Sony Computer Entertainment acquires Media Molecule Studios

[NathansFortune]

I can't personally understand a business entity as part of a publicly traded company NOT attempting to maximise profits. I suspect COD 4 became massive because it gave people what they wanted, so perhaps thats the answer. Are Sony studios making the games they want to play and not the games which the widest possible audience want to play?

Maximising profits is a misnomer. That style of management leads to mediocrity and eventually failure. Innovation breeds success which is what counts when it comes to profitability.

Nintendo does that too, but for the most part whenever they do it they achieve a lot more success in the marketplace which is perplexing.

They achieve more success when it comes to Mario or another core IP like Zelda. Nintendo have a different business model whereby people associate them with certain franchises and those franchises will drive hardware adoption, Mario and Pokemon are the obvious ones, recently Wii Sports and Wii Fit have been massive for them, but they are linked to the Wii brand more than the Nintendo brand like Mario is.

I think in buying Mm SCE have bought themselves a Mario in Sackboy. A character that people will link to PlayStation 2-3 gens from now in the same way Mario is linked to Nintendo consoles or Sonic was linked to Sega. It's very important to have that I think as it helps people differentiate what they are going to get, they know with a Wii they will get Mario, Wii Sports Resort and Wii Fit Plus, with an Xbox 360 they know it will be Halo or Gears. The problem for Sony has been that they only have GT5, a car game with no mascots, as their system defining game, more recently Nathan Drake has been helping perceptions a lot but Sony still need a character that is synonymous with PlayStation, and I think it will be Sackboy.

 

[Rotmm]

Are Sony studios making the games they want to play and not the games which the widest possible audience want to play?

Mega-selling franchises are few and far between, and I don't think anyone really knows why exactly it is that Final Fantasy, Halo, Modern Warfare, Gran Turismo, Grand Theft Auto, etc become those mega sellers, yet others that on the face of it are just as good (and sometimes even better) as the above and yet become just good sellers, or even poor sellers.

Sony has had a good go at it this generation, greenlighting titles that, on the face of it, have that mass market appeal. Resistance, Motorstorm, Ratchet, Killzone and Uncharted were all about as safe as it gets for new IP's (I know KZ2 isn't exactly "new", but the previous game was almost unknown) with generally derivative, cookie-cutter gameplay designed to appeal to the masses. That none of them really caught the public imagination is because of that unknown magical ingredient being missing, not the desire of Sony to have decent and not great sellers.

Of course, in the end both Uncharted and Motorstorm did move some fairly heafty numbers, primarily due to being bundled with pretty much all PS3's sold for about 9 months. And this has allowed Sony to build on the familarity of PS3 owners with the franchises, with Uncharted 2 doing some very good numbers and, I suspect, will sell in good numbers for some time yet! On the other hand, Motorstorm 2 was still something of a flop.

And yes, Sony have also greenlighted games such as Lair, MAG, Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain and many others that are there to support the platform (and hopefully do decent sales) in one way or another. But then, so do the other console manufacturers.... and occasionally it'll be one of those titles that will become the "surprise hit". I don't think even Nintendo, in their wildest dreams, would have expected Wii Fit to become a 20+m seller

 

[JB9861]

Nintendo does that too, but for the most part whenever they do it they achieve a lot more success in the marketplace which is perplexing.

How so? Nintendo EAD is making games that tap and grow the female, elderly, and casual market while Sony is making derivative core games in saturated genres.

 

[BoardBonobo]

...Sony is making derivative core games in saturated genres.

Eh? Little Big Planet, Heavy Rain, Flower etc. Hardly derivative, if anything Sony is showing the most willingness to take a risk on new IP.

 

[Asher]

I believe the chief reason for this is they want ownership 'sackboy'
sony (and MS as well) have no 'true' recognizable gaming icon characters(*) like nintendo has.

he could be the face of sony game's

sackboy kart racing
sackboys super smash
etc

(*)kratos,drake etc dont cut it

Master Chief is pretty iconic for the Xbox brand...

 

[RudeCurve]

I'd like to see SackBoy in a horror game...

 

[rabidrabbit]

Even Nintendo seems to be steering away from these iconic characters that are associated with a console.
I don't know, but personally I'd find Wii Sports and Sports resort more appealing if the characters weren't those generic, badly designed stick-men called Miis.
I just don't like player created characters, they lack personality and make these games look ugly.

 

[zed]

Master Chief is pretty iconic for the Xbox brand...

Hes a super generic character with zero personality
hardly iconic material like sackboy,mario,sonic,zelda,pacman etc

other characters that wouldnt make good 'branding' drake,kratos,snake (metal gear sold) etc in fact most characters in games

 

[patsu]

Even Nintendo seems to be steering away from these iconic characters that are associated with a console.

They may already have enough (So many !). But I agree mascot is not a must.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

other characters that wouldnt make good 'branding' drake,kratos,snake (metal gear sold) etc in fact most characters in games

Tying the console to any one of those identities would alienate the significant portion of your user base that is disinterested. That's why it's better not to bother, to advertise the games and associate the games with the console. "I want the next Drake/Kratos/Snake/Sackboy" game and not "I want the next Drake/Kratos/Snake/Sackboy console." Parallel branding will have those who love Sackboy thinking of PS3 as the LBP console, while those who love Snake will think of PS3 as the MGS console, and no-one treads on anyone else's toes.

 

[JB9861]

Eh? Little Big Planet, Heavy Rain, Flower etc. Hardly derivative, if anything Sony is showing the most willingness to take a risk on new IP.

I'm not talking about what they're involved with as a publisher. Nintendo makes attempts to captivate certain markets and has succeeded due to experience in trying over the years. Sony does not. So as a result they don't have even a slice of that success with the exception of a very small handful they've created over 3 generations. Gran Turismo and that's about it. Singstar to a lesser extent.

 

[obonicus]

Actually, Sony has tried, they just don't follow through. Eyetoy's the main example of that.

 

[joker454]

I must say though that it suprises me they bought another developer with the losses they're making left and right.

That deal was probably in the works for a while, but the word I'm hearing is that rampant company purchases and/or funding multiple projects worldwide are finally coming to an end.

 

[.Melchiah.]

I believe the chief reason for this is they want ownership 'sackboy'
sony (and MS as well) have no 'true' recognizable gaming icon characters(*) like nintendo has.

Didn't Sony already own the rights for LBP?


EDIT: Just noticed, this was already discussed. Should read a whole thread before posting anything. Apologies.

 

[boommoob1]

Man, Sony really got a massive force of developers behind them over the years.
I must say though that it suprises me they bought another developer with the losses they're making left and right.

I would imagine it was a minimal outlay for MM. The other two companies other parts of Sony recently bought would likely of been far more costly.

The huge problems for the big Japanese Electronics manufactures have eased alot. Sony were predicting close to a $3billion loss this fiscal, now they're hoping to get close to break even. Panasonic are also predicting much lower losses than originally thought.