I get a lot of hate from Sony fanboys in the comments I leave on Sony articles. Most may think I hate Playstation products the way I come off sometimes, but that is the furthest thing from the truth.
I've enjoyed many Playstation games and for the most part all of Sony's consoles. I'm just a realist. I am not an easily persuaded, mind controlled fanboy. I tell it how it is. If I like one game or console I will say I like it. If your next game or console sucks I will say it sucks, because at the end of the day these corporations don't give two shits about me, just my money, just like you shouldn't give two shits about them, just their products, no strings attached.
The PS3 has had it's highlights this gen, but it's lowlights exceeded it's highlights. Playstations popularity and one-time large following is waning as each day passes, and who truly knows
where the Playstation brand stands today. If the PS Vita is any indication, Sony is in trouble in the future if they don't turn things around.
So as a fan of good gaming and a worrier of the health of console gaming overall, I want Sony to bounce back, who wouldn't? But how can they do it?
Here is my five ways to get Sony back on track for next-gen.
1. Sony must not have the most expensive console on the market
I'm not exactly sure how consumers are across the globe, but here in America, if you have the option of three choices of nearly the same thing, most consumers will go with the least expensive one
even if it's only a difference of 50 dollars less. The PS3 has never been the least expensive console but it offered more enticing features in comparison to other consoles, like Blu Ray and even free online but yet it still sold the least in America
by far because it's price tag was way too high.
It's going to be even harder for Sony next-gen to stay relevant now that not only is Microsoft competition, but with Nintendo's new HD WiiU console, they now have a new threat because all three consoles will be fairly similar from hardware to software, unlike Nintendo's Wii this gen which catered to the young crowd, opposite of Sony's audience.
2. No alien technology. Hardware must be more simple.
PS3 suffered a ton this generation because their hardware was simply too hard for multiplatform developers to make games on or to port games over to, so most multiplatform games were made for Xbox and poorly ported over to PS3, with a noticeable downgrade visually or in performance or both. Therefore The PS3 never really lived up to it's hype. So not only did Sony shoot themselves in the foot with a system that cost them a lot to manufacture with no noticeable upgrades in the gaming experience, the developers and gamers also suffered in the process.
3. Bring back unique franchises and unique elements in other franchises
Sony put a heavy emphasis on cookie-cutter shooters as this generation wore on to try and capitalize on the Call of Duty success. As the generation wore on the market became oversaturated with similar shooters. As a result, Sony started to see the downfall of some of it's biggest shooters such as Killzone, Socom and Resistance, and you can even throw Starhawk in that mix of CoD-like XP games people got tired of or lost interest in because they felt like copy-cats of one another.
Instead Sony needs to focus on bringing back some of it's unique franchises like Jak and Daxter, Crash Bandicoot or Shadow of the collossus, you know games that are fresh and different than other games out there. Then Look at what other franchises that were completely steered in another direction of failure and do what it takes to bring back what made those games unique and popular in the first place.
4. Charge for online service
This may piss some Playstation gamers off but if you think about it, what you pay for one game is the equivalent of one year of service on Xbox live. In this day and age you get what you pay for. If something is free it is going to be cheap and not maintained at the standards of something that is continuously gaining revenue, and we all know PSN was a piss poor service.
I know Sony has PS Plus, but all that does is segregate the
online community in the way these games with stupid subscription services do. Segregating your community for a quick buck is bad for business in the long run.
I'd much rather pay for something and have all the bells and whistles of features, smooth service and security then to have something for free and not have that stuff. People will pay for the service and won't complain if it's worth it, just look at Xbox live.
5. Target Gamers, not casuals
The PS3 in my eyes was more about targeting people that wanted a blu ray player rather than gamers in general. Whereas if you remember the PS2 the DVD player was an added bonus, it was never the main focus of their marketing, gaming always was.
Sony seemed to put the carriage before the horse with the PS3. Sony needs to get back to focusing more about the core gaming audience and what they want, because if you please the gamer we become your marketers and then you grow, casuals don't have that power. Stay away from trying to make your console an entertainment hub because if you try to please everyone you wind up pleasing no one. Gaming is what you know best, maximize that audience.
Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.
Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.
Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.
When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.
The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.
If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.
We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.
Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland
Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years
"The Vancouver-based (Canada) indie games developer Blinkmoon Games are today very happy and proud to announce that their dark fantasy bullet heaven "Necromantic", is coming to PC via Steam Early Access in 2024." - Jonas Ek, TGG.
Athenian Rhapsody is a JRPG with a difference: alongside turn-based combat & exploration, you'll need to complete WarioWare-style microgames.
I agree with some of the points, but strongly disagree with the last one, I think Sony caters to both gamers, and casuals, but emphasises on the gamers. Besides, using the bluray format proved to be very beneficial especially for first party titles, I honestly think that out of the big three, Sony catered the most to hardcore gamers this gen, they tried to appeal to the casual at multiple occasions, but they never abandoned the hardcore while doing so. I think their fifth and most fatal error is the lack of marketing, and advertising, you should have mentioned that.
4. Charge for online service
"In this day and age you get what you pay for."
Nope, if that were true the concept of 'price premium' would go out the back door.
"If something is free it is going to be cheap and not maintained at the standards of something that is continuously gaining revenue"
Nope, a large majority of the best online services are all free: Steam, Google, Skype, Facebook...all free.
"we all know PSN was a piss poor service."
In what? That fact that you could use your own Internet connection to connect to other people's consoles via P2P in 99% of console games? I think you're confusing the PS3's lack of change in GUI apps, utility with the actual robustness of the PSN service.
"Segregating your community for a quick buck is bad for business in the long run. "
No it isn't, basic commerce 101 dictates that it's the most efficient way to cater to the largest demand with the largest supply, it stops the service being a 'exclusive' service where those who wish to pay the maximum fee can use it. It's the same reason why Cable television providers have different tiers of packages.
"I'd much rather pay for something and have all the bells and whistles of features, smooth service and security then to have something for free and not have that stuff. "
True but that's your preference, I won't pay for stuff I don't use and security has absolutely no correlation with revenue generation see: Visa, Amazon, Google, Bank of America....
"People will pay for the service and won't complain if it's worth it, just look at Xbox live. "
If people see the value of a paid service, so be it, I'm happy for them, but I think the reasoning has more to do with you've spent $500+ on a console and a library of games...how can you not justify paying $30-49.99 a year to enjoy your purchase.
4. Charge for online service
"In this day and age you get what you pay for."
Nope, if that were true the concept of 'price premium' would go out the back door.
"If something is free it is going to be cheap and not maintained at the standards of something that is continuously gaining revenue"
Nope, a large majority of the best online services are all free: Steam, Google, Skype, Facebook...all free.
"we all know PSN was a piss poor service."
In what? That fact that you could use your own Internet connection to connect to other people's consoles via P2P in 99% of console games? I think you're confusing the PS3's lack of change in GUI apps, utility with the actual robustness of the PSN service.
"Segregating your community for a quick buck is bad for business in the long run. "
No it isn't, basic commerce 101 dictates that it's the most efficient way to cater to the largest demand with the largest supply, it stops the service being a 'invite only' service where those who wish to pay the maximum fee can use it. It's the same reason why Cable television providers have different tiers of packages.
"I'd much rather pay for something and have all the bells and whistles of features, smooth service and security then to have something for free and not have that stuff. "
True but that's your preference, I won't pay for stuff I don't use and security has absolutely no correlation with revenue generation see: Visa, Amazon, Google, Bank of America....they all face the reality of cyber-crime everyday.
"People will pay for the service and won't complain if it's worth it, just look at Xbox live. "
If people see the value of a paid service, so be it, I'm happy for them, but I think the reasoning has more to do with you've spent $500+ on a console and a library of games...how can you not justify paying $30-49.99 a year to enjoy your purchase.
Wow… I see why you are cast as a Sony hater
You may believe your advice is worthwhile, but I doubt Sony, or most PS gamers would agree. Much of your claims are outdated and seem to suggest that you haven’t even used a PS3 for quite some time. I’ll address the single sidedness in most of your items of advice. The only sound recommendation you make is about controlling the entry price of the next console.
1. I think everyone agrees that the high price and poor marketing early on hindered sales and would do the same for the Next-Gen.
2. Hardware drives change and improvements, not software. Your supporting argument about Porting games was true the first year or so after the PS3 was realized. However, this is flawed rationale, as the only people that care about console to console port comparisons is the gaming press. The honest gamer could less is if game X displayed beard-stubble better on a different system. Gamers are going to buy the game for their respective system. I own all three systems and this type of comparisons have not altered my buying habits. Simply put game comparison articles about rating frame rate and picture quality only serve to provide the gaming press a means to support their favorite console.
3. For a person in the gaming industry, you seem highly uninformed about Sony products. Maybe it’s because deep down you are a Sony hater. They say a person can only get better after they acknowledged that they have a problem. Anyway back on track… Sony has already done more than any other console maker to provide unique gaming experiences. Sony has produced more exclusive games, and is reintroducing many older favorites in HD.
4. This comment just goes to show that you have not used PSN. Maybe you have no friends on PSN, and that leads to your conclusion that PSN is somehow inferior to Xbox Live. 4 months ago I cancelled my Xbox Live subscription because I hated paying for something that should be free. This comment contradicts the point you were trying to make about price. If price is the driving factor than Xbox Live should cancel charging its members! From a gaming perspective both service offer the same service. In the meantime you just continue to pay for access to FB, Twitter, and Netflix.
5. Alright we agree on two out five points (1 and 5). I’d also hope that Sony maximizes its limited marketing on gaming, and leaves out the social media, and entertainment hub aspects of any Next-Gen console it produces.
1. The only reason ps3 was $600 at launch was because of bluray, now bluray is much cheaper aka ps4 will be
(i think bluray has been worth every penny imo)
2. the "alien technology" you speak of has put out the best looking console games this gen, i believe some devs are just lazy or dont know how to program for a more complex system
now sony will prolly make ps4 much easier to just to keep
the rest of the devs happy which is great but still a shame imo
3. Youre joking right?
heavenly sword, demon's souls, heavy rain, beyond, little big planet, the last guardian, infamous, the last of us, sly 4, twisted metal, GOW, journey, Gran Turismo, metal gear solid, uncharted, yakuza, motorstorm, modnation racers, valkyria chronicles
gotta have shooters as well: resistance, warhawk, killzone, MAG, socom, dust 514
Yeah id say sony's got this area covered and then some
4. WRONG, just wrong
PS plus > xbl
free online > paid ad riddled live
cross game chat is on vita btw
keep drinking that microsoft koolaid, its not 2006 anymore
5. go watch the "michael" commercial on playstation channel on youtube bro imo out