Support NeoGAF

[Loomy]

Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Herman Hulst spoke to the Financial Times (in a paywalled article that has been recapped by Genki on Twitter) about Concord's failure and Sony's continued push to live service despite it. Hulst says the fiasco has led Sony to "put in place much more rigorous and more frequent testing." He adds, "The advantage of every failure is that people now understand how necessary" oversight is.

Hulst also added, "I don't want teams to always play it safe, but I would like for us, when we fail, to fail early and cheaply" which is a far cry from Concord's eight-year development and reportedly massive budget.

Architect of Sony's disastrous 'live-service push' says failures are good actually, because now there's "more rigorous and more frequent testing"

"I don't want teams to always play it safe, but I would like for us, when we fail, to fail early and cheaply"

www.gamesradar.com

 

[struggler_guts]

The testing wasn't the issue, dumbass

 

[diffusionx]

Sony's Don Mattrick.

 

[GymWolf]

The testing wasn't the issue, dumbass

First post win, we can close the topic.

Being polished was probably the only saving grace of that game.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

i wish Hermen was fired, the only issue is that it will be replaced by Druckman

 

[roosnam1980]

 

[th4tguy]

Let's be clear here. The person in question is CEO Herman Hulst.

 

[Kacho]

nial can we blame Hulst now?

 

[Magic Carpet]

I completely associate the Sony name with Live Service now.
Sony is a live service company.
Disastrous and Frequent. Yep.

 

[Loomy]

The testing wasn't the issue, dumbass

I believe the point is had they tested early enough they would have known that they were going down the wrong direction.

A big part of the problem with Concord and Marathon - and probably with Fairgames at this point - is that by the time they showed it, it was too far into development to quickly and cheaply make substantial changes.

Had they showed gameplay or had a big outside alpha test for either of those games early enough, they would have known where the disconnects where and been able to pivot and cancel the project before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.

 

[The_Observer]

Like I said, there must be a hidden(?) jackass competition between these corpos because there is no other explanation for the general incompetence

 

[diffusionx]

I believe the point is had they tested early enough they would have known that they were going down the wrong direction.

A big part of the problem with Concord and Marathon - and probably with Fairgames at this point - is that by the time they showed it, it was too far into development to quickly and cheaply make substantial changes.

Had they showed gameplay or had a big outside alpha test for either of those games early enough, they would have known where the disconnects where and been able to pivot and cancel the project before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.

The problem isn't testing, it's the people making the decisions.

I have never heard a single person say that fairgame% look awesome and they can't wait for it to come out but Sony not just saw the pitch for the game, not just greenlit it, but bought the studio outright and has probably sunk $100-$200 million into it so far. Nobody running Sony or making the decisions ever said "lmao this shit sucks get the fuck out of here jade"

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I believe the point is had they tested early enough they would have known that they were going down the wrong direction.

A big part of the problem with Concord and Marathon - and probably with Fairgames at this point - is that by the time they showed it, it was too far into development to quickly and cheaply make substantial changes.

Had they showed gameplay or had a big outside alpha test for either of those games early enough, they would have known where the disconnects where and been able to pivot and cancel the project before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.

You don't need to show it.

You give devs 1 year to make MVP. You tell them it tanks the project or you have 1-2 more years.
You test again, you tell them it tanks the project or they have 1-2 more years.

Herman explanation sounds fake because this is what they pay you for dumbass, for not having to learn the hard way. For you putting in place a process that doesn't result in flushing hundreds of million down the drain.

 

[Sethbacca]

... there is no other explanation for the general incompetence

They saw that Fortnight and GTA money and said "I want a piece of that" then threw money at it without understanding it.

 

[coffinbirth]

I believe the point is had they tested early enough they would have known that they were going down the wrong direction.

A big part of the problem with Concord and Marathon - and probably with Fairgames at this point - is that by the time they showed it, it was too far into development to quickly and cheaply make substantial changes.

Had they showed gameplay or had a big outside alpha test for either of those games early enough, they would have known where the disconnects where and been able to pivot and cancel the project before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.

The problem with Marathon is that Bungie stole the fuck out of other peoples work. At least that's why it got delayed...the fact that it's a live service game at all is a whole other can of bees.

 

[Ronin_7]

What a dumbass

 

[Metnut]

Fail cheaply and early makes lot of sense. Testing wasn't going to save Concord but the plug should've been pulled at least a year or two ago and $50-$100M less of costs.

 

[Pallas]

Must of been no testing at all then.

 

[Loomy]

You don't need to show it.

You give devs 1 year to make MVP. You tell them it tanks the project or you have 1-2 more years.
You test again, you tell them it tanks the project or they have 1-2 more years.

Herman explanation sounds fake because this is what they pay you for dumbass, for not having to learn the hard way. For you putting in place a process that doesn't result in flushing hundreds of million down the drain.

We're saying the same thing. When I say "show" I don't mean to us. I mean to other Sony studios.

So using your example, you show your MVP to a group of people from other studios after 1 year's worth of work. Depending on the feedback, the project moves on, is reworked, or is cancelled. The farther along you go, the cancel and rework options become less viable, but at least at that point you know your base/core is solid.

 

[Rush2112]

Hope they fail some more so they can become even 'greater.'

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

It's a good thing we spent 7 years and $250 million on Conord, because that taught us the lesson that we shouldn't spend hundreds of millions + several years on a game nobody wants.

 

[Loomy]

The problem with Marathon is that Bungie stole the fuck out of other peoples work. At least that's why it got delayed...the fact that it's a live service game at all is a whole other can of bees.

Marathon was going to be delayed before the stolen art issue was brought forward. The beta had a lot of problems that 3 months of work was not going to solve.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

We're saying the same thing. When I say "show" I don't mean to us. I mean to other Sony studios.

So using your example, you show your MVP to a group of people from other studios after 1 year's worth of work. Depending on the feedback, the project moves on, is reworked, or is cancelled. The farther along you go, the cancel and rework options become less viable, but at least at that point you know your base/core is solid.

 

[onQ123]

The testing wasn't the issue, dumbass

It actually was and the failure was the targeted market.

Live Service games are meant to grow their own following instead of being dropped in the console market hoping for instant success.

Remove PlayStation from the equation & even Concord could have became a popular free to play game on Tablets & PC then made it's way to console after it build a fan-base on its own.

 

[GymWolf]

Lmao look a bit like the villain in morbin, the doctor who actor

 

[Hudo]

Must be nice being CEO.

 

[dottme]

It feels like management has done a good job defending their seat.

 

[Mr Moose]

Should've worked that out from the start, dumbass.

 

[Chittagong]

 

[BigBeauford]

The same retarded logic Wile E. Coyote uses.

 

[Tajaz2426]

This guy actually makes me not want to support Sony in any way. Seems mildly retarded.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

People still ranting about Hulst while Shuhei Yoshida was the one who greenlit the Concord-deal?

 

[Kacho]

It's a good thing we spent 7 years and $250 million on Conord, because that taught us the lesson that we shouldn't spend hundreds of millions + several years on a game nobody wants.

I can tell you make the big bucks at your company

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So much literature published on the importance of failure.

Fail early and fail often.

 

[Gonzito]

Sony's leadership are basically clowns man

 

[Loomy]

The problem isn't testing, it's the people making the decisions.

I have never heard a single person say that fairgame% look awesome and they can't wait for it to come out but Sony not just saw the pitch for the game, not just greenlit it, but bought the studio outright and has probably sunk $100-$200 million into it so far. Nobody running Sony or making the decisions ever said "lmao this shit sucks get the fuck out of here jade"

To be fair, no one outside of Sony has seen Fairgames. All we've seen is a generic CGI trailer and a PSblog article that calls it a "new type of PvP game with emergent sandbox gameplay" in the "heist genre".

So we have no idea what it is or if it's any good. My guess though, after Marathon and Concord, is that they're being a lot more rigorous with their testing and reviews for the game.

 

[Loomy]

So much literature published on the importance of failure.

Fail early and fail often.

The frustrating thing is SIE isn't new at this. They have these processes in place. They wouldn't be where they are today otherwise. My guess is they don't have someone/senior producer overseeing their Live Service push or if they do, that person is not empowered enough to push back on studio heads.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

To be fair, no one outside of Sony has seen Fairgames. All we've seen is a generic CGI trailer and a PSblog article that calls it a "new type of PvP game with emergent sandbox gameplay" in the "heist genre".

 

[rm082e]

So much literature published on the importance of failure.

Fail early and fail often.

It's one strategy for sure. The other is polish until perfect (Apple and Nintendo come to mind).

The problem with "fail fast" is it erodes and eventually eliminates trust with your customers.

 

[Radical_3d]

Desperate holding to our chair, aren't we, Hermen?

 

[Punished Miku]

A+ headline lol

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The frustrating thing is SIE isn't new at this. They have these processes in place. They wouldn't be where they are today otherwise. My guess is they don't have someone/senior producer overseeing their Live Service push or if they do, that person is not empowered enough to push back on studio heads.

They probably had systems in place that were designed around SP, but it seems clear that MP and SP are vastly different and require vastly different testing processes.

The testing for Concord certainly should have happened way earlier and way more often.

 

[PlayStaytion]

His accent makes it 10 times better

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's one strategy for sure. The other is polish until perfect (Apple and Nintendo come to mind).

I'd bet anything that Apple and Nintendo have embraced the fail fast philosophy for some time.

The problem with "fail fast" is it erodes and eventually eliminates trust with your customers.

PlayStation doesn't want to "fail fast" in the way you think. They want to fail early in the testing process well before the larger public gets their hands on the game.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Some people only fail upwards. Give this man a raise he deserves it

 

[LavitzSlambert]

The fact it got to this point to begin with is an enormous failure in management. Are they really saying they didn't implement adequate testing already? No, the problem is Sony's management has poor taste. Nintendo would have spotted this a mile away.

 

[nial]

Let's be clear here. The person in question is CEO Herman Hulst.

Not CEO.

nial can we blame Hulst now?

People already did that, so... which I think it's fair. It's only eyes-rolling when it's accompanied by some hilarious worshiping of the previous people of that role, who were behind the exact same initiatives as well (like Shuhei Yoshida). Angry_Megalodon .

 

[Loomy]

Let's be clear here. The person in question is CEO Herman Hulst.

Would have added that to the thread title, but hit character limit. Made sure the first post had a paragraph detailing who they were speaking with.

 

[rm082e]

I'd bet anything that Apple and Nintendo have embraced the fail fast philosophy for some time.

PlayStation doesn't want to "fail fast" in the way you think. They want to fail early in the testing process well before the larger public gets their hands on the game.

"Fail fast" generally means get your idea out in front of as many users as quick as possible to see if it catches on. If it doesn't, scuttle it and move on. It's the "minimum viable product" idea. Google has embraced this over the years.

"Polish until perfect" just means you do the feedback loop internally, but if it passes that internal testing, you put the full marketing muscle and go "all-in" when you release it to the wide user base. That's why you're not seeing Nintendo launch broken games that are unfinished and require a "roadmap to success". It's why Apple products generally sell like crazy out of the gate (the Vision Pro being a notable exception to the rule).