PS4 NewsWill Multiplatform Titles, Not Exclusives, Cause The PS4 To Sell? - PS4 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Will Multiplatform Titles, Not Exclusives, Cause The PS4 To Sell?

In general, when someone talks about a "system-selling game," they're usually referring to an exclusive title.

It's only logical. Of course a new Halo or Gran Turismo would help sell Xboxes and PlayStations respectively, because those games can only be played on one platform. And there's no doubt that titles such as Killzone: Shadow Fall will contribute to pushing sales of PlayStation 4 consoles early on.

However, is it possible that the multiplatform offerings on the PS4 will play a bigger role in system sales? This is the first time in my memory that so many top-tier AAA franchises might be seen on a new console very early on. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag was another recent entry to the PS4 list, which already includes Watch Dogs, Destiny and Diablo III. Can you imagine if Take-Two adds Grand Theft Auto V to the multiplatform titles available on PS4...? I've made that argument for months, that one of the reasons for the GTAV delays is because Rockstar was making a PS4 iteration.

Obviously, exclusives will continue to be important for Sony. But as we start this new generation, if the PS4 boasts the latest and greatest in the biggest franchises in the industry, that can only help, right? And what if the new Call of Duty was to come out on the PS4? Of course, there's every possibility that the new Xbox will also get these multiplatform entries. But that would add more momentum to the new generation, would it not? Gamers won't have to pass up their favorite franchises just because they bought a new piece of hardware that is not backwards compatible. Furthermore, they get to play greatly enhanced versions of the new installments.

I think both Sony and Microsoft will go out of their way to promote huge multiplatform releases on their new consoles, simply due to the massive fan followings. Darn good idea, too, as exclusives are typically few and far between. Then again, toss in inFamous: Second Son for the PS4 launch and...well... Then you just gotta get one.

Tags: ps4, playstation 4, ps4 games, ps4 exclusives, next generation

3/4/2013 9:51:24 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

New Comment System

Legacy Comment System (45 posts)

Monday, March 04, 2013 @ 10:42:07 PM

I think they will have to, especially if Uncharted 4 doesn't pop up and surprise the crap out of us. I hope Second Son arrives but as much as I LOVE inFamous I dunno if it would be a huge reason to get the new console on launch since it never got its just dues. Killzone is sort of sketchy.

Sony is going to have to stop Microsoft's appropriation of all third party advertising. I was talking with my dad the other day and he asked if I'd seen the new Tomb Raider coming to Xbox, I was like hey it's comin' to PS3 too.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, March 04, 2013 @ 11:45:54 PM

I am not convinced Infamous is a system seller either. After getting off to a promising start with the first Infamous sellling 2.57 million copies the sequel only sold 1.53 million.

Killzone hasn't really lit up the sales charts either. KZ3 sold 2.44 million so that's better. It's still less than what KZ2 sold which is 2.88 million copies. It's in the all imprtant shooter genre so it's good from a strategic point of view that it's there.

I'd still feel better if there was a proven system seller like Uncharted available during the PS4's launch otherwise it might fall to third party games.

Third party exclusives are dead now with even MGS going multiplat. Third party games account for the vast majority of sales. How far they go towards selling a specific console is hard to quantify. When I look to buy a console I look at exclusives first and then price. Third party games are important but as long as I know the console is getting great third party support it plays only a small role in my choice.

Things were diferent in the PS2 days when we saw a lot of third party games like Grand Theft Auto, MGS, DMC, and Final Fantasy driving a lot console sales. A lot of those games were exclusive although some of them made their way to the Xbox. Now, I can say for certain those games sold a lot of PS2s.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/4/2013 11:48:32 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 1:44:00 AM

Oops World, I failed to respond to your point about advertising. It is so true that almost every single third party ad ends with that 360 logo. Simple yet very effective. It not only gives the impression that the game is only available for 360 but it also puts the 360 brand in gamers' minds.

Let's just be honest about it. Advertising has not been one of Sony's strengths for awhile. I think it has really hurt some of their lower profile exclusives like Starhawk, Sly Cooper, and even Infamous 2. I saw GOW Ascension ads on Hulu Plus leading up to Starhawk's release. Okay, I get it. Sony has had some financial problems and GOW is important to them but that game will sell a certain amount regardless. Starhawk needed some love too. Now Lightbox is history.

I simply do not understand spending millions making a game and then spending nothing on advertising. It takes a lot to get a game noticed in this highly competitive industry. Games with high review scores even slip through the cracks sometimes.

I truely hope Sony is prepared to engage MS when it comes to next gen advertising. It doesn't even have to be high end advertising. How much could it cost to have the PS4 logo appear at the end of a multiplat ad?

MS spent 500 million advertising the Kinect and it bought them 24 million Kinect sales which is coincidently the same amount of sales the original Xbox received last generation. Outside that dancing game Kinect game sales have been horrible so advertising defintely played a huge role in driving Kinect sales. I truely cringe when I think about the level of next gen Xbox advertising I will be forced to endure here in NA.

You seem like a smart guy World. Do you have any explanation for Infamous 2's sales being so much lower than the first game? They have almost identical Metascores so that can't be it. I was thinking Infamous being on the greatest hits list was the reason. While that may have been a factor sales for Infamous 2 were down the first 5 weeks versus Infamous according yo VGchartz. The best I can come up with was Suckerpunch getting some backlash from changing Cole's character design. That did generate some negative press for Suckerpunch but to their credit SP changed Cole back for the most part.

Could it be gamers punished Suckerpunch for even attempting a redesign in a similar way that Ninja Theory was punshed for messing around with Dante? That's the best I can come up with. The PS3's install base was over 15 million more consoles than when the first game was released so one would expect more sales for Infamous 2. It released in the summer against very little competition so release date isn't a factor. It's a head scratcher for sure. I'd welcome any of my fellow PSXE's take on it.

It's a shame too because I thought Infamous 2 was a better game. it was definitely better technically featuring improved graphics and deeper gameplay. It's a blast to play and is one of the better open world games you can find. Heck, it even has a level editor that allowed gamers to make content for the game. Granted it wasn't a very good level editor and the content gamers created wasn't very good. Still, I am surprised it didn't do so hot. At least with KZ3 I can come up with a reason it sold less. It scored lower and the controls were changed. I can find no legitimate reason that explains away why Infamous 2 sold less than the original.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/5/2013 2:01:02 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 4:57:52 AM

I'd still rather Sony continued to spend money making games instead of advertizing other companies' games. If Sony followed Microsoft's example, we'd never have gotten Sly 4 or The Unfinished Swan or any of dozens of other great "second tier" games, just a few iterations of the main franchises.

BTW the PS3 logo appears on the ads for tons of third-party games, including the massive-selling ACIII.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 3/5/2013 5:00:25 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 8:24:58 AM

Did I say I wanted them to stop making games? Nope, and I don't think they ever will. Just want more advertising especially for lower profile exclusives. Studios can get shut down even when they are under Sony's umbrella when their games don't sell. Lightbox, Zipper Interactive, Eat Sleep Play, and Sony Liverpool or is it Cambridge(The Wipeout makers) are no longer with us.

Yes, AC3 was a multiplat that has the Sony logo at the end. It also had exclusive PS3 content. That paid off because it's one of the rare multiplats that sold better on the PS3. There's been some others like FF13, and Portal 2 but it's rare.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, March 07, 2013 @ 5:03:24 PM

There's only so much money to spend. There's a reason M$ doesn't make many games: they spend their money on advertizing.

If Sony were to try to advertize at the same level as M$, they'd have to shutter a lot more studios. If the budgets for those studios you mentioned were inflated by huge marketing campaigns, how much more tenuous would their survival had been?

The choice is to spend (for example) $50 million making a game plus $50 million advertizing it or to spend $50 million making one game plus $50 million making another game. Unless your advertizing doubles your sales (thus paying for itself--not guaranteed), it's not money well spent. More importantly from our perspective, we have half as many games to play.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 3/7/2013 5:06:46 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, March 04, 2013 @ 10:44:38 PM

I still think exclusives will be the sellers. I mean honestly the gameplay experience will be the same most likely for this generation of consoles, and next, so whats to stop people from holding off on the PS4 unless some great exclusives are available; Killzone 4, inFamous and so on.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, March 04, 2013 @ 11:32:12 PM

I say yes because of gamers like myself and the only reason I'll get a PS4 at launch is because of the third party games!. I own very few games published by Sony.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, March 04, 2013 @ 11:49:58 PM

Just imagine if the latest Call Of Duty will be released first in the PS4 with all that social sharing stuff and months later in the new XBOX, that will be a very big head start for the PS4. And I think there's a chance that it will be on the PS4 first. You may hate Call of Duty all you want but the fact is it sells a lot.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 12:00:20 AM

i also believe the rumored 3rd party support will help push systems I hope the ps4 is out the gate first. I believe watch dogs may be a timed exclusive but that may just be until the nextbox is released. Obviously 1st party support will help too

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 12:41:04 AM

Slowly but surely you are all arguing your way into the world of PC games where multi-platform is the rule, because there are literally hundreds of iterations of platforms, and all games are essentially multi-platform.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 12:59:09 AM

I don't think you understand, Highlander...there is no bigger opponent to PC gaming than me. ;)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 1:05:45 AM

Ben, I don't even have a PC/Laptop. :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 1:53:43 AM

Actually, Ben, I believe you are wrong there. There seem to be at least one bigger opponent to PC gaming than you. He's not far away either. ;)

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/5/2013 1:54:26 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lord carlos
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 2:02:54 AM

Im on the playstation team because Sony has the finest first party game development studios in the known universe.
My friend is a PC elitist but every time he sees me playing a new PS3 exclusive his jaw hits the ground because the GAMEPLAY knocks the SH!T out of almost every multiplatform & PC exclusive.
Graphics don't make a game great...and thats all PC games have over the current gen consoles.

Last edited by Lord carlos on 3/5/2013 2:04:48 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 10:41:54 AM

Beamboom: Perhaps. But he can't be THAT much more opposed to it than'd be impossible. ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 10:49:02 AM


Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 1:12:10 AM

Well, of the PS4 launch titles so far the title of clearly most interest to me is a multiplat: Watch Dogs.

Ever since I got me the PS3 I've been of the opinion that the best games today typically are multiplats. The exclusives are playing it too safe. Sure, they have a layer of polish worthy of a showroom and they run smooth as butter, but underneath we find traditional games built on age-old, well-proven formulas.

The biggest and most innovative productions today are multiplats, and while this was a bit controversial to say a few years ago, surely it can't be much of a discussion any more. It's the multiplats who are pushing the business forward.

This is another reason why Sony did such a correct move with the architectural change: They must launch a console that runs the multiplats as good as possible. It's where it is happening today.

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/5/2013 1:16:55 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 5:07:45 AM

Heavy Rain and LittleBIGPlanet (among others) beg to differ.

There's plenty of innovation and plenty of lack thereof in both exclusives and multiplats.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 3/5/2013 5:08:35 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 5:59:08 AM

Well of course, there's always exceptions. And it's not like the exclusives are *bad*, not in any way. But with that said, what is it exactly that is so different or innovative with LBP? Coop platformers are not exactly new... The main thing about LBP is that it looks&feels so darn good, but that is polish.

Compared to what is done in the AAA multiplats (really too many to list, but let's just use LA Noire and Skyrim as just two examples) my honest opinion is that the typical exclusives falls short.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 9:15:59 AM

I'd say the level creator and amount of user generated content makes LBP original, but I am with you on this one Beamboom. I tend to favor multiplats as well. Name anything in Sony's line up that can compare to the scope or scale of Skyrim, Fallout3, La Noire, Borderlands 2, Batman Akram City, or the Mass Effect series? So many of Sony's exclusives seem small when compared to those giants. A lot of those exclusives feature linear gameplay on tiny little maps. Just look at KZ3. It's almost on rails with narrow paths on tiny maps giving you about one way to approach a firefight. Uncharted is extremely linear. But, but it needs to be linear to tell a great story. I don't buy that. Batman had a great story for Joker's send off.

The most open game Sony has is Infamous2 which is probably why I own it. I am big believer in player freedom. I get really frustrated when I can't explore or decide how I want to approach an enemy. Just try to explore in Uncharted. The game won't let you. Even just a little. Might as well be playing itself since there's only one way to go.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for linear games but I do think developers are moving away from extremely linear games. I respect Sony's exclusives, but i don't think they are all that ambitous. You say they play it safe. There's some evidence to back that up. At least with their boxed releases. Yes, there are exceptions like LBP. 2011 was big year for Sony exclusives featuring a lot of games. Every single one of them was a sequel. Every one of them.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 9:43:25 AM

No offense to you Beamboom, but if you obviously haven't spent enough time with LBP if you're prepared to say it isn't innovative.

It has some of the most innovative creation tools EVER - able to be both accessible to new comers, and people who know a thing or two about level design. And what I mean is, it EXCELS at catering for both game experiances.

You can say it is innovative in how it approaches accessibility, not dumbing anything down or making one person's game experiance necessarily better than another person's. It's also probably the best example of how to support a game's community after release. DLC that ANYONE can play but only people who have payed for it can create with the new things; again that same sense of accessibility.

There are so many things it does that are innovative and unique. There really are too many to list...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 10:19:07 AM

No offence taken, Ludicrous. To disagree is not offensive. :)

LBP is great, I do love LBP, do not misunderstand me. And I've never used the level editor.

But I must admit that I don't really see the player maps as much more than the console equivalent of "mods" on the PC platform. It's made more accessible and streamlined, by all means, and I do think they are epic games, but player maps is not really anything new. There's been plenty games that has come with a level editor.

But I hate to talk like this about LBP, cause it makes me sound like I don't really like those games, and I do. LBP and Infamous are my definitive PS3 exclusive favourites, with a good margin too.
LBP is also amongst best party games there are, along with Rayman Origins (who are HILARIOUS in local coop too) and Buzz.
Lovely games, and yes ok, a bit innovative. I'll give'em that. Although what I most of all see, is a game that is taking classic elements and just do them very very good. And there's nothing wrong in that!

What I mean with innovative is more on a grander scale.
For example I think it was pure madness to try to fit a game like Skyrim into the PS3. I'd love to see something like THAT being attempted by the 1st party devs.

Or something like Minecraft, who turned the gaming world upside down. Who would have guessed!

Or Assassins Creed. The combo of aesthetics and freedom at display in those games are completely unparalleled IMHO.

And I think we can all agree that while Infamous offer a great sandbox it really can not compare with GTA on any level. Or, for that matter RDR.

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/5/2013 10:23:15 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 10:30:40 AM

LBP is very innovative. The amount of user generated content is amazing. It's a mistake to refer to it only as co-op platformer. It's everything from a top down shooter, rpg, music game, fighter, racer, card game, fps, and even a chess game. The possibilities are endless. I actually think the user created content is better than what MM came up with. Sure there is a lot of junk on there that shows not everybody is a professional level creator, but there is also a fair amount of content that is every bit as good as what MM came up with. Pretty amazing when you think about the staff at MM's disposal versus levels made by one or two gamers. Don't want to sell MM short. It's to their credit that gamers are able to create such amazing content. infamous 2 has level editor but it's very limited so most of the user created content is awful. MM gave gamers excellent tools to work with. Suckerpunch did not.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 10:48:31 AM

I'm sorry Beamboom, but I believe the reverse is true. Multiplats consist of the franchises that play it safe while exclusives take all the chances. The latter sort of HAVE to if they want to compete.

Whenever gamers go after a popular series for not innovating and not doing something new, 99% of the time, it's a multiplatform series. It's Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed or Resident Evil. Hell, nobody even started going after Square Enix and Final Fantasy until it went multiplatform. When FF was exclusive to Sony, it was golden.

Heavy Rain is just one example of a big risk combined with huge innovation and originality. Alan Wake is another one, and that's on the Xbox 360. Then there's LittleBigPlanet and even Killzone 2, which totally changed things up in the FPS department as many have claimed. It's too bad they took a step towards CoD land with Killzone 3, but you get my point. And what about MGS4 on the PS3? Talk about ambitious in the realm of storytelling.

I'd say even Gears of War and Uncharted took chances because at the time of their inceptions, third-person shooters were considered vastly inferior to first-person shooters, and there was good reason. We just didn't have the technology in the last generation to make such amazing third-person experiences.

And look at inFamous. An open-world game crossed with superhero abilities? You know, the Xbox platform actually did a similar idea first; it was with Crackdown...yet another exclusive. Gran Turismo pushes the boundaries of racing every time a new one comes out. Some of the best downloadable games ever made came from Thatgamecompany, whose products were exclusive to the PSN.

I just cannot conceive of how you think multiplatform titles, which are constantly accused of doing the same ol' same ol' and NEVER taking risks, are somehow more innovative than the slew of exclusives that boast original ideas and concepts. And by the way, that extra level of polish you mention puts exclusives even further over the top.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 11:19:03 AM

Heavy Rain is a good example, yes.

But is Infamous really that innovative? In what way? What is the principal difference between Infamous and, say, Prototype or Spiderman Web Of Shadows? Also, as a sandbox game the world it offers is really not that special at all.
Graphically I find Assassins Creed to be a much, much more impressive sandbox than Infamous. And Rockstar sandboxes really beats them all without breaking a sweat.

And in what way is Killzone 2 innovative? When I played it I found it to be a pretty straightforward FPS? It played well, indeed, looked cool too but it was very much the traditional FPS formula with a traditional selection of weapons and a gameplay that were built around "take cover - fire - advance"? I'd say it's a very trad FPS... A decent FPS, but I don't see it as innovative?

Gran Turismo, while looking great, is again what I would call a ultra-traditional type of game. I mean, what is untraditional about a racing sim like this? I don't see how GT is *innovative*, it just pushes that traditional genre but is placed well within the definition of that genre.

Same with Uncharted. Now in Uncharteds case it looks so damn good that you simply can not ignore that, but underneath this ridiculously fat layer of polish and production values straight through the roof we do indeed find a very traditional game concept, faithful to the max to classic gaming, a direct heritage all the way back to when these kind of games were 2d shooter/platformers with puzzle elements.

Of course, with the sheer number of multiplats being released and with pretty much anyone being able to put titles out on the free market, it's *obvious* that most of them are both copycats and low budget nonsense. That goes without saying.

But of the top tier multiplats, well I gotta say I feel they represent the future to a much greater extent than the exclusives. Exclusives are, in my humble opinion, typically taking what we know and love, and do *that* as good as possible. In other words; Very, very safe. Like an Indiana Jones movie. :)

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/5/2013 11:26:10 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 11:29:50 AM

I don't think you read what I wrote. You said exclusives didn't take risks. I said Gears and Uncharted took significant risks because at the time, third-person shooters were basically considered a joke. Third-person action was accepted; third-person shooters were just vastly inferior to first-person shooters. Uncharted and Gears together reversed that entire trend.

Killzone 2 was the first FPS most had seen that offered a realistic, physics-based control scheme, which was very much the opposite of the "sliding on glass" style we had seen in just about every FPS prior. In many ways, it took FPS to a new and different level.

Gran Turismo pushes the envelope in ways almost no multiplatform franchise does. "Traditional" doesn't really mean anything; it's racing so there's little "new" to be done, anyway. It's merely a matter of making everything better, and you don't necessarily see that in multiplatform franchises like Need for Speed. GT and even Forza simply operate at another level.

And what about Demon's Souls? The follow-up was multiplatform but Demon's Souls blazed the trail. A highly unique action/RPG that was the first to try the concept of blending offline and online play, and that's even beside the unique gameplay.

You can even go into the online realm, as Warhawk was essentially one of the first MMOs on a console that actually did well, and it featured flying, which is drastically different than anything else we'd seen in all-multiplayer experiences. Heavy Rain, LittleBigPlanet, Metal Gear Solid 4, Alan Wake, Journey...there is no way the list of exclusives fails the innovation and production quality test.

While at the same time, I can sit here for hours listing off the multiplatform franchises that have been accused of "annualization" fatigue and general lack of creativity. You mention Assassin's Creed...have you completely missed the backlash that series has faced over the past year? Has that EVER happened with an exclusive series? Even one? Not to my knowledge. And it happens all the time with multiplats.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 3/5/2013 11:32:36 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 2:46:09 PM

It's true that exclusives hasn't gotten accused for annualization because... well... There are no annual exclusives. :D

Warhawk was not a mmo, it was just a plain multiplayer FPS (at least according to my definitions) but more importantly it was practically a 1:1 rip-off of Unreal Tournament. Seriously, the handling felt the exact same, the game types were the *exact* same, and the weapons, vehicles and strategies likewise. Warhawk is seriously not a good example in this context.

In regards to Gears and Uncharted taking risks... Maybe they did. I've never had a problem with either perspectives (fps/tps) so I don't really know. I've never viewed either as risktakers - but rather very mainstream products. But maybe you are right.

But there is one thing that I just want to make very clear here, and that is that I am not talking about averages. The *average* quality of a 1st party exclusive is on a entirely different ballpark - it's not even the same *league* as the average of the rest of the games.

So to come up with examples of *poor* multiplat titles are really irrelevant - I can add a hundred more after you are done with your list.
Simply: We do not disagree there.

No, what I talk about is the cream of the crop.
And while I too can criticize Assassins Creed for both this and that, I *must* give them creds for what they do well. And really, if we compare AC with Infamous (as both share similarities in gameplay) then there really are no shadow of doubt in my eyes. AC is completely in a class of it's own. And I am no big AC fan.

But while we're on the subject of Infamous (a franchise I LOVE!), it's interesting how the theme of the next Infamous coincidentally is very similar to that of Watch Dogs. But don't you agree that Watch Dogs take on that topic just looks so incredibly much more interesting and... Innovative?

And what we saw of the exclusives for the PS4, what did we see? Again the traditional game styles: A FPS and a arcade racer. Soon to follow, an adventure game and a racing sim. I'm willing to bet on that.

But to finish off in a positive note: I think that once the studios have gotten more used to the PS4 we will see a real change with the exclusives, new and a bit more unpredictable IPs simply cause there is so much more room for creativity with the new machine. It's an entirely new platform with very different possibilities (in particular due to the ram), something that adds a lot of freedom for the developers.

I really, really look forward to the next generation.

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/5/2013 2:47:12 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 4:54:45 PM

Warhawk is a third-person action game with a whole lot of flying. I haven't the slightest idea how that compares with Unreal Tournament. Just because they have similar modes? So does every multiplayer experience on the planet, as far as I can tell.

And I'll just ask you this- Can you name even one multiplatform franchise that has innovated BEYOND the period when it was a debut IP? Because I really can't. I see them build on solid foundations but in terms of originality, no. If you want risk-taking, originality, and unique approaches to this industry, I'm sorry, but you can't go with multiplats. That will get you the same ol' same ol' and little more. Some of it's great. But it's certainly not advancing the industry as far as I can see.

Only exclusives do that.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, March 06, 2013 @ 4:47:25 AM

Unreal Tournament has a lot of both flying and ground vehicles, how much each of the different types of vehicles are spawned and used depends on the maps and game types.
Seriously, for me as a PC gamer who entered the console world with the PS3, when I got me Warhawk it took me *straight* back to Unreal Tournament. I guess you need to play them both to realize the similarities, but at first I believed Warhawk had to be a modded Unreal engine - that's how similar they are. Not just in game modes, but the whole package.

As for your question in your second paragraph, I am not sure if I understand you correctly but you mean examples of titles that were "ahead of their time", sort of?

I would say that Skyrim is a title that definitely can be said to have been ahead of it's time. It was a title that *should* have been released on a upcoming gen consoles. They did stuff in this game that has *never* been seen in an exclusive ever, the consoles were barely able to hold it together.

I also think the Rockstar titles, both their own franchises (GTA/RDR) and LA Noire, has been clearly ahead of their times. We've not seen anything like the technology shown in LA Noire in any exclusive, ever. Not even close. I'd call *that* a real advancement of the industry, a taste of what to come.

I'd call Portal 2 innovative within the traditional boundaries of a puzzle/platformer. The mechanics are pure creativity, much more so than the closest exclusive comparison, LBP, who are much more a traditional representative of the genre (although *fantastic* fun and charming).

Minecraft practically created a genre of it's own when it was launched. I guess you could call Minecraft an exclusive, but really, that's just cause it had to be, it's not "cause it's an exclusive" if you understand what I mean.

Same with the MMORPGs when they first appeared, they can't be called "exclusives" either, they were just only for PCs cause they had to be.

No, what exclusives do well, and not only well but BEST, is the "movie games" (said in a completely non-patronizing way) with grande scenes and a story told in a strict, linear traditional fashion, complete with cinematic effects and huge visual impact. Think Uncharted, God of War, those kind of games. That's what I'd say is the home turf of the exclusives today, that's what they do best.
But is it innovative? Does it advance the industry? I'm not convinced.

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/6/2013 4:57:50 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, March 06, 2013 @ 3:28:46 PM

I still don't think you understand the term "innovation." Nothing, outside the tech in L.A. Noire (which doesn't even have anything to do with gameplay), can be considered "innovative" in the multiplats you're talking about.

Skyrim? Just bigger. It essentially plays exactly the same as any Elder Scrolls game before it. Absolutely nothing new there in terms of gameplay experience. Same goes for the Rockstar games. In your undying love for open-world and freedom-based games, you're completely ignoring the fact that NONE of them have offered anything NEW in the way of interactive experiences. They're just bigger and better. That's what multiplats do, for the most part. They certainly don't do innovation.

Portal 2 had the most ingeniously designed puzzles I think I've ever seen. But it's puzzle-solving. We've done it before. They're just better. LBP gave us a style of gameplay that we had NOT seen before because it blended platforming with a 2D/3D environment and factored in player initiative and direct customization. An entirely new experience.

Story, artistry, the way we interact with what's going on in the virtual world; that's innovation and originality. That's LittleBigPlanet, Journey, Heavy Rain, etc. That's where the originality is seen. It's where they break boundaries. It's where Uncharted and Gears proved third-person shooters could be great.

You apparently think "innovation" is simply making things better, and aren't grasping that bigger and better doesn't translate to NEW.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 1:38:53 AM

Maybe at launch depending on what is available and if the new Xbox does not release this fall. Once the generation is established people will look to what is exclusive just like this generation.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lord carlos
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 1:53:34 AM

These cross gen multiplatform releases wont be true next gen games.
i'm going to wait about 18 months untill i climb aboard the PS4.
The gameplay will essentially be the same with better graphics,frame rates,smoke & physic effects,not enough for me to drop 400-500 bucks this november.
Anyway i'll be too busy playing Beyond:Two Souls!!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 4:44:45 AM

help, obviously, but exclusives will always be the bread and butter.
for obvious reasons like, well, there exclusive so you either buy that system or you dont play the game.
definition = system seller!
but also less obviously, in the fact that 99% of the times first party games are just better!
MP games will be increasingly more important simply because theres fewer and fewer exclusives releasing in these times, but thats not to say they have become more important than exclusives!
not by a LONG shot!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 5:49:25 AM

Remember, Sony gets royalties from every xbox 720 sold since it will have the blu-ray drive. They want xboxes to sell too, every xbox blu-ray disc sold will provide them profits. Sony isn't concerned about the competition at all for now.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 11:21:20 AM


Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 12:00:58 PM

Blu ray drives are cheap now. Cost in players confess from software built in and other hardware within. They won't make much of anything on the tiny cost of bluray. They don't even own most of the stock. Sony owns 5% of SE as a side note.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 2:59:05 PM

It's about time people learn that Blu-ray is not Sonys property.

The "Blu-ray Disc founder group" was started on May 20, 2002 by MIT and nine leading electronic companies: Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp and Samsung.

The current board members of the Blu-ray Disc Association consist of:

Apple Inc.
Dell Inc.
Hitachi, Ltd.
Intel Corporation
LG Electronics
Mitsubishi Electric
Panasonic Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Royal Philips Electronics
Samsung Electronics
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Sun Microsystems
TDK Corporation
Technicolor SA
20th Century Fox
Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group
Warner Bros. Entertainment

Read more over at Wikipedia. But this whole "Blu-Ray is Sonys format so all competitors must hand them money" is just a weird myth.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 6:43:13 PM

Indeed beamboom, you have no idea how many times I posted that same information during the days of the HD-DVD vs BD war, and again during the early PS3 days.

Actually several people are entitled to royalties based on bluray technology, and in fact Microsoft get a slice of the pie because some of their technology is tied up in the software stack in every BD player around.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 7:27:01 PM

It's funny you both argued with me about how "Sony lost money on every PS3 because THEY needed Blu-Ray to win", then you change your argument. I am sorry that I don't have time to research into petty formats, but Sony has said several times that they and Microsoft work together on their hardware (like how every Vaio has Windows installed on it.) Lastly, I don't get info from Wikipedia, if you understand the nature of information you wouldn't either... Sony is a PATENT holder shared with 16 other companies and DOES receive profits from the sales.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 9:50:44 PM

Why do people think Wikipedia is unreliable? True, you need to be cautious before using it for legitimate scholastic research, but so long as the information is cited well from reliable sources, wikipedia is a wonderful, wonderful information tool. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia specifically as a source when writing an essay or conducting my own research, but I would consider using it as a secondary source for it's primary citations and reference those. But for Beamboom's purpose (generalized information sharing on an internet forum) it's more than appropriate and helpful.

PSNFrench: Who said, "Sony lost money on every PS3 because THEY needed Blu-Ray to win" in the context that Sony owns Bluray? I'm quite certain no one here did that.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 3/5/2013 9:52:34 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, March 06, 2013 @ 5:10:22 AM

PSN French: It is true that the PS3 were used as a trojan horse to establish Blu-Ray as the new standard for HD movies. Noone question that. Sony along with all the others who had invested in this technology, worked for Blu-Ray to win.

But there is this weird impression amongst many that Sony sits and controls Blu-Ray, with competitors trying to avoid it because of that.
There were even those who thought the next Xbox would be forced to still use DVD cause Sony owns Blu-ray. And *that* picture is just simply plain wrong. It's not how these things work.

Every single electronic equipment on the market - including Sonys own products of course - is *stuffed* with licensed technologies. Bluetooth, USB, HDMI, everything is controlled by licenses.

Last edited by Beamboom on 3/6/2013 5:13:33 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 11:20:01 AM

Lots of exclusives are gonna be shown at E3, so obviously there isn't enough information to claim one way or the other. If the next Final Fantasy looks pretty iconic or deeper compared to the titles of this gen, I think that alone could sell the system. To impress the older fanbase would really lead the way. If it ends up being multi, then I would say it will help.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 11:54:44 AM

I think Multiplatform games will help, some people bought the games either on PC or 360, but now that isn't going to be the case anymore I think it will come down to what your friends play on, and what exclusives the system has.

In my opinion exclusives at least for me is a major selling point for a console.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, March 05, 2013 @ 11:34:42 PM

Killzone, Infamous, and Driveclub look much better than Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed 4. I bet on the first party titles pushing more sales, especially near launch.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

How often do you visit the site?
Once a day
Several times a day
Every few days
Once a week
This is my first visit
I've never been here, even now I am not here

Previous Poll Results