Microsft-Sony presents it's next console, the PlayStation X...if it were only true.

[Shifty Geezer]

So a cooperation effort would mostly help Sony, and not MS all that much, which is why I think MS would never go for it even if Sony tried to convince them (which I think they're too boneheaded to do anyhow.)

But isn't the argument here to compete with Apple and Google? So MS would benefit in doubling their brand strength and getting stronger EU and especially Asian presence, along with Sony's 1st parties. Access to Sony's media isn't such a big thing next gen (Sony dropping the ball on that one). I'd say both would benefit, at least regards strength of the next-gen console versus other rivals. Whether they'd benefit fiscally, which is all that matters to them, I don't know.

Edit: If we look at this gen and they had gone halves on a PlayStationX, they'd have a single platform that'd be easier for devs and possibly a larger install base because people weren't having to choose between one or other. As PS3 vs. XB360 is nearly 50:50, getting an equal split of the profits of PlayStationX this gen would have been about right. Excepting of course it doesn't work that way, and a company may have a different capacity to turn a profit given an install base (see Nintendo). There's also the issue of arguments wtih them wanting to take different approaches - the main reason in life to avoid any cooperation whatsoever!

 

[boommoob1]

Neither approach is gauranteed money. first party titles can fail just as well as 3rd parties, and whether you make money on a title depends largely on whether it sells big numbers of not. I'm sure MS have made more money of Gears than Sony have made off any first party franchise. Save maybe LBP with it's mass of DLC, but we have no figures on that. There have been Sony 1st party titles that haven't done well at all, and no doubt cost Sony more to run the studio than the studio generates. Like Ms buying Rare. Ignoring the massive price they paid, just running the studio probably cost MS more than the studio made over the years because it's turn out didn't do well.

As long as you get the games that sell, 1st or 3rd party, you'll be making money.

Sony have 2 tier 1st party. Tier 1 internal/high budget/big sellers e.g. Gran Turismo P/5 12million, Uncharted 8million, Singstar etc. 2nd tier is lower budget external teams. Healthily profitable no doubt.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's no such thing as two tiers. Sony have 1st party devs that make games and some sell, some don't, covering a wide range of sales from the games you've listed to the few million sellers to the barely-registered sellers. ICO didn't sell gangbusters but wasn't a lower-budget, cheap title. In some cases Sony aren't looking for a substantial profit, such as that weird demo type creation, but generally, like everyone else publishing games, they are creating content in the hopes it sells enough to turn a profit, whether first or 2nd party. eg. Heavy rain was a massive investment for the sell-through, nothing like as financially successful as Gears.

There's also no such thing as an external 1st party team - 1st party means part of the fold. It's not like there's one building for all Sony's internal first party devs, and the external first-party devs have their own buildings.

Having first-party devs doesn't lead to massive software profitability. It allows better control of the content you get on your platform (stop creating FPSes and make Move games instead), and the opportunity to limit any upcoming devs or technologies to your platform, but other than that it's just a different approach to commissioning titles, with neither approach being intrinsically better or more profitable.

 

[boommoob1]

Sonys internal games sell far better than 2nd party games. 2nd party budget wise is largely fleshing out the exclusives lineup for Sony. With the huge size of Sony the PLATFORM HOLDERS 1st/2nd party it is only logical.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sonys internal games sell far better than 2nd party games. 2nd party budget wise is largely fleshing out the exclusives lineup for Sony.

So what you're saying is Sony invest more in their first party games which results in better sales (although Infamous is one example that didn't make headline sales). All that shows is, if you invest you can get better returns. Instead of Sony owning PD, and if PD were independent, Sony could have gone to PD as an independent developer and offered them the same amount of money they invested in GT5 for PD to make the same game.

I point to Gears as an example of how not owning a developer can still result in a top-selling title. And to Rare as an example of how a 1st party developer doesn't result in top-selling titles. You don't need 1st party studios to get top-tier sellers. You don't need 1st party developers to flesh out your library. You just need to invest the dollars, either in buying studios or in commissioning games.

 

[boommoob1]

So what you're saying is Sony invest more in their first party games which results in better sales (although Infamous is one example that didn't make headline sales). All that shows is, if you invest you can get better returns. Instead of Sony owning PD, and if PD were independent, Sony could have gone to PD as an independent developer and offered them the same amount of money they invested in GT5 for PD to make the same game.

I point to Gears as an example of how not owning a developer can still result in a top-selling title. And to Rare as an example of how a 1st party developer doesn't result in top-selling titles. You don't need 1st party studios to get top-tier sellers. You don't need 1st party developers to flesh out your library. You just need to invest the dollars, either in buying studios or in commissioning games.

I think Gears is a bought 3rd party exclusive. Sony needs 2 big FPS next gen if they're going to wrestle mindshare from MS in the US how do they do

 

[AlNom]

Microsoft doesn't own Gears.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think Gears is a bought 3rd party exclusive. Sony needs 2 big FPS next gen if they're going to wrestle mindshare from MS in the US how do they do

That doesn't change the argument. Sony can pay someone to make them some shooters, or get their first parties to makes shooters. And MS, conversely, can pay someone to make a shooter for XB3, or buy a studio to make it. Either way the job gets done - there's no intrinsic financial advantage to owning studios AFAIK.

 

[dobwal]

Sony have 2 tier 1st party. Tier 1 internal/high budget/big sellers e.g. Gran Turismo P/5 12million, Uncharted 8million, Singstar etc. 2nd tier is lower budget external teams. Healthily profitable no doubt.

We have no ideal of the health of Sony publishing arm. Sony has around 20 1st party development teams and supports a host of 2nd party developers. Just because you can point to the success of GT5 and UC doesn't mean the whole publishing arm has been overall profitable.

EA hasn't had a profitable year in like 4 years and they hold property like ME, DA, BF, Madden, NCAA, Sims and others. Activision pulled in 680 million in profit between 2007-2010, which seems pretty ridiculous given their IPs (WOW and COD) and the fact they spend that much on operating expenses every quarter.

The difference in high qualtiy IPs between Sony and MS is much smaller than difference in the number of 1st party development houses between the two as publishers. MS has used the money it didn't have to spend on supporting development houses to pay for exclusive holds over IPs like ME, Gears, GTA episodes and others.

Its not a question of which model is better, its a question of how effective you can be when making use of either model. Sony has had to cut down the level of staffing of its development arm due to the fact this isn't the PS2 era anymore which was more supportive of Sony publishing arm. MS never held that sort of position in the market, thus their smaller publisher component and strategy for investing in second and third titles, which they deem more effective dollar for dollar.

 

[boommoob1]

My original point was Sony strategy PS3 and beyond. Yoshida has spelt it out in the past. Building big internal ip's.

 

[dobwal]

My original point was Sony strategy PS3 and beyond. Yoshida has spelt it out in the past. Building big internal ip's.

Owning a large stable of highly valuable IPs is not the same thing as maintaining a huge 1st party development group. Sony already has a huge development business.

 

[Heinrich4]

Sony and MS...Maybe more like a partnership for media as Holographic Versatile Disc.

 

[patsu]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/3611...itional_Console_Dev_Cycle_Is_Gone_Forever.php

The traditional 4-to-5-year console cycle that gave game developers ample time to prepare for technology changes is "gone forever," says EA CEO John Riccitiello, whose company has been reinventing itself for the digital age.

"The industry has radically changed and the pace of change has accelerated dramatically," he said in a Gamasutra-attended conference call. "Gone forever is the 4-to-5 year console cadence that gave developers ample time to invest and retool for the next big wave."

"Consider that just 18 months ago there was no iPad, Google was experimenting with Android, and most big games were limited to a single revenue opportunity at launch. Consider that each of the major consoles now has a controller that encourages users to get off the couch and get into the action," he said, adding that the top paid apps across tablets and smartphones are consistently games.

"While the game industry has fundamentally changed, games are reaching a far larger audience base than ever before," he said, before explaining his company's three key strategies for the immediate future.

...

 

[RudeCurve]

The traditional 4-to-5-year console cycle that gave game developers ample time to prepare for technology changes is "gone forever," says EA CEO John Riccitiello, whose company has been reinventing itself for the digital age.

EA hasn't had a profitable year in like 4 years

It's no suprise they would say that...