Where did Sony go wrong with PS All Stars Battle Royale?

It seems Sony did all the right things with Playstation All Stars Battle Royale. Most gamers claim its a rip off of Super Smash Brothers. But there is nothing wrong with emulating success. The question is, could Sony have done anything different with the game to make it stand out more? Will Playstation All Stars Battle Royale have the lasting appeal Super Smash Brothers has?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dgonza401955d ago

no, i think it being playstation is the reason it had any legs in the sales department.

Where they REALLY messed up was the marketing. This game is great for the casual as well as hardcore demographic. Everything else about it is fine, and i love the game and it's really a lot of fun if you spend more than half an hour with it.

Hopefully the new marketing team Sony went with knows how to market games better.

1955d ago Replies(2)
PirateThom1955d ago

Not having Sony Santa Monica developing it.

dgonza401955d ago

The game is great. If it really needs the Sony Santa Monica name for certain people to purchase it, then i'd be severely disappointed because it means a lot of young blood 2nd-party developers will have no chance making PS3 exclusives.

PirateThom1955d ago

It isn't that, it's the fact the SSM concept trailer had more going for it.

ErazorDJ1955d ago

''the game has only sold 140,000 copies worldwide''


this game has sold 430.000 copies in ps3 and 140.000 copies in PsVita, total 570.000 copies.

HarryMasonHerpderp1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Not to mention digital sales too.
Some people actually liked this game.
Me included.
The way the media portrays it though is as if everyone hated it and it was a complete failure. Which is not true.

Kratoscar20081955d ago

Its still low tough.

In any case Sony failed to get good characters, i mean Big Daddy? New Dante? Where is Gabe Logan? Where is Crash? Where is Spyro? Where is Snake?

It failed to be a dream match.

HarryMasonHerpderp1955d ago

It did need Spyro,Crash,Cloud and Snake.
It needed more modes and a better arcade mode too.
What we ended up getting though isn't half bad and they managed to do their own thing and make a pretty good brawler.

zebramocha1955d ago

@Harry didn't superbot say,they couldn't get hold of certain characters for the game.

Tonester9251955d ago

SuperBot stated countless times that it was up to the IP holder. Ninja Theory wanted "New Dante" in. Omar Kendall said that they looked at almost every character that's ever been on a playstation game to make it into PASBR. It was out of their control unless they wanted to fork over a lot of money. Sony wouldn't have liked that. Gamers need to realize that's its more to making a game then MAKING THE GAME. Especially one like this.

Kratoscar20081955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )


Yeas it was good but you know its selling point was being a dream match, is like Nintendo made brawl and ignored characters like Fox or Olimar, while they are not insanely popular they are still part of what makes Nintendo.

Yes they did and is a shame really.


This is thr problem, Sony wanted to make a game to compete to SSB rather than making their own unique tribute to the story of Playstation wich it should had been, Big Daddy as iconic as he is he did NOTHING for the story of Playstation while Gabe Logan broke his back making the three awesome Syphon Filter games and those were my favorite action game of the PS1 so that for me sucks balls.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1955d ago
showtimefolks1955d ago

You know besides the hate from Nintendo fanboys Sony did a lot right for their 1st entry into a brawler/fighter.

IMO what did this game so bad was the advertisement, I mean no gameplay what so ever. That's been the problem for Sony in this gen even when they do advertise they dont do it right

Now I am very hopeful this new advertisement firm will fix a lot of that

dgonza401955d ago

lol, i should've gone further down to read your comment because i wrote the exact same thing in reply to the first comment on this article.

Hopefully we see another entry in the series, and hopefully SSM can improve on the foundation SuperBot laid down

Anon19741955d ago

Remember when all those sites were falling over themselves to declare LittleBigPlanet a flop? I wonder how many of those sites printed retractions after the game ended up being a consistent seller and moved something like 5 million copies.

At any rate, what are they basing this article on? Numbers from VGChartz? And not even the right numbers from VGChartz? Yeah, fail article fails.

maniacmayhem1955d ago

So are you saying that PSAS was a success?

Anon19741955d ago

How the hell should I know? If I said it was or wasn't, I'd just be guessing, like this article. Besides. I have no idea what the metric for game success is. It would depend on any number of factors and who knows what their expectations were. I think if, at the end of the day, you can afford to pay all your employees and you've made money, that's a success. This studio was created out of nothing and this was the small, startup studio's first game. They may not be working with Sony exclusively any more, but they haven't closed their doors. That says something right there.

However, if they're forced to close up shop because they didn't make enough to continue, obviously the game didn't succeed. Again, we really don't know at this stage. Personally, I could care less. I didn't buy the game. It just didn't appeal to me, but I hate when articles like this spout off about something they really know nothing about. Articles like this are meaningless, because you need at least some basic facts on which to base your opinion on. This article started with zero facts.

But at least the author has the balls to put his name on his work. So many articles these days, the authors just spew nonsense and don't even bother to stand behind their own comments. I think, as a rule, if the author of an article can't be bothered to use his real name and state his background in a basic "About Us" that they should just be considered nameless blogs and rejected.

maniacmayhem1955d ago

I'm just asking because it seems to be common knowledge now that PSAS was not a success in what Sony had hoped for.

So why bash the article for stating that PSAS was not a success and what they think they could have done better? You're dismissing it only because he quoted vgchartz?

The article actually states what could have separated PSAS from SSB even more with added features, modes and gameplay ideas.

"They may not be working with Sony exclusively any more, but they haven't closed their doors. That says something right there."

It does say a lot, if the game was a success then why would Sony severe ties and move further development in house? You don't contract a company and then drop them if the product they made is successful and making you money. And especially after one game.

Superbot may have not closed shop but they had to do some serious cut backs and lay offs because of the severed tie.

I guess what I'm trying to say is stop trying to defend the obvious. The game didn't do well, it happens.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1955d ago
Shadow Flare1955d ago

Not making Kaz Harai a playable character

Kaizin5141955d ago

I could see it now. His level 2 special "Riiiiidge Raaceeerr" and a bunch of sports cars come and annihilate his foes with his level 3 special being a historical representation of a giant crab which, for the hell of it, he can control.

Shadow Flare1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Courtesy of Unlimax

Kaz's Level 1 attack

Kaz's Level 2 attack

Kaz's Level 3 attack

Kaz has a Level 4 attack that he saves for special occasions

BlackTar1871955d ago

Shadow flare 100% win good job first one had me LOL'ing for sure

FunAndGun1955d ago

I died when he tossed out the Move controllers! LOL

kenshiro1001950d ago

That was hilarious Flare.

OhReginald1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

honestly the reason why PSASBR sucked is because it IS NOT A Super smash bro clone like people hoped for.

FlameBaitGod1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Don't know y you got disagrees, its the truth. People where hoping it would be the same mechanics. Same happened to UT3, they changed the mechanics from UT2004 and that game bombed so bad. I'm not saying the game is bad but it would of sold a lot more if they had just copied the mechanics. If the new cod took perks off, took aim assist off and made it harder to kill people by giving them more hp, you think it would sell the same ?

Dread1955d ago

sorry bro but it was a clone.

nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but lets not deny the fact. It is creepy to c all the sony fanboys deny that sony copies things. All companies do it, just accept it and lets move on.

zebramocha1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Why?because it's a fighter,ssb is nothing new concept wise,character mash up,marcel vs capcom,dynamic battlefield,out foxies,now this one is kinda tricky,there was a game called thrill kill meant for the psx that was a four play simultaneous fighter but was cancelled in 1998 a year before ssb.

dgonza401955d ago

I think it being a SSB clone would turn me off to getting it.

If you're going to try a brawler-type fighting game, dont rip-off another series blow for blow. Do something different to where i can buy both and still have them feel different from each other.

Show all comments (63)
The story is too old to be commented.