PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: nataku on October 17, 2002, 07:11:41 PM
-
Finally, we\'ve heard that the latest installment in the decreasingly-popular Tomb Raider series is hitting a major roadblock in the form of Sony. Apparently they were none too impressed with the game when developers Core showed it off, since it\'s not an improvement -- aside from graphics, of course -- over the last several dreadful rehashes. Apparently Sony\'s blocking the game until some substantive tweaks appear.
Source (http://www.gamers.com/news/1258418)
This was in a rumor section, so take it as you will. I just hope it\'s true.
-
What a load of bullsh!t. Like SONY would block a game just because its crap.
SONY makes money. Money is money to them. Lara will still sell like no tomorrow.
There are alot more crappier games than this that SONY would block... 18 Wheeler cough, Army Men cough...
-
i think they are trying to cover up a possible sloppy delay in release time. all this quality control from sony is pure bullshit.
-
Sony and quality control? I don\'t know about you, but since when has Sony cared about quality? Stupid things like a hell level in that Parappa the Rapper spinoff, and some 2d games (PSX was supposed to be all before the anal people at Sony America got the beat down from Sony Japan to allow 2d games) yes, but quality games...don\'t think so. :rolleyes:
-
Best laugh all week. Sony caring about quality? If that\'s the case - why didn\'t they stop this series from hitting the PSone earlier?
-
tomb raider.. who cares.
-
yeah, just because you guys never heard of it before, means this must be bullshit, right? :rolleyes:
Obviously, this Tomb Raider is an important game, so what Sony may be doing is damage control - avoiding yet another hyped up game to become a disappointment. Hard to believe? Yeah, the money is important, but with that goes a happy consumer and you\'ll only get that when the consumer is happy with their product. Some guys here obviously have no idea how a company secures good sales over a long period of time. Grow up.
-
Tomb Raider is a marquee name. There\'s a movie, a comic book series, action figures....it\'s a franchise.
If a popular game like that is released with bad gameplay, it\'s gonna get a lot of press. Too much press. And Sony doesn\'t want it.
Yes, Sony allowed a lot of crappy games on the PSX. But they were forgettable games no one really anticipated. But imagine if GT4 was to be released and it was less than spectacular. That would hit the fan and everyone would be asking Sony about their quality control.
-
Give me a break, Seven. If Sony ever gave a flyin\' f**k about quality control they would of started caring along time ago. They have let the Tomb Raider series continue on the PSone and now the PS2 despite the medicore gameplay and graphic issues. They\'ve let the market be flooded with $10 dollar crap games and Army Men games. Did they ever stop ? No.
AM I saying that it is impossible? No. Anything is possible, but I find it damn ironic that they wait this long to start worrying about quality control.
-
It\'s never too late. :p
Anyway, the last Boob Raider I played was TR2. That was actually good. But the next year, they had TR3. A bit too soon, I thought. Normally, a good sequel takes at least a year or so. The script, coding....and all that other stuff I don\'t know much about. :)
-
Originally posted by seven
yeah, just because you guys never heard of it before, means this must be bullshit, right? :rolleyes:
Obviously, this Tomb Raider is an important game, so what Sony may be doing is damage control - avoiding yet another hyped up game to become a disappointment. Hard to believe? Yeah, the money is important, but with that goes a happy consumer and you\'ll only get that when the consumer is happy with their product. Some guys here obviously have no idea how a company secures good sales over a long period of time. Grow up.
Gotta agree to that.
W O R D :fro:
-
Sony in fact has a quality control.
But they don`t control the gameplay quality, they just look if the game runs properly and if there are major bugs.
-
If Sony cared about quality they wouldn\'t make PSone\'s and PS2\'s so cheaply (*points to the countless threads about dead Psone\'s and dead PS2\'s*..) Yeah, quality control,it\'s a great thing.
:rolleyes:
-
actually, TR1and TR2 were very, VERY good
it was downhill from there
-
whoa its must not be coming out to good if sony did that hopefully they will fix if before it comes out.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If Sony cared about quality they wouldn\'t make PSone\'s and PS2\'s so cheaply (*points to the countless threads about dead Psone\'s and dead PS2\'s*..) Yeah, quality control,it\'s a great thing.
:rolleyes:
With 40 million PS2s shipped some systems are bound to break down.
There was a problem with the first models but these things have been fixed in the newer version.
The same problem is happening to the Xbox awell. People having “Dust on disc” errors or HDD problems. Two of my friends have had to send their in for repair 3 times! (different reasons, one had the disc read error the other had poor image quality)
People must also take care of their system. In the new versions of the console Sony has added a warning sticker that says "Keep the console free from dust".
Most consoles that "breakdown" only have dust on the lens, very easy to avoid. My system is almost 2 years old, and I have had zero problems with it (I play maybe 1-2 hours per day) no disc read errors or anything.. It hasent locked up for several months.
Then again I take care of it :)
Advice: Vacuum your PS2 every now and then. Keep the front and back grill clean from dust. Don’t use your PS2 on the carpet.
-
it\'s alright fast, some here are just being down right stupid...
-
Yep, i have not had any problems yet. i use a paintbrush and a vacum cleraner to clean out the vents
at the front and rear of the machine. seems fine to me. oh, and i occasionally open it up to clean the laser,
say once every 4 months or so. keeps it working in tip-top order.
-
My \'95 PSX works. Still works....but upside down. :)
-
I dont believe a single word that dude says. Check out what he wrote above the Tomb Raider news.
"Another juicy tidbit that we\'ve heard whispered is that rock star (well, he acts like one, anyway) game designer Yu Suzuki has left AM2 to start up his own company out of Sega\'s control. More as it comes. "
Hmmm i would think that if Yu indeed left AM2, Famitsu and other japanese magazines would\'ve been all over this news a long time ago. How is it that Suzuki left Am2 and only this guy reports it?
BS
Astro
-
Interesting... if it\'s true, that means that Sony will begin to install a quality barrier in the titles....
-
There are some bad games on PS1 and PS2. Pretty much anything with the 3 numbers 989 on it. Also every army men game ever made. And although I haven\'t played it I have a feeling Brittany\'s Dance Beat is also crap.
-
I think Tomb Raider will sell well weather it is good or not. At the end of the day young adolecent boys want to see some T&A. It worked pretty well for previous versions.
-
Could be true with Sony Europe paying several millions to keep these new Tomb Raider games exclusive to PS2, But I don\'t care I think Primal will be better anyway.
-
It will be better if the Tomb Raider series get canned.This type of no depth gaming is getting old fast.
-
WORD , Rob.
Sony doesn\'t even care about quality with their own studio\'s.
-
blah blah blah, Sony doesn\'t care about this, Sony doesn\'t care about that... blah blah blah.
If this was the case, Sony wouldn\'t be in this industry from the start, not to mention the leading brand since 2 generations straight. There\'s a difference with ensuring quality from important or exclusive games or games that no one cares or heard about anyway.
A possible scenario:
Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness is a game which not only is hyped up to be the next good Tomb Raider, but also the first on the PS2. If Sony bought some out some exclusive deal with Eidos to have this game exclusive for PS2, they have every damn right to be worried over quality. Of course it will sell, but obviously the series has gone down after part 2. Sony knows that - they also know that there\'s a lot of hope for this one, so you can bet your sweet ass that Sony gives a shit about how this game turns out.
And for those who still don\'t get it - what will happen if all the hyped up games turn out to be shit? You\'ll have more and more unhappy consumers willing to switch consoles. As I said, what Sony\'s doing is securing their success over a long period of time.
This is simple business we\'re talking about here. My god, use some common sense!
-
Originally posted by fastson
Gotta agree to that.
W O R D :fro:
DOUBLE WORD!
:fro: :fro:
-
Originally posted by seven
it\'s alright fast, some here are just being down right stupid...
Hello Pot. This is kettle. Kettle, meet pot. As you were.
Seriously, when I look at the rest of Sony\'s "quality control" if this game was bad by their standards, then WHOA!!! Has anyone else played the first PS2 Gameday? WHOA. Just thinking that the same people who let Gameday ship would not let Tomb Raider ship hs me in awe of the utter garbageness of the game. Especially since wise old seven tells us that we are stupid because obviously Sony has ALWAYS had quality control.
Anyone up for a rousing game of Army Men?
-
Originally posted by seven
blah blah blah, Sony doesn\'t care about this, Sony doesn\'t care about that... blah blah blah.
If this was the case, Sony wouldn\'t be in this industry from the start, not to mention the leading brand since 2 generations straight.
Originally posted by seven
This is simple business we\'re talking about here. My god, use some common sense!
Now that you mention it, you are right. They do care about us. They are a simple businesses and all simple businesses care for their consumers. If they didn\'t care about their consumers then they wouldn\'t even be in the business. You know last year Nintendo helped me move out of my apartment and Microsoft came to my birthday party. They really do love all of us more than they love their bottom line. Its true. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, seven, slap yourself. Slap yourself with a lovable PS2.
-
Especially since wise old seven tells us that we are stupid because obviously Sony has ALWAYS had quality control.
Talking about stupidity. :rolleyes: If you read through this thread, it should be clear to who that comment was aimed at. Of course, our poor little Gohan has to take things personal.
Now step infront of a mirror, take a deep breath and then take a good look at yourself... The truth hurts doesn\'t it?
Seriously, when I look at the rest of Sony\'s "quality control" if this game was bad by their standards, then WHOA!!! Has anyone else played the first PS2 Gameday? WHOA. Just thinking that the same people who let Gameday ship would not let Tomb Raider ship hs me in awe of the utter garbageness of the game.
If you reread my above reply, I did mention that they are more important games and less important ones. Obviously, there are games that can lead to having a bad reputation and games no one cares about. Who cares if the next [insert low-level budget game here] is shit. Now, who cares if the next [Tomb Raider, GetAway or other hyped up game] turns out to be really bad. Come on man, think. Use your brain. You can\'t tell me that Sony just makes the consoles and everything beyond that is not relevant.
-
Originally posted by seven
If you reread my above reply, I did mention that they are more important games and less important ones. Obviously, there are games that can lead to having a bad reputation and games no one cares about. Who cares if the next [insert low-level budget game here] is shit. Now, who cares if the next [Tomb Raider, GetAway or other hyped up game] turns out to be really bad.
Please tell me why the new Tomb Raider game for the PS2 is now more important than Sony\'s internally developed games? The Tomb Raider games have been crap since part 2 and Sony has never done any "quality control". This is funny considering the fact that they were all exclusive to the PSX until the latest one came out on the DC.
Originally posted by seven
Come on man, think. Use your brain. You can\'t tell me that Sony just makes the consoles and everything beyond that is not relevant.
Why can\'t I? What exactly lets you know that Sony has some sort of quality control when it comes to their games?
Tomb Raider is hyped by NO ONE. Tell me why its release would be so important for Sony?
-
Originally posted by Gohan
Please tell me why the new Tomb Raider game for the PS2 is now more important than Sony\'s internally developed games? The Tomb Raider games have been crap since part 2 and Sony has never done any "quality control". This is funny considering the fact that they were all exclusive to the PSX until the latest one came out on the DC.
Well this time Core has said "Ooh the new game will be sooo different, totally new gameplay" ect. ect. (Remember all the fancy videos?)
If I can speculate Sony wants what they paid for, they want a game that can live up to what Core said, not just another "Tomb Raider" (if you know what I mean).
If Tomb Raider flops Sony will look bad.
And who knows maybe Sony is getting more strict? I read in a Magazine (unknown to you) that Sony halted development on Japanese game (I think it was developed by Konami) some months ago because it did not live up to their expectations.
-
Gohan, I don\'t see why it\'s so hard to grasp that this is possible. Sony could have pulled a 180 and could actually care about releasing bad games on their systems. Playstation is a household name now. Don\'t you think it\'s possible Sony wants the best image possible for the Playstation name?
Besides, this is a new generation. IMO, Sony\'s focus on the PS was releasing as many games as possible, be it crap on a stick or not. That\'s why we saw all those crappy Tomb Raider sequels.
What exactly lets you know that Sony has some sort of quality control when it comes to their games?
They obviously care about their games.
Look at Sony\'s first party efforts on the PS2 thus far. They\'ve put out some amazing games. Games like ICO, Sly Cooper, Mark of Kri, and Gran Turismo 3 are just a few examples. IMO, Sony\'s first part games on the PS2 are far, far better than anything they\'ve done on the PS. That right there shows you they\'re commited to releasing quality titles. If they didn\'t care their first party efforts would mimic the PS days.
EDIT: Changed Gran Turismo 4 to GT 3. I gotta start re-reading my posts. Sorry. :crap:
-
Originally posted by nataku
If they didn\'t care their first party efforts would mimic the PS days.
To an extent it does. Sony picked up more first party developers this generation so they have more games coming out. If you compare the crap to quality ratio of the PS2 to the PSX(1st party) it would probably be about the same.
I just don\'t see how someone can say that Sony suddenly has this strict quality control when low quality software keeps dropping.
-
You want to know about companies that never cared about quality?Goldstar,panasonic,3do,jaguar.All dead now.Sony cares.
-
Please tell me why the new Tomb Raider game for the PS2 is now more important than Sony\'s internally developed games?
Are you refering to any specific "internal developer"? If you\'re refering to 989, take sales for one, then interest in the game etc. No one cares if the next 989 games flops, but if the next Tomb Raider does, count me in. And who are you to say Sony doesn\'t care about the other internally developed games? Wipeout Fusion was delayed, the Getaway has been delayed for years, Gran Turismo 3 was delayed... sure, they all let us assume it was the developer themselves who delayed the game - but c\'mon, to think that Sony doesn\'t care is just being plane ignorant. It could just aswell be Sony being the one delaying those games.
Why can\'t I? What exactly lets you know that Sony has some sort of quality control when it comes to their games?
Tomb Raider is hyped by NO ONE. Tell me why its release would be so important for Sony?
Tomb Raider, if negative or postive, has a very strong name. Then there\'s probably an exclusive deal concerning this game (one that involves a lot of money), so you can bet that Sony wants to see this game turn out good.
Hell, I have no idea why I\'m repeating myself here. Common sense should be well able settle this stupid arguement. Any company has to give a damn of what to release, when to release and to whom they release it. PSX generation was a tad bit different, as the market wasn\'t that competitive. Now you\'ve got Microsoft willing to beat Sony with quality titles coming out. Not giving a damn about the games you bring out is just bound to get your ass kicked.
-
Wipeout Fusion was delayed, the Getaway has been delayed for years, Gran Turismo 3 was delayed... sure, they all let us assume it was the developer themselves who delayed the game - but c\'mon, to think that Sony doesn\'t care is just being plane ignorant. It could just aswell be Sony being the one delaying those games.
I\'m not going to get into the quality control issues since it\'s pointless to argue if they exist or not since none of us here work for sony, none of us here know of their policies, and the only thing we have to go on is past references. Companies can change, but when it comes to quick cash and lots of it, no company gives a damn on how it comes or in what form. The bottom line is most important, but it\'s moot to argue how each company tries to reach the bottom line since they all want it done quickly and with the least amount of cost.
I will touch on those developers though and state that lots of games are delayed for lots of reasons, but not all of them come out as better because of delays and there are many examples of this from many different developers spanning many different consoles. Delays can happen for a number of reasons, but the main one is when the game isn\'t ready or there is a huge flaw. When a game is released with said huge flaw and people are aggravated over it until a fix is available, those games are called PC games. :)
-
No one is saying it\'s impossible - what Gohan and I are saying is it is ignorant to automatically assume that Sony has done a 360 and started to care abou quality. Tomb Raider is not a system seller and Sony knows this. Why delay it? It\'s not hyped and it isn\'t a Sony first party title. 989 Studio\'s is first party and yet Sony continues to allow them to put crap titles out. Now , you explain that.
As for the comment about MS able and willing to beat Sony out with quality titles..Well, that\'s just amusing.
And my god, I can\'t believe someone actually called GRAN TURISMO 4 a quality title when we haven\'t even seen a video of it. Counting your chickens before the eggs hatch,eh?
-
L-I-C I don\'t think anyone directly said that Sony has done a 360. My whole point is, is that it\'s ignorant to think that Sony doesn\'t care at all. Obviously they have to if they want to stay on top. Using common-sense, it\'s fairly logical to assume that every company has some sort of quality control. Some are more strict, others less. I also never said that they\'re as strict as Nintendo once was. Just because there\'s a lot of crap games out on the market doesn\'t mean Sony\'s tolerant towards every single game outthere.
989 Studio\'s is first party and yet Sony continues to allow them to put crap titles out. Now , you explain that.
I already have. More than once may I add:
Obviously, there are games that can lead to having a bad reputation and games no one cares about. Who cares if the next [insert low-level budget game here] is shit. Now, who cares if the next [Tomb Raider, GetAway or other hyped up game] turns out to be really bad.
Are you refering to any specific "internal developer"? If you\'re refering to 989, take sales for one, then interest in the game etc. No one cares if the next 989 games flops, but if the next Tomb Raider does, count me in.
I really do hope I don\'t have to repeat myself again. I also mentioned these as possible reasons:
- exclusivity deal == money
- promises by Core not being fullfilled
- hype concerning the game
Pack this up and you will see that there are games people care about and games no one does. 989 and their first party efforts have been weak, but then again, if their next game flops, it won\'t do much harm to Sony\'s name. If the next Tomb Raider, Getaway, Jak & Daxter does - go figure what will slowly happen...
L-I-C, with all do respect, please act your age. This is getting tiring and you bringing in flawed points (i.e. hardware quality at launch) isn\'t helping your arguement one little bit.
Oh and as for Gran Turismo 4. Are we going down to nit-picking now, are we?
-
Also, for every game being developed for PS2, Sony gets $$$$. So why be strict on everything if it gives you money, regardless of how much quality is in the game?
But, if the next hyped up game is a let down, you get less sales, and it can do way more damage by hurting your name recognition. People will be disappointed and can be a distinct disadvantage in this competitive market.
Now, I can\'t get lower than this. Either you got it by now, or I guess not. It\'s just not worth debating anymore.
-
hmmmmmmmm.........it must be pretty bad if sony\'s blocking the game from coming out.........LOL!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
No one is saying it\'s impossible - what Gohan and I are saying is it is ignorant to automatically assume that Sony has done a 360 and started to care abou quality. Tomb Raider is not a system seller and Sony knows this. Why delay it? It\'s not hyped and it isn\'t a Sony first party title. 989 Studio\'s is first party and yet Sony continues to allow them to put crap titles out. Now , you explain that.
As for the comment about MS able and willing to beat Sony out with quality titles..Well, that\'s just amusing.
And my god, I can\'t believe someone actually called GRAN TURISMO 4 a quality title when we haven\'t even seen a video of it. Counting your chickens before the eggs hatch,eh?
Beleive me there are people that will buy a PS2 for Tomb Raider.Also the name Tomb Raider was a game that selled PSX1\'s and it was like Tomb Raider=PS1 before Tomb Raider:The last revelation.
Why do u think Sony made TB an exclusive PS2 game?
989 Studio is "dead".There are more important teams for Sony to care about now.Except for 989 studio Sony is having nice exclusive titles being made for PS2.
-
You\'re right. It\'s not worth debating any longer. You continue to think Sony cares about quality and I continue to believe they don\'t give a damn about quality. Nothing I say can convince you otherwise and nothing you say can convince me otherwise. It\'s that simple.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
And my god, I can\'t believe someone actually called GRAN TURISMO 4 a quality title when we haven\'t even seen a video of it. Counting your chickens before the eggs hatch,eh?
Sorry, that was me. I changed it to what it was supposed to be, GT3. I never read my posts after they go up. :crap:
-
This kid constantly puts up unfounded facts and thinks that he is making absolute sense. I can\'t let such follishness go unpunished.
Originally posted by seven
Wipeout Fusion was delayed, the Getaway has been delayed for years, Gran Turismo 3 was delayed... sure, they all let us assume it was the developer themselves who delayed the game - but c\'mon, to think that Sony doesn\'t care is just being plane ignorant. It could just aswell be Sony being the one delaying those games.
So now you are going to take games that were delayed by their developers and assume that Sony delayed them because of quality? The developers have all said why the games were delayed which gives me facts to stand on. You can assume all you want about why they were delayed but its nothing but fanciful thoughts in your head.
Originally posted by seven
Tomb Raider, if negative or postive, has a very strong name. Then there\'s probably an exclusive deal concerning this game (one that involves a lot of money), so you can bet that Sony wants to see this game turn out good.
Tomb Raider HAD a strong name. The sales of the game have diminished with every new release. Just because YOU like the game does not mean that it is still a big franchise.
Originally posted by seven
Hell, I have no idea why I\'m repeating myself here. Common sense should be well able settle this stupid arguement. Any company has to give a damn of what to release, when to release and to whom they release it. PSX generation was a tad bit different, as the market wasn\'t that competitive. Now you\'ve got Microsoft willing to beat Sony with quality titles coming out. Not giving a damn about the games you bring out is just bound to get your ass kicked.
There again you are absolutely wrong. Tell me how this generation is more competitive than the PSX generation? At this point last generation the PSX and N64 were seperated by about 1 million consoles. Right now Sony has a 16-17 million console cushion. [sarcasm]That sure is a close one. To close to call, in fact. You know if Sony releases a couple of bad games then Microsoft could jump right in there with 20 million more consoles.[/sarcasm]
-
Oh boy, you really punished me there... :rolleyes:
I think I\'ll dodge the crap in your post and go directly to the more interesting parts:
There again you are absolutely wrong. Tell me how this generation is more competitive than the PSX generation? At this point last generation the PSX and N64 were seperated by about 1 million consoles. Right now Sony has a 16-17 million console cushion. [sarcasm]That sure is a close one. To close to call, in fact. You know if Sony releases a couple of bad games then Microsoft could jump right in there with 20 million more consoles.[/sarcasm]
Despite total sales, Nintendo has more 3rd party support, exclusive 3rd party content and some very nice software coming their way. Microsoft is a new and aggressive new competitor, heaps of support, very strong 1st/2nd parties and they\'re willing to invest just as much cash as Sony. Microsoft is the very first competitor that has the money power to buy their success. That\'s what I ment with more competitive. Just look at the software coming to Xbox - there\'s a lot of pressure on Sony to deliever good content aswell. Last generation was perhaps interesting up until Nintendo started loosing their 3rd parties...
Anyways, I\'ll end this right here: as it seems, Sony does care or else they wouldn\'t be stopping the above mentioned game. Get over it.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
You\'re right. It\'s not worth debating any longer. You continue to think Sony cares about quality and I continue to believe they don\'t give a damn about quality. Nothing I say can convince you otherwise and nothing you say can convince me otherwise. It\'s that simple.
What are u saying?That Sony is THAT naive? :confused:
-
Originally posted by seven
I think I\'ll dodge the crap in your post and go directly to the more interesting parts:
Riiight...just admit that I was right.
Originally posted by seven
Despite total sales, Nintendo has more 3rd party support, exclusive 3rd party content and some very nice software coming their way. Microsoft is a new and aggressive new competitor, heaps of support, very strong 1st/2nd parties and they\'re willing to invest just as much cash as Sony. Microsoft is the very first competitor that has the money power to buy their success. That\'s what I ment with more competitive. Just look at the software coming to Xbox - there\'s a lot of pressure on Sony to deliever good content aswell. Last generation was perhaps interesting up until Nintendo started loosing their 3rd parties...
So despite the insurmountable lead in all regions the exponentially larger library of released and up-coming games, this generation is more competitive than last? Seriously, you are an idiot. You are using backwards logic and making yourself look stupid.
Originally posted by seven
Anyways, I\'ll end this right here: as it seems, Sony does care or else they wouldn\'t be stopping the above mentioned game. Get over it.
Again, for the slower readers. This is a RUMOR at gamers.com not exactly the end all be all of gaming info.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Tomb Raider is not a system seller and Sony knows this. Why delay it? It\'s not hyped and it isn\'t a Sony first party title.
I think Tomb Raider is a system seller with all previous games on PSone selling around 20 million units, why delay it to protect their rumoured £10 million investment and make sure it\'s a top quality product.
989 Studio\'s is first party and yet Sony continues to allow them to put crap titles out. Now , you explain that.
Well that\'s Sony America for you, if this rumour is true it would be Sony Europe who stumped up the cash calling the shots.
-
Originally posted by fastson
And who knows maybe Sony is getting more strict? I read in a Magazine (unknown to you) that Sony halted development on Japanese game (I think it was developed by Konami) some months ago because it did not live up to their expectations.
I think that was Sony America who didn\'t pass it has the quality of the title, forgot it\'s name something Ninja was apparently appalling but I believe it was released in Japan.
-
Riiight...just admit that I was right.
Right about something not even you yourself can prove? You wish...
Guess what? I don\'t have a slight idea why we\'re suddenly argueing over which generation is more competitive - it\'s not important to my main arguement anyway. Go back to the first page and you\'ll see what my point is - and it\'s already backed up, discussed and it doesn\'t need to be repeated again. You taking cheap shots at bits of my replies while ignoring the main points already proves by itself that you lost the arguement and have no intention to argue in an appropriate maner. There\'s absolutely no need to go through this again. Suck it up, kiddo.
-
^^^You NEVER made a valid argument. You started with insults and hypothetical situations. I showed why this rumor made no sense and you came with more hypothetical situations. You have yet to post up a viable argument.
-
^^^You NEVER made a valid argument. You started with insults and hypothetical situations. I showed why this rumor made no sense and you came with more hypothetical situations. You have yet to post up a viable argument.
Your problem is that you\'ve never bothered to read through my main arguement. Let me lay it down more clearly, as quoted by you further up:
I just don\'t see how someone can say that Sony suddenly has this strict quality control when low quality software keeps dropping.
I never said that Sony suddenly has this strict quality control. I did say however that Sony does care enough if it\'s about securing their number 1 spot. As I have repeatedly said, there are games that can do more damage than others, if they turn out disappointing. Tomb Raider, despite your own personal opinion, has a strong name and still has a lot of people interested in the series, especially after the promises Core made for this new game. Sales from last generation underline this, even the fact that Core\'s still milking this series goes to show that it\'s still profitable. Even if the name isn\'t the reason, I also mentioned the exclusivity of this title possibly being another reason.
Scenario:
Gohan, you have a company and due to the promises of this developer, you decide to buy the exclusivity of this game for your console. Keep in mind though, it does cost you quite a bit of money. Come the week of the launch, you see the product and see that everything that was promised was either forgotton, is not good enough or simply absent. How do you react?
a.) "Oh well, there goes my money"-attitude
b.) You\'re seriously upset, as it\'s clearly not what you payed for, and you put the pressure onto the developers to make significant changes to the game.
In short, if it\'s not the Tomb Raider name or name-recognition, exclusivity could be the reason to why this game may be blocked by Sony.
So much for your arguement of the rumour not making much sense, ey? ;)
-
So console debate isn\'t dead after all :cool: Nice going LIC :rolleyes:
Sony isn\'t worried about staying #1 this gen but they certainly want to keep the momentum as strong as possible going into next gen.
TR isn\'t a big franchise
it\'s HUGE.
If the rumour of delay is true, is it really so hard to believe Sony would delay release on this game because of content? Being #1 has its advantages. Like holding back release of a potential blockbuster until the promise of "not just another rehash with a pretty face" is fulfilled.
-
Tomb Raider is a huge franchise? Then explain why general interest in the last two installments was close to zero and the newest game is not being hyped that much. It was a huge franchise until Core killed it with sequels.
-
^^^I\'m wondering the same thing. Tomb Raider hasn\'t been a big franchise in a long time and is about as much of a system seller as a Bloody Roar game.
-
Yeah, there was so little interest in TRLR(IV) they went ahead with TRC(V) just to throw money away. And though the movie stunk, a squeal is in production because hollywood has just completely run dry of ideas for tax right offs.
So let\'s see those sales numbers showing near zero interest, I\'ll bet they\'re still better than 90% of all console games in the last three years. Go check if you guys care so much. I know the next TR will sell a few million copies, even if it\'s a rehash, just because it\'s the first PS2 version.
-
^^^Its a franchise. Franchises games keep getting made because the guys in suits think that success of one game equals success of its sequel. Which is why games like Crash Bandicoot, Army Men, etc keep getting made.
The Tomb Raider Movie sequel is being made because the movie did well at the box office. Why did it do well? Because it had guns, explosions, large breasts and a rating that let little boys see it.
-
Originally posted by Gohan
^^^Its a franchise. Franchises games keep getting made because the guys in suits think that success of one game equals success of its sequel. Which is why games like Crash Bandicoot, Army Men, etc keep getting made.
The Tomb Raider Movie sequel is being made because the movie did well at the box office. Why did it do well? Because it had guns, explosions, large breasts and a rating that let little boys see it.
Crash was nice.Was succesfull untill Crash4:mad:.Army men suck.Never were succesfull.
Anyways although Tomb Raider wasnt the Tomb Raider we knew since TR4 the first ones still took some of the greatest gaming moments.
The others were too much ignored to say the series got vitiated enough to ruin what TB was before.The new ones especially Cronicles its as if they never existed.
TB:AOD could become the TB1 of PS2.There is still a chance it might become an AAA title.And Sony wants that.They want to establish the name Tomb Raider as it was for the PS1 with TB1 2 and 3(although it was too hard to keep fans).
Sony wanted to make Lara Croft an important character for the PSX1 world.It was almost something like a secondary mascot.Thats why as I said before they tried to own exclusive rights.They needed TB when the console was gaining the most strength.Remember how much news had been flowing in PS1 magazines about the sequels(before TB4)??
Thats what they are doing now.Thats what they are trying to do with TB now.
Another reason is with all those exclusive third party XBOX titles are putting Sony in the need of exclusive third party PS2 titles.And they need them to be good otherwise that exclusive title wont worth it.
Also dont forget that TR4 and Cronicles were released near the ending of the PSX1\'s generation.Even if crap the PS1 generation is weak for people to give much attention to them.
-
If anybody is still interested, Gamepro posted an article about the delay of TR:AOD today:
http://www.gamepro.com/index.html?/sony/ps2/games/news/26725.shtml
:alien:
-
Sony must stamp final approval upon third-party titles before giving them the OK for release, a process that normally takes around three to four weeks, (..)
So much for the above debate if Sony has some sort of quality control or not. :rolleyes: Even if this process is entirely devoted to bug fixes, it doesn\'t mean that the game itself is left out. Just remembered this, but there was a game banned by Sony on PSX due to very "sick" content. I think the name of the game was Thrill Kill which launched in America (or was it Japan?), but never made it to Europe hence this reason.
Anyway, thank you very much alienmagic, you just made my day.
-
Hey, I know a guy at Sony Q&A Europe.
Damn bastard, he gets to play all the games before everyone else :evil:
Oh and, someone got owned! :hat:
-
Sony must stamp final approval upon third-party titles before giving them the OK for release, a process that normally takes around three to four weeks, and apparently Eidos was looking for some way to speed this up. In other words—if you can see where this is going—it\'s only four weeks to launch and they haven\'t submitted the game for approval yet, which suggests that it isn\'t quite ready for the public.
Way to leave off the rest of the statement.
I have pretty good reading comprehension and what I got from that was that the developer delayed in submitting the game to Sony for approval. Which generally means the game is not ready for release. No where in that article did anything tell me that the game was delayed because Sony didn\'t think it was good enough for release.
Sony has to approve all games before release. Does that mean they have quality control(gameplay wise)? No. Does it that they don\'t? No. As long as trash like Army Men and Britney Spears Titty Shake 2 are continuosly released I will refuse to believe that their quality control is anything more than bug and playability testing (And if you have played SOME of the PS2 games, even that aspect is shaky).
Who was owned? "Not I" said the fly.
-
I left out the rest because Tomb Raider wasa just an example being brought up in the "quality control" debate. In other words, the point I made is that Sony does have some sort of quality control as proved by the above arguement.
To the arguement of it being devoted to bugs/playability only: well, the process does take about 4 weeks and after this time, Sony can either aprove the game or not. For example if the content is rather sick, Sony has every right to refuse aproval. Also in other words, if a developer claims certain things (for example in an exclusivity contract), Sony has every right to refuse aproval due to gameplay issues and other things.
Facts? Go look for a article regarding the game "Thrill Kill" which was denied aproval due to content. This already proves that Sony does care on what goes on sale and what not.
Another thing to think about regarding Tomb Raider being delayed. Do you honestly believe, if Sony denied the game because of gameplay, that Core/Eidos will openly say this to the public? Yeah, we\'re sorry for having Tomb Raider delayed, but Sony denied aproval because we failed to keep our promises.... As you see, Tomb Raider will remain speculation and sadly, we\'ll never know for sure why this game was delayed. Thrill Kill however should be indication enough that Sony doesn\'t aprove any games content - but it\'s no indication to how strict they are, what they tolerate and what not. As I also stated, no one ever said that Sony is as strict as Nintendo (once?) was, but simply that they do care enough to deny a game if its putting their name/image/position at stake or could bring them an advantage in those areas.
-
Der. Everyone already knew that third party games had to be submitted to Sony for final approval. This was common knowledge, for christ sake. The argument is if Sony\'s quality control is the reason for Tomb Raider being delayed and if Sony\'s quality control is actually worth a damn - which, for the most part it has been proven not to be.