Report – Sony cans, streamlines projects at UK studios

i dont play halo, dont like it, never have and i cant see myself liking any future entries in the series if it follows the same formular, in fact i much prefer a game like uncharted online, i really enjoyed my time on it via multiplayer which was a few months, last time i bothered to play was december during the evening and there wasnt 100k on, around 3k something like that

halo could get 5m a night i dont care for that series at all, in fact i’m saddened more people dont play 3rd person games online, i’m hoping u3 has a great online and more people play it, i dont believe what you said because a) i never saw them numbers or above after a couple of months after launch and b) you seem a bit of play sony consoles and thats it type of person judging by that forum post about some guy being xbox biased or something, i mean why would you care ? more fool the guy if he is.

if i’m wrong about that opinion then i apologise and take it back.

For once… Erth is correct on post #3. Sony has all these GREAT exclusives, but they don’t have that console mascot seller. Imo, they should not have let Spyro and Crash Bandicoot go… A bit more pushing and they had the ability to be Ps3 mascots; but it happens.

In order to make myself feel better for Sony’s lack of mascot sales, I’ll say this: I’m glad Sony doesn’t have a mascot, because that means that everyone who owns the Ps3 will all be playing different things, and not one thing.

But I do feel bad for Sony. Every release they do that they hype up, they’re hoping it’s a home run. I mean, many of them sell good, but just not as good with something that has Mario slapped on the front cover, or something with ‘Halo:’ in the title. No matter how hard they try, they can’t seem to nail it, and I don’t think that is their fault.

But again, I’d rather have a system with a VARIOUS amount of very good games, instead of a system with like 2 mascots (I think you know what I’m talking about.)

PS: I hate the whole “mascot” system. I don’t understand why sheep will buy the same Pokemon game over and over and over, when they’re all the same thing with different sprites and “Pokemon” slapped on the cover. I don’t understand how, after like 3 decades, Mario continues to sell. I don’t see how Halo and CoD is always being bought, when they’re essentially the same game with different colored guns, and more frosting added on top.

@ethr
“but these weak UK development teams can’t make games that will be over the top with 9+ rating not to mention that they sell pretty poorly.”

my ass!
Weak UK development? lol
I’m still freaking shocked that UK development made amazing GOTY Batman AA!
Wip3out HD Fury was dead amazing!
Brink another amazing game being made by UK dev team!
Sorry but UK right now are the ones making genre defining games!
Brink introduces the fluid movement
Little big planet introduces recreates the Play Share Create.

UK are on a leash!

@toastrules
no mascot?
They have 3:/
Sackboy- kids and up
Uncharted- majority gamers
Kratos- for adult

The only reason characters like Spyro and Crash felt like Sony mascots is because the PS1 and PS2 dominated the market so much for their respective generation that companies didn’t even *need* to pay attention to the other formats,

Sony does not have that luxury. The PS3 right now sales wise is sitting around where the PS2 was sitting less than three years into its lifespan.

The PS3 is being saturated with exclusives for a market that simply isn’t there to buy enough of them. With the cost of games sky-rocketing, that’s a serious problem.

It had nothing to do with mascots.

“I don’t understand why sheep will buy the same Pokemon game over and over and over, when they’re all the same thing with different sprites and “Pokemon” slapped on the cover. ”

I smell someone who doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about…

throwing various games against each other and trying to compare sales of something that you beat once and then it collects dust in your room to an online title is funny to say the least.

games perform well because people want value for their money. Mario is a great game in a popular genre, and so is Pokemon. people enjoy addicting and log lasting titles, it’s ridiculous to think that a slasher would ever sell as good as a multiplayer shooter. Halo doesn’t even have the mascot anymore, yet people play Reach online every day, always did, nobody bought it solely to beat the campaign wirh MC.

I don’t see any issues with franchises staying the same, if the devs happened to nail it in the very first installment. Gran Turismo stays the same, Halo stays the same, and so does Pokemon.. there’s no point in upgrading visuals in the latter as much, it would bring nothing to the game. Heavy Rain is essentially Fahrenheit, God of War haven’t changed since 2005.

that’s the point of a sequel: more of the same. it’s amusing how the great selling titles get attacked, no matter the quality.

these are toys. entertainment. games don’t have to be realistic or change all the time. I myself enjoyed the Dmc franchise a lot, I didn’t ask for the pervitine addicted Dante and them apparently dropping the gameplay formula solely for the reason there’re lots of people that don’t share my preferences in videogames.

as long as they covered the dev cost, why does it even matter if your favourite game doesn’t perform as good as CoD??