aclar00
Member
Ain't Jim a Brit? Or should i say, isnt he a bruv?
-
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.
PlayStation boss Jim Ryan is retiring March 2024
- Thread starter DForce
- Start date
Punished Miku
Gold Member
The moderators think you're fine somehow, but I can promise you that any response from me matching the amount of retard energy you're throwing my way will catch me a swift ban. I'll just take my disgusting poison worshipping into another thread with a higher ratio of normal people in it now.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
skit_data
Member
After reading some quotes from him regarding him having to travel all the time, constant jet lag, family being in UK etc. I think its a pretty ridiculous notion to think he was fired or something. It's pretty clear he retires because its tiring af to live that kind of lifestyle, especially at his age.
Thirty7ven
Banned
If you Google the name, click images…. Yeah that’s not a chick.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I'll take you and the other guy's word for it. Mentally imbalanced.
damiank
Member
Hell no
Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s embarrassing that you tried to make Jim Ryan retiring and his replacement about nonsense shit about Phil Spencer and people wanting him gone because secretly he’s their worst fear and they just want to see Xbox fail. On top of that you’re having a mini meltdown.
Check yourself.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
vivftp
Member
Think back over the last 3 to 4 years. Can you think of any particular world event that may have hindered the software output of the entire industry?
Anyways, here is the list I'm currently working off of for the remainder of the gen for first party, XDEV, indie and third party exclusives games. Including announced, leaked, rumored and deduced content
PlayStation Studios |OT37| Your friendly neighborhood OT Sony - OT
Ok, time for a variant of the list. This time breaking down on what we could see each year from SIE published titles and third party console exclusives. I think a flaw in the previous list is that it's just a random assortment of games with no direction. Seeing how things COULD break down by...
www.resetera.com
The rest of the gen will have a VERY dense lineup, and the majority of that will be content that was greenlit under Jim Ryans command.
GHG
Member
There is nothing "normal" about worshiping (or needing to worship) company executives my man.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
GHG
Member
I assume you mean your stomach hurts?
If so see a doctor. Wouldn't want you having yet another case of verbal diarrhea.
cebri.one
Member
Jack Tretton and Shan Layden were never president of SIE/SCE, they were presidents of SCE North America. North America is not the world.
March Climber
Member
Ah okay, SIE/SCE. Sorry you didn't specify so I wasn't sure.
ProtoByte
Member
Since you brought up Xbox, you should ask yourself: Has putting their games on PC helped the quality of the games? I would say the exact opposite.
Multiplatform development always comes at a cost. Technologically, it presents challenges, and you can see the difference in the behaviors the likes of Sony (formerly) and Nintendo take compared to the big boys like Activision, EA, or even storied single player focused publishers like Bethesda.
Is it a coincidence that Sony's games to this point haven't been as impressive as they usually are, if they've shown them at all? Are they future proofing their games for scalability on PCs? Is it a coincidence that the same gen they start doing that, they greenlight 12 live services?
The sooner Nixxes becomes a remaster/tech support studio solely for PlayStation consoles, the better.
mrmustard
Banned
I don't see a quality loss. Most AAA games are mid to high 80s and most Xbox and PS AAAs are in that range. I think it's rather a supersaturation, because games don't seem to try something new. Dev costs are insane these days and so they play it safe.
Mahavastu
Member
But isn't the middle of the generation the best moment to leave?
He successfully introduced the PS5 during corona despite all obstacles, made sure the production numbers get up, made sure enough games were available to keep the plattform interesting, added accessories like the edge controller, the PSVR2 and the PS portal.
He knew that he has not the charisma of his predecessors and when to shut up and "let the games do the talking". He has completely beaten Xbox (less sales then even the desastrous XBox One generation) despite Xbox invested an insanly amount of money Playstation / Sony would never been able to afford, and XBox having a way cheaper modell with the Series S.
I assume the PS5 Pro is pretty much done, the preparation of the PS6 development is on its way, so the short term future is done and you give the successor enough time before the next generation arrives.
Now it is time for a new guy to make sure the PS6 is developed and introduced successfully to keep Playstation successull despite the potential competition of Stream only services.
Last edited:
From a management point of view, the step was long overdue, the man has simply failed to perform. Sure, a few people here cheered him for releasing 1-2 AAA smashers a year. But he underperformed in most of the areas. Profit? Not significantly greater than the competition with a much larger install base. Hardware sales figures? PS5 missing sales targets recently, PSVR2 a flop before release. Standout in mobile gaming? None. GaaS non-existent and one flop after another in the multiplayer area.
A few great studios made some great AAA titles, which carried the brand's reputation and built it up further. But as CEO, he hasn't shined in capitalizing on that or setting a course for a GaaS future. He's at a fine age for retirement. I think there was a mutual agreement here.
Most of the gamers probably never liked him, rather the studios under him. We'll see how they act under a new lead. Do we know who else is leaving with him and who is stepping up? Typically, there are other people attached to a C-position.
A few great studios made some great AAA titles, which carried the brand's reputation and built it up further. But as CEO, he hasn't shined in capitalizing on that or setting a course for a GaaS future. He's at a fine age for retirement. I think there was a mutual agreement here.
Most of the gamers probably never liked him, rather the studios under him. We'll see how they act under a new lead. Do we know who else is leaving with him and who is stepping up? Typically, there are other people attached to a C-position.
They needed better plan to counter xbox from a future perspective at the expense of casting anything else, starfield is just the beginning, marathon is meh, Sonys new ips should deserve more attention, all the signs shows it may get worse from here for Sony.
Last edited:
Camreezie
Member
He has liteeally come out and said their focus will be GAAS and multiplayer. Covid has had an effect but studios wouldnt focused on MP if he hadnt chosen that focusThink back over the last 3 to 4 years. Can you think of any particular world event that may have hindered the software output of the entire industry?
Anyways, here is the list I'm currently working off of for the remainder of the gen for first party, XDEV, indie and third party exclusives games. Including announced, leaked, rumored and deduced content
PlayStation Studios |OT37| Your friendly neighborhood OT Sony - OT
Ok, time for a variant of the list. This time breaking down on what we could see each year from SIE published titles and third party console exclusives. I think a flaw in the previous list is that it's just a random assortment of games with no direction. Seeing how things COULD break down by...
The rest of the gen will have a VERY dense lineup, and the majority of that will be content that was greenlit under Jim Ryans command.
ulantan
Member
He he also said that they weren't giving up on single player games and are investing more in them they are about to lose some of the biggest multiplayer games why shouldn't they make any?
vivftp
Member
You're simplifying the facts. SIE are still focusing on single player games just as much as they ever have. Only now they're growing the overall business to add a strong live service push alongside the single player push.
Adding a focus of live service games isn't "going backwards", that's a reductionist, elitist, small minded way of thinking. PlayStation as a platform has a MASSIVE array of live service games on it and a HUGE playerbase for those live service games. SIE now wants some of the games those people play to be their own rather than purely third party. While also capturing new audiences with these games on PC and mobile.
Any fan of their single player games should HOPE that they succeed with the live service push as that strengthens SIE overall, allows them to be more self sufficient and to take more risks. A rising tide lifts all boats.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
And whats risk have they taken lately with their games? The gaming division has made over $10B profits since 2016-2017 when the division's profits started to skyrocket as people transitioned to buying games on the PS store and mtx galore.
They will only take risks if profits hit $20B?
Compared to the PS2 and PS3 era where they had so many more franchises at worse profits, it seems the bigger profits they get the more risk averse and same franchises get sequels over and over again.
Last edited:
Tarin02543
Member
Bring back Krazy Ken
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
Or Kaz. Actually I'm surprised that awesome fake Kaz twitter account hasn't posted.
Camreezie
Member
But making the studios renowned for good single player games make a MP GAAS effort instead is diverting resources away from the type of project the sony ecosystem invested players are used to and expect.
Flutta
Banned
What a pussy response. I'm not surprised. Usually corpo worshipers behave this way.
Difference between me and you are the size of our cojones, i say what's on my mind for better or worse without fear of what others may think. If the mods wants to ban me so be it, i won't make a big fuzz about it, I'll accept it np. If you think they are unfair, then let me tell you I've been banned a couple times before so. Either way they are doing a good job running this place imho.
Kuwitzzer
Member
And I tell you if PS does not make effort into PC ports then they can better spend on making games for their console. If it’s just video games then waiting for some games is okay then? No need to spoil other people’s platform by wanting the platform company to implement a strategy that can possibly damage the platform.
Oh wow! It’s like the majority of PC gamers just play AAA games and not some competitive games like LOL, Fortnite, Valorant, CSGO. It’s like Xbox does not have the competitive games that PS has. So now that we know most PC gamers only play online games, I guess not porting games to PC will not affect the platform that much.
Because it will damage the console sales? Didn’t I tell you that right on my first reply? You think the day-one release will not damage but I think it will? Telling me not to take this personal but right after asking me ”how does it reduce my enjoyment”, are you being ironic? I’m not in here for a gamer’s perspective, I’m in here for a PS gamer’s perspective. I want the benefits of owning the console, just like how you PC players compliment and dear your PC. This is not about taking it personal or anything, this is a discussion, and If you do not want to discuss, don’t reply.
Last edited:
ulantan
Member
But they didn't divert resources the just hired new teams for the them the single player teams are still making single player games.
So people have to work a second job to by his expensive s.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Which means the amount of SP games as a % of their portfolio is getting smaller and smaller. Over the next few years there’s supposed to be around 10 GAAS games and excludes bungie who specializes in GAAS shooters. All those games will be way more than SP games.
ulantan
Member
But you also a are geting more single player every studio making a multiplayer game is also working on single player games some of them multiple single player games there is no first party studio that's exclusively working on multiplayer.
Kuwitzzer
Member
Players who game on console spend thousands buying new games. Not to mention people who do collections. These people can comfortably invest in PC if they want. Sure, not every single console owner does this, but the same can be said about PC owners, most just use a middle tier rigs, play online games and wait for steam sales. A portion of PC owners are also pirates of the seas. While exclusives might not sell as well as online games, they sell as well as any other big AAA games on the market (sooner or later, PS exclusives will sell even better now that the brand is bigger than ever). And while not all console buyers buy exclusives, exclusives build the prestige for the console, and that prestige attracts people to buy them. Enthusiasm builds everything, and I’ve seen enough people who engage in gaming discussion talk about how they feel buying PS5 is a waste of money because of all the PC ports. You lost your enthusiasts and you lose your casuals. Of course you don’t think this will happen, and to be fair, what will be your loss when PS consoles fail anyway, you don’t even game there that much. That is why your PC crowd’s interests are pointless to PS console interests, so PC enthusiasts should stop whining about why PS enthusiasts whine about PC ports. And stop aggregating Sony into your typical publisher’s group, Sony is in a business to sell consoles, not just sell games like your typical publishers or studios.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s the crux of it isn’t it? Sure I want every PlayStation Studios game to be for me but that’s not now it works.
And as a business it wouldn’t be sensible to not go and search for their own live service hits, specially when the competition is buying the live service games left and right, on top of making them, and people turn around and say that it makes sense because those games will fund the starfields and what not. This isn’t rocket science, and lot of people are being pathetic hypocrites about it.
Now I would say however that wasting Naughty Dog’s talents on a live service game that has been in development hell and maybe has had an impact in delaying their single player offerings, is not ok and PlayStation needs to cut that shit out.
GigaBowser
The bear of bad news
I am the spirit of gaming
Keihart
Member
Andrew House signed blank checks to Kojima and company, he is among the most based suits in my opinion.
Last edited:
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Topher
Gold Member
Sony is making money on those PC ports otherwise they wouldn't bother with them. So if they are making money on those games then the ports pay for themselves as well as contribute to overall well-being of PlayStation, which helps Sony to make more games. Wins all around for PlayStation.
Except PC gaming interests are important to Sony. Here's proof:
Steam Publisher: PlayStation Studios™
PlayStation Studios is home to the development of Sony Interactive Entertainment’s own outstanding and immersive games, including some of the most popular and critically acclaimed titles in entertainment history.
They are making money putting games on PC so they are not just in the business to sell consoles. If Sony believed as you believe then they would not be porting games to PC at all.
Now where Sony definitely agrees with you is on day one ports. As I have said repeatedly, I get that too, from their perspective, as well as some of the points you have made here. I'm fine with it really. I'll keep playing PS exclusives on my PS5 as well as some multiplats that I find enjoyable for trophy hunting. If I had more willpower, I'd just wait for the PC port, but it is what it is.
Last edited:
vivftp
Member
No resources whatsoever are being diverted from the single player games. The total amount of resources (money, studio headcount, support studios) has been vastly increased and the couple of pre-existing studios who were making the signature single player games are multi-project now, so they are working on single player and live service games at the same time.
No one at all is "making" those do live service games, those studios WANT to do live service games and SIE is giving them the time, money and resources to see their vision through. The good thing is I recently posted about this very subject so I can just copy/paste my post to elaborate further. I'll put it in quotes since it's lengthy:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I buy every game PS brings to PC to show that support even though I am double dipping I want all those games to come to PCSony is making money on those PC ports otherwise they wouldn't bother with them. So if they are making money on those games then the ports pay for themselves as well as contribute to overall well-being of PlayStation, which helps Sony to make more games. Wins all around for PlayStation.
Except PC gaming interests are important to Sony. Here's proof:
Steam Publisher: PlayStation Studios™
PlayStation Studios is home to the development of Sony Interactive Entertainment’s own outstanding and immersive games, including some of the most popular and critically acclaimed titles in entertainment history.store.steampowered.com
They are making money putting games on PC so they are not just in the business to sell consoles. If Sony believed as you believe then they would not be porting games to PC at all.
Now where Sony definitely agrees with you is on day one ports. As I have said repeatedly, I get that too, from their perspective, as well as some of the points you have made here. I'm fine with it really. I'll keep playing PS exclusives on my PS5 as well as some multiplats that I find enjoyable for trophy hunting.
Topher
Gold Member
yeah, but you're a rich fucker
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I am not rich, I know some rich people, I am just comfy