http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060219-6216.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20060221082342.html
Yeah, I know the links are from February, but they all seem to go back to Merrill Lynch, the very credible company. I tried to find more recent links, but apparently these are the latest. The cost to manufacture the PS3 is estimated to be $800-$900.
People like to say that the launch price of the PS3 could really damage Sony and potentially put them out of the gaming industry. According to Merrill Lynch, the price of the components to a PS3 could cost way less in just a couple of years, down to "$320" each console. So, I guess this means that eventually Sony will make up money with the ten-year lifespan the console was given. If the manufacture price was perpetually expensive, then I could definitely see how it would damage the gaming aspect of the company. It would seem, though, that the loss is only temporary.
My guess for the price being so high is because it came out way soon. Sony won't fall out of the competition for a while, if ever.
I never said or thought they would. I just can't see why people still like them after all the stupid stuff they've been pulling is taken into consideration. :(
Like what, the price?
That and the price of the games, I for one would not bay 75-85 usd for a game. I dont care if its blue ray or not.
This was before we found out about the 10% yeilds on Cell. Hard drives, as Microsoft learnt, don't go down in price very quickly at all.
I thought the games were changed to be around $60 in the US. Things are always more expensive in Japan!
The price of the components going down doesn't have to be quick, so it could take four years before a profit comes in. But this still means that Sony won't drop out because there is still chance of a profit.
Eh. I never thought for a second Sony would fall out of the business. If anything, the blind masses will continue to buy their products simply because it IS Sony. They won't fall out of the business, and they probably won't even come in third.
Microsoft hasnt learned anything about harddrive price, other than the console consumer will pay $100 for a 20GB harddrive. Same hardware as the PC market, with a different interface. For That price, i can get a 250GB harddrive for my computer. easy.
Sony makes the profit on the software and accessories. They probably will take the loss on the hardware to sell the DVD movies for $35 that cost them 2 bucks each. That is a valid marketting strategy. Although imo, a $650 price tag is still wtf expensive. If i had the green for $650, 800 wouldnt be much of a problem either.
And who said they would?
Most likely is Sony will get second or Nintendos on their @ss this whole generation. Death is not an option.
--------
As for the Price of the system, It will hurt them. Selling anything at a loss will. But they will regain the loss over time. But Nintendos breaking even on the Wii, so they get proft from the get go. It's not a question ofwhos going to be hurt but more of a question of turning a idea profitable.
I like this article from the Wall Street Journal better:
First off, that made me want to copy and paste into Word just to edit the **** out of it, and second, that had nothing to do with manufacturing costs and you're just being a dick.
Yeah, well some guy on the Konami boards typed it in by hand. Sue me. It's still the Wall Street Journal's article, not mine.
Uh, no, its a poor copy of a wallstreet journal article if someone typed it by hand. Seriously, ctrl+c, ctrl+v, bam.
That being said, if I'm going to plop down 600+ (or whatever its going to cost) on a video game system, its going to be a computer.
Silly LoS, the PS3 is a computer.
I think he means for the Ps3 rather than all of Sony's consoles. Which is true. 'Exclusives' is a plural. There is only one good exclusive. The others are on 360 now :(
[COLOR="Yellow"]If he's talking about games that were first announced exclusive for the PS3 and then went mult-platform the only only one that comes to mind is Assasin's Creed (i'm pretty sure there were more though). There's one good exclusive?! Ahem:
-Resistance: Fall of Man
-Devil May Cry 4
-Ninja Gaiden Sigma
-Ratchet and Clank (Working Title)
-Tekken 6
-Naughty Dog (Working Title)
-Killzone
-Heavenly Sword
-Metal Gear Solid 4
-Full Auto 2
-L.A. Noire
-Final Fantasy XIII
-Final Fantasy Versus XIII
-Warhawk
-Eight Days
-Afrika
-Virtual Fighter 5
-Tekken 6
-Ridge Racer
-Genji: Days of the Blade
-5th Phantom Saga
-Gran Turismo HD
-EyeDentify
And that's just off the top of my head. Hell, just Resistance: Fall of Man alone is enough reason to own a PS3.[/COLOR]
And the statement still stands. There is still only one good exclusive. Metal Gear Solid 4. Don't even think for a second you can convince anyone to be excited about another Tekken.
Oh Christ or Warhawk for that matter.
Wow, "Naughty Dog (Working Title)" sounds awesome. Any screens? Or info?
[COLOR="Yellow"]Well if you think MGS is still the only good PS3 exclusive, that's fine, thousands of gamers are excited about a lot of other PS3 games. Tekken is one of the most popular fighting series on the planet, why wouldn't anyone be excited about it?
There was a trailer of Naughty Dog's new game concept at E3 which was awesome. And Naughty Dog is developing so i know it's gonna be good.[/COLOR]
Tekken certainly does have a strong fanbase. I'm grateful to Namco for not releasing Dark Ressurrection on a console so that everyone still comes in to my arcade to play it!
Unless sony's got some air-tight exclusivity contracts, though, I think a lot of the high-profile titles could go to the 360 and Wii this generation. SquareEnix has already stated that they want to do a lot more multiplatform work, for one thing. Japan's lackluster reception for the 360 is disheartening, but the Wii should be as huge a hit there as it his everywhere else in the world at least.
Oh he did NOT mention the massive crab game.
I was really interested in Resistance: Fall of Man but after I checked out this 'flagship title' it seemed it would be just another Halo. And that's not a good thing.
What about Ridge Racer? Everyone loves that. I mean, it's Ridge Racer. RIIIIIDDDGGEE RACEEEERRR!
I don't know about the newest version, but Ridge Racer 6 is on the 360.
Killzone shouldn't be on there. The first sucked, the footage for the sequel is CLEARLY not in-game footage and it's MIA right now.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Is it just me or does naughty dog's Un-named title, seem alot like Far Cry?[/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Oh! and as for the PS3 prices. I run a game store and we have received word that PS3 exclusives are to retail for upwards to $100 each (MGS4,FFXIII, Killzone 2). As for regular titles, they will sell for $60 if the tiel is on the other consoles, if the game is a hit title edited or modified in some way for the PS3 such as a Madden game or Need for Speed Carbon, the average price of a new title will be $79.99. Keep in mind though, Sony is expected to release System exclusives rather frequently, as they have little to poor third party support, so expect (mostly) alot of $100 titles. [/FONT]
It wont be bacon. I can tell you that much.
[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]Fair enough, but the possibilites for what the game might be are endless.[/COLOR]
ONLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
[COLOR="Yellow"]We kinda sorta have an idea of what the concept might be. And we definitely know what the setting is going to be. There's speculation on the net that you might even control the animals which i've never experienced in a game before.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Yellow"]WHAT IN THE BLOODY F[COLOR="Yellow"]U[/COLOR]CK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?[/COLOR]
Don't believe everything you hear on VGC. Especially when there's nothing else but his word to back it up.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Proto Man, you're going to take one guy's word as official announcement?[/COLOR]
Well, don't.
[FONT=9][SIZE=1][COLOR=#00ff00][FONT=9][COLOR=#00ff00][SIZE=1][FONT=9][SIZE=1][COLOR=#00ff00][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=9][SIZE=1][COLOR=#00ff00][FONT=9][COLOR=#00ff00][SIZE=1][FONT=9][SIZE=1][COLOR=#00ff00][SIZE=1][COLOR=#00ff00]Like they say; "a word is but a word, it holds no meaning nor existence except to those who allow it". So I guess you all have every right to a opinion, I myself have no clue as to if Sony's vague Report has even a slightest remnants of credibility. But, I pity anyone who does not leave even the most Minuet indication that speculations on Sony's prices to the benefit of a doubt. After all, Speculations where correct on Sony's console Price, you never really can stomp out the possibility of anything, especially when that speculation involves a rumor that Sony may infact overprice to such an extent. But I guess a rumor is a rumor, nothing more or nothing less...sadly.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]We kinda sorta have an idea of what the concept might be. And we definitely know what the setting is going to be. There's speculation on the net that you might even control the animals which i've never experienced in a game before.[/COLOR]
[IMG]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/27/Space_station_silicon_valley_box.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.conclaveproject.org/members/5/archives/cubivore.jpg[/IMG]
Spacestation, that's it. I knew something came before Silicon. I used to love that game.
In those days Rockstar made games other than granny-beating simulators!
There was an oddball SNES game called EVO, too, where you started as a tadpole and evolved your creature into any number of possible forms by the end of the game. I rented it once but didn't get into it very much.
I think it boils down to games. Sega had the market on graphics, they failed because of the lack in games, besides sonic and echo the dolphin.
If Final Fantasy Games will only come out for PS3, I'll be buying a PS3. If a system had no good games, no one will feel the system is worth it.
Thats' what I think.
And Sony has lots of areas for revenue. T.V.'s, radios, and hundreds of other products. I'm not worried about them disappearing any time soon.
Except third party Nintendo and third party Sony will most likely be drastically different. What they have to worry about is Microsoft and their loss of exlusives.
Sony has enough 3rd party support that they don't have to make their own games.
That way of thinking supports the people that wish Sony to drop out of the gaming industry. Saying that they've done nothing with first-party games doesn't matter, it's who they pushed on their system that does. This generation will certainly be different, but automatically putting the other two systems on top before five years pass and real results can be seen is kind of dumb. I don't like console wars because they're just dumb arguments about systems I'm going to get and I don't care what games come out on what system (except for control issues, but I'll buy them anyways).
Regardless of who makes what and however many first-party games doesn't matter, it's the support that follows through in the end. Using the "Sony makes ****ty first-party games and should therefore be out of the industry" is stupid logic. The support is different this time, so we'll just have to see how it goes. We have to wait like five years, though.
I've more heard more devlepers say Wii is more exiting to make games for. Surely that means something in itself.
I think what Paul was trying to say was that a lot of the support went to Sony in the last gen, which means by default not too much support was given to the other consoles. Now that things have changed, the support has switched over. So if a company gave Sony 70% of it's support and 30% to Nintendo, it'll be more like 40%/60% instead.
If I was a developer, I'd be excited to develop for the Wii. But if previous figures say I got more sales from a certain company, I wouldn't want to abandon all support. Just because a developer suddenly says they're going to develop for the Wii doesn't mean they won't develop for other consoles.
[quote=Princess Fate][COLOR=skyblue]I don't like console wars because they're just dumb arguments about systems I'm going to get and I don't care what games come out on what system (except for control issues, but I'll buy them anyways).[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I'm actually getting fed up of people saying these arguements are pointless and irrelevent because people will buy all 3 systems. This stuff is important, it changes the shape of an industry, it makes or breaks developers, it can change how games are played forever. If you don't give a **** who wins then I put it to you that you aren't really a gamer at all.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#87ceeb][quote=Princess Fate]We have to wait like five years though.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]More like 2 years, it's typically whoever reaches 20 million or so first that ends up winning. It took us only 2 years to see the outcome of DS VS PSP. After 2 years of this gen the outcome was pretty clear, although it did change a little, GC was beating Xbox after 2 years and in the next 2 Xbox overtook. But then Xbox sales have dropped tremendously, so GC could end up winning after all.[/COLOR]
[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]They'd rather develop for 360 and Wii or they're just giving Microsoft and Nintendo more support than they did last time? There's a huge difference. I haven't heard any interviews from 3rd party developers like Capcom, SquareEnix or Tecmo say they'd rather not develop for the PS3 but for the other 2 consoles instead.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]...you haven't heard Tecmo say they only want to develop for 360? The hell?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]Capcom and SquareEnix have had little to say on who they prefer because they've been trying to have a much more multiplatform stance this generation, it'd actually hurt them.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]But it's obvious anyway, developers would clearly rather work on Wii because of the possibilities of the system and out of a choice between PS3 and 360 they'd pick 360 every time, because the system's just blatently more powerful and we know it has the best development tools. With PS3 it's just difficult and unsuitable architecture with Sony's traditional shoddy documentation and development tools and less cash from games because of the costs of the completely unnecessary BluRay.[/COLOR]
I don't care who wins so I'm not a "real" gamer? I'm helping the industry live buy purchasing all systems. I wish it to continue for the remainder of my life, and then some. The fact that you care so ****ing much is stupid and will just bring out fanboyism even more. You're essentially killing the industry with your stupid loyalism.
[QUOTE=Princess Fate]I don't care who wins so I'm not a "real" gamer? I'm helping the industry live buy purchasing all systems.
Buying all the systems helps the industry? That's cute.
So by your idea if we all bought each system the industry would be in bliss?
If you think about it its actually the people who don't buy a system who fuel development in this industry. Sure they aim to please people who already bought one of their system, but developers always have a yearning to get the people who don't buy their products. This yearning makes them want to be better and thus the industry improves.
In a way the people buying all the systems are the one hurting the Industry.
Crazy huh.
money = business
Businesses stay alive with money! Console wars are different from business issues. I never said I wanted every company to be equal, just alive.
BUT THAT'S NUTS.
Mm, I think he means the industry as a whole, in the way of innovation and improvement, rather than one business, like Sony, staying alive and healthy. See, it's nice to own every console, I know I will, but it doesn't tell the industry much. What it does tell them is "Hey, keep churning out ****, because I'll buy it anyways!" if you're selective about what you buy, like, just a Wii, then you're telling the industry "Hey, industry, it's been nice, we've have a comfortable ride, but you know what? I'm getting kinda bored. It's time for a change"
Buying every console is really good Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, but maybe not for gamers and the industry as a whole...
Pretty sure that's what he's trying to say anyways.
Personally, I don't see why people are even questioning Sony's decisions, as of late. I feel like I'm watching another episode of House, and wondering why aren't you doctors listening to House? He hasn't been wrong, yet! The same idea applies here: Sony has made risky maneuvers in the past, almost all of which have turned out successful. Why would you continue this nonsense?!
Also, there is no longer a console war between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Nintendo is no longer in competition, they simply co-exist.
Another point: if Sony loses in the console war with Microsoft, they may not just back out of video games and call it quits, they may sell or merge the company, entirely. Sony is competing with MS on video games, Macintosh on MP3 players, AIWA, RCA, Philips, and so forth in music and... well, you see what I mean. If they don't play things correctly and lose a bundle of money in the console war, they just may end up losing on other fronts as well.
[quote=Princess Fate][COLOR=skyblue]I don't care who wins so I'm not a "real" gamer? I'm helping the industry live buy purchasing all systems. I wish it to continue for the remainder of my life, and then some. The fact that you care so ****ing much is stupid and will just bring out fanboyism even more. You're essentially killing the industry with your stupid loyalism.[/COLOR]
If you don't care who wins then no, you aren't a real gamer. If you don't care who wins then you obviously don't have a clue what the hell is even going on, so you're on no position to say it doesn't matter.
PS3 winning would be fucking awful for the industry, it's the absolute worst-case scenario. It would lead to expensive, unoriginal games with worse graphics than what they could have, small studios getting destroyed by the development costs, a disc format that no consumer even wants becoming mainstream and non-gamers being utterly excluded from gaming once again, allowing no hope for any expansion of the indsutry. In fact, it'll follow the decline it's in.
If you don't think preventing that happening is your f[color=lightgreenu[/color]cking duty as a gamer and as someone who wants to work in the industry then you might aswell give up on both already, if it happens there wouldn't be enough room for either anyway.
I'm gonna vote with my money, because in my opinion Nintendo and Microsoft winning the next generation is the best-case scenario. If you can find some solid reasoning for why PS3 will be good for gaming then by all means, stand by it. But the fact is you haven't even thought about it, because apparantly it doesn't matter.
Sony doesn't make all of their games, obviously. The games put on it now are obviously mostly third-party games that are pretty high in originality. Small studios could go to Nintendo, a system most people would have alongside their 360 or PS3. Just because a company would "win" doesn't mean the other companies would die. But you tend to look at worst-case scenarios all the time, so Sony winning would be like AAAA THE GAMING INDUSTRY IS DEAD AAAAA
Sony themselves said that they're not appealing to the casual gamer, but the high-end gamers that want to move up quickly. You may just as well not consider it in this stupid console war of yours, since it's waaaaaay too expensive. You can pull out figures and numbers all you like, but Sony's gaming library hasn't failed me.
Whatever any reputable company comes out with for home consoles is fine by me. I don't care what comes out, I'm getting it, bottom line. It doesn't matter what company it is. As a gamer, I play games, not consoles.
But that's too hard to understand!
But that's the point. I don't care if they win or lose. Them still being in the business is what I care for. I don't think they will "win" this because there are not enough high-end gamers at the moment. And if they did "win", then high-end gaming is where it's at.
If any of those companies come in last, guess what? I still have the system, and games are still being released for them. I'm getting the best gaming experience each console has to offer. That's the ultimate goal of any real gamer.
Hey, I'm doing the same as you, but at least I can realise it's not a good thing to do IN THE LONG RUN.
What's not a good thing to do in the long run? Owning all the systems?
Heh, never mind. I don't feel like repeating myself again.
[quote=Princess Fate][COLOR=skyblue]What's not a good thing to do in the long run?[/COLOR]
Repeatedly not reading posts, I suppose.
Since when has it ever been cheap? It really has little to do with being cheap, though, yes, I am honestly saying the industry should stay "cheap" and thus affordable to the general public and not just "high-end" whatever, since that's just idiotic. Are you really saying that the industry should continue getting more and more expensive until only EA, Activision, and Ubi can continue making games; Until only kids with far too much money can afford them? If you are, then you're just being silly, because that's most likely going to kill the gaming industry.
I'm gonna put this simply. Sony winning would be destructive to the entire industry and not result in what gamers really want.
Whether you want to be important or not, as a consumer you are. When you spend you are voting with currency. This is why these arguements matter, because if you actually want to work in this industry you should care about what's happening and the end results and choose who to support very carefully.
In other words, thinking of these matters as entirely trivial because you're prepared to spend thousands anyway is a completely ignorant and short-sighted thing for someone, especially someone in your position, to say.
I didn't say that I want high-end and only high-end. I'm saying that somebody had to do that risky leap and say "Hey, gaming isn't just for kids and blue-collars anymore." Eventually, in lots of years, gaming will be more expensive because there is nowhere to go but up. It's the Blu-Ray that makes the PS3 so expensive, not the console bits themselves. Sony took a giant leap with a large-priced multimedia console. Since money is not an issue and I haven't been disappointed with Sony, why in the world wouldn't I buy a PS3?
Like I said before, Nintendo will always be a house for cheap development, so I'll get to see some pretty innovative stuff on Nintendo's consoles. When those companies get huge, they can develop for whoever they want to, no matter the cost of it. If the industry gets larger, all game companies will have to rev it up to compete with each other, causing prices to go up for development and the consumers. Maybe Sony did it a decade too early, which is why I call it a "leap", but sometime in the future when Microsoft comes out with a $600 console and Nintendo comes out with a $400 one, spending $800-$900 on a console won't be such a big deal.
I am a hardcore gaming consumer with lots of money. I want the industry to go wherever they want. I haven't been failed yet, so I don't see what's the big deal. :/
[quote=Princess Fate][COLOR=skyblue]I want the industry to go wherever they want. I haven't been failed yet, so I don't see what's the big deal.[/COLOR] :/
This statement alone renders every opinion you have on the state of the industry null and void.
The point is, Fate, is that this arguement is not about defending your support of all 3 systems, but rather your attack on anyone discussing the industry.
We've proven to you that who wins does matter, and that telling everyone to shut up and buy all three is an utterly stupid thing to say.
Arguing peoples' personal deficiencies in a videogame thread = draaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaa...:sh2y:
[quote=Princess Fate] [COLOR=skyblue]Hardware will become more costly to enter the competition.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=skyblue][COLOR=lightgreen]The NES, SNES, N64 and Gamecube all managed to be released at $200 on launch, despite being leaps and bounds ahead of eachother in technology.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[quote=Princess Fate][COLOR=skyblue]Discussing the industry isn't what I don't like. Console factions is what I don't. I think it's stupid.[/COLOR]
You're honestly telling me you don't have a preference or bias towards one particular company?
Please, every gamer does. Most gamers started gaming as children and grew up playing one system, and have had their tastes shaped by thsoe kinds of games. Having a preference for one company is perfectly natural for gamers.
Had Nintendo opted for better graphics, we'd see a $300-$350 console from them just so they could break even. I'm not sure on the profits garnered and development costs from the other systems, so I can't comment on them.
I used to be a Ninty-only fan, but as I played more games on the Xbox and PS2, I told myself that I should've gone to different consoles much sooner.
I have a preference over the PS2 console, not the company Sony. I'm not going to say that they are the ultimate gaming industry in all the planet of all that has ever been because I do not care for any of the companies. I care only for games that I find enjoyable. It's going to take a lot for the PS3 or the Wii to stop the stranglehold with my PS2 preference. The 360 is the only console I'm playing now because I've gotten the sudden urge to get a higher score, but that doesn't mean I don't get the urge to play some older PS2 games every now and then. I'm accepting of the PS3 because the PS2 did so well.
[quote=Princess Fate] [COLOR=skyblue]Had Nintendo opted for better graphics, we'd see a $300-$350 console from them just so they could break even. I'm not sure on the profits garnered and development costs from the other systems, so I can't comment on them.[/COLOR][COLOR=skyblue]
[COLOR=palegreen]Not at all, Nintendo could quite easily have built a system for $200-250 that would have been extremely powerful and HD capable. They could have built a system for that much that could output graphics better than Half-Life 2 and break even on the system. They certainly could have made a $300 system that was sold at a small loss that would rival PS3.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen][/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]Make no mistake, Wii still uses cutting-edge expensive technology at $250, difference is the technology isn't used to simply be more powerful. Extremely small, cool and quiet chips are very expensive to make initially.[/COLOR]
[quote=Princess Fate]I have a preference over the PS2 console, not the company Sony. I'm not going to say that they are the ultimate gaming industry in all the planet of all that has ever been because I do not care for any of the companies. I care only for games that I find enjoyable. It's going to take a lot for the PS3 or the Wii to stop the stranglehold with my PS2 preference. The 360 is the only console I'm playing now because I've gotten the sudden urge to get a higher score, but that doesn't mean I don't get the urge to play some older PS2 games every now and then. I'm accepting of the PS3 because the PS2 did so well. [/COLOR]
You clearly have a preference for certain companies that make your games, however. You're always more interested in anything Kojima does than any other developer.
I admit that anyone automatically having a preference for Sony was pretty stupid until recently when they started actually making games of note. But a preference for Sega, Microsoft and Nintendo makes a lot more sense, they actually make their own games.
By "make their own games" I'm basically talking about 1st party support. Sony didn't have much of it until recent years, relying mainly on 3rd party support. They still don't have anything approaching the kind Nintendo have, though possibly they're catching up with Microsoft and Sega of old. All bias aside, Nintendo is the 2nd largest publisher in the world.
I DEMAND A LIST.
Demand an average of review scores, too, while you're at it.
Average review scores from internal studios (From metacritic.com):
Nintendo: 76.1%
Microsoft: 76.75%
Sony: 72.47%
GD magazine did their annual Top 20 Publishers, with Nintendo falling second, Sony fourth and Microsoft sixth. Opinion isn't taken under account, at least not theirs. They take review scores, milestone payments, no. of releases, and producer ratings given from developers. They also list all internal studios and where they're located for each of the 20 publishers. From where the publishers are placed on the list, to their number of releases, the review scores of these, and the number of development studios, it is clear that Sony sits pretty comfortably in the same level as Nintendo and Microsoft when it comes to first-party development, with each publisher having their own strengths.
And no, if you want to know, none of them scored the highest in average review scores.
So I was looking on wikipedia through Sony franchises. A bunch of them appeared on the Sega Saturn and were merely published by Sony. Does this shit even count?
The only sony franchise I've ever liked was Solstice, and they haven't made a third game in the series yet. If they ever do, and do it right, I might reconsider a good 10% of my soul-blackening, oceanic hatred for them.
Never heard of it. I did a search and all I found was an NES game.
Most of the "franchises" Wikipedia lists are like that.
Equinox was the SNES sequel to Solstice. It was alright, but not as good as the original. Solstice didn't feature any combat, really, except for one of the four potions Shadax can use to eliminate all of the monsters from a room, making the puzzles somewhat easier. The entire object of Equinox was to defeat monsters using your weapons/spells. This pushed the focus of the game away from exploration and puzzle-solving, which is what I liked so much about the first game.