Support NeoGAF

[Rand6]

So you think that dropping support for a handheld is equivalent to dropping support for the flagship console?

Sony has completely abandoned the Vita, even in Japan. They are developing nothing for Vita, not even small indie game like Journey. Nothing. Do you really think it's normal??

Vita will be the first Sony console that don't have Gran Turismo for example.

 

[benny_a]

Sony has completely abandoned the Vita, even in Japan. They are developing nothing for Vita, not even small indie game like Journey. Nothing. Do you really think it's normal??

Vita will be the first Sony console that don't have Gran Turismo for example.

I think dropping support for Vita is the best thing they could have done. The market has rejected the Vita.

 

[AmethystEnd]

Yes. PSP had far less support but it's lifetime still did around the same amount of what the PS3 did worldwide in some countries like Japan, was even greater. I don't see how that isn't considered a flagship device. Both WiiU and Vita had successful predecessors but are failing due to the changes in the market and their own failures yet Nintendo is still supporting their device far better.

Wait, you're saying psp had less support than the vita? Am I understanding that right?

Do you think nintendo would have existed today without handheld supporters?

I'm simply asking if you think that dropping support for a handheld is the same as dropping support for a console financially for a company. I don't know the answer to this question. If you do, please enlighten me. I'm not looking for an idealistic "If Nintendo can continue to support the wii u, Sony can continue to support the vita." response unless you've got facts to back up why the situations are equivalent.

Without any facts at all to back me up, my opinion is that the situations aren't equivalent; maybe with the PS4/PS3's success, Sony considers Vita an acceptable casualty, while perhaps Nintendo has no real choice but to continue to support the wii u since it is their only major console. Do you think that if they dropped the Wii U, Nintendo as a company could subsist on 3DS? Sony seems to think that they can subsist even in the state vita's in. I reiterate, I am not trying to pass this off as fact. If you have actual facts that contradict this, then cool.

I'm playing Freedom Wars on my Vita right now, and I own more Vita games than ps4 games. I just think the premise that "if Nintendo is still supporting the Wii U, then why is Sony not supporting Vita" is ridiculous since the situations are so different.

 

[Arondight]

That seems rather true at this point.

Outside of ND, SSM and MM the rest are pretty inconsistent.

I'm not a fan of LBP though I loved Tearaway. For me, MM are slightly inconsistent as well, Overall, I feel that WWS is highly overrated. Everytime someone mentions Sony WWS in the anticipation of new games, I don't feel any excited knowing most of their games are hit and misses.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Wait, you're saying psp had less support than the vita? Am I understanding that right?



I'm simply asking if you think that dropping support for a handheld is the same as dropping support for a console financially for a company. I don't know the answer to this question. If you do, please enlighten me. I'm not looking for an idealistic "If Nintendo can continue to support the wii u, Sony can continue to support the vita." response unless you've got facts to back up why the situations are equivalent.

Without any facts at all to back me up, my opinion is that the situations aren't equivalent; maybe with the PS4/PS3's success, Sony considers Vita an acceptable casualty, while perhaps Nintendo has no real choice but to continue to support the wii u since it is their only major console. Do you think that if they dropped the Wii U, Nintendo as a company could subsist on 3DS? Sony seems to think that they can subsist even in the state vita's in. I reiterate, I am not trying to pass this off as fact. If you have actual facts that contradict this, then cool.

I'm playing Freedom Wars on my Vita right now, and I own more Vita games than ps4 games. I just think the premise that "if Nintendo is still supporting the Wii U, then why is Sony not supporting Vita" is ridiculous since the situations are so different.

Situations are different but the obligations are the same. Now if a third party publisher doesn't make a game for a system that's fine because their obligations are to their own self interests. But when a company abandon the product they themselves made and sold to trusting consumers then that's just not right no matter how much we sugarcoat it. Many (not saying you) seem to be ok with how Sony treats the vita since they either don't own one or their primary game consoles are the home consoles. IF financial means were the reason sony abandoned the vita then they should have dropped the PS3 like a bag of shit way early in its life. The amount of money it lost the company is nothing to joke about. PSP on the other hand performed extremely well in the early years only to be given the poor treatment it got in the latter years. This is not something to be applauded but criticized but neither the majority of the gamers (as it doesn't affect them) nor the media doesn't seem to be interested in doing so.

This is obviously not all on Yoshida of course. But they can surely do better at least from the Sony Japan's internal studio support for the system since it actually moves software rather well there as games like Freedom Wars have shown us in recent times. Games like Tearaway while sold poorly only had about a dozen developers (and less afterwards iirc). I see no reason why they can't allocate a similar amount of resources from their other bigger internal studios at all. Some I know say that they should focus completely on the PS4 because it has the bigger userbase. Sure worked out great for smaller titles like Puppetteer and rain didn't it? Size of the userbase is just one of many factors at play in such situations. Sony management including Yoshida just failed to capitalize on them with poor management choices. And again, this is not just on Yoshida...this is a company that thought hey let's launch a new handheld but let's not have any of the important big sellers on the previous handheld on this one...BRILLIANT!

I'm not as bitter as some usersl ike Baekshi but I understand where they are coming from. At least we get some solid support for the system from places like Xseed.


Now on the topic of Yoshida, I have brought this up before as well. While I do place some blame on him for Vita's misfortunes, I see no real reason to blame him when it comes to the PS4. I don't know of any information indicating any of the first party titles on the PS4 has failed so far (hasn't been that many yet yes but don't think any of them were commercial failures)...MS/Sony game out put situations are different due to

1. MS not having anywhere near the same level of support the ps3 had in the last year or so before PS4 launch
2. The spread of the game releases.

It's not easy to compare the two situations, especially this early in the console life cycle. GT6 argument makes little sense to me as by any measure it made sense to wait on releasing a mainline GT on their new home console at launch. Not like it was gonna move even more PS4's or anything..they sold all they could make already. And the PS3 had an established userbase at the time. The issue I see here was not releasing it way earlier.

The santa monica situation is hard to tell because we don't have any good evidence to support the budget amount etc on the Stig's project.

So all in all, he has done an ok job with vita, a commendable job with the PS3/4.

 

[AmethystEnd]

Situations are different but the obligations are the same. Now if a third party publisher doesn't make a game for a system that's fine because their obligations are to their own self interests. But when a company abandon the product they themselves made and sold to trusting consumers then that's just not right no matter how much we sugarcoat it. Many (not saying you) seem to be ok with how Sony treats the vita since they either don't own one or their primary game consoles are the home consoles. IF financial means were the reason sony abandoned the vita then they should have dropped the PS3 like a bag of shit way early in its life. The amount of money it lost the company is nothing to joke about. PSP on the other hand performed extremely well in the early years only to be given the poor treatment it got in the latter years. This is not something to be applauded but criticized but neither the majority of the gamers (as it doesn't affect them) nor the media doesn't seem to be interested in doing so.

This is still assuming that the costs of dropping a console are equal to the costs of dropping a handheld. The PS3 especially was a huge investment for Sony because of how expensive the Cell was; they, like Nintendo with the Wii U now, didn't really have a choice but to continue to support the PS3.

Take a look at this: http://gamingbolt.com/wii-u-rd-costs-over-ride-profits-from-nintendo-3ds-analyst

This is an analyst, and we all know that they aren't always accurate (coughPachtercough), but these are the kinds of facts I'm looking for.

If this analyst IS correct, then it cost Nintendo so much to develop the Wii U that dropping it isn't an option because 3ds profits aren't high enough to recover the R&D costs.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Killzone was alright. I have yet to play Infamous, wasn't into the originals so much.

 

[thequickandthedead]

I think dropping support for Vita is the best thing they could have done. The market has rejected the Vita.

How could the market have accepted it when Sony treated it the way it did? 2013 should have been full of Vita exclusives not PS3 exclusives.

 

[benny_a]

How could the market have accepted it when Sony treated it the way it did? 2013 should have been full of Vita exclusives not PS3 exclusives.

The Vita launch line-up was fantastic. It still sold like crap.

You must be under the assumption that you can recover a product that starts like crap, an assumption that I don't share.
Dedicated handheld systems are done and the only reason people believe otherwise is because they don't look at the actual sales statistics.

 

[Stimpack]

Seems like a great duder. They've made some great hires as well. The Playstation team has some really awesome people working over there.

I don't know all of the particulars in regards to his efforts within the company, but every time I've seen or heard from him I've been pleased. Plus, Playstation as a whole has been doing quite well, in my opinion. Some things could be better, but that could be said with anything.

 

[B.O.O.M]

This is still assuming that the costs of dropping a console are equal to the costs of dropping a handheld. The PS3 especially was a huge investment for Sony because of how expensive the Cell was; they, like Nintendo with the Wii U now, didn't really have a choice but to continue to support the PS3.

Take a look at this: http://gamingbolt.com/wii-u-rd-costs-over-ride-profits-from-nintendo-3ds-analyst

This is an analyst, and we all know that they aren't always accurate (coughPachtercough), but these are the kinds of facts I'm looking for.

If this analyst IS correct, then it cost Nintendo so much to develop the Wii U that dropping it isn't an option because 3ds profits aren't high enough to recover the R&D costs.

sigh are you seriously trying to question how horrible the PS3 situation was for Sony? Here's a quick google fu cuz I need to head to bed now (3am :S)

http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/30/sony-ps-division-has-lost-4-7-billion-since-launching-ps3/

and let's not even talk about the loss of marketshare coming from the PS2.

And PSP was actually doing pretty well back then too afaik...but they stuck it through and was able to turn it around. Could the vita have been the next PSP? hell no. But could it have been way more successful and actually earn the company some solid returns over the years? You betcha...there's also an ethical/responsibility aspect here too but that will be a whole another topic and I'm too sleepy for it.

There are other risks involved obviously when dropping support for a product but Sony came into the vita situation with a short sighted hardware design (the fk is the track pad for?), poor philosophy (eg: memory cards as a means of overcharging consumers which is dumb as hell) and no solid software line up planned. (yes the system had some good games but it's missing almost all the main franchises that made the PSP sell up to 80mil..it's their job to make sure they make it over, at least some of them)

So no there is no convenient excuse to blame the failure of the Vita on the market itself when the company behind it has been incompetent in it's vision and support for it. Hell they can't even spend 5mins to show a trailer for a fantastic looking game like Freedom Wars at E3 or Gamescom. It made me laugh when I saw some gamers saying yeah we don't want vita, give us PS4 stuff..and sony spend a good chunk of time on shit like wonderbook and Powers lol Time well spent..good job exec/planning team for the events.

anywho my 2cents on the whole topic. Got nothing else to say really. Cheers off to bed I go

 

[AmethystEnd]

sigh are you seriously trying to question how horrible the PS3 situation was for Sony? Here's a quick google fu cuz I need to head to bed now (3am :S)

http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/30/sony...launching-ps3/

and let's not even talk about the loss of marketshare coming from the PS2.

And PSP was actually doing pretty well back then too afaik...but they stuck it through and was able to turn it around. Could the vita have been the next PSP? hell no. But could it have been way more successful and actually earn the company some solid returns over the years? You betcha...there's also an ethical/responsibility aspect here too but that will be a whole another topic and I'm too sleepy for it.

There are other risks involved obviously when dropping support for a product but Sony came into the vita situation with a short sighted hardware design (the fk is the track pad for?), poor philosophy (eg: memory cards as a means of overcharging consumers which is dumb as hell) and no solid software line up planned. (yes the system had some good games but it's missing almost all the main franchises that made the PSP sell up to 80mil..it's their job to make sure they make it over, at least some of them)

So no there is no convenient excuse to blame the failure of the Vita on the market itself when the company behind it has been incompetent in it's vision and support for it. Hell they can't even spend 5mins to show a trailer for a fantastic looking game like Freedom Wars at E3 or Gamescom. It made me laugh when I saw some gamers saying yeah we don't want vita, give us PS4 stuff..and sony spend a good chunk of time on shit like wonderbook and Powers lol Time well spent..good job exec/planning team for the events.

anywho my 2cents on the whole topic. Got nothing else to say really. Cheers off to bed I go

I feel like you're purposely misreading my posts. The article you linked helps my point more than yours.

YES. THE PS3 STARTED OFF AS A DISASTER. MY POST'S PREMISE IS THAT THE REASON THE PS3 WAS NOT DROPPED IS BECAUSE IT COST SONY SO MUCH IN R&D THAT THEY PRETTY MUCH HAD TO STICK WITH IT.

Is that clearer?

The same may not be the case for the Vita is what I'm saying. Perhaps since the PS3/PS4 are doing so well right now, cutting the Vita isn't hurting Sony as much.

Notice I am not making any comments about whether this is idealistically right or wrong as far as how a company should treat its consumers. That is beyond the scope of the point I am trying to make. Maybe I haven't been clear enough, but damned if I didn't try my best.

 

[benny_a]

Notice I am not making any comments about whether this is idealistically right or wrong as far as how a company should treat its consumers. That is beyond the scope of the point I am trying to make. Maybe I haven't been clear enough, but damned if I didn't try my best.

I think that distinction you're trying to make is easily understood.

For example:
Idealistically I would not have WWS ever work on another FPS again.
That doesn't mean I don't understand if they create another one because FPS is an extremely popular genre on consoles.

No problems in my mind to hold two perspectives about that, nor about other topics.

 

[Arondight]

Wait, you're saying psp had less support than the vita? Am I understanding that right?

No, I'm comparing PSP with PS3.There seems to be far great amount of software on PS3 but PSP was just as successful in sales. You're stating that PS4 is a flagship, I don't see how PSV wasn't considered one given both it's predecessors successes being the same.

 

[AmethystEnd]

I think that distinction you're trying to make is easily understood.

Idealistically I would not have WWS ever work on another FPS again.
That doesn't mean I don't understand if they make one because FPS is an extremely popular genre on consoles.

No problems in my mind to hold two perspectives about this topic.

Thank you, I thought I had lost all capability to properly communicate for a bit.

 

[Panajev2001a]

So you think that dropping support for a handheld is equivalent to dropping support for the flagship console?

What Sony as a business sometimes still fails at is realizing that HW platforms/products are not something you throw at a wall with some initial software and marketing push and see if they stick, if it can survive on its own, else you cull it. Sometimes they release products in a way that almost seems desperate as they release them almost knocking that they cannot afford to strongly support the in the medium term. See Eye Toy, PS Eye, Xperia Play, PlayStation Mobile PlayStation Camera, and PS Vita to name some of them...

Too many products are released company wise, this harms consumer confidence too as people hate buying products left to die by the manufacturer itself.

 

[Cyborg]

HE is watching us...

https://twitter.com/yosp/status/527290831594471424

 

[thuway]

When did so many people turn on inFamous? I know a few have expressed disappointment in the amount of content before but I've never seen it listed as a failure as much as this thread. Both Second Son and First Light are some of my favorite games from this year. I get why KZSF, Knack, and DriveClub are listed but the inFamous games were great. Best combat in the series and the exclusives I think most lived up to the pedigree of the series and Sony WWS.

InFamous was a strange anomaly. Every one I know whose played it, raves about it, but calls it short. The biggest criticism I've heard is that it follows its predecessors formula too closely, and people wanted more out of it.

Still, the game is a visual benchmark with it's SMAA, insane lighting effects, and highly detailed character models and vistas. IMO, it's a major standout in the launch "window" software period.

I hope whatever Sucker Punch does next, they stray away from InFamous. Threee games are enough, they need to put it away and work on something else- akin to Naughty Dog breaking away from Uncharted with TLOU.

 

[thuway]

I like him, but he needs to light the fire under the asses of some of those who work under him.

Hasn't Sony cut teams like Studio Liverpool and Zipper Interactive? First party teams at Sony this generation also are undergoing a bit of a reboot- especially the likes of Studio Japan and Santa Monica.

 

[AmethystEnd]

What Sony as a business sometimes still fails at is realizing that HW platforms/products are not something you throw at a wall with some initial software and marketing push and see if they stick, if it can survive on its own, else you cull it. Sometimes they release products in a way that almost seems desperate as they release them almost knocking that they cannot afford to strongly support the in the medium term. See Eye Toy, PS Eye, Xperia Play, PlayStation Mobile PlayStation Camera, and PS Vita to name some of them...

Yeah, 100% agreed. PSPGo, to name another, was hilarious in my opinion.

But again, my question is about whether the cost of culling a handheld like Vita is equivalent to the cost of culling a console like the Wii U (factoring in R&D costs, manufacturing costs, etc). My opinion is no, definitely not, and thus stating that Sony shouldn't be dropping support for the Vita because Nintendo isn't dropping support for the Wii U is a false equivalency.

 

[Sidewinder]

HE is watching us...

https://twitter.com/yosp/status/527290831594471424

Lol, hi yosp, Colony Wars please!!

 

[Killing_Joke]

Uh, their lineup has been solid for years. Not every year is going to be packed, not every game will sell 5million, and not every game will have 90+ rating.

 

[Corto]

Yoshida, get back to work and stop fooling around on GAF!

 

[immortal-joe]

Sincerity goes a long way into earning my respect. It allows me to see your mistakes as ones resulting from naivety or incompetence, but not malicious intent. I will criticize people like that, but I'll always give them a second chance if I'm enjoying the end-product.

Yoshida, like Sony as a whole, has his share of failures, but I feel he is honest about that. My two cents.

 

[Melchiah]

The AAA games from their WWS have been mediocre to the point of ridiculousness.
It's difficult to not look at their immediate competitors, especially MS, who have put
out fan-fucking-tastic titles along the lines of FH2 and SO.

TLoU has been the only bright spot from WWS these past 2 years, where even I:SS
didn't live up to the standards of the preceding inFamous games with regards to scope,
story and mission diversity.

Infamous is 80 on Metacritic, and SO is 82, hardly a huge difference in critical reception. Then there are the often overlooked Resogun (84) and MLB14: The Show (83).

First off, the man has been in control of SCE WWS since 2008. We can argue that games approved of before and up to that point would come by 2010. So any game from 2010 onwards can be considered games he has had to approve. This includes some of the best games the console saw, and in the case of TLOU, a game that will go down as one of the greatest games of all time. To say he has been a disaster based on the output of WWS in 1 year and ignore the other stuff he has done is beyond ignorant.

Those who root for Harrison on this thread seem to forget that when he was at helm (until 25 February 2008), the PS3 wasn't doing very good, and things changed for the better under Yoshida's reign. Harrison's time at Atari and MS hasn't lead to very good results either.

 

[John Bender]

When did so many people turn on inFamous? I know a few have expressed disappointment in the amount of content before but I've never seen it listed as a failure as much as this thread. Both Second Son and First Light are some of my favorite games from this year.

Funny, isn't it?
Especially if you look at the reviews of I:SS (Meta 80%) and Sunset Overdrive (Meta 82%), which is getting hyped on Gaf right now by some people. Nearly the same score, but because one is a bit older (and the hype is over) = disappointment.
Fascinating phenomenon.

 

[2thepoint]

Shuhei is very good at leaving teams to do what they want.

Games like The Last of Us, Tearaway, Puppeteer and Sly Cooper offer something different from the norm, but leaving the artistic view aside, I feel that the whip seriously needs to be cracked in terms of projects being left for years to just be cancelled, the lack of foresight to switch tentpole titles like Gran Turismo 6 to PS4 in order to maximize the titles potential, and a general feeling of complacency that I get from Sony WWS lately.

The answer is not shutting down teams - the talent is there, teams should be growing in times of success but it seems the management isn't up to par.

Off the top of my head, there's Sony Santa Monica's project, Zipper's PS4 project (and eventual shutdown), Sony Liverpool's two cancelled PS4 projects, Sony London's countless projects cancelled, Sony Cambridge's project cancelled (Heavenly Sword 2). It is absolutely gobsmacking that so many titles are just wasted like that.

 

[De-mon]

Cool guy! He liked the portrait that I had drawn of him (and Cerny & House) for my developer series.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Shuhei is very good at leaving teams to do what they want.

Games like The Last of Us, Tearaway, Puppeteer and Sly Cooper offer something different from the norm, but leaving the artistic view aside, I feel that the whip seriously needs to be cracked in terms of projects being left for years to just be cancelled, the lack of foresight to switch tentpole titles like Gran Turismo 6 to PS4 in order to maximize the titles potential, and a general feeling of complacency that I get from Sony WWS lately.

The answer is not shutting down teams - the talent is there, teams should be growing in times of success but it seems the management isn't up to par.

Off the top of my head, there's Sony Santa Monica's project, Zipper's PS4 project (and eventual shutdown), Sony Liverpool's two cancelled PS4 projects, Sony London's countless projects cancelled, Sony Cambridge's project cancelled (Heavenly Sword 2). It is absolutely gobsmacking that so many titles are just wasted like that.

I disagree that a game being cancelled is a problem in and of itself. Game cancelled after entering full scale production is a problem, but canceling a game during pre-production/after completing a good vertical slice is beneficial not detrimental. It's the Cerny Method: spend money in pre-production and only bring to full scale production why is worthy of that massive investment and marketing push that belongs to full scale production.

 

[Kenshin001]

Shuhei is very good at leaving teams to do what they want.

Games like The Last of Us, Tearaway, Puppeteer and Sly Cooper offer something different from the norm, but leaving the artistic view aside, I feel that the whip seriously needs to be cracked in terms of projects being left for years to just be cancelled, the lack of foresight to switch tentpole titles like Gran Turismo 6 to PS4 in order to maximize the titles potential, and a general feeling of complacency that I get from Sony WWS lately.

The answer is not shutting down teams - the talent is there, teams should be growing in times of success but it seems the management isn't up to par.

Off the top of my head, there's Sony Santa Monica's project, Zipper's PS4 project (and eventual shutdown), Sony Liverpool's two cancelled PS4 projects, Sony London's countless projects cancelled, Sony Cambridge's project cancelled (Heavenly Sword 2). It is absolutely gobsmacking that so many titles are just wasted like that.

That is the big problem I think. The head of WWS should be someone with the experience and knowledge to be able to guide teams where they see it's needed. Yoshida does not have that experience or knowledge. I'd much prefer someone who has had experience working on a successful game heading WWS. There is a fine balance between allowing artistic freedom and knowing when to step in and nudge a game in a certain direction.

 

[benny_a]

That is the big problem I think. The head of WWS should be someone with the experience and knowledge to be able to guide teams where they see it's needed. Yoshida does not have that experience or knowledge. I'd much prefer someone who has had experience working on a successful game heading WWS. There is a fine balance between allowing artistic freedom and knowing when to step in and nudge a game in a certain direction.

I don't think the president of global software portfolio should step in and micro-manage individual titles.

 

[Pie and Beans]

I think he's a great guy, a real good PR box ticker, but he's made a few too many poor decisions to rate him as good at his ACTUAL job.

Thumbing down Demon's Souls, letting The Last Guardian debacle go on for as long as it did, and killing Studio Liverpool are the three main "c'mon dude" moments that come to mind.

Then theres all of whatever happened to Santa Monica wasting years with nothing to show and a few other mis-steps. Getting From back for Bloodborne is a good counter though.

 

[Sid]

Extremely disappointed so far by the games which are exclusive to the PS4,didn't expect this coming from the (mostly) glorious years of the PS3 since its launch in 2006,have a PC for multiplats so the console isn't used much for 3rd party stuff.Got bored of the Vita and its Indie parade and sold that off last year,its first 1.5 years were nice though.

 

[Nightengale]

That is the big problem I think. The head of WWS should be someone with the experience and knowledge to be able to guide teams where they see it's needed. Yoshida does not have that experience or knowledge. I'd much prefer someone who has had experience working on a successful game heading WWS. There is a fine balance between allowing artistic freedom and knowing when to step in and nudge a game in a certain direction.

Shu's experience :
Internal Producer:
Legend of Dragoon
Gran Turismo
Ape Escape

EVP of First Party SCEA ( before WWS was established):
Every internally developed American studio developed title from 2001-2006.
Yes, franchises such as Jak, Ratchet, SOCOM, GoW were all developed under his leadership before the global WWS structure was established in late 2005.

I don't think the president of global software portfolio should step in and micro-manage individual titles.

This, as well.

Micro-management is Scott Rohde, Micheal Denny and Allan Becker's job.

 

[nampad]

As a person, I think he is quite likable and has a good connection to the community.

As head of SCEWWS, I think he is just doing an average job and I preferred Phil Harrison.
While I understand there are financial reasons for many decisions that I don't like, I still think many of them weren't right.

Phil Harrison got Media Molecule, my favorite studio, on board. The same goes for Quantic Dreams, whom I also like. I haven't seen anything like this from Yoshida.

The closing of studios like Zipper and Studio Liverpool hurts a lot ad while they weren't successful in some regards, it is also Yoshida's fault they weren't. He decided which games they would develop and looking at Zipper, they released maybe too many games in a short period which thinned them out a bit.

The shattered studios also could helped supporting the Vita, which needs more support. Bigbig made a great PSP Motorstorm, just to do Little Deviants and be closed down.
Zipper shouldn't have released Unit 13, it should have been a Socom with online MP. Modnation also didn't have an online mode and they tried to push Vita a console on the go.
Also where the hell are at least announcements for the big franchises like Gran Turismo?

Overall, I don't think he made good platform decisions and the failure of the Vita is partly on him. Of course, in todays mobile world the Vita wouldn't have been a big success, but it could have been much better.

The same goes for other platform, game and studio decisions.
Someone mentioned Gran Turismo already, which should have been for the PS4. Puppeteer could have been more successful as a launch game.
Superbot was full of talent and had to do a mascot fighter instead of something more serious.

Sure, nobody is always right and a high rate of failure is usual for media products but I am not a fan of Yoshida's work.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Cool guy! He liked the portrait that I had drawn of him (and Cerny & House) for my developer series.

that's fantastic.

 

[Marc]

Great guy, don't think he is very good at his job however. PS4 started so brightly but delays, attitude shifts, control over the studios, their performance and especially the OS update performance are all quite poor.

The PS4 is doing well in spite of him imo, Mark Cerny doing the real heavy lifting with the hardware (poor battery in controller aside) plus all the Indy and 3rd party support. The 1st party studios look much weaker lately, Bloodborne may do the trick. Early days and can all change but so far not so good, closing good studios, crippling others while giving free reign to some with little return is not working for me as a consumer. Some of the games showcased last year for summer aren't even mentioned anymore, maybe I blinked but what happened to HellDivers or BigFest.

 

[Kenshin001]

I don't think the president of global software portfolio should step in and micro-manage individual titles.

Me neither. I think the head of WWS should step in where appropriate, not micro manage.

 

[m@cross]

Hard to say, most pictures show only his head or upper torso. Looks like he migh work out some and has a nice smile. Maybe a 6 out of 10?

 

[Nightengale]

The successful PS3 releases of the last few years were all sequels to games that Phil Harrison greenlit (ie another Ratchet, Motostorm, Infamous, Resistance, Uncharted, LBP, GoW) rather than something Shu was.

Untrue, Sean.

Sony WWS did not exist before Sep 2005. Before that, all internal development of first-party titles at Sony were done at a regional level. Which meant that SCEJ developed games for Japan, SCEA developed games catered only for the American market, and SCEE developed games catered only to the European market, and globalisation of some products happen as extension of that, but not as part of a overall portfolio overview.

Which is why WWS, historically have developed games that are extremely niche to only one market, never get localised outside US/EU/Japan, etc. It's because SCEA does what SCEJ don't, and SCEJ does what SCEE don't.

It wasn't until September 2005 that there was a global leader for all Sony first-party projects across the globe. Prior to that, VP of SCEA Internal Dev made all decisions for what gets greenlit at ND, etc, VP of SCEE Internal Dev made decisions for Studio London, and the same applies to Japan.

Yes, some IPs like inFamous, Motorstorm and LBP, that was Phil's handiwork. But IPs like Resistance, Ratchet, God of War were under Shu's leadership back when he was VP for SCEA.

I don't know if Uncharted is Phil or Shu's, because the timeline for that product's approval could had been any one of them who masterminded that.

 

[benny_a]

Me neither. I think the head of WWS should step in where appropriate, not micro manage.

I don't understand the distinction, then.

Could you bring up an example (doesn't have to be a real case that happened) that involves the various parties and what you expect the president to do?

For example:
Game X has been missing the last few monthly milestones and the regional vice-president gets concerned that they will not hit their projected release date. He then talks to Shu about what should be done and whether or not additional funds and time can be granted. Shu then decides that a delay will be granted or if they just take the critical reception hit of releasing an undercooked product.

Reading your sentence it seems like you want actual game design intervention at some earlier stage, but maybe I'm just reading that into what you write.

 

[Nightengale]

Me neither. I think the head of WWS should step in where appropriate, not micro manage.

For someone like Shu to step in when appropriate, there's 3 outcomes :

a. add/reduce extra budget/development time to the project
b. put the project on hold
c. cancel the project

The folks who step in and manage the direction of the project would be the producers and regional level heads. Shu's position isn't about stepping in, it's about approving the game ideas.

I mean, if The Order is simply another Uncharted, then the blame can be pinned to Shu Yoshida for approving a game that they internally already fill the niche for. But if The Order is an ambitious project that let's say... didn't manage to meet its ambitious design (assumption), then the fault is on the studio and the producer for not being able to execute the vision that they pitched to the publishers.

I mean, something like Destiny being lack-lustre, imo, isn't anything to blame on Activision. Activision got an ambitious product pitch, approved the development, etc. But the fact that Destiny ended up as it is... isn't something to be blamed on Acti, but rather than Bungie failed to execute on many grounds that didn't need 500x more game assets or larger worlds.

 

[Neff]

He's funny and genuine, that's good enough for me. Just wish he'd chase Japanese gaming a little harder though. After all, he bigs up Nintendo.

 

[Choomp]

Great guy. Likable personality. Passionate about his job. No complaints.

Yeah. Shu seems really cool, don't have anything bad to say.

 

[benny_a]

I mean, something like Destiny being lack-lustre, imo, isn't anything to blame on Activision. Activision got an ambitious product pitch, approved the development, etc. But the fact that Destiny ended up as it is... isn't something to be blamed on Acti, but rather than Bungie failed to execute on many grounds that didn't need 500x more game assets or larger worlds.

It's a marriage of two and the publisher ultimately decides when a game is going to be released, because they control the funds.

They could have also delayed it if they didn't think the quality was where it was at, but in the end they have a plan on when to release games as you need to make your money at some point.

Activision could have had a too harsh time frame in which a game should be done, Bungie could have been too naive when agreeing to that or Bungie failed to meet the publisher's expectations which in turn forced them to stay with the original release date despite quality concerns.

Volition was praised for bringing out an acceptable standard of a new game with the latest Red Faction in a very limited amount of time, when the publisher needed them to perform. That level of quality was just deemed not good enough for many reviewers or customers, but it put some money into the bank again for a period of time.

 

[Nightengale]

It's a marriage of two and the publisher ultimately decides when a game is going to be released, because they control the funds.

You're right, but from an outsider's perspective, it really looked as if Activision was pretty accommodating as a whole. Destiny was already delayed from their agreed contract period, and then to 'spring 2014', then to 'summer 2014' and then to September.

And for what it was worth, Activision did give them enough money to expand into a 500-strong studio. That's bigger than some AAA studios x 2.

 

[benny_a]

You're right, but from an outsider's perspective, it really looked as if Activision was pretty accommodating as a whole. Destiny was already delayed from their agreed contract period, and then to 'spring 2014', then to 'summer 2014' and then to September.

And for what it was worth, Activision did give them enough money to expand into a 500-strong studio. That's bigger than some AAA studios x 2.

In the absence of inside sources that speak to the contrary opposed to the usual knee-jerk "all publishers are evil" it certainly looks that Activision held up their part of the bargain. I just wanted to mention that we can't say for sure.

 

[Revolutionary]

Shu is awesome. He needs to accept my friend request though!

 

[li bur]

HE is watching us...

https://twitter.com/yosp/status/527290831594471424

Errr, how did he manage to get that thread list to only shows playstation related thread?

Cray

 

[2+2=5]

I'm not really sure how he falls short in that regard either, though. Sony always had good exclusives, but in the PS2 era it relied more on third-party titles. In the space of a generation, he turned PS3's internal output into an absolute powerhouse, and while there are plenty of people eager to write the company off right now, I'd be very surprised if it doesn't hit fifth gear next year.

Liverpool was obviously a great team, but it didn't make many games, and the ones it did weren't huge sellers. And, unfortunately, Yoshida didn't kill the Vita - the market rejecting it did. It had arguably the strongest launch lineup of any system ever.

Yeah you are right, how stupid are at Nintendo trying to revive the Wiiu with many first party games, aquiring third party games(Bayonetta 2) etc.
And please don't say the "wiiu is the flagship console" bullshit, DS>Wii and 3ds>Wiiu, handhelds are the first source of money for Nintendo, home consoles have not the same importance for everyone.

Cool guy! He liked the portrait that I had drawn of him (and Cerny & House) for my developer series.

How could he say something different? It's great, but what his fake personality has to do with his work?

Guys he is one of the leaders of a very big multinational, are you really so ingenuous to think he says exactly what he thinks? He needs to study what he says because a wrong word can afflict the income of Sony. He is not a next door guy, that's what he wants you to think, don't be so stupid to believe it!
The same obviously applies to the other "nice" heads of Sony, MS, Nintendo etc.