-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The PlayStation Concern is concerning when PlayStation games are more successful in the PS4/PS5 era than they were before
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
Edellus
Member
Yes, I'm serious. Can you define what makes a game of high quality? I ask because I can't. I can only define what I usually like in games. And even then only most of the time at best, because I get surprised sometimes.
But I do agree that everyone (or no one) defines it, as it is indeed subjective. So I think bringing "quality" into a discussion to define the state of a platform/generation/gaming is a non starter. The only metric we can take as indication of the state of any aspect of gaming (consumer wise) are sales. And even then it is not precise since marketing, franchise history, etc,play a huge part in those sales. That people enjoy or don't enjoy these games comes after the fact that they bought them.
You probably should have said StarFox instead of Metroid because we haven't seen a StarFox game in awhile.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Oh some here 100% care about the sales and are not shareholders
GymWolf
Member
Fair point.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I really wish Sony would put out some 1st party stuff soon that satisfied the base, because when you guys are bored we all have to pay the price.
Nope and that's a great thing . Remember people were concerned about SwitchNintendo's line up full of games that have sold way more than Sonys. Are you not concerned about that?
If Sony got lucky with MS messing up why did the PS1 sell so well? Nintendo & Sega was doing great when PlayStation showed up yet PlayStation sold more than any other console in history then it did it again . How is that luck?
th4tguy
Member
For me it was ffxvi and ff7 rebirth.
I love jrpgs and the ability to remote play on my phone and portal was so ideal.
I don’t have a computer for gaming. Just my work laptop.
I think a ton of ps buyers are 1 system owners. They only own their ps5, updating from their last single system.
I can define what makes a game of high quality for me and I don't see why I wouldn't bring quality of the games to the discussion even if it is subjective. That is obviously what matters most to me. Couldn't disagree more with the bolded sentence. Also, like other people in this thread pointed out, gaming is getting more and more mainstream every year, so the comparison of absolute numbers of units sold today vs 10-15 years ago doesn't mean as much as some people seem to think.
BlackTron
Member
It was most attractive when Demon's Souls, Rachet and Clank, Returnal and GT were all exclusive and it set me up to think I'd be a PS5 owner for sure. My mistake was waiting for VR to come out. By that time we realized we had PC versions and VR was meh. Today, Astro Bot is the biggest draw yes.
Metroid is a better direct example because it has low sales and was actually liked, like Resistance.
Star Fox has a poor batting average and its last game was horrible. I'm more concerned the next game will also be bad, than that it'll never come back. It hasn't been nearly as long as the last Resistance game.
RagnarokIV
Battlebus imprisoning me \m/ >.< \m/
100% - It's because we are not sony shareholders, so nobody gives a fuck about sales being better.
Why can't people understand this?
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I'm so grateful I grew up in the 80s and 90s when no one thought this way. Especially in regards to music, it was often the opposite. Some of you guys are so corporate I swear you're Patrick Bateman. This quote is something I'd expect an EA CEO to say.
Edellus
Member
I think it is pointless to bring an entirely subjective aspect into a discussion because there's nothing to discuss. We can't discuss each other's tastes in games. We can share them, explore them, but not discuss. If you like a game I can't say you are wrong to like it because I don't like the game. That some people agree with you doesn't change that. It is only indicative that you and other people share that opinion.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
We could say that games are less risky, less unique, completely focus tested. Sony used to be really risky but imo it's basically ubisoft from 10 years ago.
RagnarokIV
Battlebus imprisoning me \m/ >.< \m/
I'm so grateful I grew up in the 80s and 90s when no one thought this way. Especially in regards to music, it was often the opposite. Some of you guys are so corporate I swear you're Patrick Bateman. This quote is something I'd expect an EA CEO to say.
Edellus
Member
I agree with that to some extent, particularly with the first sentence. That said, it is currently like that because the less unique and risky formula works. One could argue even that many people like formulaic games despite the formula.
Unknown?
Member
Everyone has less games though so saying it's a Sony problem is not accurate, it's industry wide.
schaft0620
Member
I think it was very important that Xbox didn't become a third party. I also think Jim Ryan really hurt the games industry as a whole the way he ran SIE.
It's also very important Nintendo delivery on major Switch 2 exclusives over the next 90 days so this isn't another Wii U situation.
Unemployment is about to hit a high point in the US. Then there's looming tarrifs. Nintendo needs to deliver, its not going to be handed to them.
It's also very important Nintendo delivery on major Switch 2 exclusives over the next 90 days so this isn't another Wii U situation.
Unemployment is about to hit a high point in the US. Then there's looming tarrifs. Nintendo needs to deliver, its not going to be handed to them.
Last edited:
Edellus
Member
Okay. So how do you think we should take as indication of the state of anything? Your opinion in particular? The opinion of the people that agree with you?I'm so grateful I grew up in the 80s and 90s when no one thought this way. Especially in regards to music, it was often the opposite. Some of you guys are so corporate I swear you're Patrick Bateman. This quote is something I'd expect an EA CEO to say.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Chile con Cerny
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
State of what? I'll answer, but I just don't know what you're actually talking about. Like how do we determine if a game is good or bad?
Fabieter
Member
Yes alot of people also like cod, and fifa. One would argue that those formulaic games get stale and than you might think quality isn't there anymore.
Their open world games are really compareable to ubisoft and they also focus on gaas just as much. Sony need to make so more unique experiences.
I srsly wanted to like ghost of Tsushima for example but it felt soo damn generic. Guess people are happy about generic games as long as Sony makes money.
schaft0620
Member
What a remarkable contribution to this thread.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I chuckled
Edellus
Member
The point of the OP and of my comment you quoted? The state of Playstation games?
Fabieter
Member
Some of us have stock of Sony but the rest shouldn't care over those games selling 10 or 20m. It doesn't matter as long as it makes some money to get a sequel.
owandeseis
Member
Open world games with zzz sidequests
TLOU better (And HD2 and Returnal)
TLOU better (And HD2 and Returnal)
Last edited:
Edellus
Member
Well, I don't like COD or FIFA either and I dropped Ghost of Tsushima too (but I'll give it another go sometime), but I wouldn't say that because I can't find a reason to like those games it also means that other people can't either and would only buy them so their fav company makes money. I would only say that they like different things than I do and more power to them.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I read the OP and your post, I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page since you said "state of anything." No offense intended.
All people have is their own opinion really. You play a game, and then think about it and try and determine if you think it's a satisfying product for you. This is what every game review is in theory, and they specifically come out prior to sales. People can discuss things and shape a consensus opinion, but even then that doesn't have any objective hold on quality. Many of the most famous artists are so ahead of their time that the consensus opinion is actually quite negative until years after their death when the audience catches up to where they were at. Sometimes a video game can be pushing some truly creative things that challenge expectations and it takes many years for the audience to realize what it accomplished.
It's been a known thing in music that sales and quality are almost inversely aligned. The simpler something is, the more likely that a broad selection of people will not find it offensive or off-putting. The safer, the less consequential it is, the more its marketed by large corporations, the more sales it can get. The more it's using a familiar IP that people recognize, the bigger sales advantage it has, even if it's basically doing the same thing that came before.
Sometimes these venn diagrams overlap and great games get great sales, but the two things are separate and have to be assessed separately to determine if that's true. This is all common sense really for everyone until just this generation. I've never seen people act like this in gaming discussions. It's been widely understood that some of the best games are often the least successful. They could have a higher barrier to entry due to high level gameplay, challenging story content, or unusual and eccentric design, more complex and well designed puzzles that alienate casual gamers.
I used to go along with GOTY conversations on here for fun, but the conformity and aggressiveness I see on here repelled me from even that. I truly only take my own opinion on things now. I don't even vote in GOTY threads at this point. People have really lost it. It's like saying the Oscar for best movie should just be determined by sales. No one ever thought this way until PS5.
Last edited:
Orbital2060
Member
Oh, the forum posters with stocks in the companies they stan for. I guess thats a strong motivation for what to think about games.
Fabieter
Member
I think if that's the metric you don't care about games all that much but it's understandable if you like big numbers when you make money from it youself.
I also play games with specific formulas from time to time, but it gets tiring if it's always the same shit and it's sad if it's used to be different. Sony was different, it's the most streamlined publisher right now imo.
Last edited:
MonkD
Member
I see a lot of this too. But I doubt anyone here is going to defend Fifa as being one of the best games of all time. And I think almost everyone who posts here would shit on the latest Pokemon game for not doing anything better now than they did 25 years ago.
But sales wise there is an argument to be made for both of those to stay contenders for GOTY.
yurinka
Member
100% agree. For most Sony studios, their more recent game has been the most successful in sales, MC or awards that team ever had.
I'd add they also win a ton of awards. As an example, Sony was the company with more 2024 awarded games, that won more awards and had the game with more awards.
They also highly improved in recent years regarding MP games, genres like shooters or platformers, GaaS, PC and movie/tv show adaptations.
Its huge and diverse catalog with a ton of awesome exclusive or multiplatform games of all console gaming genres.
Only consoles with a poor very catalog and just a few games rely on one or a few system sellers.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
i thought it was only MS who had shills?.....
Fabieter
Member
Those are paid, sony shills are volunteers.
Polygonal_Sprite
Gold Member
Anyone can sell 10+ million when you fire sell your AAA software at sub ÂŁ20.
Bernardougf
Member
Cant say about that .. I did not participate directly in the ps1 gen for monetary reasons, so I know very little
details about its history ... so wont even try to make a argument for it.
All I can say is that if Xbox had played the cards better .. much better ... the end of this gen could have been very different, and Im definitely not an Xbox guy.
I can speak only for myself.. is the first gen that I see my Ps as a multiplat first machine and dont care about first party ... outside the very first wave (returnal, demons souls, gt7) the rest has been absolutely bad sequels, gaas and unnecessary remakes... and astrobot. In 4 soon to be 5 years. ... 04 fp games that I liked in almost 5 years of a Sony console .. its absolutely awful for me.
We can discuss quality and we can discuss success .. sometimes they are the same .. but sometimes they are a product of time and luck.
What am I trying to sale?
The consoles & games are selling on their own.
So what am I shilling for?
Fbh
Member
Gaming seems like the only hobby where people use this "you have to like it because of sales" argument.
"Man I miss the movies from the 80's. Remember when we got stuff like Blade Runner, Terminator, The Thing, Aliens, Empire strikes back, etc"
"Yeah but Fast and Furios 7 made 1.5 billion at the box office and Spiderman No Way Home made almost 2 billion, so surely you must like modern movies way better"
"Man I miss the movies from the 80's. Remember when we got stuff like Blade Runner, Terminator, The Thing, Aliens, Empire strikes back, etc"
"Yeah but Fast and Furios 7 made 1.5 billion at the box office and Spiderman No Way Home made almost 2 billion, so surely you must like modern movies way better"
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Edellus
Member
100% agree
I don't agree with the bolded part, although I share its sentiment. It goes back to defining what "high quality" means. A bit of an elitist take too. That something is popular only tells us that many people like it/talk about it, but nothing of its quality. If that were the case, we could say things like The Rolling Stones, Queen, etc, musicians widely considered the greatests made works of low quality because they were popular. I mean, we could say that, but with nothing to stand on but our own opinion. Our opinions talk more about ourselves than the objects of our opinions.
I do agree that the safer the less consequential it is. The less it inspires what comes after and so on. But I don't think that is a gate to stop anyone from enjoying anything. Many people even literaly say "if it works, don't touch it" and ask for "more of the same". I think that's fine. If I could, I would have cheesecake or lemon pie as desserts every day.
This I don't understand. Widely understood by whom? Gaming enthusiasts forums? And why is it understood? Is it perhaps because it is a widely shared opinion? If so, we already agreed in what opinions are at the end of the day.
Fair enough I guess. But I don't understand why people not agreeing with you on your gaming tastes would be important enough for you to be repelled by. They're just opinions. No one has lost it. People have disagreed since ever. And that's fine. I would say that's great.
About the bolded part. If you think that's what I mean, then you thought wrong. I started my earlier comment by challenging the idea of establishing quality as non subjective and therefore valid to judge the state of gaming (in this thread, Playstation), because it is in fact subjective. So no, we shouldn't praise games because of high sales. We shouldn't consider anything of low/high quality because of sales. I would only praise that people are enjoying games they like more than ever before and that's about it.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I couldn't care less if people disagree with my opinion. What I often encounter on here is well beyond that. It's taking sales, and majority consensus as some kind of badge of being objectively right and using that to bully and harass people who pick anything outside the norm. Basically just rampant conformity and bullying. I fully support everyone picking whatever they want, and none of it has to match my opinion.
alabtrosMyster
Member
Black Myth Wukong also did wonders.
Stellar Blade
Etc.
Most Sony exclusives were also on ps4, but I still think that they moved PS5s.
You seem to think that I'm saying that the games are better because they sale more. That's not what I'm saying .
I'm pointing out that PlayStation Games are now selling better than ever so why is there all of a sudden a concern about PlayStation's Output?
I remember PlayStation didn't have a match for Halo in the PS2 days then they didn't have a match for Gears of War & Halo in the PS3 days but now that their 1st party games are selling 10 , 15 & 20 million copies now it's a problem with 1st party games?
Did people forget how things were?
Microsoft: Halo 3 has outsold PS3 exclusives combined
Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg has said that according to NPD data, sales of Bungie's Halo 3 have outsold the combined sal…
www.gamesindustry.biz
Fabieter
Member
It's just brand power at this point. There are really good ar marketing.
Edellus
Member
Well, I agree in that case. It's just that from my experience on what I've read in this forum it's usually the opposite. When I visit threads about AC, FF, Horizon, because I've enjoyed most of those franchises' games, there's no lack of "this game is trash", "will be trash because the last was trash" and "you're part of the problem" types of comments, even in threads about just news of said games (not OTs). And of course, it is fine to dislike something, but then I don't understand why decide to engage in something you don't like and specially if you're not interested in it, repeatedly. As you put it; bullying. Maybe that's what I'm repelled by.
Dorago
Member
Copies sold does not equal profit earned.
If Horizon Forbidden West cost $212 million to produce (these numbers area opaque BTW and don't necessarily reflect advertising budgets, tax incentives, etc) it needs to sell roughly 4.3 million copies to break even and more than that to earn a profit.
This would seem to have occurred, but one wonders how much the advertising budget was, how much it costs Sony to maintain PSN, how much more it cost to publish both PS4 and PS5 versions of the game, how much money are they losing on physical media considering high fuel costs over the last few years, how much labor costs have increased due to basic cost of living increases, finally how much are 7x higher interest rates cutting into Sony's bottom line from capital asset purchases over the last several years.
All saying, Sony's break even point may be way higher than we think.
If Horizon Forbidden West cost $212 million to produce (these numbers area opaque BTW and don't necessarily reflect advertising budgets, tax incentives, etc) it needs to sell roughly 4.3 million copies to break even and more than that to earn a profit.
This would seem to have occurred, but one wonders how much the advertising budget was, how much it costs Sony to maintain PSN, how much more it cost to publish both PS4 and PS5 versions of the game, how much money are they losing on physical media considering high fuel costs over the last few years, how much labor costs have increased due to basic cost of living increases, finally how much are 7x higher interest rates cutting into Sony's bottom line from capital asset purchases over the last several years.
All saying, Sony's break even point may be way higher than we think.
Similar threads
- Poll