Sony CEO discusses how PlayStation aims to avoid failures like Concord in the future

concordlol.png

A year ago, PlayStation launched its hero shooter Concord, which it had pinned a lot of expectations onto. Not even a month into the game's existence, and Sony had to refund the scant few who had purchased it, and shut the entire game down, despite the massive amount of budget that had gone into its development and marketing. Sony Interactive Entertainment's CEO, Hermen Hulst, conducted an interview recently, reflecting on how PlayStation has changed its operating procedures since then, to avoid failures on the same level as Concord.

Speaking with outlet Financial Times, Hulst discussed how PlayStation has put focus on identifying troubled development or problematic projects earlier on in development. "I don't want teams to always play it safe, but I would like for us, when we fail, to fail early and cheaply." PlayStation had already canned a planned live service game as a likely reaction to Concord's failure, cancelling an upcoming The Last of Us online game. Ten other "live-service" games were also ended early in development, according to industry rumors.

Further elaborating, Hulst added that live-service games are still a priority for PlayStation, but, "The number [of live-service releases] is not so important. What is important to me is having a diverse set of player experiences and a set of communities."

:arrow: Source
 
So the lesson they've learnt is stop game development early
Real genuis strategy
They are a bit slow on that one: gamefreak beat them to the punch years ago. As in, a one-two scarlet/violet punch.

Nintendo might have better half-finished game combos than Sony right now, though Bethesda is the Manny Pacquiao of bugged and half-finished game combinations. Sony is just training now (Insert Punch-Out Training montage):

 
Last edited by MPRTwice,
  • Haha
Reactions: OilFreak
I was actually interested in Concord. A game I could buy up front with no microtransactions sounded fantastic.

If you seriously believed this than you are easily swayed.

- Crash Team Racing: Nitro Fueled
- Marvel's Avengers

Both games promised to never have microtransactions. Never believe a public statement on what a shareholder can overturn
 
Sunny of a Beach has no soul, they lost it when they betrayed their to-be-console-partner and started the copy-cat business.

They don't and can't provide original content, so they keep doing the same thing they've always done: follow the trail from successful developments.

High end devices don't and never will ensure good games, that's a fact many people still ignore nowadays.
 
It all sounds good but I don't think it resolves the root cause, IMO.

From my perspective, the issue is due to "vanity projects" started by execs and the sheer hubris of sony's game development teams.

It's somewhat of an irony to hear Hulst say this when he was allegedly the one that heavily pushed for Concord in the first place, including the subsequent decision to purchase its development studio outright. In other words, a "pet project" of sorts for him.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/concord-ps5-playstation-sony-hermen-hulst/

And I don't recall Hulst ever taking personal responsibility for the disaster. So this begs the question. If Hulst does not recognize his fault in the matter, how is he going to able to "identify troubled development" or even go through (since he is one of those who calls the shots) with the decision to put it down? I wouldn't be surprised if he fought tooth and nail to try and keep concord and its team. Let's say if issues with future games are identified early, can he earnestly say that he would be willing to put them down if they are projects that he personally pushed and vouched for?

As for the development teams, it's a similar issue. Hubris seemed to have led them to develop concord in an isolated bubble, bereft of any feedback from the gaming public along the way. One would have to be totally disconnected from the ground to blow a quarter of a billion dollars on something that gets totally ignored. This is a form of toxic positivity that will only hurt them in the long term if they are not willing to accept criticisms.
 
Last edited by Lumpofcoal,
  • Like
Reactions: ChronosNotashi
Make a good game that doesn't waste years chasing a rapidly dying trend with forced "diversity." It's amazing how indie games have figured this shit out and still accomplish hitting all of the beats corporations fumble.
 
I still think one of Concord's biggest mistakes was having a PC version and not an Xbox version.

The gameplay was that of a shooter designed for console first and didn't appeal to the PC shooter crowd.
Apparently it sold much better on PS5 and might have sold well on Xbox too (I would have preordered if it had an Xbox version).

By releasing it on PC they allowed a demographic, which it doesn't appeal to and has the loudest voice, dominate the public opinion and put off people who might have enjoyed it.
Post automatically merged:

Make a good game that doesn't waste years chasing a rapidly dying trend with forced "diversity." It's amazing how indie games have figured this shit out and still accomplish hitting all of the beats corporations fumble.
Indie games are often made by the people they're representing.
Corporations are run by people who have never pressed G in an elevator.
 
These people seen Suicide Squad come and go, and were like "Our Guardians of the Galaxy with fugly characters live service game won't bomb like that!"
 
Hmmm truly a riddle for the ages. How about to stop letting corporate dictate game development and put it back in the hands of gamers?
I'd argue developers rather than players. Put the art in the hands of the artists, else games become fan service.

The best scenario would be companies to have the outlook EA had in the beginning:

Can a Computer Make You Cry?

“Right now, no one knows. This is partly because many would consider the very idea frivolous. But it’s also because whoever successfully answers this question must first have answered several others.

Why do we cry? Why do we laugh, or love, or smile? What are the touchstones of our emotions?

Until now, the people who asked such questions tended not to be the same people who ran software companies. Instead, they were writers, filmmakers, painters, musicians. They were, in the traditional sense, artists.

We’re about to change that tradition. The name of our company is Electronic Arts.

Software worthy of the minds that use it.

We are a new association of electronic artists united by a common goal—to fulfill the enormous potential of the personal computer.

In the short term, this means transcending its present use as a facilitator of unimaginative tasks and a medium for blasting aliens. In the long term, however, we can expect a great deal more.

These are wondrous machines we have created, and in them can be seen a bit of their makers. It is as if we had invested them with the image of our minds. And through them, we are learning more and more about ourselves.

We learn, for instance, that we are more entertained by the involvement of our imaginations than by passive viewing and listening. We learn that we are better taught by experiences than by memorization. And we learn that the traditional distinctions—the ones that are made between art and entertainment and education—don’t always apply.

Towards a language of dreams.

In short, we are finding that the computer can be more than just a processor of data.

It is a communications medium: an interactive tool that can bring people’s thoughts and feelings closer together, perhaps closer than ever before. And while fifty years from now, its creation may seem no more important than the advent of motion pictures or television, there is a chance it will mean something more.

Something along the lines of a universal language of ideas and emotions. Something like a smile.

The first publications of Electronic Arts are now available. We suspect you’ll be hearing a lot about them. Some of them are games like you’ve never seen before, that get more out of your computer than other games ever have. Others are harder to categorize—and we like that.

Watch us.

We’re providing a special environment for talented, independent software artists. It’s a supportive environment, in which big ideas are given room to grow. And some of America’s most respected software artists are beginning to take notice.

We think our current work reflects this very special commitment. And though we are few in number today and apart from the mainstream of the mass software marketplace, we are confident that both time and vision are on our side.

Join us. We see farther.”

On the bright side, we see a lot of it flourishing in the indie scene. Most people need to stop sticking only to AAA and explore other stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kitocco
Make a good game that doesn't waste years chasing a rapidly dying trend with forced "diversity." It's amazing how indie games have figured this shit out and still accomplish hitting all of the beats corporations fumble.
Corporate buffoons when I show them games with real diversity like TF2
 
Sony will NEVER learn as long as they keep people like Hermen Hulst (that and keeping their HQ in California). Hulst is the one responsible for Sony losing at least $400 millions on Concord alone. Will be seeing more big flops in Fairgames (and maybe Ghost of Yotei judging by recent live audience reactions at Gamescom).
 
Nö one wants to hear but: dont go woke.

Wait before shit Storm me. I mean:a Do Not FORCE IT with Main Fokus on DEI.
Sony’s shuttered a studio that made one game that languished in development hell, sealing any chance of redemption,
Is taking autonomy away from Bungie while Pete “no I will NOT take a pay cut to prevent layoffs, we’re not that kind of company! Don’t look at my vintage car collection!” Parsons pieces out the studio fires he’s fanned.
All while still gambling on live service slurry because game executives were never told the truth about “infinite money glitches”, like they didn’t get GAME OF THE YEAR with Astro Bot, a $60 game that only got merch & FREE updates

… but thank GOODNESS the REAL problems with the industry are being focused on. Maybe if you keep using the same euphemism that’s been thrown around for the last 10 years, entertainment will finally become less cynical & greedy. Clearly.
 
I think it failed on purpose. They say it had an enormous budget — including advertising. They repeat this a lot. But then why did I only hear about it when they announced its servers were shutting down?

And the character designs — very bland and forgettable. Bona fide artists have dissected what they lacked compared to good character designs like those in Overwatch. How about some focus groups just to see how these characters perform at first-judgement? Like spend a little money on that kind of research huh?

I think they tried REALLY HARD to make it fail. To make sure the first thing I ever heard about it was its cancellation. Otherwise I might have started playing it, and they couldn’t have that, because they FULLY intended on shutting it down immediately.

This so-called advertising budget (and the money they could have spent on focus groups, etc.) went into somebody’s pocket. Or else it was some kind of inside job to hurt Sony by putting bad-faith members on the board who would steer them into a bad decision. Idk. I just can’t believe the claims about the budget that went into this for it to fail THAT hard. Smells too fishy.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum