play them on my ps4, anyway! I have dozens of PSone Classics on PSN that I would kill to play on my TV without having to lug my ps3 out or getting a pstv.
Well to be honest they didn't need to. Nintendo's IP are noteable enough to carry Smash on their own. Sony should've realized what people expect for a PlayStation equivalent of Smash, and that their own first party couldnt fill that completely at all.
OP
OP
I was not speaking about your post, sorry.
Sales numbers for what? The NES and SNES Classic?
That is one thing where I do agree.
If you have respect for your entire franchise then you future proof your entire franchise.
Not the episode that sold real well ...
I like Sony's strategy. It seems like they put most of their effort into building a great current gen lineup with good support from 3rd parties.
This. Ignoring Sony's efforts for maintaining brand legacy (remaking rough early 3D games like MediEvil and PaRappa, for example) can't be hand-waved away considering the subject matter of the topic.
Clearly Sony could be making more efforts with BC on PS4, for example, and it seems like there's a business case for why they aren't as interested as, say, Microsoft. As a consumer we shouldn't care, but then again we should be holding Nintendo just as accountable for abandoning the Virtual Console in the same breath we shake our fists at PS4 not having PlayStation Classics on it.
OP
OP
Yeah, and really, you try and honor your whole legacy, not just what you can grab at a quick notice in an attempt to cash in.
How is this deemed "console warring"?
Its not. Every major games company does it .
i'm not a big sony fan, the only sony system that i had for a big chunk of time was psp (and i loved it) but looking at things from kind of an outside perspective, they seem to be more interested in starting fresh each generation, with new series and new ideas. it can be both good and bad, of course. but i think hardcore sony fans care way about sony's legacy and older titles than sony themselves. they obviously throw the older fans a bone here or there, but for the most part they seem uninterested in maintaining their series and legacy and instead prefer to work on new stuff and reinvent themselves.
i was interested in ps classic as some of my favorite gaming memories are from playing on a PS1 whenever i was at my cousin's house, i was interested more for the nostalgia, it's really disappointing to see them not being interested in actually doing the classic console thing right and instead treat this as a quick cash grab.
i was interested in ps classic as some of my favorite gaming memories are from playing on a PS1 whenever i was at my cousin's house, i was interested more for the nostalgia, it's really disappointing to see them not being interested in actually doing the classic console thing right and instead treat this as a quick cash grab.
Last edited:
Which are all great efforts and the best in the industry but what does that have to do with how they handled the PS Classic and the lack of older PlayStation titles on the PS4? One doesn't prevent the other. Just like with Nintendo, it's more than fair to call out a lackluster effort on bringing over their older games on their most recent systems
Why does it have to be one or the other? Was it not possible that they didn't want to spend a fortune on a risky new IP with no guarantee of success?
Of course they are. Nintendo's IPs absolutely carried Smash through its first couple of iterations. Honestly, I feel that PSASBR should have been shelved until this generation where they had more IPs to work with in their pocket. Hell, a new one could include Joel / Ellie, Axe Kratos (totally a different character :P), Aloy, and they could have probably even gotten Spider-Man for it.
No, you both can't be correct, and you are very defensive. Just think next time before you accusing someone of "thinly veiled" silliness, thanks!
I completely agree man and it sucks because PlayStation has always been my goto console of choice. I hope the PS5 can fix some of this because I am tired of it being the only console that doesn't have good legacy support. I guess the Switch has poor support for now but you know it's coming. The time has all but passed for the PS4 though.
