Yeah I believe that the PS3 had the potential killer aps. The quality is there.
Who, what, when, where, why, and how. It is easy to follow, but properly reading consumers (the market), formulating an idea and approach the creates a desire in that market, and executing on time is a big difference from "could've, would've, should've."
The timing and price of the console didnt help though in building consumer awereness.
The platform has over 20M units in the wild, lets keep that in consideration. Sony on the PS3 has failed, with that sort of insall base, to generate software that resonates across the majority of the install base. Further, it is relevant that the Xbox 360 did a lot of console units at $400 and had its first killer app, Gears of War, at that price point.
If Sony was creating compelling software that resonated in the market in current market conditions there is the potential. But as I said in the other thread almost everything about the PS3 platform smells of poor planning, execution, and follow the leader.
The offerings where overshadowed by more mature offerings on the 360 which came at a lower price point.
Yes, it is difficult for anything to be considered a killer app when the competition releases something better, sooner, and cheaper. Being comparable, later, and more expensive is a horrible business strategy. It doesn't create the sort of consumer desire necessary for strong sales. Just ask MP3 makers who have found that even edging out in features and beating on price makes it difficult when you are the "follower" and are fighting up stream for mindshare.
Killzone 2 could have been the success GoW was if it came at November 2006 or 2007.
...
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.
Nesh, I don't really agree. First off is that Shooter consumers are a picky lot. They either want something extremely fine tuned (CounterStrike, Halo) or they want something really innovative that progresses the genre in new directions.
Gears, in 2006, did a number of things. It obviously had next gen graphics, but it also had gameplay more intune with consoles/gamepads. It was more tactical, very "mature" and it resonated as a "fresh" experience. Further, the gameplay was snappy (something you would expect from Epic). The online multiplayer was also one of the first big hits this generation.
Killzone committed a carnal sin in the opinion of a lot of shooter fans, and I am not talking about E32005. Regardless if a large percentage of KZ2 gamers like the controls enough consumers did not and the reports about how it controllers were a MAJOR turn off. On a PC board I participate in the number of PS3 owners lamenting the crappy controls was significant. It is very, VERY difficult to take a statement stating KZ2 could have been the same success of GeoW2 if it had been released 2 or 3 years early at face value when a core element drawing gamers to the title causes such vocal friction. Shooter fans can forbare a lot of sins, but sluggish controls is not one of them. Toss in the dynamic that there are "shooters" and then there are "shooters that bring new gameplay dynamics to the table" these are two very significant issues.
KZ2 has great visuals, but it would be quite interesting to do blind survey's of casual fans of both games. KZ2 is technically more advanced, but the question is what would consumers say about the visuals (which is the pixels on screen, not the technology making it go). I am not sure KZ2 even wins here.
It is easy to say KZ2 would have done great if it was a 2006 launch title. But KZ2 would NOT be what it was if it was released in 2006. Two other points: games like CoD4 (well renowned for GREAT controls on PC and Consoles) excellent NOT due to fancy technology but some really basic design choices. They went with framerate and snappy controls. They went with a theme known to resonate with general consumers. They also went "low tech" with their online system but create a product many consider the best multiplayer game on the market due to the way perks work (mini-RPG like). CoD4, after suffering through a meh CoD3 the year before and "yet another WWII shooter" in 2005, was able to stand toe to toe with Halo 3 and sell great on the 360
AND PS3. That was 2007. The PS3 install base has grown and the positive momentum on KZ2 had grown and there is no reason that KZ2--if it deserved it--didn't sell VERY well on the PS3. Moving units in large numbers may have been a difficult task to ask, but in the least selling a couple million units out of the gate wasn't asking too much.
The second point is related to timing. KZ2 is 2009. Besides Gears being a 2006 title look at what some of the major titles brought to the Shooter genre since 2005. Games like Gears 1/2, Halo 3, Battlefield Bad Company, CoD4, and so forth brought a lot of new dynamics and features to the genre. Even games like Prey and Far Cry 2 brought new things to the genre long before KZ2 reached consumers. And if it is a simple graphics issue there was Crysis in 2007 and Crysis Wars in 2008 that blow KZ2 away.
All this to say the KZ2 would not have been what it was today if it was released in 2006. Further KZ2 is as much a victim of having a Great title hurt by missing the boat on core issues (controls??!) and being a victim of Sony overhyping the title instead of letting the game have its own legs to stand on.
But most of all it is PS3 consumers who are to blame. If they enjoyed the game they would have purchased more units. This is positive vibe. Further if people enjoyed it a lot it becomes viral--a ton of chatter about the "Killzone Moments" and how everyone is aching to PLAY NOW. All your friends are on KZ2 playlists, talk about it, and are telling their friends they MUST get a PS3 to play this AWESOME shooter.
Uncharted could have been a huge success too if the console was cheaper and more people rushed to own the PS3.
On a cheaper console maybe Uncharted would have. But it wasn't a killer app in that it didn't sell amazingly and it didn't push console sales.
Further, my opionion is that Sony really missed the boat (again) with titles like Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Uncharted because they failed to adjust to the change in the NA market, notably that many early adopters expected multiplayer. This is a huge impact on sales and desirability. The 360 has its own share of really good games that just didn't provide the right features at the right time to excite consumers--and invested in features that did not excite consumers. Hit and Miss.
But again Uncharted didn't start off too hot with the PS3 consumers it DID have, so I am not sure why the PS3 being cheaper makes it an "killer app."
Little Big Planet might have been the next big platformer since Mario 64 or Jak or Crash Bandicood or whatever.
Probably not. Price aside the genre is very difficult to break into and there is a "magic" of accessiblity and replayability and "connecting" with gamers and their imagination. Mario 64 is a good example of doing something special at the right time. Sunshine fixes many M64 issues and looks a billion times better and was on a cheaper console, yet it didn't attain such lofty status.
Even if LBP was on the Wii I am sure its features would really appeal to that market. The "world creation" features appear frequently to appeal to the hardcore who spend hours upon hours gaming and have the patience to create their own games. Is that a defining feature of MILLIONS of platform gamers? Are there even millions of platform fans on HD consoles??? Are there millions of consumers in 2008 who will buy a console for the single purpose of playing a platformer? I am not sure there is. But there are millions of FPS and Racing and RPG fans who do just that. Again, right time/place and audiance appeal.
Now if a title like a Killzone did a FC2 map editor and a Kodu style Logic editor--NOW we are talking KILLER APP. There are millions of FPS gamers and in the PC world modding is a favorite pastime of many.
Yet there are games on the 360 of similar or even lower quality that sold better.
That isn't saying anything, unless you are trying to say the good 360 games are inferior which is non-sense.
The PS3 has poor and average games that outsold good, even great, games on the PS3 (and 360!) Not every good game sells well, not every bad game sells bad.
On a platform that is self-sufficient most really good games sell at least ok, and almost all exceptional games sell well. There will be exceptions, and there will always be "the ultimate virtual gardening game" that bombs due to obvious reasons, but if you make an exceptional shooter, RPG, racing game, etc where you hit the right features at the right time and appeal to the market while avoiding any "game stoppers" it should do ok. That isn't to say that some killer apps don't have serious flaws--some have big ones! But there is the balance of consumer desire and opinion and if consumers as a general group can overlook spawning enemies (CoD4 for example) due to other elements overwhelming the experience then who is to argue with what consumers want?
People buy what they want. Popular opinion, critics, marketing, etc influence such, but at the end of the day they go to the check out counter and have to select their purchase. No one makes people buy games. Big market titles will always have an advantage in marketing exposure but with PSN and Live these days and free media sites online and the HUGE viral community of hardcore gaming fans it is difficult for
great games with no vital flaws just sinking into oblivion.
[quiote]Word to mouth was scarce because not enough people owned it[/quote]
Circular arguemen. If more people owned it it woujld be more popular! If Sony cannot get their own consumers to buy it I am not sure why it should become a killer app or considered "comparable" to such.
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.
Yeah, competiting does make your products more compelling! Also putting your money in the right places at the right time. As noted in why I don't own a PS3 thread the PS3 platform is a mess.
Good games are not enough. They need to do something about the external environment of th emarket
That is partly true.
But that won't be enough. If they want a killer app it needs to be something the 20M+ PS3 owners actually WANT. Then it will get great word of mouth through friends as well as the press for good sales.
Some killer apps are manufactured. But some of the best/long lasting, like a Halo 1 or BF1942, were built squarly on the titles doing the talking. Sony can probably manufacturer killer apps (MUCH easier when one already exists, ala a franchise like Halo or a GT) but if they want killer apps they need to start making software people REALLY want, enough to buy the console, and they need to have the "corner market." Tossing out an also ran KZ2 when your competitor is eating shooter fans alive (Halo, CoD, Gears) isn't gonna work. Sony needs something...
Killer!
