Sony Could Be Holding Back Resistance 2's Success

Blend Games Says: "If you have paid attention to any of our editorials here at Blend Games since late 2006, you would have noticed a consistent disdain for a particular section of Sony's business model: their video game marketing section. Sadly, these guys and gals have done very little to properly promote many of their own first-party games, and in result have managed to create a very sub-par community outside the initial fan-boy hype."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Flops ''R'' Us3434d ago


---------Nona-------3434d ago

It's like xbots can't get it through their thick skulls that Resistance 2 sh*ts all over gears of war 2s breakfast lunch and dinner

RoidRage3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

Gears 2 wipes it's ass with Resistance 2 and the PS3.

Jamie Foxx? Is that you? Rick Astley?

AngryBot3434d ago

R2 is the opening of E3. Cant get better publicity than that!

Fact of the matter is, R2 is a niche game (shooter). Anyone who is remotely interested in hardcore games, already know and heard of R2. There is no need to blow away 10s of millions on a marketing campaign when very few casuals are buying this game anyway.

And oh yea there is also a beta coming. That’s enough promoting right there. Whether this will be enough, remains to be seen. But Sony IS promoting R2.


Blip Blip3434d ago

Gears 2 (gameplay starts at 0:58

Resistance 2 (gameplay starts at 0:26)

BLuKhaos3433d ago

RROD wipes it's ass with Gears 2

PopEmUp3433d ago

Hmm so this confirm that GEOW 2 GOT PWNED In XMAS

Pain3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

givin to M$ by Brain Dead M$ Followers that they cant Pi$$ millions away on Advertising Like M$ Hypes HALO. piss Offf

Shooters of the year 08 = RFOM 2
/09 = KillZone 2

dukadork3433d ago

R2 drops a leviathan brownie on gears from 300 feet: SPLATCH!
it's a sh!t drowning massacre with no survivor

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3433d ago
360degrees3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

even when they have a moderately promising game such as Resistance 2, they always seem to fail at providing the proper Advertisement, and promotion that it deserves, resulting in lackluster sales figures and very few "Sony" titles breaking that oh-so-rare million units sold mark until many months of it being on the much as Sony fans hate to admit it...Microsoft is truly the current Trend setter on how to truly provide promotion for its AAA titles

Hershy9993434d ago

There's not enough money in the world to advertise all of Sony's first party games.


sonarus3434d ago

@Hershy, i think that is the real reason. Msoft can afford to put marketting weight behind their games cus they aren't losing as much money off the 360. Sony has to be held accountable for all the money spent and made in their gaming division.

Long story short, sony has to cut back on expenses and not enough money for marketting. Thats jut my guess though could just be sony being lame

BulletToothtony3434d ago

sony definitely should spend some millions on some of these games..

MS does spend a lot more than sony does and it's proven that it works, i don't know why sony doesn't do it.

But just in case some people didn't know.. insomniac isn't a 1st party developer.. which should make sony promote the game even more.. but that's just my opinion.

silverchode3434d ago

in my opinion sony is using the money they could use to advertise to make games.

sonarus3434d ago

Its all about trade offs. PS3 game development is really expensive and PS3 is selling at a loss (maybe just broke even now) Every dollar spent on marketing is a dollar that could have been spent on another title instead.

The marketing situation will improve as sony starts making more profit in its gaming division

Time_Is_On_My_Side3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

This is what PlayStation Home is for, to advertise PlayStation games because the best advert is an advert to the right audience.

INehalemEXI3434d ago

If they advertised the hell out of things people would complain about hype. I rarely watch TV, and they always have viral marketing so Im not tripping.

thePatriot3434d ago

and everyone on my friends list friends list will get R2. R2 has insomniac logo on the box and they have a huge following. while a few comertials will be nice (still too early if u ask me (for everyday Joe)) this game will sell regardless

jaysquared3434d ago

Its hard for Sony to advertise their games when they are still losing money for each PS3 sold and lose even more money when that PS3 owner signs up for PSN. More people on PSN means more servers that Sony has to buy and maintain which cost money as well. On top of that providing Home and updates that are free for PS3 owners are costing them a lot of resources and money.

I give props to Sony for keeping PSN free and providing great updates but they are probably regretting their decision about keeping it free. Now if PSN was like XBL with a subscription fee maybe Sony would have the funds to market their games and keep the former PS3 exclusives from coming to the 360 as well.

Don't get me wrong i'm a 360 owner and envy PS3 owners because PSN is free but M$ has really stepped up in providing a great gaming library this gen compared to last gen and I believe the $$40-50 a year that people pay for XBL has something to do with it. Of course if XBL were to be free I would not complain.

Time_Is_On_My_Side3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

PlayStation Network is free because Sony doesn't handle the servers the developers do. It's the same thing with PC online games and is the reason why XBOX Live has a subscription. Sony only handles the names / information while developers have to create their own networks plus the stores and soon to be PlayStation Home. The thing with PlayStation Home too is that companies will pay Sony for advert space, but is allowed to have their own company space for free. So in a way PlayStation Home is a source of revenue for Sony.

This is the reason why so much XBOX Live games have some sort of online component. At the same time XBOX Live is more prone to lag and is the reason why Resistance 2 and M.A.G. (Massive Action Game) are created so easily without lag. Each developer's servers don't tie into other games creating less chances of lag unless you have a bad connection. That's why mods were allowed with Unreal Tournament 3 for the PlayStation 3 and not the XBOX 360.

Warhawk is another game and it will show ping numbers for each server. The ping tells you how good your connection is with the host of the game. The lower the ping the better the experience.

bgdaddy67803434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

this is the difference of ms and sonys strategy. ms is to spend massive amounts of money putting out ads and getting their games known because even if they loss money themselves doing it, it kills their competition faster. well sony doesn't waste as much money on ads they focus on giving their developers the money and freedom that they deserve.

JRaptor3434d ago

Another factor, at least early on in the cycle is that hardly any people actually had ps3's at the higher price point. So spending a lot of money on advertising would probably not have resulted in much increase in sales.

I'd hope that is turned around now as the ps3 sales have picked up and it is a much more attactive purchase: as the price has dropped from the high $600 level, the PSN has improved to the point of being only marginally worse than XBL and the difference in game library has narrowed considerably.

These games over the the holiday period definitely need marketing and would benefit the system as a whole to do so. I would be very disappointed if there was no major marketing to the mainstream (viral ads and other sorts of promotions only go so far).

jaysquared3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

Yeah you are right that the servers are hosted by the developers. But what about the developers that are owned by Sony and games that are published by Sony like Motorstorm, Resistance 1&2, Warhawk, M.A.G, Socom, LBP and any other first party titles.. Those companies and games are backed and owned by Sonys so i'm pretty sure Sony is helping them maintain and set servers up which again takes money. Thats why most First Party games have better online compared to third party titles like COD4 and MGO because Sony is the ones providing and maintaining it for their developers. Konami and IW were getting a lot of slack for the problems that their games had online now can you imagine if it was a Sony published games that had the same problem. Imagaine how much sh*t Sony would've gotten from PS3 owners and the gaming community in general.

Also content on PSN like demos, videos, movies, trailers, games,updates etc etec are hosted through Sonys server which again cost money to maintain and host. Bandwidth cost money as well because i'm pretty sure Sony has an ISP just like how I pay for Comcast cable. Another thing is paying the engineers and software developers to that create updates for the PS3 because i'm pretty sure in game XBM wasn't a feature that was just activated it was a feature they had to implement thus changing around a lot of the PS3s OS. Home is costing them a lot of money as well to develop. The last I heard there is currently no sponsors that are lined up to advertise in home so Sony is having to deal with the up start cost.

Again i'm not trying to defend M$ and them charging for XBL. I would perfer for XBL to be free just like PSN. That is probably one the reason I would buy a PS3 because of the free online play. But you also have to look at the big world. Many PS3 fans brag about how PSN is free and they should. However somebody still has to pay the piper and Sony is the one doing it and PS3 fans are paying for it by the lost of exclusive games which makes that PS3 less and less values because many PS3 owners chose that console because DMC4, GTA4, FF13, Ace Combat 6 were only suppose to be on the PS3. Now they find out that they could've played those same games on a cheaper console.

jtucker783434d ago

It's not just Sony. Look at Metroid Corruption. Nintendo never bothered with much advertising for that. The gamers were the only ones that knew it was coming. The public didn't.
Which is wierd because that is the only FPS the Wii has that is actually worth a play. In fact the folks at IGN got so upset over it Matt C wrote several articles about it.

Saigon3434d ago

has anyonne noticed in the past sony has never done this...they never advertise as heavily as they needed to...the only reason why it stands out now is because of what MS is currently doing...but remember people if you live in the states the marketing campaign for the 360 is much high...also (i said this in a nother thread) sony has advertise better than what they have done in the past (system launch) i see many PS3 far as in the environment if you go to a sporting event...PS3 signs are out there...

Overr8ed3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

I agree with Sony not advertising well for their games. Hopefully they learn how to advertise well for games like LBP & Resistance 2 since those games are in need of a lot of public attention this Fall.

likedamaster3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

Sony does have money and maybe even more than Microsoft. They are a hardware company(Sony tv's/lcd's, computers, etc.) and they own a Major Record Label if not many, and a Major Movie Studio, so yeah, they have money. I for one don't think they are putting emphasis on their games to date. They should though because triple A is triple A! and 1st party to boot. Don't short change 'em Sony, do what you're supposed to. This game is receiving a lot of hype I don't see why they shouldn't give the game more hype thru ads and such. I personally thought it was the most boring shooter of all time, but that's just me. Message to Sony, don't skimp out, you didn't skimp on promoting Bluray!

Mr Marbles3433d ago

Sony does not have more money than MS, MS is far more profitable as a company, and has little to no debt. Sony has gobs of dept. You are thinking of revenue, Sony probably has higher revenue, but that is worthless if it does not generate profit.

MazzingerZ3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

SONY HAS NEVER EVER DONE THAT! MICROSOFT is the one using the american model where they even sell you a stone as a chair, why SONY would change?...GTA series became now "just" a game thanks to all the HYPe MSFT created around it...SONY has always let the gamers hype the games instead

SONY's games sell themselves, MSFT sells HYPE! SONY's case games end-up in the hands of gamers, in MSFT's case too but also in the hands of people that has no idea why they bought the game but since they were brain washed with all the ads ended up buying it...

is THAT SUCCESS? for MSFT maybe but not directly for the game as such...or ARE you going to tell me that SW:The Force Unleashed is a great game, game of the year,etc just because it sold 1M copies during its first week?

3433d ago
Bloodwar3433d ago

I was going to make a similar comment. I don't think people understand. The Cell and the Blue Ray are still cutting edge tech. You still can't find a Blue Ray player for under 200 dollars US. And the PS3 has the Blue Ray plus the Cell.

I am curious if the PS3 really could get a price cut as early as this Christmas or not. Probably not. I am not bashing the PS3. I do believe that the PS3 are equal to the Xbox 360 in it capabilities to release some triple A games that are going to satisfy its gamer base, but with the lack of advertising money... this article was written for a good reason. I just believe that the advertising money isn't there.

Sony's gaming division isn't going to be allowed to tap into the advertising money of the movie or music division. So here we are today with a very expensive game console with a lot of untapped potential and not a lot that Sony can do to reduce its price or provide ad revenue for its first party games.

thewhoopimen3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

Here's some info about MS's servers

Some quick stats: 15 datacenters hosting 148,357 servers sitting on 17,406 racks consuming 72,500KW of utility power as of the end of January 2008 (as indicated by the bar chart).

On the same page there's also an interesting graph showing the distribution of servers per "property". Live Search is in the clear lead with approximately 75,000 (50%) of the servers pushing out those less-than-desirable search results, followed by Hotmail. The other notable property occupying a large chunk of the servers would be "other" (appropriately named), which one could assume be dedicated to XBOX Live services and the like.

So.... you guys playing on xbox live are also sharing space with MSN Live search, Hotmail, Messenger and lol.

@arrrgh where is your source? I'd like to see how 3rd party servers would operate on a proprietary network designed to prevent achievment score hacking, verify your live ids off of ms servers, etc.

iHEARTboobs3433d ago

I believe Resistance has been lacking advertisement simply because for Sony, marketing LBP will be more profitable for them in the future. There's been a lot of talk of Sackboy being the future face to associate with the PS3 and I think that's what will happen. And lets face it, I don't see as many PS3 commercials as I do 360 commercials. But MS likes to advertise, look at how much money they paid for Seinfeld. For better or for worse, they'll always advertise more than Sony (at least here in the States). And they have to, even though the PS3 has sold less they're still a leading name in the industry. That's why you see MS advertise more 3rd party games than Sony. MS is fighting and working hard for it's share of the pie and Sony is mainly relying on their games, word of mouth and some advertising to sell their games/console.

Stubacca3433d ago

You're right, Microsoft tends to truly promote their games, where as Sony don't. But I like this. Halo 3 is the most overbloated, overhyped game I've ever played, whereas Resistance: Fall Of Man was a pleasant suprise as I knew very little about it.

Bottom line: Let the games do the talking. (Ahem, that is if your console is still working. lol)

Time_Is_On_My_Side3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

Sony didn't lose exclusive second party intellectual property (IP) because of money it was the user-base. Some developers were scared that they wouldn't make their money making a game exclusive to the PlayStation 3.

With the networks I do believe Sony is helping them, but it is cheaper to run your own networks than to run your games on someone else's. Like for example it's cheaper for Sony/Microsoft to have their online stores because XBOX Live is about multiplayer not distribution. The gaming companies/developers will have to pay Sony / Microsoft a portion of money for using their online stores. Where the money will be steep will be the network topology because different kinds of networks require a lot of money to run.

XBOX Live is an example of an expensive method of creating an online experience for games. Another would be persistent online games like World of Warcraft because of the network topology. On XBOX Live you're going to have to pay a fee on top of your XBOX Live subscription when playing persistent online games. In the end running your own networks and choosing the right network topology won't cost you as much.

Example: Warhawk uses P2P (Peer to Peer)servers this requires very low lag because the host runs the games. Plus running true P2P servers don't require a lot of bandwidth, small companies do this all the time. Since Sony now has unified online names this time around it's a switched network like XBOX Live. It's just a little different from XBOX Live. XBOX Live works very similar to a cell phone company, while the PlayStation Network works like small cell phone companies under one network.

XBOX Live is like a cell phone company because Microsoft provides the network while the developers provide the games. Like a cell phone company Telus provides the network and the phone companies like Apple provide the phones. PlayStation Network is almost the opposite Sony provides the IDs/accounts while the developers make the games and networks. That was a problem last generation when Sony didn't have unified online IDs, gamers didn't like that. This allows more freedom with PlayStation Network because it's under their servers not Sony's. That's why mods are allowed with Unreal Tournament 3 for the PlayStation 3 and not the XBOX 360. If Microsoft allowed mods it would affect the whole network including other games.

That's the sole reason why XBOX Live is more prone to lag than PlayStation Network and why PlayStation Network is free/cheaper. That can bring me to authentication servers that I personally think Sony has a safer network than XBOX Live. I won't get into that too much at once.

jaysquared3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

"Sony didn't lose exclusive second party intellectual property (IP) because of money it was the user-base. Some developers were scared that they wouldn't make their money making a game exclusive to the PlayStation 3."

So this should debunk all the rumors that PS3 fans spread about how M$ is buying up former PS exclusives like DMC, GTA, Ace Combat and now FF13. No! its a known gaming industry strategy of buying exclusives from developers. Nintendo did it, Sony has done it and now M$ is doing it. Yes the user base of the console was a factor in determining if their product was going to go Multi Plat or not but if Sony would've gone to Square Enix and said here we'll give you $50 million to help develop the game and keep it on our platform.. You think FF13 would've gone multi plat still? No it would've stayed on the PS3 but too bad for Sony and its fans that they didn't have the money to help Square Enix keep the game on the PS3 only.

I'm not an expert about XBL vs PSN architecture but I would like to point out some of your comments:

"Example: Warhawk uses P2P (Peer to Peer)servers this requires very low lag because the host runs the games. Plus running true P2P servers don't require a lot of bandwidth, small companies do this all the time. Since Sony now has unified online names this time around it's a switched network like XBOX Live. It's just a little different from XBOX Live. XBOX Live works very similar to a cell phone company, while the PlayStation Network works like small cell phone companies under one network"

So wait PS3 fans always bagg about how XBL is all P2P networking and PSN is all dedicated server and the fact that P2P is always laggy? So your sayinig that P2P is better because of the low lagg? XBL is P2P while some PSN games have dedicated servers that are run by Sony. Warhawk has its own official Sony servers and so did Resistance and every PSN fans were braggin how they have dedicated servers and XBL have laggy P2P. So your pretty much contradicting what many PS3 fans bagg about XBL.

"XBOX Live is like a cell phone company because Microsoft provides the network while the developers provide the games. Like a cell phone company Telus provides the network and the phone companies like Apple provide the phones. PlayStation Network is almost the opposite Sony provides the IDs/accounts while the developers make the games and networks. That was a problem last generation when Sony didn't have unified online IDs, gamers didn't like that. This allows more freedom with PlayStation Network because it's under their servers not Sony's. That's why mods are allowed with Unreal Tournament 3 for the PlayStation 3 and not the XBOX 360. If Microsoft allowed mods it would affect the whole network including other games. "

This is a double edge sword.. It can be a good thing or a bad thing. Yes its always nice that developers can run their own servers and do whatever they want with it. The bad thing is that they have to run it and they can do whatever they want with it. One of the reasons why COD4 and MGO have so much problems with their online component because some developers don't want to have to spend the money to run and maintain their own servers while on the 360 all they have to do is focus on updating and making their games better.

Time_Is_On_My_Side3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

Oh, yes Sony didn't buy that particular IP from Square Enix and solely relied on them just choosing their platform. Sony believes that having blu-ray discs (50GB) and a unique architecture that developers will cater to them to achieve their goals. Example would be Infamous, Little Big Planet, or Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. Sony wants to show with their exclusives you can achieve a whole new level of gaming. It’s a hit or miss strategy and could have said the same with Blu-ray discs at the beginning of the war considering the investment they made with the risks.

With the XBOX Live (XBL) and PlayStation Network (PSN) argument, XBL is a P2P (Peer to Peer) network and PSN does have dedicated servers. A switched network means that it combines two or maybe more types of networks at once. XBL starts like a broadcast similar to a phone then switches to P2P without really being a P2P connection. The thing that sucks is that there is a single point of failure meaning if one game’s server shuts down the whole network is down. With PSN it’s similar to the sense that Sony just polices (Authentication Servers/Software) the accounts activities while developer mostly chooses P2P servers for online play. Sony is like the bouncer before you enter in a club and each club you enter is hosted by the host themselves. The difference between the two is that XBL the host doesn’t really have host privileges (still a client), while PSN the host actually is a host.

Example would be the Halo Series when the simulated host leaves the network reboots and picks another host with the fastest connection. With PSN when the host leaves the whole game ends and you’ll have to find another game. In the end PSN does have dedicated servers with each developer while XBL is just a simulation of real P2P connections. It’s kind of hard to explain, but PSN is built up upon many networks while XBL is built on one. In simple terms XBL is a client server with P2P connection, while PSN has security guards with many types of networks being connected. One developer might want to do P2P with pings etc. while another one would want to do something else.

In the end P2P on the PSN is better than the P2P on XBL because XBL isn’t a real P2P connection. In a real P2P connection each game acts like it’s its own server so the cost to develop one is so low because the host is sending the images to the other clients. Remember the traffic that XBL went through around Christmas that won’t ever happen with PSN. If Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots’ servers go down I can still play Resistance: Fall of Man online. In the end with PSN you can do things that is particular to your game like in-game friends lists that many PS3 games have, or adding keyboard and mouse features etc. With XBL the developers can’t customize their network too much because most of it Microsoft has to offer it to the consumers.

Sorry for the long comment, but explaining networks can be a little hard with one or two sentences.

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 3433d ago
Flops ''R'' Us3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

*Scratches Testicle* Resistance 2>>>>>>Gears 2,I thought we came to this conclusion yesterday!

---------Nona-------3434d ago

We did,apparently cinemablend didn't get the memo.

Silogon3434d ago

Could be?

Please, this is absurd at best. A ploy to get hits and to cast doubt. For every dollar Microsoft spends on GEOW or HALO marketing, that has to be made up in the end. Marketing isn't cheap, guys. Wake up!

Ever notice Sony and Microsofts buisness models are night and day to one another? Why is that? See, Sony will toss some money out in marketing and adverts, but the scale it back. They will see how well the game does on its own and then later on, as we seen all the time with their big games 3 or 4 months down the road, they blast out from out of nowhere marketing ads and commericals.

They do it all the time. Why is this you ask? Well, Sony is smart about marketing. They over spend on it and the game ends up not bringing in as much money cause of useless R&D not needed. Sony has the better, more profitable, business model between the 2, easily.

Microsoft will toss money out and and out and out and won't count those chickens cause they see 4 or 5 million sold on a game. Well, all that marketing has to be made back, guys. It isn't cheap or free. I'm willing to bet Motorstorm and Resistance 1 made more money for Insomniac and Sony than GEOW did for Epic and Microsoft.

Just the cold hard truth.

Kuest3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

however, i am afraid all your assertions are based on non substantial claims, such as the profit margin for Epic or Insomiac respectively.

In my opinion, Microsoft does in fact waste an exuberant amount of dough advertising titles, when it could perhaps offer support through more indirect means, or even wait to let things "just play out" as you suggested. Ultimately, however, i believe Microsoft is doing the correct thing with regards to market share.

In other words, Microsoft may be sacrificing additional profit, but their consumer awareness has definitely skyrocketed since the Xbox 1 days. PS3, on the other hand, is just coming around, although its past legacy has made the transistion a little smooth. Had it been in Microsoft's position, it would have failed drastically due to lack of locomotion.

To conclude, I agree that microsoft's advertising tactics thus far are becoming counterproductive, but I contend instead that their method of advertising should change, not that they should discontinue advertising. Why? Consumer awareness, as i stated earlier. In short, microsoft does not have the historical backbone of either playstation, or Nintendo.

Moving forward, Sony can easily afford to be more conservative with marketing dollars because of 1) its brand recongition and 2) its present occupation as a hard core product. To further explain, Sony has never quite tried to distance itself from the hard core crowd, instead becoming the self-proclaimed 4-D console of choice.

To that degree, a high level of marketing on Sony's part would not be especially warranted, since the hard core consumer can usually be expected to keep up with certain titles. Hence, Sony's relative impassiveness towards advertising. For example, who here is considering to buy Resistance 2? All of you no doubt, and Sony is already no doubt aware of this. Thus, why advertise? Resistance is not a causal product...

I think the defining mantra of Sony is to maintain its dedicated connection with the hard core crowd. Bearing that in mind, one could argue Sony's marketing campaign is ingenious because it demonstrates how well they understands the market. However, the recentl advertising of LBP has indicated that perhaps Sony is now ready to broaden its wings a tad bit, as Meus pointed out before me.

So, to sumarise, on the one hand, we have Microsoft struggling for brand recognition, and thereby sacrificing profit for market share. On the other hand, we have Sony wisely catering to its knowledgable hard core base, only expanding recently in accordance with the up coming LBP release; Still, one should acknowledge that the only reason Sony can afford to undertake this strategy is because its still riding high on the success of PS2

LinuxGuru3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )


That's a cold hard OPINION, not the truth.

Sony Corporation has averaged more than TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS more revenue than Microsoft over the past couple years.

Trust me. Sony has money to spend on advertising for a few games. It would be a little teeny tiny drop in the bucket for them.

DarK-SilV3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

I will degree with you without reading your post
MR flipflop

Kleptic3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

MS already stated (by means of a loaded kotaku question earlier this year) that they over marketed Halo that it 'didn't have the legs we anticipated'...that was basically how they fessed up to the fact that CoD 4 was hugely unpredicted in massive AAA game sense, and Halo 3 stalled out way short of the hopes of sold extremely well, but it didn't keep doing it into 2008, which is what MS's giant push was focused on in the first place...

thats not a fanboy 'halo sucks' rant...I am simply stating that predictions had Halo 3 being hard to find for 6 months, not 1...while initial sales were overwhelming, the marketing didn't do its job at all...the game could have matched the current sales just by word of mouth, and half the investment in marketing that MS put into it...

but MS is doing it again apperantly this year...however it may be more necessary with a game like Gears 2, which simply doesn't have the global recognition of 'halo' yet...Resistance 2 falls into the exact same category...not everyone knows about it...if anything these are the titles to really be pushed by their respective publishers...

but I think this article also made a conclusion far to early to really see what Sony does...its unlikely to start TV spots 6 weeks before the game releases...this time in October though, it will most likely be everywhere...there will definitely be some above average pushing of Resistance 2, Home, and LBP in the coming weeks...more than what we have been used to from Sony this generation so far...but it will never match the balls out throw money around like crazy tactic MS used for Halo 3, and is pretty much in the middle of with Gears 2...Resistance 2 already has a pretty large and decent budgeted viral ad running currently, as well as a planned novel...but we won't see Hale posted all over taco bells, or chimera flavored Mt. Dew this fall...which kind of sucks...I was the oddball I guess, I loved that Halo Mt. Dew flavor last year...

more than anything though...I am simply happy that Resistance 2 seems to finally be getting the respect it big as Gears 1 was...Resistance 2 is going to be a MAJOR title, despite how well Gears 2 does...I can guarantee that the praise the game yesterday made plenty of execs sweat at MS, and may even had CliffyB admitting he ran his mouth too much again...don't get me wrong, Gears of War was an excellent game imo...its just that Resistance 2 without question was the underdog going into this fight...and it is nothing short of hilarious to hear cliffy's "bigger, badder, and more badass" phrase applied more correctly to his competition...

I can't wait to see how this plays out...Resistance 2 one week ahead of Gears it stands right now, at least critically, advantage: Resistance 2...not one 'meh, more of the same' preview from over 10 independent sources yesterday...where as Gears 2 has recieved almost nothing but that...also, many sites asked "did you find fall of man average?"...then followed with a blunt "who cares, you'll love resistance 2"...competition is excellent...

Kuest3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

let me first retaliate Linux's claim, who implied that Sony presently commands greater spending power than Microsoft. Based on revenue alone Linux's claim is, of course, valid. However, in reality, such an impressive admission fails to truly matter, as Microsoft's net income far out strips Sony's by roughly 400%. How's that for drop in a bucket, eh?

Moving forward, allow me to refute Kleptic's response... nice name, by the way.

By and large, the majority of your post pertained to Resistance's potential capacity for mainstream appeal, which no doubt implies it has the ability to surmount Gears 2- be it immediately, or later on. Now, as far as i could discern, the basis for your accusations pertained largely to critical response. In addition, you cited several obscure viral caimpaigns, issued by insomiac themselves, as evidence to Sony's marketing muscle.

I counter, first, by referencing the abscnece of official resistance advertisements, which extends to tv commercials, or online ads, etc. I juxtopose this with Sony's suprisingly high level of involment with MGS4, which DID in fact include tv advertisments, toys, etc.

Now, obviously, both titles are reasonably hard core, however, knowledge of one brand far exceeds another due to a) brand recognition and b) level of consumer interest. To clarify, MGS 4 had been a long ways in development for an extensive period in time; so, by the way, has Halo 3 and Gears 2 to varying degrees.

As such, I argue that MGS4's success depended on either brand recognition or consumer interest, or both. In effect, MGS4 had been able to undergo the excessive time interval neccesary to build high expectation from the hard core consumer. To put it more simply, everyone knew about MGS4 far before it was offically revealed. The same case, albeit to a lesser degree, was also true with gears as well.

With Resitance, the title is relatively new, with no legitmate fanbase, nor consumer involvement (by that i mean, people are now just starting to care about resitance). To put it simply, resistance 2 does not derive from an established brand name, nor has it had the chance to build steady consumer interest, the type that can only manifest over a large period of time. Therefore, one cannot expect its actual sales to be of landmark status because it LACKS both of the two defining factors, which i mentioned above.

To conclude, Gears- at least for now- has nothing to fear from Resistance. it is still very much seated in the imcumbent's chair, so to speak.

Kleptic3434d ago (Edited 3434d ago )

excellent post...and I am assuming you know the history of the name, of which you would be one of the first to bring it up...and i have been using it since Quake II online back in 1997...however, i assure you; I am by no means 'the real deal'...

one thing though, which will turn into several: I was not saying that because Sony/Insomniac are running a relatively expensive viral ad for Resistance that they have more marketing power than MS...just stating that that was something this article overlooked...

Also, I think you may undermind Resistance as an IP slightly...the title did sell over 3 million it whatever you want; it was bundled for a period of time...but that is over 3 million people that at least played the first that to ~5 million who played Gears 2, and it makes Resistance as a franchise less irrelevant than it would first appear...

Resistance 1 and Gears 1 released in the exact same window...Resistance however struggled at first because it was a launch title for a system that was quickly written off by all but 10% of the industry media...all the while Gears 1 quickly became THE console game to own well into 2007, gathering ridiculous praise across the in that sense...Gears, as a franchise, has a far better seating in the hardcore gamer least in terms of people that frequent sites such as this...

But Resistance 2 was announced before Gears 2...and Resistance 2 has some much bigger marketing slang to throw around...'60 player competitive online'...'8 player co-op'...'2 seperate campaigns'...etc...Sony starts tacking crap like that on ads everywhere, and beating it into heads on tv commercials, and it WILL have an impact...Gears 2 has nothing marketing wise to counter intangibles like that (intangible in the way that an ad will be noticed or remembered by the viewer/reader)...these intangibles are also way more valuable than what a core gamer like us would think too...something like 60 players online sounds impressive to any ignorant kid anywhere...more is always better for that type of audience...doesn't matter which is better...I guarantee there will be 12 year olds at gamestop flipping boxes around to see which game allows more players online...and that will show 60 vs. 10...see what I am getting at?...again, i am not saying which is better...I am just saying which has a more powerful impact on an ignorant mind...and for this argument; correlate an ignorant mind with...the casuals...

and that is the meat of my point...Resistance 2 is in a wierdo area where it appeals to the core audience already, but has the converter ability to pull in otherwise casual gamers to a new genre, and even gamer a way exactly like Halo has done over the past 7 years...How many people have you met admit that halo was the first shooter they ever played?...for me, its a lot more than I ever would have guessed when Halo 1 launched...there are ton of shooters...but the shooters that pull new people in are the shooters with features such as Resistance 2 (of course, assuming review scores and reception reflect that)...features that if nothing else on paper look better than the competition...comparing on paper starts the entire thing, because these people have no real way to compare otherwise...they can see the features plastered on posters, then watch videos online and read reviews...if all of that ammounts to something above competition...they'll come pouring in relentlessly...

and now the backside of my point...the PS3's price is still simply to high to allow this to happen on a massive scale...Resistance 2 can set the entire US on fire, yet a large chunk of eager players will still be out of reach because of the $400 PS3 price point...and until that changes, it will only hurt...

you also say that there are no tv ads for Resistance 2 as of now...which is completely true...but as I stated in my above post, I don't think that is any reason for alarm yet...late October, if nothing has shown up yet...then its obvious how Sony is treating it...but I highly doubt that will be the case...correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to see a Gears 2 commercial of any kind as well...also, this article never pointed out that Resistance 2 also has a planned special edition, of which amazon votes were tallied for the box art...and some figurine or something, as well as the normal dose of behind the scenes stuff is included for the extra $20...Gears 2 has the same type of stuff, its only that the article made it sound like Sony wasn't doing that for Resistance 2...

and finally as far as the advantage: Res 2 comment...I wasn't saying that is how it will finish...i was merely pointing out that Insomniac managed to get their first bombing raid out before Epic (which have been busy making little documentary style things on how cliffy wanted a chaingun to sound, etc.)...yesterday res 2 recieved almost nothing but the utmost praise in all areas...with many saying 'its easily the biggest gaming package of this generation so far'...that doesn't mean MS/Epic don't have plenty of bombs of their own...but where they are and what they are, are still in the air (pun intended)...

My overall point is simply that Resistance 2 is set to do extremely well...but I don't doubt for a minute that Gears 2 will slaughter Resistance 2 in sales this season...but I think attatch ratios for res 2 will be remarkably high for a sequel to a launch title that never recieved much attention...the 'winner' of this battle will simply be determined by the press...there are double the 360's in the US, arguably the biggest market for both games...the sales fight most likely won't be a contest...but 'best shooter of the year' definitely will be...

RememberThe3573434d ago

Let be frank, most people will concede that Gears of War 2 will sell many more units than Resistance 2. Now that thats out of the way, we can get into the real issues that I see.

The first is product recognition, I am sure there are a large number of people who know the name Resistance but haven't played the game and don't know what it's about. In my opinion Sony needs to put out adds showing what the game is about, showing the amazing footage we saw at E3. Otherwise this will remain a hardcore game only and will not become the breakout hit that Gears is posed to become.

Second, Sony has a chance to play two different cards. They can play the gangster card that sold so many PS2's or they can try to court the casual market that has been selling so many Wii's. Now days there really isn't any good gangster games, but Sony has been able to thrive off the image of the PlayStation being a bad ass gaming machine, something that MS did really well with the 360. There really is only two roads right now. If you go hardcore, you raise the potential of alienating the casual market, however on the flip side, if you go too casual you could alienate the hardcore base. Plus, with the lowest price point they're offering at $399 the casual market seems a little out of reach for Sony at this point.

So, in essence, Resistance 2 seems as though it is poised to offer a ton of content. Sony needs to capitalize on the potential that Resistance 2 has without spending too much money. That very well may be what they are doing, so I say lets take a back seat on this and see what happens.

jaysquared3434d ago

Wow there some long post in this thread!

LinuxGuru3434d ago

Thank you for the heads up Kuest. You're right, I was quite incorrect in using revenue instead of net income. To be honest, I didn't think there would have been a huge difference, hence me using that figure in ignorance. I'll have to go one step further in my research from now on.

Thanks for writing a post that makes sense, too. Major bubbles for you.


AssassinHD3433d ago

+Bubbles to you Kuest. Your posts are intelligent and very refreshing to read.

Black_Jack3433d ago (Edited 3433d ago )

this is what n4g should be about, reasonable and debatable discussions, which better us all. just from reading these posts, i myself am learning more about the market and i find it interesting. this fanboy bullshit needs to stop and more constructive discussions should be encouraged. there is always a time for fun and a laugh sometimes, just not the fanboi type. bubbles to all those above.

to add to teh discussion i think it could be the distinction between western and eastern marketing trends. Microsoft is an american software giant and of course their approach to marketing has always been tailored to that of a western market. i would say brand recognition is much more important in places like europe and japan which is where the ps3 has good success but lesser in america to an extent, which is why Microsoft invests so heavily in advertising, especially in the states, but this isn't enough for the world market.

I think both companies can learn something from one and other. sony should really invest in advertising in the western market, while to Microsoft should concentrate on getting that credibility and reputation that brand recognition brings. which would help expand their worldwide market.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3433d ago
Flops ''R'' Us3434d ago

Oh well,it won't hurt to list why Resistance 2 trumps Gears of war 2 in every respect,would it?