Spot on.
I can't say that it would have turned the tide completely for Sony, but it would have helped SIGNIFICANTLY.
Almost 3 Years And PS3's First Party Still Does Not Have A Killer App?
- Thread starter TEXAN*
- Start date
Spot on.
I can't say that it would have turned the tide completely for Sony, but it would have helped SIGNIFICANTLY.
Choosing to invest resources that were going to PS2 and instead rerouting them to ps3 wouldn't have been difficult.
It would have required a bit more humility and recognition by Sony that they needed to fight for Consumers instead of assuming whatever they produce at whatever price would sell "without games" (see quote below).
Hopefully, they have learned and won't make this mistake again.
Such is life in the next gen.
Everyone had to suck up the costs, but Sony had an interest in moving units so this should have been a no-brainer. In order to do so, they needed to give consumers a reason to buy. Unfortunately, Sony didn't get the memo.
Last edited by a moderator:
Price cut is for now the only reason to buy. I don't see any choise unfortunately for sony.
Within a year of the release of the PS2, we had GT3, MGS2, and FFX.
I'm not calling developers lazy, I'm questioning Sony's studio management. They don't have absolute control over what third-parties do, but they ought to have better planning and control over their internal studios.
Did Nintendo release a major, first-party, franchise title on the SNES after the N64 had launched? Did Sony do that with the PS1 and PS2? I find the situation with God of War 2 baffling, especially since the game must have been put into production when the PS3 was still scheduled to launch in 2005.
Gran Turismo is Sony's most successful franchise, by far. As mentioned earlier, it resonates with the larger world in a way few games do. GT4 launched before Forza Motorsport. Now, four years later, Turn 10 has given us FM2 and will soon give us FM3, before Polyphony can deliver GT5. Seriously, how long before no one remembers what a great game GT4 was?
Three years separated Halo 2 and Halo 3. Barely three-and-a-half years separated MGS3 and MGS4. Both Bungie and Kojima are noted perfectionists, who were given all the time they needed to produce the games they wanted.
Speaking from some experience, the developers can work as hard as humanly possible, but if management isn't providing them with the proper schedules and guidance, it's all for nought.
Yamauchi may be an auteur, but if he decides that he'd like to take the next five years to ensure that GT5 is the most mind-blowing racer ever, would you, as a Sony executive, let him? Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Well, duh... Games sell games. Characters do not sell games. Unless it's a movie tie-in. But then it's the movie selling the game.
I don't know a single person in real life or the internet that bought Halo 3 for Master Chief. What did they buy Halo 3 for? Because Halo has a reputation as being one of the best if not the best (at the time) FPS games on console. And it had a reputation as having THE best multiplayer on console.
Buying it for Master Chief? That's a bit of a joke.
Regards,
SB
Interesting actors also sell movies and games are more and more interactice movies, but my point wasn't that people buy it for Master Chief, but that Master Chief makes the game as a whole more interesting. As far as I'm concerned you can put that under proper marketing. The line between killer app and just a great game can be very thin and in those cases little subleties come into play. Often times a little luck is needed also.
I'm a great fan of Gears of War, but I have to admit that stars favoured it a little bit. It's timing was pretty good and back in early 2005 when the first gameplay montages from X360 games were starting to show up, I remember thinking that those games don't look that hot... except THAT one and I'm sure I wasn't the only one, it gained a huge mindshare and everybody was waiting for it even before the launch of 360. Fenix is still a great character in that game setting, a character that many people like to kick ass with. When I look at Drake I'm wondering is this guy even going to survive the first level... and please lose that necklase
So you're saying that without any games whatsoever, everyone who bought a PS3 would have bought it anyway? You're saying not one person was swayed to buy a PS3 to play Resistance or HS?
So you're saying that without any games whatsoever, everyone who bought a PS3 would have bought it anyway? You're saying not one person was swayed to buy a PS3 to play Resistance or HS?
I think he meant en masse (Like Halo, GTA or GT). MGS4 has been the only one thus far, but it's the overall library of quality titles emerging from late 2007 and on that has been steadily selling hardware. Hell, I bought a PS3 because of T5 DR as did many Tekken fans.
Killer apps don't make or break a system though. A lot of the PS1's killer apps that we're familiar with didn't show up until later in its lifespan when the system was nearly 3 years old (RE2, Tekken 3, MGS, GT all came out in 98, set aside FFVII in Japan). The N64, even the GC had killer apps with Mario 64 and SSBM at launch and look where they ended up.
Not saying it's doesn't matter to have a title pushing hardware well once in a while, but it's more important to have a steady stream of quality titles. Last year's MS lineup for example was pretty good; one first party published killer app (GOW2) and the same quality third party titles as Sony.
The topic is for first party though, and I really don't know why people keep overestimating GOW's value as a hardware pusher. The games sold 2.5-3 million on the PS2 with a MUCH larger user base. Its main market is the US too.
MGS4 was a killer app as it increased global sales of the system for a while. FFXIII at this day and age with a market obsessed with shooters and music games, I'm not sure (though loss of exclusivity was a kick in the jewels for them). GT however is a killer app.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you're saying that without any games whatsoever, everyone who bought a PS3 would have bought it anyway? You're saying not one person was swayed to buy a PS3 to play Resistance or HS?
Someone may have bought a PS3 to play "Little Kallie's Pony of Infinite Destruction", it doesn't mean its a Killer app. A killer app has a much bigger influence on your market than your normal title.
I think a good analogy is a basketball team. A killer app is the pivotal player on the team, the player that can turn a poor team into a pretty decent team or a pretty good team into a great championship team. All the other players on the team play their parts and serve important roles but the killer app player is the one that going to have the greatest influence on a team's ability to earn fans.
Now if 200k other people had bought a PS3 for the same reason, then we would have called infamous a killer app, and our NPD discussion would have been much different.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, but the question wasn't whether Killer Apps make or break a console.
All consoles generally sell most of their numbers due to a variety of games. Even the huge upswing for Halo 3 was just a bump in the road of the general growth of the install base.
The appearance of "killer apps" does however appear to raise awareness of the console and give some ancilliary credibility to other unrelated games.
IE - PS1 sold FF7 huge, but FF7 didn't account for more than a drop in the bucket when the final tally was told. However, due to the massive sales of FF7, awareness of the PS1 as a quality console and legit contender to Nintendo was raised. And due to the sales of that, it was far easier for your average consumer to believe that other unrelated games could also be of similar quality.
Additional killer apps reinforce the idea that the platform is strong and that the library will be strong.
As of now, both X360 and Wii have had not only had multiple killer apps but strong growth.
Regards,
SB
Oops! You're right! I missed or forgot about the first-party limitation in the subject line.
Awareness of the PS1 as a contender happened much earlier in 96 with games like Tekken 2, Crash Bandicoot etc. T2 was huge especially because it was the first arcade port that was vastly superior content wise to the original.
I guess you're dead on about the viability of killer apps and their frequency. I don't think any console will have as many as the PS1 in 98 though, that's for sure. Also, the situation was unique in that time because the PS1 was really the only viable platform for a lot of publishers.
MGS4 came at a time when the console was still competitively priced to the 360 so that helped a lot in the US, especially that it was an established IP. No matter how I wrap my head around it, I honestly believe that the PS3's price ultimately handicaps a new IP's viability to be a killer app. It's also a key point why the 360 in particular is outselling the PS3 in the US.
A lot of consumers will look at a great game like Uncharted and likely want a PS3, only to be held back when they find out how much cheaper the competition is.
Yes, this is how I see it. You get an increase in awareness that can drive moment for a bit, just like pushing a go-kart, but normally, no title is enough to sustain a console for an entire generation and sell tens of millions of units. A 'killer app' as defined by a game with a lot of appeal is far more important at the beginning of a console's life to whack the install base up quickly. It's also nice to have throughout. But console sales are really dependent on steady growth. For example, what is the killer app on iPhone? It's actually a service of a huge library of variety. Anyone can find something that suits their personal interest. Compare that with a hypothetical Game-and-Watch Gears of War that can play Gears 3 in console quality on the go, but can only play that game and no other. Which will sell the most, the one with huge killer app or the one offering limitless variety?
PS3 didn't have a single title that attracted millions of buyers. Some will say the killer app was BluRay, which attracted the first few million buyers. I personally doubt any game could have been a killer app able to sell 10 million units of a $600 console, especially when the HD console experience was a year old. If PS3 launched with KZ2 a year before XB360 and Gears, I dare say the roles would be reversed, but the economics and technology just couldn't ever manage that. Guerilla and ND and Insomniac, and every other developer, needs time with the machine to make it sing.
Perhaps it is in the console companies' interst to model a new machine around the existing one so development can start now on a killer game that introduces the next generation with a huge fanfare? Even then, a 10 million unit headstart doesn't win you anything on its own. There are too many factors. Targetting a killer game will improve the start but take away from investment in other parts of the development chain.
Yes, this is how I see it. You get an increase in awareness that can drive moment for a bit, just like pushing a go-kart, but normally, no title is enough to sustain a console for an entire generation and sell tens of millions of units. A 'killer app' as defined by a game with a lot of appeal is far more important at the beginning of a console's life to whack the install base up quickly. It's also nice to have throughout. But console sales are really dependent on steady growth. For example, what is the killer app on iPhone? It's actually a service of a huge library of variety. Anyone can find something that suits their personal interest. Compare that with a hypothetical Game-and-Watch Gears of War that can play Gears 3 in console quality on the go, but can only play that game and no other. Which will sell the most, the one with huge killer app or the one offering limitless variety?
PS3 didn't have a single title that attracted millions of buyers. Some will say the killer app was BluRay, which attracted the first few million buyers. I personally doubt any game could have been a killer app able to sell 10 million units of a $600 console, especially when the HD console experience was a year old. If PS3 launched with KZ2 a year before XB360 and Gears, I dare say the roles would be reversed, but the economics and technology just couldn't ever manage that. Guerilla and ND and Insomniac, and every other developer, needs time with the machine to make it sing.
Perhaps it is in the console companies' interst to model a new machine around the existing one so development can start now on a killer game that introduces the next generation with a huge fanfare? Even then, a 10 million unit headstart doesn't win you anything on its own. There are too many factors. Targetting a killer game will improve the start but take away from investment in other parts of the development chain.
Yeah I believe that the PS3 had the potential killer aps. The quality is there.
The timing and price of the console didnt help though in building consumer awereness.
The offerings where overshadowed by more mature offerings on the 360 which came at a lower price point.
Killzone 2 could have been the success GoW was if it came at November 2006 or 2007.
Uncharted could have been a huge success too if the console was cheaper and more people rushed to own the PS3.
Little Big Planet might have been the next big platformer since Mario 64 or Jak or Crash Bandicood or whatever.
Yet there are games on the 360 of similar or even lower quality that sold better.
Word to mouth was scarce because not enough people owned it
It is not like these games on the 360 were better or did anything more extraordinary. Take Gears of War for example. It does nothing new, and the gameplay is a repetition of cover and shoot. It is the same concept Uncharted followed with the difference that it did more tecnically and offered more exploration.
External factors helped more them than did Sony and I dont think there is much Sony can do unless Sony spends tremendous amounts in marketing and does a significant price cut to accompany that marketing.
Good games are not enough. They need to do something about the external environment of th emarket
