- Platforms
Looks like there will be a lot less risk taking in the future and established IPs will be double downed. Depressing
Hiroki Totoki: PlayStation are currently reforming their gaming business
- Thread starter TaySan
- Start date
- Watchers 18
- PlayStation News
Thread: Hiroki Totoki: PlayStation are currently reforming their gaming business
Looks like there will be a lot less risk taking in the future and established IPs will be double downed. Depressing
They already majorly cut down on "risk taking." They barely have a proper portfolio anymore...
- Platforms
If they don't leave California, not much is going to change.
Less risk taking? IDK if that's possible. In my years at Sony, they were always paranoid about losing the top spot (to every boogeyman) and was therefore very conservative. PSVR is the wildest thing they did.
I mean they made us hold back PS4 streaming for years to avoid cannibalizing console sales.
But if this means MORE oversight on the creative side and a push towards AA games, i fully support it.
Hostile_18
Face/Off
- Platforms
They seem more like lip service points to me, that nearly every company would say they are engaging in.
DonDonDonPata
Bridge Burn Man
If Sony had shored up their brand with indies and AA studios like they did with the PS4, even just partnerships, they wouldn't be in this boat.
But they didn't so here we are
But they didn't so here we are
1. Leave California or at the very least set up a firewall around them so that they are only involved in marketing and western developer relations with 3rd parties.
2. Remove problem departments (DEI etc..), problem executives, problem managers, problem development studios and diversity hires.
3. Bring back development power and approval process to the Japan branch.
4. Pivot away from ESG infused DEI driven development.
5. Make a wider range of smaller budget games with a few occasional tentpole releases instead of all in on pretty looking AAA slop walking simulators.
6. Don't be antagonistic with gamers and give the audience what they want.
7. Generally trim the fat.
If they can do all of this then they might just garner back the trust of gamers and avoid a series of money burning mega flops like Concord. I can only hope they move in this direction for their own good, otherwise they are going to lose a lot of money, mindshare and fans while taking severe hits to their overall brand and reputation.
2. Remove problem departments (DEI etc..), problem executives, problem managers, problem development studios and diversity hires.
3. Bring back development power and approval process to the Japan branch.
4. Pivot away from ESG infused DEI driven development.
5. Make a wider range of smaller budget games with a few occasional tentpole releases instead of all in on pretty looking AAA slop walking simulators.
6. Don't be antagonistic with gamers and give the audience what they want.
7. Generally trim the fat.
If they can do all of this then they might just garner back the trust of gamers and avoid a series of money burning mega flops like Concord. I can only hope they move in this direction for their own good, otherwise they are going to lose a lot of money, mindshare and fans while taking severe hits to their overall brand and reputation.
Very true.
They already had a winning strategy from midway through the PS3's life until late into the PS4's.
It was switching to copying the Xbox's failing approach and gutting their smaller titles and studios that buggered them.
It's not like Uncharted, Ghost of Tsushima or Horizon were their respective studios first games. All the studios and IP's they're currently relying on we're the result of fostering talent and supporting experimentation.
They could have absolutely just kept Naughty Fog making JaK and Daxter, but instead they let them try something different and ambitious, and it helped put Playstation first party games on the map as being up there with Nintendo's.
Not taking risks is really just borrowing from the future to pay for today, and that shortsightedness always bites in the end.
CAPTAIN RAINCOAT
Member
- Platforms
PS3 was the last time Sony innovated…since then it's been autopilot
O-N-E
Yep, that's a good
Why did his parents give him that name?
It'd be like someone in the West being named Patrick Mattrick.
It'd be like someone in the West being named Patrick Mattrick.
![[Tact]](/data/avatars/l/0/777.jpg?1745601290){kind=avatar}
[Tact]
Member
- Platforms
So this means smaller, more creative, mechanically interesting, gameplay focused games... Right? Right?
I'd believe it when I see it......they do this every time and still go back to their old structure.
I wish this PR nonsense translated to "We're getting rid of our get-rich-quick-GAAS scheme attempts and we're getting rid of woke retards."
But I'm sure it just translates to "We aren't making enough remasters and sequels."
But I'm sure it just translates to "We aren't making enough remasters and sequels."
- Platforms
Probably sweet words ained at investors. "We have plans".
- Platforms
Hostile_18
Face/Off
- Platforms
It's a tough one IMO. I mean you don't want to end a franchise prematurely. You have COD that goes on and on and although critically we don't particularly like it, it makes substantial profits. Also we have Nintendo which has stuck with Mario and Zelda games for generations, with seemingly little loss.
Ideally you'd have multiple studios working on a mix of new and old IP. I think the problem with Sony in particular in this regard is that they have had a number of sequels that have failed to land in the same way their predecessors did, nor expand their concepts. Perhaps with this in mind it's more about the process than anything else.
DonDonDonPata
Bridge Burn Man
- Platforms
I loved their AA indie approach from the ps3/4. Did that not make them money or what? I wonder.
- Platforms
cryptoadam
Needs a Spellchecker
- Platforms
A big part of their sequels bellyflopping is due to the management deliberately ignoring what their customers want, and instead making a game that undermines the previous entries popular components in an effort to trick the audience into liking what the studio heads and execs want.
Uncharted 2, 3 and 4 weren't flops. Hell, even Lost Legacy performed great for a smaller title. The same is true with the sequels to Little Big Planet, God of War (including the reboot) Infamous, and even games like The Last Guardian, thematically following up on the studios previous stand alone games.
Meanwhile we know TLOU2 deliberately killed off Joel and forced us to play as a bunch of woke loonies because the team at Naughty Dog didn't like how people felt Joel was a hero, and wanted to subvert expectations. Spiderman 2's devs knew people hated playing as Mary Jane and didn't want any of the far left political themes, but they forced more in so as to try to brainwash them into liking them. There were an enormous number of criticisms of Horizon 1, focusing too much on story and characters and not enough on gameplay variety, and all of that was ignored and the game made even duller and more Californian soap opera like in 2.
For a couple of generations Playstation had the right balance between making good sequels and not letting franchises turn stagnant. That gave them an advantage over both Xbox and Nintendo, and is likely what spurred team Red to try more new IP's like Splatoon, and reinvent others like with BOTW.
Now though they're making the same mistakes as all the other elitist, over educated and over feminised western entertainment company, and are just making products for themselves as a way to vent their frustrations and anger into the world.
Hostile_18
Face/Off
- Platforms
In addition I think setting the games in the same locations makes the game feel very much like an expansion pack. Spiderman 2 and God of War spring to mind here. Also God of War Ragnorok while a really fun time, has the strangest pacing I've ever played in a video game. Its got a little bit of everything in a totally random order.
With regards to Last of Us I can't speak to the general audience but for me I always knew Joel was a a "bad guy". That throw away line in the first game that he had been on both sides of an ambush, made that clear to me. How they addressed it in the sequel is up for debate, but I'm glad they pulled on that thread string. I'd say Last of Us 2 for better or worse felt like a proper sequel, compared to other Sony studios work.
I personally would allow Sony studios to find a new IPs, but then when one really lands, let them work on it for a few entries. If everyone did that there would be a steady mix of both types. I'm also a fan of the duel franchise strategy (I.e Netherrealm with Mortal Kombat and Injustice, CD Projekt with Witcher and Cyberpunk etc).
Only thing I'm really against is annual entries. That just over saturated everything and you don't really get any kind of tangible benefits. Just give us more DLC for those games if necessary. It seems like selling gang busters year after year in a model like this is unsustainable, and eventually lowers your IP value.
Pretty much agree with everything but Joel being a 'bad guy'.
We're introduced to him through the eyes of his child and are shown his tragic backstory of losing his daughter, after it clearly being shown he was a loyal brother and a loving family man.
The alluded to grim backstory and clearly broken character we are reintroduced to after the time skip demonstrates he has fallen from that, but that his past actions are not important to us as the audience, only the narrative we are now experiencing, which is one of redemption and rekindling of hope.
It is a very well realised and delivered heroes journey, and saving Ellie at the end can only be interpreted as a righting of the the wrongs we experienced at the start of the game.
The second game fell flat because it tried to subvert the universal character archetypes and narrative rules that actually work through attempting to make the audience feel equal sympathy towards a character with almost no compelling character arch and who we experience not the redemption of, but instead selfishness, poor decision making and via characters and tropes that do not ring true, further undermined by the story being split in two with Ellie's character getting truncated in growth yet failing to deliver on the cathartic act of revenge the killing of Joel, who the player will have the most emotional attachment to.
It failed on basically ever front as a compelling narrative and follow up to the excellent storytelling of the first game.
It honestly would have been far better to have had a different story with different characters in the same universe, but they were both too risk averse to not rely on the previous games characters and too full of themselves to tell the story the previous narrative would want to be told.
- Platforms
