I don’t see the dual CEO thing lasting very long. One of them is going to spit the other up and chew them out. And who decides what the plan is if the CEOs aren’t in agreement?
Its pretty clear to me Hulst is one of the only guys left to feasibly manage their nearly 100% western studios at a senior level but they dont trust anyone in the west to be in charge of the money at this point. The other guy is the money dude so he probably has the veto power but no real clue what to do for the western market or creatively.
These takes are surely something. Seriously, why do people feel so strongly about him? I never felt commenting about Hulst due to knowing so little of the kind of games WWS would produce under his tenure, yet some of you seem to hate him A LOT.
Considering PS5 hardware sales, their games etc, seems like they way they are promoting things is working.
Helldivers 2 became one of Sony's biggest games ever with like 2 SOP showings and not much more. And no E3 as well, imagine that.
Yeah, maybe I have. Fair enough. I just honestly don't see any reason why you would need a CEO for the platform like that. It doesn't really make much sense to me at all.Both answer to Totoki who remains Chairman of SIE. For Herman Hulst there isn't much advantage for his group being tied to PlayStation. For him to make the most money possible, they'd develop games for all platforms. Totoki obviously isn't going to allow that as it would significantly hamper Nishino and his group. That is where the balance has to come from, but if the studio group becomes more profitable than the platform business group, the priority shifts.
Nishino isn't the money guy, he is the platform guy. PlayStation as a platform is distinct from game development and IP creation. I think you've largely misinterpreted what Nishino's role is.
I actually think this year is going to see a really special Sony showcase due to Playstation turning 30. That said, people overestimate these shows. Even E3's influence in people's buying habits.There is a cognitive dissonance that denies the success Sony is having because it isn't in the manner that people want them to have success. These same people are convinced that the other shoe is going to drop that proves them right, despite all evidence suggesting otherwise.
The mastermind behind Jinroh, erhh, I mean Killzone.I am completely unfamiliar with him, what has he done?
Does it matter where else those games are available to play? Does someone being able to play Ragnarok on PC almost 18 months after it became available to you on PS4/PS5 negatively affect you in any way?
Looking back, I'm still kinda perplexed how he managed to talk SCEE into acquiring Guerrilla. The guy must have a real silver tongue.
You mean back in the PS2 era? I don't think they had a very convincing track record back then. They grew notorious due to the whole "Halo killer" sensationalism.(...)
Huh?! Guerrilla is an absurdly talented studio. Why would their acquisition be surprising to you?
Yeah, maybe I have. Fair enough. I just honestly don't see any reason why you would need a CEO for the platform like that. It doesn't really make much sense to me at all.
I just think it's still a bit silly to require 2 CEOs for that. You're basically talking about a whole CEO just for deciding when Nixxes ports games, which does not really require that.The studio group's focus is to sell as much software as they can and build its IP. The platform group's priority is to sell as much hardware as possible and to sell as many peripherals as possible as well as growing out PlayStation as a platform, which means investing in PC and mobile, areas that Sony really missed the boat on.
I generally hate being fans of CEOs and the like, but man Kaz was awesome. He seemed like a cool guy.Bring back Kaz Hirai.
Lol what do you have against Hulst?Hulst with the collar up like the unsufferable douchebag he is.
I just think it's still a bit silly to require 2 CEOs for that. You're basically talking about a whole CEO just for deciding when Nixxes ports games, which does not really require that.
I think the MS management structure is a little more logical where you have a MS Gaming head that looks at the broader landscape, mobile, PC, etc. Then you have an Xbox head. Anyway, it's not that important really. I just genuinely don't understand what the purpose of it is, even with your attempts to explain. Maybe it will become more clear over time. If they really start making even bigger moves outside of the PS platform, then I guess it would make some sense to me. Similar to the MS hierarchy, but calling it co-CEOs instead.
Bring back Kaz Hirai.
That would make sense, yes. I do get that.As Sony moves to release a new handheld and a PC launcher, it'll make sense why they have a platform group CEO.
I guess. Usually you just have a head for each studio, and then someone that looks at development over all of that. MS still seems to have heads for each studio, then heads for Zenimax / Bethesda / Activision still, then Booty over that basically to just talk and coordinate releases. Booty wouldn't need to be a CEO. And then there's Bond over that.As they acquire more software development studios, it'll make more sense as to why they have a studio group CEO.
Yeah, that's interesting. I guess you're calling the PC launcher part of Nishino's responsibilities? I figured if he's the platform guy PC would be Hulst. Guess we'll see. Doesn't really matter, just wondering.Nishino and Hulst now have separate KPIs. This will result in faster growth for SIE. Imagine Nishino's primary KPI is the increase of MAUs from 120 million in 2024 to 150 million by the end of 2030, while Hulst's KPI is to sell x number of software by the end of 2030 and to release x number of movies and tv shows by the end of the decade.
Nishino has to release the PC launcher and the PS handheld to reach those numbers and he needs to be in constant contact with the groups responsible for that as well as ensure a successful PS6 launch.
Sure, makes sense. I understand what you're saying a bit more now. If they are branching out even further from the PS hardware alone, it makes sense.Hulst on the other hand needs to ensure things are on track with God of War and Amazon tv shows as well as the creation of new IP and the purchase of the right studios as well as growth of studios internally.
I guess. Usually you just have a head for each studio, and then someone that looks at development over all of that. MS still seems to have heads for each studio, then heads for Zenimax / Bethesda / Activision still, then Booty over that basically to just talk and coordinate releases. Booty wouldn't need to be a CEO. And then there's Bond over that.
Yeah, that's interesting. I guess you're calling the PC launcher part of Nishino's responsibilities? I figured if he's the platform guy PC would be Hulst. Guess we'll see. Doesn't really matter, just wondering.
Sure, makes sense. I understand what you're saying a bit more now. If they are branching out even further from the PS hardware alone, it makes sense.
They're not promoting him because he's a creative visionary, they're doing it because he's a competent business man who knows development and dev tech very well. You need a guy who makes the trains run on time and knows tech enough to anticipate trends and stay in front of them.Look, I enjoyed Killzone 2, it visually and game-wise still holds up to this day, and the guy is a competent business man who pulled Guerrilla through some hard times. However, he does not possess the "ground breaking" creative visionary thinking to lead their creative workforce imo.
Yeah but why are people saying it's a horrible idea to pick him for the job? Has he done something bad?The mastermind behind Jinroh, erhh, I mean Killzone.
Look, I enjoyed Killzone 2, it visually and game-wise still holds up to this day, and the guy is a competent business man who pulled Guerrilla through some hard times. However, he does not possess the "ground breaking" creative visionary thinking to lead their creative workforce imo.
Looking back, I'm still kinda perplexed how he managed to talk SCEE into acquiring Guerrilla. The guy must have a real silver tongue.
I don't know about the bolded part.Both answer to Totoki who remains Chairman of SIE. For Herman Hulst there isn't much advantage for his group being tied to PlayStation. For him to make the most money possible, they'd develop games for all platforms. Totoki obviously isn't going to allow that as it would significantly hamper Nishino and his group. That is where the balance has to come from, but if the studio group becomes more profitable than the platform business group, the priority shifts.
Remember how there were going to be like 5 horizon projects at once? Tv show, sequel, mmo, etc... it's a very corporate thing to triple down on big projects to score big wins.OK but how is that a bad thing? Or, how could that be one of the worst things to happen to Playstation?
They should’ve got Bobby Kotick.
I don't know about the bolded part.
While obviously more profit is to be made by making all games available on all platforms, there is literally no reason to assume that Hulst wants to 'pull an Xbox'.
Hulst has been with Playstation since 2005, he's well aware about Sony's philosophy and what makes the brand successfull.
What you say doesn't even make any sense, because in such a scenario Hulst would be a liability that could potentially undermine Playstation's success.
We have Xbox as a prime example of how moving away from exclusivity will kill your brand.You've misunderstood.
I'm not speaking specifically about hulst, but rather a generic person in his position.
As CEO of the studios group, it theoretically makes the most sense to develop for all platforms. Astrobot would probably sell just as well on Switch as it would on PS5.
The studio group hasn't splintered off from SIE and PlayStation, at least right as of this moment, but it's not infeasible that at some point the Studio group becomes more profitable than the platform group, especially as publishers self platform.
Herman Hulst was made a co-ceo because Sony is recognizing the future of their gaming business is just as important in software and IP development as it is in PlayStation as a platform and there is no surprise there when you look at the success of things like the Mario movie or detective pikachu movies. A handful of IP can generate more operating income than PlayStation can in a generation.
As of today though, he's in a position to balance the theoretical success of the software group with sony's other strategic objectives.
We have Xbox as a prime example of how moving away from exclusivity will kill your brand.
No CEO at Sony or Nintendo would be stupid enough to make the gamble Xbox made.
Making more profit is in relation to Sony's current strategy and that new accountant stating that they have to streamline their business to not waste as much money.
CEOs make games now?Yeah hear he has such a good history of making narrative single player cinematic experiences
wtf kinda drugs are yall on
I could forgive him for being a brainless suit pushing gaas at sony like his pitiful life depended on it, but his style, his clothes, his way of being, that i can't forgive.Lol what do you have against Hulst?
You mean back in the PS2 era? I don't think they had a very convincing track record back then. They grew notorious due to the whole "Halo killer" sensationalism.
They have of course grown since then and definitely gotten more skilled along the way. Any studio lasting this long is a grand feat in itself.
Pay attention. The guy on the right will be replaced by CaptaiN Druck in 2 to 3 years.
And when that happens... It's joever for Playstation as we knew it.
He always came across as just European to me lolI could forgive him for being a brainless suit pushing gaas at sony like his pitiful life depended on it, but his style, his clothes, his way of being, that i can't forgive.
I didn't mean that Nishino was inherently more important than Hulst here, it's just that he needs to oversee almost every division at SIE, except for PlayStation Studios.In terms of headcount, Hermen has more responsibility. And if PS studios fails, PlayStation fails (imho). It’s at the heart of their business. The hardware commodity seems hard to screw up at this point, in comparison.
I want to add that we didn't even see games FIRST produced under his tenure until this year, with Stellar Blade, Concord and Astro Bot. Two of these are bangers at the very least.It’s just misguided projection against a perceived focus on GaaS when all he is doing is making PS studios more aligned with the SP:MP split of their consumers and no longer ignoring GaaS entirely.
He has not forced existing studios to make MP games, almost all the GaaS initiatives have been wholly done through acquisitions (Bungie, Firewalk, Haven).
He’s also continued the partnership with Kojima, including a future PS6 metal gear type game.
Not much to hate at all
While I agree with your idea, it was not a shut down per se, simply put you literally cannot separate WWS Japan Studio from WWS as a whole (same reason it factually can't exist before September 2005), and the moment WWS went into a full-on restructuring on April 1, 2021 when it became PlayStation Studios, WWS Japan Studio was replaced by the Japanese branch of PS Studios, which functions exactly the same.Nicolas Doucet was brought in to run Japan Studio from London. He was almost certainly involved with the decision to shutdown Japan Studio but reorg as Asobi. He doesn't get credit or blame, because people aren't in the weeds enough.
In all seriousness, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that more people get to experience more games, especially if they’re good.The PlayStation community doesn’t want their games ported to pc.
But the job's got what Druck craves. It's gotDruckman is a creative, not a business guy. Doubt he would want the job
He's the second worst we have to offer, just behind bright red tanned flip flops and socks wearing germans tourists. Those are truly the worst.He always came across as just European to me lol
As far as I'm concerned, one shouldn't exclude the other. This is a creative industry first and foremost. It should be driven by creative vision first, profitably second (70:30 ratio). Both intertwined and balanced, ideally. As I said, Hulst has proven to run a business competently, but he's lacking the creative caliber to truly be fit for the position he's in. If Sony purely goes with a business guy leading the creative division, then we, as gamers and players, will feel the result and consequences of that decision eventually.They're not promoting him because he's a creative visionary, they're doing it because he's a competent business man who knows development and dev tech very well. You need a guy who makes the trains run on time and knows tech enough to anticipate trends and stay in front of them.
You want your creators to create, not to spend their time doing budget reviews and doing management stuff.As far as I'm concerned, one shouldn't exclude the other. This is a creative industry first and foremost. It should be driven by creative vision first, profitably second (70:30 ratio). Both intertwined and balanced, ideally. As I said, Hulst has proven to run a business competently, but he's lacking the creative caliber to truly be fit for the position he's in. If Sony purely goes with a business guy leading the creative division, then we, as gamers and players, will feel the result and consequences of that decision eventually.
Speaking about the tech aspect, I don't really see it as anything other than the chisel and hammer to get the job done in this biz. An uninspiring and unimaginative artist with the greatest and most cutting edge tech would most likely produce a bland and unimaginative creation.
I'm sure there are other aspiring artists aside from those two. I also wouldn't exactly feel deprive when their creative leaderships, insight and experience would trickle down to their workforce.You want your creators to create, not to spend their time doing budget reviews and doing management stuff.
Putting someone like Kojima or Cory Balrog on top of PS game studios would deprive you of their creativity AND not guarantee results.