Sony: First-party games 'more important' this generation
Sony Computer Entertainment's president of worldwide studios, Shuhei Yoshida, isn't blind to the fact that exclusive games are becoming a rarity these days. In an interview with UK blog ThreeSpeech, the man who replaced Phil Harrison says that, given the trend towards multi-platform releases of major titles, first-party studios and games become "more important" – and that Sony is focusing its assets internally.Yoshida echos much of what we've been hearing from Sony over the past few months with regards to exclusives, stating that "in this generation, it costs much more to develop one product." This results in what he says is "pure economic pressure" that has caused "most of the third parties to move from some exclusive titles to more multi-platform titles."
"Because we know that is the trend, we, as a company, can invest in our first-party studios," says Yoshida, who is relocating to Japan as his division is set to play an ever more integral role in PlayStation's future success. Collaborating more closely with SCEI prez Kaz Hirai, Yoshida says he'll be working "not only to create games, but to participate in the overall direction-setting of our company and our future platforms." Future platforms? Let's just focus on exclusive, first-party titles for those present platforms of yours for now, 'kay?
[Via CVG]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Patrick @ Jul 7th 2008 9:10PM
...so let's see some news on the next Team ICO game then.
Mr Khan @ Jul 7th 2008 9:19PM
Makes sense to me. Sony's first party strength has really been making their platforms worthwhile lately, and they seem to be diversifying and experimenting in the realms of new IPs
With mostly favorable results, i may add
Dwag @ Jul 7th 2008 9:25PM
I thought they been said this? I can't consider this anything new.
chispito @ Jul 7th 2008 9:34PM
They sure been.
Tim The Enchanter @ Jul 8th 2008 2:33PM
"they" as in Sony has, but seeing that Yoshida is on board with that and actively doing it IS news.
j.howlett @ Jul 7th 2008 9:30PM
well i recall reading that SotC was a network game originally so, 4 player co-op giant killing make it happen. and i'd also like to add the online co-op Rise of the kasai.
SimbaDogg @ Jul 8th 2008 4:59AM
sorry....didn't have anythign to respond to as far as your comment, but the long kiss goodnite is such a good/funny movie.
but on a side note, i'm sick n' tired of hearing this bullshiet about increasing costs for developers. As far as i know, when gran turismo 5 (final release) comes out, i'm going to pay 59.99 for it. I paid 49.99 for gran turismo 4 and 3, and i believe 39.99 for gran turismo 1 and 2. This isn't just. I'm curious to where this extra 20 bucks over the last 8-9 years is heading...cuz it sure as hell isn't inflation. And even the cost of media/packaging isn't a good excuse either.
j.howlett @ Jul 8th 2008 6:51AM
its not a dick its a duck. i remember when games on nintendo cost around $50 to $70 new. that was because of the cartridge and the licences to nintendo. sega games also. then CDs made it cheaper. games cost more to make. sony set the base price of $40 in ps1 days, and $50 in the ps2 days. this gen its $60. the MS promised $50 first party titles, that didn't last.
Mr.ESC @ Jul 7th 2008 9:33PM
Invest in a Pursuit Force Sandbox game and a PS3 Loco Roco...just saying.
Joe @ Jul 7th 2008 9:41PM
I have a question if First-party games are 'more important' this generation then why cancel Eight Days and the Getaway. I would like to know that. Both games looked like they would be fun.
I also like your ideas MR.ESC about a Pursuit Force Sandbox game and Loco Roco for the PS3.
A person @ Jul 7th 2008 9:42PM
I think this is what Nintendo has been thinking for every generation unfortunately.
Sythis @ Jul 7th 2008 9:43PM
Its easy Mmmmkay
GearSecond!! (a.k.a AwesomeStuff) @ Jul 8th 2008 8:41PM
lol, nice ref
Jacksons @ Jul 7th 2008 9:43PM
They really have been doing a great job with their first party offerings, both new and familiar. Very few letdowns.
Pauly_K @ Jul 7th 2008 9:50PM
Exclusive games will help very little without Nintendo's evil little habit of banning almost all 3rd party titles to eliminate competition. In this way Nintendo has a software monopoly over the Wii hardware. They stagger their releases so that no decent game comes out within 2 months of the next Mario game to compete with it. Problem is, if Sony or Microsoft banned 3rd party games in order to eliminate competition for their expensive 1st party/exclusives, all those banned 3rd party games would become FREE exclusives for the other guy by default.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Jul 7th 2008 10:39PM
Uh-huh. Sure crazy anti-nintendo person. You go on and believe that. I mean it's totally not because most 3rd party developers create shit for the system and the ones that do make good games don't even know how to market to the casual gamer. Nope, it's definitely Nintendo's fault. DAMN THEM AND THEIR SOLID FIRST PARTY TITLES!!
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 7th 2008 11:01PM
Its both the third party devs and Nintendos fault, Nintendo fails to see whats happening in order to help third party devs make changes and so, third party devs continue to make shit. Simple as that, and thus the reason why very few third party games are worth picking up on Wii.
Farseer (GDI) @ Jul 8th 2008 9:34AM
Really, huh. Nintendo bans 3rd party developers, huh. I guess that's why everyone complains about shovelware on the Wii, then... because shovelware developers are banned from producing software on the console.
I have a crazy contrary theory. How about the fact that the hardware specs on the Wii are about half of the specs on the other two consoles? Maybe most of the 3rd party developers see the Wii as a less viable candidate for their time and attention?
Farseer (GDI) @ Jul 8th 2008 9:34AM
Really, huh. Nintendo bans 3rd party developers, huh. I guess that's why everyone complains about shovelware on the Wii, then... because shovelware developers are banned from producing software on the console.
I have a crazy contrary theory. How about the fact that the hardware specs on the Wii are about half of the specs on the other two consoles? Maybe most of the 3rd party developers see the Wii as a less viable candidate for their time and attention?
Farseer (GDI) @ Jul 8th 2008 9:39AM
Crap. Sorry.
Negativecool @ Jul 7th 2008 9:57PM
They should probably get their heads out of their asses and shift their focus back to 3rd party support.
I don't know if they know this, but most games for 360 and PS3 tend to be better on the 360 due to better support.
What the hell is the point of having a "superior" gaming machine if everything you own looks better on the 360, with the exception of a few of your 1st party titles?
Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Jul 7th 2008 10:08PM
Exactly!
Dwag @ Jul 7th 2008 10:39PM
Yep I agree. Sony's been fucking up lately I mean whats there to hope for this holiday(unless gamestop is right and FFXIII really does come out this year).
Top 3
Resistance 2 will get thrashed by Gears 2 in sales and thats not fanboyism speaking thats just pure fact and history also tells the tale.
SOCOM it might be good but not good enough to make the PS3 sales spike.
LBP might open up a whole new world but I doubt a lot of people are willing to pay $500 to play a casual game when theres the Wii and also it might be interesting to PS3 owners but that never makes sales spike or even go up.
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 7th 2008 10:50PM
To be honest, that arguement is kinda dead now, with the exception of EA, most games out these days look very similar on both consoles and EVEN if it looks better on 360, the differences are so minimal that only a complete nerd would moan about or even take time to notice the difference unless the PS3 version simply looks so crap its unplayable, much like Half Life.
All in all, first party games ARE more important this gen, because Sony could target third party devs until the cows come home, but without the system capabilities, ease of use and the 100% support from Sony, nothing much is going to be done, all Sony can do really is help where needed and work in thier strong areas. People who buy a PS3 for the first party games will buy third party games and not care about whether or not it looks better on 360 as long as they have fun playing the damn thing. Just the same way those of you who bought 360s alone for the likes of Halo 3 and picked up third party games wouldn't think twice about how the games compare on PS3, as long as you have the game and it works, fullstop. People who take the time to compare games that have little difference are the ones who are 30 years old plus and live with thier mothers. They then pass that unusful information down to use gamers to throw about the internet in fanboy arguments.
Are you to tell me that when you get a game you actually sit and compare the two, or check all video comparisons?
Just an insight.
Negativecool @ Jul 7th 2008 11:13PM
That isn't the point Mavrick Saturn.
Sony's promise was/is a superior console. It SHOULD be able to do more with every 3rd party game, like the xbox was to the PS2. It SHOULD be able to render more objects on screen, do more physics calculations, have better textures, etc, and be able to do so in true HD at 60fps.
To have a game even SLIGHTLY inferior to the 360's is an insult to Sony's promise, and to their supporters.
Most games are 3rd party. Hence most of a PS3's owner's games will, by your argument, look the same as their friend's 360...that got their console for $200 cheaper.
While it is true that things have gotten better with certain developers, there is still no compelling reason to say the PS3 is superior, 3rd party wise.
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 7th 2008 11:29PM
I agree, can't cut you up there at all, but that goes back to the reason why they should make first party games thier main focus, and slightly contradicts your point.
PS3 SHOULD be doing all the things they stupidly promised back when they were all smoking crack as celebration for the success of PS2, but this is not the PS2 gen, things have changed, making games is more expensive, thus the reason PS1 and 2 could rely on third parties and good graphics to win, not to mention the fact PS1 and 2 were easier to program for. The original Xbox, graphics, power and all still couldn't beat that. Where 360 prevails is the ease of use and third party support, but even 360 can't rely on third parties all the time unless Microsoft is willing to cough up the cash, which it did for Bioshock to secure the timed exclusivity, to secure the Gears name, to secure the additional GTA4 content, to get Last Remnant timed. Sony can't do that, yeah they made promises and yeah, they were dumb as hell promises, but now is now, and it makes sense to concentrate thier resources in areas that will make them succeed. If what you're saying is right and third party titles look better on 360, then you've pretty much summed up the reason why Sony should stack up the pressure in the first party department. If people see lots of nice looking games on PS3 they want, they will buy PS3, third party titles looking better or worse will mean little to them as long as they have the games they want on that console, and as first parties are exclusive, it means they will potentially MAKE PS3.
Third party games are really if you look at it, bonuses for a console, and if Sony spots something that takes thier interest, much like MGS4, no doubt it makes sense to secure that third party title as an exclusive, but for the time being, first party titles will aid the PS3 alone, nothing much can be done about the state of third parties except to ensure they keep appearing on PS3 and don't go exclusive to other consoles. Without the cash and full support of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, third party devs have control over which console they want to make money off of, if they decide to go exclusive or multiplat without any incentive, its completly up to them.
eNrique @ Jul 9th 2008 12:05AM
guys, could you please make your fanboy arguments shorter, i almost got my finger broken for scrolling down that much
:/
Tiptup300 @ Jul 8th 2008 3:33AM
Microsoft has been a developer-oriented company for years. I don't think they will get much ahead.
Jonah Falcon @ Jul 7th 2008 10:10PM
Sony is completely wrong. First party games are important, but no third party support = eventual catastrophe. The PS2 succeeded from exceptional third party support. Nintendo's failed with the N64 and Gamecube by relying on first party games.
Ridgecity @ Jul 7th 2008 10:24PM
I don't think the n64 even had first party support. One game a year sucks.
PojoMofo @ Jul 7th 2008 10:35PM
When those first party games are some of the best games of all time (super smash bros, both zelda's, Mario 64, Paper Mario) they figured that would be enough, but we all know how that turned out
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 7th 2008 10:54PM
They didn't say there would be no third party support, where are people getting these facts?
All they said is first party is more important, and they are 100% right, Sony is lacking in the first party department. They should be concentrating on third party, yes, but with so many games going multiplat, there is only two choices, be like Microsoft, start spending to get third party exclusives or simply start making more first party original games.
Ridgecity @ Jul 7th 2008 10:13PM
That means Nintendo already won.
LilTmac2003 @ Jul 8th 2008 12:03AM
I agree.
Nintendo hands down, demolishes everyone, when it comes into 1st party games. Honestly, that's what is keeping the Wii alive at this point. If someone had a 360 and a Wii, and Gears of War 2 was out on both consoles, which do you think would sell more? 360 / PS3 are for the hardcore gamers, while Wii is for the fun, all around video gamers.
In my opionoin, 1st party games should not really be on the list of Sony's to do list. You want to get better 3rd party support, so people won't automatically buy a game on the 360, even though it's on the PS3 as well.
1st party games are important, but not in Sony's aspect. Nintendo, 100%. Microsoft, is doing quite well, with Halo 3, Gears of War 2, Fable II, Viva Pinata, etc. Microsoft is giving it a push, but Nintendo is the king.
Paper Mario @ Jul 7th 2008 10:23PM
So now that sony has realized about that I guess they start having first party games.
Eh @ Jul 7th 2008 10:28PM
Where the hell is the next ICO?
They better not have let one of the best game development teams in the world go to waste by doing nothing this whole time. Sony has their own Miyamoto with that group, they should have released a game by now, what the hell have they been doing in the last 3 years?
They are exactly what the PS3 needs. If Sony got rid of that studio then they need to do some serious firings, starting with Kaz for letting it happen.
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 7th 2008 11:13PM
Coming it is, patience you must have, for a jedi you are.
j.howlett @ Jul 7th 2008 10:30PM
they are not shunning third parties, they're saying it makes no sense for them to pay loads of money for exclusives from third parties. nor is it really economical in most cases for third parties to stay exclusive. since the games are pretty much even from these third parties now they may invest or make it advantageous for third parties to to taylor a sony version. meanwhile they make first party titles that attract players to the systems. you come for the special and can get everthing else
ThePerfectCompanion @ Jul 7th 2008 10:46PM
So sony is admitting that their plan this generation sucks...
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 7th 2008 10:58PM
Thier original plan, yeah, kudos, because before they had tunnel vision.
"We are supreme, all our games will rock the earth, we own third parties" etc etc
Its good to see them making good business decisions now, rather then stupid desperate and childish ones.
wise guy @ Jul 7th 2008 11:13PM
Tell that to the gamecube tunnel vision jackass! I guess that's why Sony is in first this gen huh?????
Dwag @ Jul 7th 2008 11:39PM
Sony already said this look how many FP games are coming out theres no need for this to be argued.
Dwag @ Jul 7th 2008 11:45PM
Many diss MS but atleast they can tell us the good stuff they have for the year and still have stuff for next year.
Well can someone give me a list of Sony's FP games this year?
JRM @ Jul 8th 2008 12:08AM
how odd. 3rd party games were sony's bread n butter the last 2 gens. When it comes to 3rd parties, it sounds like they've conceded defeat to Microsoft. All Sony's got left is their own games; their last pillar. Oh, and their stupid blu-ray.
This isn't a bad thing though. Sony has loads of money. If they wanted to, they can do the same thing microsoft did of bribing 3rd parties. But then it would lead to a whole tradition of bidding wars and such, which would be bad for the industry.
Maverick Saturn @ Jul 8th 2008 12:16AM
Last gen, third party devs were paying much less to make games then they are this gen, this gen, we are talking movie making sort of money spent. Its nothing to do with Sony conceding defeat, its everything to do with what seems most sensible, Microsoft is already doing the very same thing. Both companies unless willing to pay for every and all title, have to consider stacking up the FP titles if they want to stay in the game while still managing to remain close with thier third party partners like Sony does with Konami and Microsoft does with Valve.
Its like you, if you want to succeed in life, you will have to do most of the things yourself, others can't always be there to save you. They have thier own lives to worry about, and the same goes for 3rd parties looking to make big bucks.
JRM @ Jul 8th 2008 12:08AM
how odd. 3rd party games were sony's bread n butter the last 2 gens. When it comes to 3rd parties, it sounds like they've conceded defeat to Microsoft. All Sony's got left is their own games; their last pillar. Oh, and their stupid blu-ray.
This isn't a bad thing though. Sony has loads of money. If they wanted to, they can do the same thing microsoft did of bribing 3rd parties. But then it would lead to a whole tradition of bidding wars and such, which would be bad for the industry.
F TANK @ Jul 8th 2008 7:54AM
You'd never guess the "First-party games 'more important this generation" part based on what they've put out so far
GearSecond!! (a.k.a AwesomeStuff) @ Jul 8th 2008 8:54PM
Nintendo: "Lol. We knew that already and it helping us ALOT this time around."
goof_troop @ Jul 9th 2008 1:14AM
Historically speaking Its not just 1st party games that sell systems, but rather exclusives or "killer apps".
Publisher's take into consideration whether they want their title to take a risk and garner as many sales multi-platform OR become synonymous with a particular system ala GTA or Metal Gear Solid. Despite both of these series being going multi-platform they both gave the ps2 the status of universal entertainment rather then the "then" toy-like Gamecube or the Computeresque
"l33t box" . Sony catered to the casual gamers AND the hardcore by offering affordable hardware and diverse "exclusive" software. They have done neither in this generation. Blue-ray is not the equavelent of
the groundbreaking dvd in the ps2. The 400$ price tag seems punishing to play the exclusive MGS4, and many of the other exclusives have better or as good as counterparts on the 360.
Sony just realized that they cant just win with brand loyalty alone. This hit Nintendo very harshly hey can in the N64 and the 'cube eras. Perhaps now Sony can realize that Nintendo's blue ocean strategy of winning
with innovation is the key to success. Perhaps if a console maker could combine powerful hardware and innovation with a large 3rd party support...
Well...........
I'm gonna go play Crysis on my $3000 gaming computer..
......... Just kidding :)
(its actually Team Fortress 2 and a $1000 computer mwuhahahah)