Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/06/2008
Offline
8102 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

PS2Fan13 wrote:

2. If you don't get a game you love because your not a fan of that particular console or don't feel like wasting extra hundred of bucks for another console, does that mean your not loyal to the game franchise you love or something else?

 

I'm not really sure how to answer this...  I suppose I love something else but maybe that is not the case...  I'll give you an example!  I played a lot of video games on the Nintendo 64 back in the day and developed an appreciation for Rare (you know, the video game developer).  I played everything from Banjo-Kazooie (N64) to Perfect Dark (N64) and I was confident the company would keep shelling out astonishing video games in the years to come.  When Microsoft bought Rare a few years ago they took Conker, Banjo, Kazooie and Joanna Dark and video games were developed (some are in development) for Xbox video game consoles featuring these characters.  They say Microsoft wanted to appeal to casual video gamers and tried to do so buy purchasing Rare (something about appealing to the masses through Rare's video game characters) but what that purchase did was push away a hardcore gamer like myself...  While I did purchase Conker: Live and Reloaded (Xbox), it doesn't warrant the purchase of a $200+ video game console! 

 

As a long-time fan of Rare video games and as a strong supporter, I wanted to see this company grow and flourish but all I have seen from them is a couple of video games not even worth my time on Xbox 360...  Granted, Nintendo still has Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong and Star Fox.  However, I haven't played a decent video game featuring any one of these characters since the 5th generation of video gaming!  Star Fox Adventures (GCN) was a fairly solid title and Star Fox: Assault (GCN) was a unique experience, but something about these video games didn't seem right...  Perhaps I have grown out of these video games; perhaps I no longer find any of them appealing?  I don't think that is the case because whenever I see media pertaining to Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (X360) I reflect on the direction Rare video games are heading...  Since when have Banjo and Kazooie been mechanics? 

 


This was my favorite answer from you regarding Rare. Rare was a very important in the Nintendo era. Great games that Nintendo fans loved from Rare. But when Microsoft aquired Rare, I was like Oh no, Nintendo blew it. Ironically the games they made for Microsoft didn't worked quite well. Bad or average reviews, etc. Bad business move. However Conker Live & reloaded was an excellent, funny, cool game for the Xbox.  

Message 11 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 03/06/2008
Offline
1401 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

I'm loyal to Playstation

 

And to some game series like

 

MGS

GOW

Resistance

 

 

I just like Playstaion better

 

Message 12 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/06/2008
Offline
8102 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

Tiz a cool handle wrote:

nov2rem wrote:

Tiz a cool handle wrote:

nov2rem wrote:

Now Sony lost some of the 3rd party excluvies that made the Sony Playstation in the first place. Final Fantasy 13, Tekken 6 are a few of those examples. It doesn't matter much to me because it will still come to the PS3, but what if it didn't come to the PS3? 



You act as if that is something new... When Sony came out with the PS2 they lost MANY franchises that made the Sony Playstation. Want examples? Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, Driver(Huge franchise for the PSone), Oddworld(didn't even make it to PS2), Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, etc... No one was like "OMG Sony is losing franchises, they aren't worthy of a purchase anymore" back then even amongst all of the complaining about the $299 price tag. XD


No body cared about Crash & Spyro after the PSone era because it wasn't made by Naughty Dog and Insomniac games anymore. Thank goodness for Jak ad Daxter & Rachet & Clank franchise. Driver 1 was the only good game in the franchise. Driver 2 & 3 sucked. Oddworld idk because I wasn't a big fan of it then and Im not a big fan of it now. Majority of gamers stopped caring about Tomb Raider after the first 2. 

 

As for Metal Gear Solid. Who cares? The Twin Snakes wasn't even made by Konami (but published though), it was made by the makers of  Eternal Darkness. It was the same game but remade. So who cares. 

 

Im talking about the good franchises thats still developed by the originators and thats very very popular and gets good reviews. Melee fanboy titles like Tekken 6, Final Fantasy 13, and a few worthy others.  Despite of this, it is hurting Sony whether you like it or not. Thats why they are focused more on first parties like Little Big Planet, Resistance 2, SOCOM Confrontation and a few others.


I wasn't asking for your opinion on the games. Crash and Spyro were still a big loss and people did buy it up and they did get decent reviews. Also many people considered Driver 2 the best of the franchise, it was even bigger than Driver 1... Tomb Raider is still going and still selling, so if the majority of gamers stopped caring about it, is the developer just buying their own games?

 

MGS2 was ported to Xbox. I forgot about Twin Snakes, but thanks for reminding me. It was another big blow... 

 

I never said it wasn't hurting Sony, but despite your opinion losing those franchises DID hurt Sony when the PS2 was out. My point was that even though it hurt Sony, it didn't hurt them in the grand scheme of things, because they had NEW franchises that people loved like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and others. FF13 wasn't a big loss anyway, because PS3 is still getting it along with FF13 Versus. No fan of FF is going to get a 360 over a PS3 because the one game went Multiplatform. Tekken 6 I see as a loss, because it was ALWAYS on PS, unlike FF or Devil May Cry.


I see what your saying. But Tomb Raider as of late was good, not Tomb Raider 3 on the PSone or that terrible PS2 version (I forgot which one it was) If you look at the average score between Driver 1 & Driver 2, Driver 1  got a much higher better rating and Driver 1 sold 6.17 million while Driver 2 sold 4.73 million. Was Driver 2 bigger? yes. Was it better? No. The frame rate for Drvier 2 hurt the game and the part that made Driver 1 special was no longer there. 

 

In terms of Crash and Spyro, yes they were popular back then because of the original developers, and even though the new ones from Universal  sells you dont see people buying them alot of those or talking about it. Thats like having Atari making a Soul Calibur game. Its not the same anymore. People do talk about Ja and Daxter & Rachet and Clank and is very very popular so it wasnt a lose for Sony. Insomiac lost Spyro but they made a better platformer Rachet and Clank. Naughy Dog lost Crash, but also made a better platformer called Jak and Daxter.  

 

 

Message 13 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 05/21/2003
Offline
15052 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

nov2rem wrote:

Tiz a cool handle wrote:

nov2rem wrote:

Now Sony lost some of the 3rd party excluvies that made the Sony Playstation in the first place. Final Fantasy 13, Tekken 6 are a few of those examples. It doesn't matter much to me because it will still come to the PS3, but what if it didn't come to the PS3? 



You act as if that is something new... When Sony came out with the PS2 they lost MANY franchises that made the Sony Playstation. Want examples? Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, Driver(Huge franchise for the PSone), Oddworld(didn't even make it to PS2), Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, etc... No one was like "OMG Sony is losing franchises, they aren't worthy of a purchase anymore" back then even amongst all of the complaining about the $299 price tag. XD


No body cared about Crash & Spyro after the PSone era because it wasn't made by Naughty Dog and Insomniac games anymore. Thank goodness for Jak ad Daxter & Rachet & Clank franchise. Driver 1 was the only good game in the franchise. Driver 2 & 3 sucked. Oddworld idk because I wasn't a big fan of it then and Im not a big fan of it now. Majority of gamers stopped caring about Tomb Raider after the first 2. 

 

As for Metal Gear Solid. Who cares? The Twin Snakes wasn't even made by Konami (but published though), it was made by the makers of  Eternal Darkness. It was the same game but remade. So who cares. 

 

Im talking about the good franchises thats still developed by the originators and thats very very popular and gets good reviews. Melee fanboy titles like Tekken 6, Final Fantasy 13, and a few worthy others.  Despite of this, it is hurting Sony whether you like it or not. Thats why they are focused more on first parties like Little Big Planet, Resistance 2, SOCOM Confrontation and a few others.


I wasn't asking for your opinion on the games. I mean maybe I don't like Final Fantasy or maybe I don't like fighting games? I wouldn't be saying those games were no big deal just because I didn't like them, because A LOT of people do, just like the ones I mentioned. It seems you're just falling into the media's gaming politics way of thinking that it's just HUGE, when not really compared to what happened before. Crash and Spyro were still a big loss and people did buy it up and they did get decent reviews. Also many people considered Driver 2 the best of the franchise, it was even bigger than Driver 1... Tomb Raider is still going and still selling, so if the majority of gamers stopped caring about it, is the developer just buying their own games?

 

MGS2 was ported to Xbox. I forgot about Twin Snakes, but thanks for reminding me. It was another big blow... 

 

I never said it wasn't hurting Sony, but despite your opinion losing those franchises DID hurt Sony when the PS2 was out. My point was that even though it hurt Sony, it didn't hurt them in the grand scheme of things, because they had NEW franchises that people loved like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and others. It's the same way with the PS3, it's getting new franchises that are great instead of just hanging onto the old ones. FF13 wasn't a big loss anyway, because PS3 is still getting it along with FF13 Versus. No fan of FF is going to get a 360 over a PS3 because the one game went Multiplatform. Tekken 6 I see as a big loss, because it was always on PS, unlike FF or Virtua Fighter.

Message Edited by Tiz a cool handle on 10-19-2008 02:45 PM
Tired of run of the mill Sega Forums? Join Sonic Blast with lots of discussion about Sega and Video Games.(Click the pics)


Message 14 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 12/29/2003
Online
11598 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

nov2rem wrote:

PS2Fan13 wrote:

2. If you don't get a game you love because your not a fan of that particular console or don't feel like wasting extra hundred of bucks for another console, does that mean your not loyal to the game franchise you love or something else?

 

I'm not really sure how to answer this...  I suppose I love something else but maybe that is not the case...  I'll give you an example!  I played a lot of video games on the Nintendo 64 back in the day and developed an appreciation for Rare (you know, the video game developer).  I played everything from Banjo-Kazooie (N64) to Perfect Dark (N64) and I was confident the company would keep shelling out astonishing video games in the years to come.  When Microsoft bought Rare a few years ago they took Conker, Banjo, Kazooie and Joanna Dark and video games were developed (some are in development) for Xbox video game consoles featuring these characters.  They say Microsoft wanted to appeal to casual video gamers and tried to do so buy purchasing Rare (something about appealing to the masses through Rare's video game characters) but what that purchase did was push away a hardcore gamer like myself...  While I did purchase Conker: Live and Reloaded (Xbox), it doesn't warrant the purchase of a $200+ video game console! 

 

As a long-time fan of Rare video games and as a strong supporter, I wanted to see this company grow and flourish but all I have seen from them is a couple of video games not even worth my time on Xbox 360...  Granted, Nintendo still has Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong and Star Fox.  However, I haven't played a decent video game featuring any one of these characters since the 5th generation of video gaming!  Star Fox Adventures (GCN) was a fairly solid title and Star Fox: Assault (GCN) was a unique experience, but something about these video games didn't seem right...  Perhaps I have grown out of these video games; perhaps I no longer find any of them appealing?  I don't think that is the case because whenever I see media pertaining to Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (X360) I reflect on the direction Rare video games are heading...  Since when have Banjo and Kazooie been mechanics? 

 


This was my favorite answer from you regarding Rare. Rare was a very important in the Nintendo era. Great games that Nintendo fans loved from Rare. But when Microsoft aquired Rare, I was like Oh no, Nintendo blew it. Ironically the games they made for Microsoft didn't worked quite well. Bad or average reviews, etc. Bad business move. However Conker Live & reloaded was an excellent, funny, cool game for the Xbox.  


Yeah, I think everyone who owns an Xbox should try to find a copy of Conker: Live & Reloaded (Xbox), especially if they were never given the opportunity to play through Conker's Bad Fur Day (N64)!  I still remember when that N64 video game was released (I still have my copy somewhere): I didn't see any reviews for it in any issues of Nintendo Power... 

 

It's almost as if they weren't acknowledging its existence!

 

With that being said, I really miss Rare...  If a Banjo-Kazooie video game could be remade in this day and age, or if they could cut-out all of that mechanics crap in Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (X360) I might actually be tempted to purchase an Xbox 360...

Message Edited by PS2Fan13 on 10-19-2008 03:47 PM

Twitter: @Sweet13Poison | YouTube: Sweetest13Poison

Message 15 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 05/21/2003
Offline
15052 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

Tiz wrote:

I wasn't asking for your opinion on the games. I mean maybe I don't like Final Fantasy or maybe I don't like fighting games? I wouldn't be saying those games were no big deal just because I didn't like them, because A LOT of people do, just like the ones I mentioned. It seems you're just falling into the media's gaming politics way of thinking that it's just HUGE, when not really compared to what happened before. Crash and Spyro were still a big loss and people did buy it up and they did get decent reviews. Also many people considered Driver 2 the best of the franchise, it was even bigger than Driver 1... Tomb Raider is still going and still selling, so if the majority of gamers stopped caring about it, is the developer just buying their own games?

 

MGS2 was ported to Xbox. I forgot about Twin Snakes, but thanks for reminding me. It was another big blow... 

 

I never said it wasn't hurting Sony, but despite your opinion losing those franchises DID hurt Sony when the PS2 was out. My point was that even though it hurt Sony, it didn't hurt them in the grand scheme of things, because they had NEW franchises that people loved like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and others. It's the same way with the PS3, it's getting new franchises that are great instead of just hanging onto the old ones. FF13 wasn't a big loss anyway, because PS3 is still getting it along with FF13 Versus. No fan of FF is going to get a 360 over a PS3 because the one game went Multiplatform. Tekken 6 I see as a big loss, because it was always on PS, unlike FF or Virtua Fighter.


I see what your saying. But Tomb Raider as of late was good, not Tomb Raider 3 on the PSone or that terrible PS2 version (I forgot which one it was) If you look at the average score between Driver 1 & Driver 2, Driver 1  got a much higher better rating and Driver 1 sold 6.17 million while Driver 2 sold 4.73 million. Was Driver 2 bigger? yes. Was it better? No. The frame rate for Drvier 2 hurt the game and the part that made Driver 1 special was no longer there. 

 

In terms of Crash and Spyro, yes they were popular back then because of the original developers, and even though the new ones from Universal  sells you dont see people buying them alot of those or talking about it. Thats like having Atari making a Soul Calibur game. Its not the same anymore. People do talk about Ja and Daxter & Rachet and Clank and is very very popular so it wasnt a lose for Sony. Insomiac lost Spyro but they made a better platformer Rachet and Clank. Naughy Dog lost Crash, but also made a better platformer called Jak and Daxter.  

 

 


Whatever, ratings don't matter much and those numbers were just in America... You've got to remember though... most of the gaming public didn't know Crash or Spyro on PS2/GC/Xbox even had a new developer and back then Ratchet and Jak weren't even popular and most people that knew it was ND/IG's new games wanted them to go back to Crash and Spyro. The terrible PS2 version of Tomb Raider was the version before it went multiplatform. When it did that, it wasn't so terrible for some reason.

 

Compared to the past these games that we have going multiplatform aren't any bigger of a deal... Tekken 6 I'll give you that though, that was a pretty big blow to the PS3, but Resident Evil going exclusive to GameCube was a bigger blow to Sony than Tekken 6 could ever dream of. PS3 is getting plenty of new great franchises, I don't see what the big deal is. We haven't lost as many exclusive franchises or big franchises as we did last gen and we're getting the best 3rd party games, arguably the best 1st party games, and the most 1st party games as well. If it comes down to first party no one could come close to Sony as they have more gaming studios that Microsoft and Nintendo combined.

Tired of run of the mill Sega Forums? Join Sonic Blast with lots of discussion about Sega and Video Games.(Click the pics)


Message 16 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/06/2008
Offline
8102 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

Tiz a cool handle wrote:

Tiz wrote:

I wasn't asking for your opinion on the games. I mean maybe I don't like Final Fantasy or maybe I don't like fighting games? I wouldn't be saying those games were no big deal just because I didn't like them, because A LOT of people do, just like the ones I mentioned. It seems you're just falling into the media's gaming politics way of thinking that it's just HUGE, when not really compared to what happened before. Crash and Spyro were still a big loss and people did buy it up and they did get decent reviews. Also many people considered Driver 2 the best of the franchise, it was even bigger than Driver 1... Tomb Raider is still going and still selling, so if the majority of gamers stopped caring about it, is the developer just buying their own games?

 

MGS2 was ported to Xbox. I forgot about Twin Snakes, but thanks for reminding me. It was another big blow... 

 

I never said it wasn't hurting Sony, but despite your opinion losing those franchises DID hurt Sony when the PS2 was out. My point was that even though it hurt Sony, it didn't hurt them in the grand scheme of things, because they had NEW franchises that people loved like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and others. It's the same way with the PS3, it's getting new franchises that are great instead of just hanging onto the old ones. FF13 wasn't a big loss anyway, because PS3 is still getting it along with FF13 Versus. No fan of FF is going to get a 360 over a PS3 because the one game went Multiplatform. Tekken 6 I see as a big loss, because it was always on PS, unlike FF or Virtua Fighter.


I see what your saying. But Tomb Raider as of late was good, not Tomb Raider 3 on the PSone or that terrible PS2 version (I forgot which one it was) If you look at the average score between Driver 1 & Driver 2, Driver 1  got a much higher better rating and Driver 1 sold 6.17 million while Driver 2 sold 4.73 million. Was Driver 2 bigger? yes. Was it better? No. The frame rate for Drvier 2 hurt the game and the part that made Driver 1 special was no longer there. 

 

In terms of Crash and Spyro, yes they were popular back then because of the original developers, and even though the new ones from Universal  sells you dont see people buying them alot of those or talking about it. Thats like having Atari making a Soul Calibur game. Its not the same anymore. People do talk about Ja and Daxter & Rachet and Clank and is very very popular so it wasnt a lose for Sony. Insomiac lost Spyro but they made a better platformer Rachet and Clank. Naughy Dog lost Crash, but also made a better platformer called Jak and Daxter.  

 

 


Whatever, ratings don't matter much and those numbers were just in America... You've got to remember though... most of the gaming public didn't know Crash or Spyro on PS2/GC/Xbox even had a new developer and back then Ratchet and Jak weren't even popular and most people that knew it was ND/IG's new games wanted them to go back to Crash and Spyro. The terrible PS2 version of Tomb Raider was the version before it went multiplatform. When it did that, it wasn't so terrible for some reason.

 

Compared to the past these games that we have going multiplatform aren't any bigger of a deal... Tekken 6 I'll give you that though, that was a pretty big blow to the PS3, but Resident Evil going exclusive to GameCube was a bigger blow to Sony than Tekken 6 could ever dream of. PS3 is getting plenty of new great franchises, I don't see what the big deal is. We haven't lost as many exclusive franchises or big franchises as we did last gen and we're getting the best 3rd party games, arguably the best 1st party games, and the most 1st party games as well. If it comes down to first party no one could come close to Sony as they have more gaming studios that Microsoft and Nintendo combined.


Finally something we can agree on.

 

But if Sony wants do be the "King of Kings"  of the console market, they have to do more than that to be No.1

 

Oh and I remember which Tomb Raider it was for the PS2. Tomb Raider:Angel of Darkness.   

Message 17 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 12/28/2007
Offline
1311 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

PS2Fan13 wrote:

nov2rem wrote:

PS2Fan13 wrote:

2. If you don't get a game you love because your not a fan of that particular console or don't feel like wasting extra hundred of bucks for another console, does that mean your not loyal to the game franchise you love or something else?

 

I'm not really sure how to answer this...  I suppose I love something else but maybe that is not the case...  I'll give you an example!  I played a lot of video games on the Nintendo 64 back in the day and developed an appreciation for Rare (you know, the video game developer).  I played everything from Banjo-Kazooie (N64) to Perfect Dark (N64) and I was confident the company would keep shelling out astonishing video games in the years to come.  When Microsoft bought Rare a few years ago they took Conker, Banjo, Kazooie and Joanna Dark and video games were developed (some are in development) for Xbox video game consoles featuring these characters.  They say Microsoft wanted to appeal to casual video gamers and tried to do so buy purchasing Rare (something about appealing to the masses through Rare's video game characters) but what that purchase did was push away a hardcore gamer like myself...  While I did purchase Conker: Live and Reloaded (Xbox), it doesn't warrant the purchase of a $200+ video game console! 

 

As a long-time fan of Rare video games and as a strong supporter, I wanted to see this company grow and flourish but all I have seen from them is a couple of video games not even worth my time on Xbox 360...  Granted, Nintendo still has Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong and Star Fox.  However, I haven't played a decent video game featuring any one of these characters since the 5th generation of video gaming!  Star Fox Adventures (GCN) was a fairly solid title and Star Fox: Assault (GCN) was a unique experience, but something about these video games didn't seem right...  Perhaps I have grown out of these video games; perhaps I no longer find any of them appealing?  I don't think that is the case because whenever I see media pertaining to Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (X360) I reflect on the direction Rare video games are heading...  Since when have Banjo and Kazooie been mechanics? 

 


This was my favorite answer from you regarding Rare. Rare was a very important in the Nintendo era. Great games that Nintendo fans loved from Rare. But when Microsoft aquired Rare, I was like Oh no, Nintendo blew it. Ironically the games they made for Microsoft didn't worked quite well. Bad or average reviews, etc. Bad business move. However Conker Live & reloaded was an excellent, funny, cool game for the Xbox.  


Yeah, I think everyone who owns an Xbox should try to find a copy of Conker: Live & Reloaded (Xbox), especially if they were never given the opportunity to play through Conker's Bad Fur Day (N64)!  I still remember when that N64 video game was released (I still have my copy somewhere): I didn't see any reviews for it in any issues of Nintendo Power... 

 

It's almost as if they weren't acknowledging its existence!

 

With that being said, I really miss Rare...  If a Banjo-Kazooie video game could be remade in this day and age, or if they could cut-out all of that mechanics crap in Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (X360) I might actually be tempted to purchase an Xbox 360...

Message Edited by PS2Fan13 on 10-19-2008 03:47 PM

 

Yeah, it seems kinda weird that MS has such a talented studio yet they don't seem to really advertise any of they're games. I read an article the other day from a guy working at Rare who said they are kinda pissed off how MS is treating them.
" Ooh. Big Pink. It's the only gum with the breath-freshening power of ham." - Fry
Message 18 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/06/2008
Offline
8102 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

Papawarlock wrote:

1. Which matter most? Loyalty to a console or Loyalty to a franchise you love? For the most part I'm loyal to them both. I started off on the Atari systems and was given a Nintendo as a gift. Atari died out as far as I knew. I've always owned Nintendo's consoles even though 2 weren't that great. When Square took Final Fantasy to the Playstation I had to buy one because that's where my favorite RPG of the time was going. Since then I've always owned a Playstation as well. I've never owned a MS console. I've never owned a Sega console. They simply didn't have what I wanted. Even today where it seems Sony doesn't have the RPGs for the PS3 that it had for the PS1/2/P I still prefer my PS3. There are a couple of games for that 3rd system I wouldn't mind playing, but I'm not going to buy one. (Now I'd be an idiot to refuse one if one was given to me as a gift). Now, if Sony were to churn out their next gen console with nothing that I want, then I'd have to find something else that has the games I want to play on it.

 

2. if you don't get a game you love because your not a fan of that particular console or don't feel like wasting extra hundred of bucks for another console, does that mean your not loyal to the game franchise you love or something else? Using the off maligned Square-Enix decision to multi-plat FFXIII outside of the US for primary debate material. I know a few gamers who upon hearing this decision swore off buying a PS3. After all they already had the one system and now have no reason to buy a PS3. They're loyal to the franchise. Others that have multiple consoles have differed on what system they'll be buying the game on. Still loyal to the franchise as they're buying the game either way. If Square-Enix were to announce tomorrow that the PS3 version of FFXIII was no longer being developed and that it would only be going to 1 system I think I'd have to cry. I love the franchise but I'm not supporting another console just to support 1 game. I am loyal to a franchise to a point. But there does come a point when I feel that it's simply not worth it.

 

There are those that are fanatical enough who will go to any lengths needed to support/play their favored games/genres/franchises. That's great for them. Not wanting to buy a system I don't like simply to support a franchise that I do like is foolish in my opinion.

 

3.Will you still be loyal to the Sony Playstation brand despite a few hiccups? As long as Sony continues to put out great 1st party games and products that I enjoy, I will continue to support the Playstation. I don't really feel that I'm being loyal, just prudent. For now Sony has what I want. Even though many of the formerly 3rd party exclusive games are now going multi-platform and many are timed exclusives, I don't find myself all that concerned over it. There are plenty of games out there to play while I'm waiting for the next new game to arrive.

 

Unlike many posters I've seen here and elsewhere, I'm not all that worried about Sony's performance on the 3rd party front nor the over-all 'last place' mentality so many seem to subscribe to. Many seem to ascribe Sony's 3rd place status to the multitudes of games going multi-platform and I find that mentality to be wrong. With today's economy what it is and the rising costs of everything, it makes far more sense for 3rd party developers to go the multi-platform route.

 

People need to chill out and quite calling the PS3 dead. It's not. Just sit back, relax and pop another game into your PS3 and enjoy the ride.


You brought up alot of good points. Kudos. My favorite part you said is the one highlighted in yellow. 

 

Favorite quote from you:

 

"I am loyal to a franchise to a point."

 

Message 19 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 02/01/2008
Offline
1124 posts
 

Re: Loyalty to a game console or loyalty to a game franchise?

Oct 19, 2008

My question to you is:

 

1. Which matter most? Loyalty to a console or Loyalty to a franchise you love?

I would say that loyalty to a franchise is more important than loyalty to a console.

 

2. if you don't get a game you love because your not a fan of that particular console or don't feel like wasting extra hundred of bucks for another console, does that mean your not loyal to the game franchise you love or something else?

No, there could be many reasons why you didn't get the game such as disliking its gameplay or story. Even if you decide you don't want to purchase a game just because it is on a system you don't like doesn't mean you are not loyal to the franchise.

 

 I am a fan of games by Vanillaware and Grasshopper Manufacture which is a reason why I purchased Vanillaware's titles even though I didn't own a PS2 and is also a reason why I decided to buy a Nintendo Wii even though I am not really that big a fan of the system.

 

3.Will you still be loyal to the Sony Playstation brand despite a few hiccups?

I wasn't loyal to the Sony Playstation brand in the first place, I just purchase the system which has the games I am interested in. If Sony were to make a few mistakes or I see that another system has the games I am interested than I would be willing to go towards that system. It is also for this reason that I don't blindly purchase a game system when it is released, I take time to see what future games will be released for it and sometimes I will wait for a year just to see if there is any games in a system's library that I am interested in. For example I was not interested in getting a Wii until I saw that games such as No More Heroes, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, and MadWorld were going to be released for it, the PSP was another system I probably wouldn't have purchased if not for games such as Jeanne D'Arc and Patapon. Even now I am still trying to decide whether to purchase a PS3 or 360 and I am willing to wait a while and see which system's library will have the majority of games I am most interested in.

Message 20 of 102 (3 Views)
Reply