• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Shuihei Yoshida says that if he was still in charge of PS first party he would have tried to resist the PS live-service push

Nankatsu

Gold Member
Playstation's last knight.

enigmahero-enigmaminingeconomy.gif


Dark times ahead of us, PS brothers.
 
Last edited:

vivftp

Member
Before clueless people react to the blurb and ignore the context, here's a breakdown of this from one of the Era posters:

"The section starts at 01:08:05 and the specific joking quote is at 01:13:39.

Long story short, he says he stopped allocating money to the development of multiplayer games like SOCOM, Killzone, and Resistance after the PS3 era because he thought it didn't make much sense when you are limited to one platform while other multiplayer games like COD don't have that limitation, and when you already get these games on your platform as well anyway. What was different this time when he left first party and they started their new multiplayer/live service push, is that the Sony Group actually allocated specific and additional resources for that endeavor.

Then he makes that joke that they offered him that indie role to make that live service push more smooth. Really wouldn't read too much into this lighthearted comment."


In other words, it's nothing major and he isn't against live service.
 

Nankatsu

Gold Member
Long story short, he says he stopped allocating money to the development of multiplayer games like SOCOM, Killzone, and Resistance after the PS3 era because he thought it didn't make much sense when you are limited to one platform while other multiplayer games like COD don't have that limitation, and when you already get these games on your platform as well anyway. What was different this time when he left first party and they started their new multiplayer/live service push, is that the Sony Group actually allocated specific and additional resources for that endeavor.

Then he makes that joke that they offered him that indie role to make that live service push more smooth. Really wouldn't read too much into this lighthearted comment."


In other words, it's nothing major and he isn't against live service.

And he isn't wrong. Thing is corporate wants a bigger slice of profits, rather than share it.

I'm 100% sure that if GachaStation wasn't already the console exclusive for said types of games, Sony somehow would also tackle that market.

Still, I like his approach way more than what current Sony execs are doing/pushing.
 
Last edited:

vivftp

Member
And he isn't wrong. Thing is corporate wants a bigger slice of profits, rather than share it.

I'm 100% sure that if GachaStation wasn't already the console exclusive for said types of games, Sony somehow would also tackle that market.

Still, I like his approach way more than what current Sony execs are doing/pushing.

Yeah, that's cool. I'm overjoyed that they've invested in this live service push and are going full steam ahead. I'm already enjoying it's output and look forward to what's next
 

Bernardougf

Member
Before clueless people react to the blurb and ignore the context, here's a breakdown of this from one of the Era posters:

"The section starts at 01:08:05 and the specific joking quote is at 01:13:39.

Long story short, he says he stopped allocating money to the development of multiplayer games like SOCOM, Killzone, and Resistance after the PS3 era because he thought it didn't make much sense when you are limited to one platform while other multiplayer games like COD don't have that limitation, and when you already get these games on your platform as well anyway. What was different this time when he left first party and they started their new multiplayer/live service push, is that the Sony Group actually allocated specific and additional resources for that endeavor.

Then he makes that joke that they offered him that indie role to make that live service push more smooth. Really wouldn't read too much into this lighthearted comment."


In other words, it's nothing major and he isn't against live service.

And what part of all of this contradicts his joke ? .. it gives context but the joke by itself is pretty self explanatory... no jokes are made lightly and the better ones have the right amount of truth.
 

vivftp

Member
And what part of all of this contradicts his joke ? .. it gives context but the joke by itself is pretty self explanatory... no jokes are made lightly and the better ones have the right amount of truth.

Forum dwellers are quick to react to a headline or blurb without bothering to look at the source and understand the context. That's what my post was meant to nip in the bud.

As for the joke, we have no way of judging how much or how little truth there is behind it, but that wasn't the part I was addressing anyways. I was getting ahead of those who would bitch and whine about the Live Service Boogeyman
 

Aion002

Member
So he decided to stop allocating money for Socom and KZ... He also didn't understood Demon's Souls, so FromSoftware had to have the help from Atlus and Bandai Namco to publish the game outside of Japan, since thanks to him Sony refused to.


Yikes.
 
Last edited:
Not doing any live service games at all would be stupid in the modern era. Unfortunately, the new generation are into games of that style. Just dont forget your core audience and neglect high quality single player games. Not only was the PlayStation brand built off of that but the entire gaming industry! Never forget your roots because without them, you'll wither away and die.
 
Last edited:

Bernardougf

Member
Forum dwellers are quick to react to a headline or blurb without bothering to look at the source and understand the context. That's what my post was meant to nip in the bud.

As for the joke, we have no way of judging how much or how little truth there is behind it, but that wasn't the part I was addressing anyways. I was getting ahead of those who would bitch and whine about the Live Service Boogeyman

Well so you went immediately in defense mode about the thread and joke even quoting ERA .. so you seem to be reacting exactly like the forum dwellers you apparently diminish would but just the other way around.
 
Last edited:

vivftp

Member
Well so you went immediately in defense mode about the thread and joke even quoting ERA .. so you seem to be reacting exactly like the forum dwellers you apparently diminish would but just the other way around.

I've been in enough and read enough of these discussions to know that spreading a bit of sanity and context is important, especially if done early.
 

Bernardougf

Member
I've been in enough and read enough of these discussions to know that spreading a bit of sanity and context is important, especially if done early.

Na you just appear condescending and highly defensive ... as I said the joke is self explanatory and nothing of what you posted changes the meaning and implications of it.

An btw.. are you an alt of man in boxes ? Or all GaaS super fanboys have this natural sense of moral superiority ?
 

Ridicululzz

Member
Before clueless people react to the blurb and ignore the context, here's a breakdown of this from one of the Era posters:

"The section starts at 01:08:05 and the specific joking quote is at 01:13:39.

Long story short, he says he stopped allocating money to the development of multiplayer games like SOCOM, Killzone, and Resistance after the PS3 era because he thought it didn't make much sense when you are limited to one platform while other multiplayer games like COD don't have that limitation, and when you already get these games on your platform as well anyway. What was different this time when he left first party and they started their new multiplayer/live service push, is that the Sony Group actually allocated specific and additional resources for that endeavor.

Then he makes that joke that they offered him that indie role to make that live service push more smooth. Really wouldn't read too much into this lighthearted comment."


In other words, it's nothing major and he isn't against live service.
Completely right here, service games are way more likely to thrive if it's available to more people. Sony themselves have already realized this and have adapted their strategy accordingly.
 

vivftp

Member
Na you just appear condescending and highly defensive ... as I said the joke is self explanatory and nothing of what you posted changes the meaning and implications of it.

An btw.. are you an alt of man in boxes ? Or all GaaS super fanboys have this natural sense of moral superiority ?

Yeah I'm done with you. Good day
 

Audiophile

Member
Not inherently against a live service push, it's just a matter of being measured and selective. It would be silly not to try to capture some of that revenue, but these companies seem incapable of a middleground, they see one thing do well in a certain area and then try to shape everything else into it.

You need to see what the successes did right and learn from that. Not just convert all of your resources and IP into the same thing.

Helldivers II was clearly a success, the rest of it, not so much. There also comes a point where you need to realise what you've got and be grateful for it. It may be that in the longer run Sony can support Helldivers and a couple other services before they risk over-stretching as well as over-saturating, people have only so much time and they only have so many resources. That might be their lot.

If I was them my main focus in this area would be fostering 3-4 of the very highest tier, well balanced concurrent live services by the end of the decade that can be maintained, then beyond that the focus remains on expanding and enriching their bread and butter which is single player, with the occasional conventional multiplayer. Only endeavouring to do more services if it's a truly great concept.
 
Last edited:
... The Last Samurai.

but some people fail to realize it. The end of an era indeed 🫡
and as I said. I'm concerned for the future of PS games and their exclusivity.
All of their current mismanagement and overspending can be used as an excuse to make dumb decisions. Shuei understood the value not only of exclusives(mainstream and niche ones alike) but also of everything surrounding them.
 

Astray

Member
Ironically enough, this stance of his is the exact reason why Sony really felt the danger of Microsoft buying up the big GAAS games this gen.

They essentially outsourced one of the biggest money-making segments to 3P players that are out for their own interests and could turn on Sony on a dime.

Shuhei is a legend, and he clearly loves gaming (and his tastes largely align with mine), but the deficiencies of his reign kinda pushed Sony onto a bad track.
 

yogaflame

Member
Without guys like Yoshida Playstation is just an XBOX with a legacy. Give Hermen Hulst ten more years and he will sink the ship, just like Phil Spencer did.
I think the woke Herman will not last that long especially with commons sense back and cultural change especially in USA. Live or GAAS is a difficult gamble and its over saturated already. I hope all leadership will all go back to Japan even in Sony USA.
 
Having live service games added to their portfolio was the right call even if some of the choice of games weren't. Marvel Rivals being the latest success story just reinforces that when not that long ago people were bitching that no one wanted games like that.
 

SABRE220

Member
Damn the guy really bringing the tea right after leaving.

Love the guy and he is a legend but him basically killing off resistance, socom,kill zone and all of songs multi-player ips is also a ridiculous move. You have to keep a balance since good multi-player games deliver a massive revenue stream. That being said Sony this gen again ruined said balance by going all in on multi-player and worse still on gaas hyper focus with little to show for it.
 
Last edited:

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
Having live service games added to their portfolio was the right call even if some of the choice of games weren't. Marvel Rivals being the latest success story just reinforces that when not that long ago people were bitching that no one wanted games like that.
Does Marvel Rivals really prove anything? It's Marvel done half decently at a time when everyone else is either fumbling (Insomniac) or outright flopping (MCU). I wouldn't have bet on a third person Overwatch clone before it, and I wouldn't now - especially if it doesn't have a major and fitting IP to do it with. Meaning a license.

Maybe if DC gets off their ass, they can benefit, but the game industry isn't full of talent that can build IP like Marvel or DC. They can't even build IP like they could 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Klosshufvud

Member
Shu really was carrying Sony's management on his shoulders for years. Atleast he goes out confirming what we already suspected regarding snakes like Hulst.
 

Calico345

Gold Member
Before clueless people react to the blurb and ignore the context, here's a breakdown of this from one of the Era posters:

"The section starts at 01:08:05 and the specific joking quote is at 01:13:39.

Long story short, he says he stopped allocating money to the development of multiplayer games like SOCOM, Killzone, and Resistance after the PS3 era because he thought it didn't make much sense when you are limited to one platform while other multiplayer games like COD don't have that limitation, and when you already get these games on your platform as well anyway. What was different this time when he left first party and they started their new multiplayer/live service push, is that the Sony Group actually allocated specific and additional resources for that endeavor.

Then he makes that joke that they offered him that indie role to make that live service push more smooth. Really wouldn't read too much into this lighthearted comment."


In other words, it's nothing major and he isn't against live service.

Nothing there contradicts the blurb, though?

Yeah, that's cool. I'm overjoyed that they've invested in this live service push and are going full steam ahead. I'm already enjoying it's output and look forward to what's next

Wait, are you serious? lol
 

Calico345

Gold Member
Forum dwellers are quick to react to a headline or blurb without bothering to look at the source and understand the context. That's what my post was meant to nip in the bud.

As for the joke, we have no way of judging how much or how little truth there is behind it, but that wasn't the part I was addressing anyways. I was getting ahead of those who would bitch and whine about the Live Service Boogeyman

Arrowhead Game Studios: Helldivers II (Released February 2024)
Bend Studio: Unnanounced GAAS (Canceled 2025)
Bluepoint Games: God of War GAAS (Canceled 2025)
Bungie: Marathon (2025?)
Bungie: Payback (Cancelled 2024)
Firesprite: Twisted Metal GAAS (Canceled 2024)
Firewalk: Concord (Released, and Canceled 2024)
Guerilla Games: Horizon Online Title (TBD)
Haven Studios: Fairgames$ (TBD)
Insomniac: Spider-Man: The Great Web (Canceled Date Unknown)
London Studio: AAA New IP Fantasy Multiplayer Title (Canceled 2024 - Studio shuttered)
Naughty Dog: The Last of Us Factions Online (Canceled 2023)

You were saying?
 
Top Bottom