Shawn Layden wants fewer, bigger PlayStation games

Started by the-pi-guy, Feb 11, 2019, 10:53 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

the-pi-guy

Sony's Shawn Layden wants fewer, bigger PlayStation games - CNET

Quote
I think we've done a lot over the last three or four years to get us to a place right now where we're building fewer games per year than ever before, but we're spending more time, more energy, certainly more money, on making them.


And with our decision to do fewer games -- bigger games -- over longer periods of time, we got to a point where June of 2019 was not a time for us to have a new thing to say. And we feel like if we ring the bell and people show up here in force, people have expectation "Oh, they're going to tell us something."



Xevross

He isn't saying he wants fewer than they already have. He's saying that's what they've been going for and its where they are now, and he's happy about that.

I'm also happy about that. 2-3 big quality PS games a year is great.

Legend

The whole industry has done this. I don't really like it. Games waste so much time nowadays.

Dr. Pezus

The whole industry has done this. I don't really like it. Games waste so much time nowadays.
I dno. I think there's enough great games a year still!

Xevross

The whole industry has done this. I don't really like it. Games waste so much time nowadays.
Says the guy who barely buys any games anyway?? Surely you'd like fewer games with more time spent on each?

Legend

Says the guy who barely buys any games anyway?? Surely you'd like fewer games with more time spent on each?
No way. If I only have 300 hours a year to play games, I'd much rather play 20 15 hour games that all are unique instead of 1 300 hour game that just does the same thing over and over. It's why I tend to rush a lot of games nowadays.


Xevross

No way. If I only have 300 hours a year to play games, I'd much rather play 20 15 hour games that all are unique instead of 1 300 hour game that just does the same thing over and over. It's why I tend to rush a lot of games nowadays.
Huh? What Shawn is saying here is they're taking more time to craft their games into big budget blockbusters, not anything to do with stretching out game length. Sony games almost always nail their length, it's one of the things I love most about them.

I guess another topic is that a lot of devs are bloating their games into big empty worlds that take forever to complete, but that's not what is being talked about here.

Ludicrous Speed

If that means packing those few releases with as much filler and time waste as HZD or Spider-Man, no thanks.

DerNebel

Makes sense and is clearly what they've been doing for the entire generation. Less money wasters, that nobody buys anyways.

Now let's get Sony Japan on the same page shall we?

Legend

Huh? What Shawn is saying here is they're taking more time to craft their games into big budget blockbusters, not anything to do with stretching out game length. Sony games almost always nail their length, it's one of the things I love most about them.

I guess another topic is that a lot of devs are bloating their games into big empty worlds that take forever to complete, but that's not what is being talked about here.
It's usually the same thing. They want to make a big huge game that can be played for a long time. When was the last time there was a big budget blockbuster game that was designed to be put down after less than 20 hours? Detroit is the only potential example I can think of in recent years.

Plus it's just unrealistic/wrong to expect a single large game to have as much variety as a collection of smaller games.

BananaKing

Makes sense and is clearly what they've been doing for the entire generation. Less money wasters, that nobody buys anyways.

Now let's get Sony Japan on the same page shall we?
I bought Starhawk and twisted metal on PS3. And loved them both. They weren't blockbusters, they weren't huhe sellers, but they were awesome games. I wish Sony still supported more games like that, they can stick to their mega hits and focusing on them. But also games like those were really fun.

DerNebel

I bought Starhawk and twisted metal on PS3. And loved them both. They weren't blockbusters, they weren't huhe sellers, but they were awesome games. I wish Sony still supported more games like that, they can stick to their mega hits and focusing on them. But also games like those were really fun.
Both of those also flopped and are generally not that well regarded.

My stance is that if Sony can't be bothered to do a game properly, then they shouldn't bother in the first place. At least outside of VR, in VR it's understandable that they don't go AAA with everything.



kitler53

No way. If I only have 300 hours a year to play games, I'd much rather play 20 15 hour games that all are unique instead of 1 300 hour game that just does the same thing over and over. It's why I tend to rush a lot of games nowadays.


i agree with this but the market seems to disagree.  the market definitely rewards games like red dead that go on and on and on and on and on....     or games like fortnight that have a multiplayer focus.


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

the-pi-guy

He isn't saying he wants fewer than they already have. He's saying that's what they've been going for and its where they are now, and he's happy about that.
I know.  As Legend said that's largely been the trend this gen.  

Companies are spending more time making higher quality assets, and in general they are making larger worlds.

I think Sony's output this generation has been pretty solid quantity wise, the only spot that really should be doing better is PD I think.

With that said, I'd really like them to expand on what they're doing.  More RPG's, maybe make some puzzle games.  I'd like them to continue making high quality games, but I'd like them to keep exploring.  


Additionally something that a lot of people have talked about (when discussing AAA vs indie), is if companies are making larger games, they're less likely to make bigger risks.