Sony Says Studios Will Help Make the Next PlayStation

Sony Says Studios Will Help Make the Next PlayStation

image

It's "lesson learned" for Sony, which says it will involve its game studios in the development of new gaming platforms so they won't be so difficult to work with in the future.

Remember last year, when Sony Computer Entertainment President Kaz Hirai said the PlayStation 3 was intentionally designed to be difficult to work with so developers wouldn't be able to immediately max out its capabilities? That was pretty funny stuff but it was also at least half-true: Intentional or not, the system is a notoriously difficult development platform. But it sounds like that strategy didn't pan out quite as well as anyone had hoped, because Sony Worldwide Studios chief Shuhei Yoshida said that in the future, platform development will very much involve the software guys.

"When Ken Kutaragi moved on and Kaz Hirai became the president of SCE, the first thing Kaz said was, 'Get World Wide Studios in on hardware development'," Yoshida told Develop. "He wanted developers in meetings at the very beginning of concepting new hardware, and he demanded SCE people talk to us [developers]."

The new approach apparently sprung from a "rescue mission" for SCE first-party studios and is also a "core pillar of the design ideology" on the upcoming PlayStation Move motion controller. "I'm spending more time on the hardware platform, connecting hardware guys to developers," Yoshida said. "That's my major role now, and Move is one of those new ways of developing platforms."

Permalink

I think this idea will be alot better. Also, is this a sign of them working on, or soon to be working on, a new console?

Hirai > Krazy Kutaragi

It's nice to know that the "new guy" knows that the hardware is supposed to be a platform for games, and not some kind of architectural art piece.

This is a really good idea. I'm surprised its taken this long, to be honest. The PS2 had this problem, if I remember. The PS2 was hard to code for, and as devs learned how to max it out, it really started to shine. I foretold that very thing would happen with the PS3, and it's in the midst of happening now. It works, but there are patches of time where people don't know what to do with the system.

If the ps4 has developers behind the scenes, then we'll really see something! Unless the devs all want to do things the easy way. :P

sony got a little cocky with the ps3 because of how well the ps1 and ps2 did, and it took a lot from them to come back. Hopefully, they've learned their lesson. we don't need another sega all over again -_-

More developers = More games
More games = Hopefully more new games/ IP's

Sequels are nice (sometimes), but other times I really want to sink my teeth into something completely fresh.

That sounds like a good idea, that way, they know what they are working wirh sooner!

Now here's something I can get behind without looking like a PS3 fanboy. You need to have a balance between "hard to work for" and "easy to program", or you'll have a bad ratio of good:bad games if everyone can program for it

Firia:
This is a really good idea. I'm surprised its taken this long, to be honest. The PS2 had this problem, if I remember. The PS2 was hard to code for, and as devs learned how to max it out, it really started to shine. I foretold that very thing would happen with the PS3, and it's in the midst of happening now. It works, but there are patches of time where people don't know what to do with the system.

If the ps4 has developers behind the scenes, then we'll really see something! Unless the devs all want to do things the easy way. :P

That is true, a lot of people seem to forget that. Though back then the PS2 didn't really have much competition, so developers just sucked it up unlike today where developers have 3 option to go for (4 if you count the PC).

Jumplion:
Now here's something I can get behind without looking like a PS3 fanboy. You need to have a balance between "hard to work for" and "easy to program", or you'll have a bad ratio of good:bad games if everyone can program for it

Yeah, because making development a bigger pain in the ass than it already is definitely leads to quality creative output. I guess being able to write in C is a pretty big step up though. Maybe next time you'll be able to just write code rather than having to deal with 38 different processors for different stuff.

Sounds like Kaz Hirai is on to something here, good for him. I am very disappointed that always hearing his name or voice instantly spurs "RIIIIIIIIIIDGE RACER!!!" in my mind, though. Why Kaz... Why?

To be blunt, that was quite a dick move. Sounds like they were overconfident at the time due to the massive success of the PS2. I love my PS3 but often choose to buy multi-platform games for my 360 because the PS3 can have serious issues with framerate, online play and so on
At least they learned their lesson

butteforce:

Jumplion:
Now here's something I can get behind without looking like a PS3 fanboy. You need to have a balance between "hard to work for" and "easy to program", or you'll have a bad ratio of good:bad games if everyone can program for it

Yeah, because making development a bigger pain in the ass than it already is definitely leads to quality creative output. I guess being able to write in C is a pretty big step up though. Maybe next time you'll be able to just write code rather than having to deal with 38 different processors for different stuff.

Obvious unnecessary hostilities is unnecessary hostile, plus Strawman.

I never said making something harder to develop for would make a game instantly better. You just don't want your product to instantly give away everything it has to offer otherwise your games will stagnate. Look at the Wii, say what you want about it, you have to admit it has a pretty bad ratio of good:shovelware games. Absolutely anyone can program for it, and as a result everyone wants to make money off of a cheap cash-grab.

At times simple is good, but sometimes simple just hurts and having more complex things to work with expands your options. Pivot: Stickfigure animator (Google it) is extremely simple, but because of that it is extremely limited unlike, say, Macromedia Flash.

You really fucked that one up, didn't you Sony?

Bunch of hypocrites, they tried to save face by being arrogrant and assuming vain airs. Look where it put you. I agree, your exclusives pretty much rock but when it comes to multi-platform games, I think nobody is putting more effort into the hardware of the PS3 than needed, so long it looks good in comparision with the 360, which actually looks better on most titles.

Well done Sony. Took you f**king long enough to work that one out. Sometimes I despair.

I think it's a step in the right direction, making good games is hard enough by itself without having to struggle with a black monolith coded in hieroglyphs.

lol. i think it'd be better if he said making it difficult to work with is out way of keeping the game studios on their toes so they don't slack off lol.

I don't think it's a good idea... I don't want Activision and Kotick anywhere NEAR platform development, or they'll probably add a coin-slot.

Dexter111:
I don't think it's a good idea... I don't want Activision and Kotick anywhere NEAR platform development, or they'll probably add a coin-slot.

Activision isn't going near it. They're a publisher, not a developer.

I've never really understood the idea that developers not being able to fully tap a console's potential until near the end of the lifespan of the console was a good thing. It's almost like saying: "Don't bother buying our console now because far better games are going to come along when the console is much, much cheaper." Nice to see Sony's attitude is starting to change.

Firia:
This is a really good idea. I'm surprised its taken this long, to be honest. The PS2 had this problem, if I remember. The PS2 was hard to code for, and as devs learned how to max it out, it really started to shine. I foretold that very thing would happen with the PS3, and it's in the midst of happening now. It works, but there are patches of time where people don't know what to do with the system.

If the ps4 has developers behind the scenes, then we'll really see something! Unless the devs all want to do things the easy way. :P

The problem is, which it didn't seem Sony understood, is that back in the PS2 era games was produced separately for each platform. Also PS2 was the major platform of the era.
This meant that developers WANTED to make great games on the PS2, and they WANTED to learn how to do it.

Today PS3 isn't really the market leader, which means that developers don't really want to spend a lot of time learning how to make the perfect game on the PS3.
We are talking about cross platform games here. Most PS3 exclusive games have shown how good the machine can be.

In the end I personally think being first on market is what will win you 1st place i nthe long run... Unless you are SEGA, they never seemed to be able to get anywhere. But that is a discussion for another day.

Jumplion:
Now here's something I can get behind without looking like a PS3 fanboy. You need to have a balance between "hard to work for" and "easy to program", or you'll have a bad ratio of good:bad games if everyone can program for it

Firia:
This is a really good idea. I'm surprised its taken this long, to be honest. The PS2 had this problem, if I remember. The PS2 was hard to code for, and as devs learned how to max it out, it really started to shine. I foretold that very thing would happen with the PS3, and it's in the midst of happening now. It works, but there are patches of time where people don't know what to do with the system.

If the ps4 has developers behind the scenes, then we'll really see something! Unless the devs all want to do things the easy way. :P

That is true, a lot of people seem to forget that. Though back then the PS2 didn't really have much competition, so developers just sucked it up unlike today where developers have 3 option to go for (4 if you count the PC).

Not if there is a QA dept. Not if someone takes notes from the 80s when Nintendo still had a pair and said no you ain't putting this crap on our console. Now take it back and fix it. We want them to have machines that are easy to design for. That is not saying power should be sacrificed for speed. Or that quality should be sacrificed for easy design. It should have the opposite effect. Less time in full development means more time to tweak and refine. It also means we get our games faster (which is a double edged sword in itself). It could also mean we pay less for the same or more. And it isn't like we aren't seeing shovelware on the PS3 anyways so what was the point again?

squid5580:
Not if there is a QA dept. Not if someone takes notes from the 80s when Nintendo still had a pair and said no you ain't putting this crap on our console. Now take it back and fix it. We want them to have machines that are easy to design for. That is not saying power should be sacrificed for speed. Or that quality should be sacrificed for easy design. It should have the opposite effect. Less time in full development means more time to tweak and refine. It also means we get our games faster (which is a double edged sword in itself). It could also mean we pay less for the same or more. And it isn't like we aren't seeing shovelware on the PS3 anyways so what was the point again?

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if Nintendo didn't allow this crap past the Q+A department

Could you show me some PS3 shovelware of that magnitude (19 games if you don't include duplicates)? I would love to eat my words, I really would, I don't mind retracting my statement of any kind, but if development has to go down to simplicity just for simplcity's sake, then I don't agree with that.

Jumplion:

squid5580:
Not if there is a QA dept. Not if someone takes notes from the 80s when Nintendo still had a pair and said no you ain't putting this crap on our console. Now take it back and fix it. We want them to have machines that are easy to design for. That is not saying power should be sacrificed for speed. Or that quality should be sacrificed for easy design. It should have the opposite effect. Less time in full development means more time to tweak and refine. It also means we get our games faster (which is a double edged sword in itself). It could also mean we pay less for the same or more. And it isn't like we aren't seeing shovelware on the PS3 anyways so what was the point again?

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if Nintendo didn't allow this crap past the Q+A department

Could you show me some PS3 shovelware of that magnitude (19 games if you don't include duplicates)? I would love to eat my words, I really would, I don't mind retracting my statement of any kind, but if development has to go down to simplicity just for simplcity's sake, then I don't agree with that.

You are a few generations late with those games. The QA dept pretty much died when Nintendo wasn't the only kid on the block.

And what may I ask is so wrong with simplicity for the sake of simplicity? I understand if it would effect the quality of the finished product. But making games easier to make while maintaining/improving the quality sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't see who loses in that.

squid5580:
You are a few generations late with those games. The QA dept pretty much died when Nintendo wasn't the only kid on the block.

And what may I ask is so wrong with simplicity for the sake of simplicity? I understand if it would effect the quality of the finished product. But making games easier to make while maintaining/improving the quality sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't see who loses in that.

I swear that's a kind of fallacy, I just don't know which one. But whatever, if you make a console too simple to program for then you get shovelware as I've shown you, but you also get developers that will not go further into the hardware. If the console is so simple to develop for that developers wouldn't see any reason to go back and improve the quality.

You're assuming that is something is so simple to use that developers will go back to improve it even more, but why would they if it's so simple and waste time when they could be developing for another game?

Now, this can apply if it's too hard to do, why would they waste time developing on a difficult system if they can work on other projects.

That's why you need a balance, or you gt shovelware and no effort if it's too simple, or few games and lazy ports if it's too difficult. It's stupid to make a system so simple just because Timmy Otule wants to develop for your console.

Jumplion:

squid5580:
You are a few generations late with those games. The QA dept pretty much died when Nintendo wasn't the only kid on the block.

And what may I ask is so wrong with simplicity for the sake of simplicity? I understand if it would effect the quality of the finished product. But making games easier to make while maintaining/improving the quality sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't see who loses in that.

I swear that's a kind of fallacy, I just don't know which one. But whatever, if you make a console too simple to program for then you get shovelware as I've shown you, but you also get developers that will not go further into the hardware. If the console is so simple to develop for that developers wouldn't see any reason to go back and improve the quality.

You're assuming that is something is so simple to use that developers will go back to improve it even more, but why would they if it's so simple and waste time when they could be developing for another game?

Now, this can apply if it's too hard to do, why would they waste time developing on a difficult system if they can work on other projects.

That's why you need a balance, or you gt shovelware and no effort if it's too simple, or few games and lazy ports if it's too difficult. It's stupid to make a system so simple just because Timmy Otule wants to develop for your console.

Wow read the whole post much? So then why would I suggest the QA dept? Oh yeah to keep out the shovelware and insure the quality keeps improving.

Jumplion:

squid5580:
You are a few generations late with those games. The QA dept pretty much died when Nintendo wasn't the only kid on the block.

And what may I ask is so wrong with simplicity for the sake of simplicity? I understand if it would effect the quality of the finished product. But making games easier to make while maintaining/improving the quality sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't see who loses in that.

I swear that's a kind of fallacy, I just don't know which one. But whatever, if you make a console too simple to program for then you get shovelware as I've shown you, but you also get developers that will not go further into the hardware. If the console is so simple to develop for that developers wouldn't see any reason to go back and improve the quality.

You're assuming that is something is so simple to use that developers will go back to improve it even more, but why would they if it's so simple and waste time when they could be developing for another game?

Now, this can apply if it's too hard to do, why would they waste time developing on a difficult system if they can work on other projects.

That's why you need a balance, or you gt shovelware and no effort if it's too simple, or few games and lazy ports if it's too difficult. It's stupid to make a system so simple just because Timmy Otule wants to develop for your console.

Wow read the whole post much? Then why would I suggest make it easier to develop for and have a QA dept that rejects the cheap crap games. So the QA can do nothing and allow all the shovelware they can process in right? Yeah that must be it.

squid5580:
Wow read the whole post much? So then why would I suggest the QA dept? Oh yeah to keep out the shovelware and insure the quality keeps improving.

Didn't you already say that Nintendo's Q+A department had no more balls? And didn't I just show you a whole bag full of shovelware that still somehow got past "Nintendo's Seal of Approval"?

Q+A departments are not the be-end-of-all-shovelware depots, no matter how good your Q+A depo is, you will still get shovelware. It's not like they go "No, you're game is crap, we won't let you on our platform!", Q+A generally just make sure that the game is appropriate, not functional or fun.

That would mean ditching the Cell processor, which would be a dumb move.

They invested heavily into cell and the cpu should still be adequate in a PS4, maybe with all cores enabled. Studios have got experience now coding for it.
Add more memory and a less outdated GPU from either ati or nvidia and they're good.

Jumplion:

squid5580:
Wow read the whole post much? So then why would I suggest the QA dept? Oh yeah to keep out the shovelware and insure the quality keeps improving.

Didn't you already say that Nintendo's Q+A department had no more balls? And didn't I just show you a whole bag full of shovelware that still somehow got past "Nintendo's Seal of Approval"?

Q+A departments are not the be-end-of-all-shovelware depots, no matter how good your Q+A depo is, you will still get shovelware. It's not like they go "No, you're game is crap, we won't let you on our platform!", Q+A generally just make sure that the game is appropriate, not functional or fun.

First you are going to get shovelware no matter how complicated or easy the system is to develop for. Even the PS3 has shovelware. Just because no one talks about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Ok now try and follow along here in this hypothetical situation. Sony says hey we are done. We want quality not quantity for the PS4. So we won't call it the QA dept. We will call it the "lets keep the shit games away from our console" Dept because we know that our console is far too easy to develop for. Now explain to me the harm in that. Without all the irrelevant other jazz you are trying to use to prove you are right if you don't mind.

squid5580:
First you are going to get shovelware no matter how complicated or easy the system is to develop for. Even the PS3 has shovelware. Just because no one talks about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well, yeah, sure, okay, whatever, okely-dokely, though I would like some pics just to reinforce it.

Ok now try and follow along here in this hypothetical situation. Sony says hey we are done. We want quality not quantity for the PS4. So we won't call it the QA dept. We will call it the "lets keep the shit games away from our console" Dept because we know that our console is far too easy to develop for. Now explain to me the harm in that. Without all the irrelevant other jazz you are trying to use to prove you are right if you don't mind.

Don't all companies want quality over quantity?

There's nothing wrong with your hypothetical, but that's just it, it's a hypothetical, a "what if..." scenario, and those are useless. Q+A departments don't make sure that shit games don't get past the radar, otherwise every single game would be pure gold on every system, they just make sure they're appropriate for sale and maybe make sure that the game is barely functional.

Jumplion:

squid5580:
First you are going to get shovelware no matter how complicated or easy the system is to develop for. Even the PS3 has shovelware. Just because no one talks about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well, yeah, sure, okay, whatever, okely-dokely, though I would like some pics just to reinforce it.

Ok now try and follow along here in this hypothetical situation. Sony says hey we are done. We want quality not quantity for the PS4. So we won't call it the QA dept. We will call it the "lets keep the shit games away from our console" Dept because we know that our console is far too easy to develop for. Now explain to me the harm in that. Without all the irrelevant other jazz you are trying to use to prove you are right if you don't mind.

Don't all companies want quality over quantity?

There's nothing wrong with your hypothetical, but that's just it, it's a hypothetical. Q+A departments don't make sure that shit games don't get past the radar, otherwise every single game would be pure gold on every system, they just make sure they're appropriate for sale and maybe make sure that the game is barely functional.

Well that is what they say. But actions speak louder than words. And as you pointed out already look at the shovelware. Look at all the rushed games in need of a day 1 patch (that usually comes months later). No what they want is quantity. Large quantities of our money. And they will polish those turds until they shine like the sun to get it. Unfortunately they spend the time and money polishing the turds instead of looking for the diamonds. And all three are just as guilty of that.

This coming from the same guy who was so glad that his console was difficult to dev for.

"We didn't want the devs to be able to unlock the console's full potential right away"

-_-"

squid5580:
Well that is what they say. But actions speak louder than words. And as you pointed out already look at the shovelware. Look at all the rushed games in need of a day 1 patch (that usually comes months later). No what they want is quantity. Large quantities of our money. And they will polish those turds until they shine like the sun to get it. Unfortunately they spend the time and money polishing the turds instead of looking for the diamonds. And all three are just as guilty of that.

Poor/Bad games are not the same as Shovelware games. Shovelware games may be bad games, but bad games can easily have good intentions behind them. Most shovelware games don't get any coverage, and maybe they get a review or two on a major gaming site just because they have to. Singularity may be exceedingly average and buggy, but it's not shovelware. Similarly, Naughty Bear also may be a complete pile of shit, but they did put as much effort as they could in it.

Then again, we get to this point, who's to say what's shovelware and what's not? "Where's Waldo" could have been made by a team of dedicated professionals who wanted to bring the good old fashioned fun of finding the damn guy to the living room, who knows.

But whatever, this debate/argument is really going nowhere, I can't really tell what we're debating over now.

Jumplion:

squid5580:
Well that is what they say. But actions speak louder than words. And as you pointed out already look at the shovelware. Look at all the rushed games in need of a day 1 patch (that usually comes months later). No what they want is quantity. Large quantities of our money. And they will polish those turds until they shine like the sun to get it. Unfortunately they spend the time and money polishing the turds instead of looking for the diamonds. And all three are just as guilty of that.

Poor/Bad games are not the same as Shovelware games. Shovelware games may be bad games, but bad games can easily have good intentions behind them. Most shovelware games don't get any coverage, and maybe they get a review or two on a major gaming site just because they have to. Singularity may be exceedingly average and buggy, but it's not shovelware. Similarly, Naughty Bear also may be a complete pile of shit, but they did put as much effort as they could in it.

Then again, we get to this point, who's to say what's shovelware and what's not? "Where's Waldo" could have been made by a team of dedicated professionals who wanted to bring the good old fashioned fun of finding the damn guy to the living room, who knows.

But whatever, this debate/argument is really going nowhere, I can't really tell what we're debating over now.

Then I guess we can't call any game shovelware. What if Carnival Games was made by a bunch of interns at the EA studio? We don't know thier skill level. It could very well have been the best game they could produce at the time. I guess shovelware is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here