200°

Q&A: How Sony simultaneously develops the same game for PS3 and Vita

Arstechnica- Shuhei Yoshida is the president of Sony's worldwide PlayStation software development and oversees all Sony's game studios, from Japan to the US. He has worked at Sony for over 25 years and was a lead executive on the original PlayStation project. I travelled to Tokyo to meet him at his office to find out the processes and challenges of developing games that appear on the PlayStation 3 console and the portable PS Vita system.

Read Full Story >>
arstechnica.com
GreenRanger4663d ago

I think this is a bad idea.
People who want to play these games won't need to buy the Vita if they already have a PS3.
Sony need to get more exclusives on the Vita, and not games that can, quite easily, be found elsewhere.
All they're doing is giving the Vita another competitor--their own PS3.

Amplitude4663d ago (Edited 4663d ago )

Obviously Vita exclusive IPs are necessary.

But since there's a shocking lack of those, it makes sense to get some ports releasing until the new IPs actually start rolling out on a regular basis. Nobody is gonna complain about this. "NOOO NOW I CAN PLAY PSALL STARS WHENEVER I WANT! THIS SUCKS VITA IS DOOMED" Haha it's obviously a positive thing to have Cross-play. Look at how many people want Borderlands 2 on Vita lol

Some games also just 'work better' on a handheld. This is totally a personal opinion, but i personally played the heck out of WipEout 2048, but for some reason not WipEout HD. I think the same could happen with PSAll Stars, for me at least.

Im kind of off topic haha whatever. I think my point is that ports are a good idea, not a bad idea, and people will buy a Vita if it means playing their favorite PS3 games on the bus. >.>

darthv724662d ago

Not only that but sony is potentially sitting on a great marketing position where by a game purchased for the ps3 would include the vita version as well.

Granted, exclusive IP's are important but so is expanding the user base. If more games came out with cross play or even if they werent directly cross play compatible. The addition of a vita version would serve to sell not only ps3 systems and the particular game but it would spur sales of the vita as well.

Yeah it sounds like the typical entitled POV of we want more for less but just think about the convenience it would propose. They can make ps3 only editions and vita only editions but a ps3/vita edition wouldnt be that much more difficult to offer.

It would be akin to the current trend of dvd/bluray combo for movies. You have a copy for whatever system you want to use. Pricing is something to consider but I am (just spitballing here) thinking a price difference of $10 maybe $15 per combo game set.

This was something Sony had toyed with in regards to PSP releases of both movies (packed on the same bluray as the feature film) and games. Although, I dont know if they ever released a ps3/psp combo game to retail (maybe in JP).

Regardless of the games being ports or new I for one certainly wouldnt complain about the potential increase in library for the vita.

josephps34663d ago (Edited 4663d ago )

Exactly what Axecution said, its not about one or the either, its about both-original IP and PS3 ports. There are some games like Borderlands2 and Xcom Enemy Unknown where I'd love to be able to play it on the bus, during breaks, at the gym on the bike etc.

If you can get a discount by purchasing a game for the PS3 then the Vita version I'd be willing to do that for some favorite titles.

For me, if they can have Crossbuy & Play for Xcom alone I would buy the Vita. Xcom is a system seller for me right there. There must be other system sellers for different people.

So ports will definitely add value for some people and maybe be enough just on ports alone to buy the Vita. For me its Xcom.

topekomsi4662d ago

I would give my left nad if they would port borderlands 2 to the vita, i am loving this games. It would be especially nice if i could save on my ps3 and then pick right up on my vita at the same spot.

forevercloud30004663d ago

I think people tend to always see Cross-Compatibility as "Well PS3 version will be better so why get Vita vers?"

This can be true...but rarely so. They seem to be coming out just fine. The only one that didn't fare so well once ported is Mortal Kombat, and that was just cuz it was rush job.

Maybe most don't want massive experiences on the go, but what about the smaller ones? Sly 4 and LBP, like most platformers, merges very well with handheld. I personally prefer them on the go. I love LBP but always wished I could get it on the go and now it is. Sly 4 I thought I would skip over entirely, but now that it is on Vita I am all for it. Not every PS3 game is massive and many of them such as PSN titles would be better suited on a handheld. Superstardust, Fat Princess, Tokyo Jungle, Journey, Scott Pilgrim, etc are all bite sized games that could benefit from being on handheld. I can't be the only person who looks past these games on PS3 but would definitely want them for Vita...

Grenade4663d ago

@ GreenRanger
Wow, look at all those disagrees you got.
You should have know that any criticism against Sony is seen as a sin on N4G, no matter how valid your argument is.
Members of the SDF probably flailed back off their chairs when they saw the first sentence in your comment, spitting out their milk that they wish was Sony branded.
Oh wait, they are getting Sony milk, it's called "Uncharted".
Sony are too busy designing a tablet controller for the PS4, so they are not going to bother with the Vita anymore.
They saw how much the 3DS destroys the Vita weekly in sales, so they just gave up.

GreenRanger4663d ago

@ Grenade
I honestly don't give a shit about agrees/disagrees on N4G, they mean nothing.
If people don't like what i have to say, then that's their problem, not mine.
I sure as hell won't change my opinion because other people don't like it. They'll just have to live with it.

Amplitude4663d ago

LOL implying im a Sony fanboy. I'm PC all the way man. Haven't touched my PS3 or 360 in a pretty long time actually.

What I said is a fact about why people would want cross-platform games AND new IPs on a handheld.

lmao i love being called a fanboy. xD

DarkHeroZX4662d ago

@greenranger_

It may be your opinion but your opinion is wrong lol. It's like if you think the smell of a pig's anus smells great. It's your opinion but your opinion is wrong! Opinions can be wrong dude. I could believe that shooting innocents in the face is okay but that's my opinion and guess what? IT'S WRONG!!!

Hicken4662d ago

Ah, the old standby. "If you disagree, that just proves you're a fanboy."

... no, it proves you disagree.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with having the same games available on Vita as on PS3. In fact, given Sony's current push to make the experience seamless between the two systems- cross platform play, cross play, and cross buy- that's a huge BONUS. Who HASN'T wanted to take their favorite console game wherever?

Has everybody forgotten being a kid and wanting to get home as quickly as possible to keep playing that game you just got? Cuz I remember those days quite clearly. And, to be honest, that feeling hasn't changed.

There are STILL games I'd love to be able to play wherever, and Sony making the PS3 library available on the Vita through multiple means fulfills that.

... and what is all that nonsense you're spouting? Oh, wait. Just another troll...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4662d ago
Apocalypso4663d ago

Of course the Vita needs its own exclusives, but think of it this way. People with PS3's buy these games anyway, then they're told that they have the Vita version for free? Sounds like a good idea to pick up a Vita since I have all these games for it already that I wouldn't mind playing on the toilet. And hey! It does have some pretty cool exclusives I want to check out.
A Vita a competitor to the ps3? Please. Try to think of it as an accessory to the ps3. Have a bunch of ps1 games you got with Plus haven't played yet? Put em on your Vita. The Vita is getting Plus soon so something you may be already getting you'll also get on another console at no extra charge.
Linking the consoles together seems to only be beneficial in my mind.

fei-hung4663d ago

You forget that it also makes the Vita more cost effective and lucrative. You are essentially getting a console and handheld port for same price.

I know 2 friends who were not interested in the Vita due to the cost of having to pay for games twice. Now both of them are looking at getting one this xmas.

There is also another angle which hasnt been covered. What happens if Sony make a great new Vita IP that doesnt sell enough on the Vita to break even or make a profit?! I rather the game is released as a cross purchase option as it doubles the chances of making a profit and getting a sequel.

I think it's a very clever strategy and fits perfectly into the "One Sony" ideology and in the end, it will work out best for us gamers as we will be able to experience more games on multiple devices for little or no extra cost.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4662d ago
4663d ago Replies(2)
abzdine4663d ago

Yoshida is a cool guy and very modest. I like him!

4663d ago Replies(3)
Raoh4663d ago

I like my ps3 ports. especially when you consider single player/multiplayer aspects.

I could play online with my ps3 at home and play the single player at work or on the train.

I could beat you up in playstation all stars at home or at work or practice solo on the train.

I could have company over and play a game on my ps3 and hand the ps vita to my friend and have him play the same game with me in co op or vs mode.

What's not to like?

Show all comments (26)
320°

Former PlayStation Boss Says $80 Games Are Amazingly Affordable

PlayStation boss believes that $80 games are affordable due to the value they provide. Using Mario Kart as an example, he noted that it offers numerous hours of gameplay with just one purchase.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
jambola2d ago

value inside the product does not have any impact on how afforable they are

Eonjay1d 14h ago

He never said anything about affordability at all. He only commented about the perceived value that a game can have to a player that gets many hours out of it.

Again, as with many other forms of we are disrespected and lied to.

Title says Yoshida said $80 games are amazingly affordable. This is a lie.

CrimsonWing691d 14h ago

Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it? If one person says $500 was worth it because they played a game for six months, what does that mean to someone who didn’t share that experience or see that value?

This is exactly where corporate thinking falls apart. The value is defined by them, and then they twist the logic to defend it from a purely internal, out-of-touch perspective.

I’ve never based the price of a game on how long I’ve played it. There’s a standard price range that consumers feel is fair. If it were truly based on time or value, Resident Evil 2 Remake would cost $20, and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth would be $1,000.

Eonjay1d 11h ago

@Crimson

"Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?"

I think his point is that it is subjective.

thorstein1d 10h ago

Why is tech4gamers allowed to publish here. The lying is constant with them.

FACTUAL evidence19h ago

Honestly, expedition 33 is a prime example of quality for the low. Expedition 33 launched at 50$, and that game gave me more fun than most 60-70$ games I’ve purchased within the last decade.

88316h ago(Edited 16h ago)

Clearly, they want to increase prices. They need to convince people that it’s not so bad. As long as they can do that, they can do whatever they want. You gave an outstanding example of the direction things could go if creators were focused primarily on The community and quality. If that example or a few others like it didn’t exist, it might be hard to convey to many how it is even possible.

pwnmaster30002d ago

I get the concept.
People buy movies for $20-$30 dollars that offers only a couple of hours of enjoyment.
While games offers 3-10+ times the amount of hours and content.
So in theory yeah I get it.

But I will never accept it and would rather keep the price now or even better PS360 price lol

isarai2d ago

On the surface ye that makes sense, but when you realize the budgets are very comparable, you realize it's kinda stupid and overpriced especially when it common for it to be released unfinished

Extermin8or3_1d 9h ago

Not really, movies that have similar budgets have the box office where if they arent a flop- they typically make all their money back or a profit. Movies have a much wider audience. Games however just have that release and have a smaller market.

PapaBop1d 8h ago

Are many people buying movies for $20-$30? Outside of the more dedicated movie goers who have a physical collection, I imagine most rather scoff at that and stick to things like Netflix instead.

DivineHand1251d 7h ago

You also have to take into consideration that most games are enjoyed by one or two people, while movies can be enjoyed by a group of people who are either friends or family.

Another thing is that the value of an entertainment product cannot be judged based on its length, but how it makes the user feel when it is all done.
An example of this is Ubisoft games. They can last close to or exceed 100 hours, yet many people hate on them for doing things to pad the length of the game, while Uncharted 4 and other Naughty Dog games average about 15 hours in length and are hailed as some of the best games of all time.

gold_drake1d 20h ago

said by the guy who probably had a high 6 figure income

Eonjay1d 5h ago

He never made the comment. Welcome to the internet.

gold_drake1d 4h ago

..have u watched the video at all?

welcome to the internet indeed.

Petebloodyonion1d 15h ago

The value of an $80 all-you-can-eat buffet is undeniable, making it curious why some people choose a $20 restaurant for a single, standard meal.

In a similar vein, movies, despite their higher production costs for a two-hour experience, outperform video games in revenue while also being priced around $20. Suggesting that video games need 100 hours of diluted gameplay to compete seems like a misdirection. The real solution might lie in re-evaluating how their core offering is valued.

Extermin8or3_1d 9h ago

Individual movies yes, the movie industry as a whole? No, the movie industry is dwarfed by the behemoth in terms of revenue that gaming is.

DoubleYourDose1d 1h ago

The $80 buffet and the $20 meal both come out the same end.

FACTUAL evidence1d 14h ago

Lol so rich people want to speak for my wallet now? I still haven’t adapted to 70$ yet, and not planing on to. I don’t mind waiting on sales.

Show all comments (58)
220°

Yoshida claims PS believes Xbox is their only competitor, truth is they don’t have one any more

Former PlayStation boss Shuhei Yoshida claims PlayStation still believes Xbox is their only true competitor, not Nintendo.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
14d ago
Terry_B12d ago

True, they have pretty different audiences..and some People just have both at home or a PS and a PC that emulates more or less everything from Nintendo.

Knightofelemia12d ago

Xbox hasn't been a competitor since the XB360. Last generation and this generation Sony has been running circles around Xbox. As for Sony vs Nintendo Sony runs circles yes but I don't really see Nintendo as competition. Nintendo does their own thing and it works.

12d ago Replies(1)
Lightning7712d ago

Details are important. Console sales yes. Overall games Xbox seems to be doing fairly well in that department.

LoveSpuds11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

MS were doing so well that they had to start selling their games on their main competitors system which in turn results in around 30% of each sale going to Sony as the platform holder.

I do think tjat MS' fortunes will improve now that they are actually selling games rather than giving them away for pennies on the dollar.

Something that occurs to me is that the more success MS published games have elsewhere, the more stark it will become that selling games is much more profitable than renting them. If that becomes highly noticable, I wonder what the shareholders (who ultimately run the show) will make of a service which has stagnated for years?

crazyCoconuts11d ago

PlayStation doesn't compete with third party games, they compete on consoles. They profit from third party games. If you're not comparing consoles there's no point in comparing.

drivxr12d ago

Console wars are over.

Eventually, everyone else will catch up to this fact.

attilayavuzer12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

I think it's all PS fans have left at this point. Console wars were always a competition for fourth place behind Nintendo, PC and mobile. If Xbox evaporates into a hybrid virtual platform, then PS will be perennially left in last place.

Christopher12d ago

Strange, I recall all those FCC documents and witness testimonies saying the exact opposite... Guess Microsoft doesn't know what it's talking about?

PanicMechanic11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

Great analysis. Just joking.

Pretending like companies give a f about where they “rank” against each other is just super retarded. This isn’t the World Cup.

Tell me, how does “PC” compete against a brand like PlayStation? It just doesn’t make sense at all. What you just said, is complete and utter nonsense

BlaqMagiq111d ago

I don't think PS cares about being in this so-called "last place" you came up with when they're making profits hand over fist.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 11d ago
Destiny108012d ago

microsoft wanted to crush sony into dust and they had the money to do it, but with such weak leadership it was always going to fail

Reaper22_12d ago

Had the money? They still have the money but the industry has changed since xbox 360. Microsoft is the number one publisher in gaming. I'd hardly call that failing.

IRetrouk12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

The industry hasn't changed though, just ms, Microsoft was the no1 publisher for a month in december 2024, the actual no1 for fy2024 was tencent if game sales are all that's being counted.

Profchaos12d ago

Money doesn't mean you'll be successful large corporations have entered and failed before like Nec

Show all comments (23)
220°

Shuhei Yoshida warns subscription services could become 'dangerous' for developers

'If the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry.' -Shihei Yoshida

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
Sonyslave333d ago

🙄 same guy who said 80$ is a steal lol and according to him M$ shouldnt put good on a services🤣 wtf

Obscure_Observer32d ago

Talks about "innovation" while all his previous company is focused on is GaaS and Remasters. Smh.

This guy is a walking contradiction.

pwnmaster300032d ago

This makes no sense at all.
What does his PREVIOUS company have to do with him and his statement??
Did he have a say on what they are doing? Could of sworn that was Jim Ryan’s fault?

Outside_ofthe_Box32d ago

"This guy is a walking contradiction."

The irony

Profchaos32d ago (Edited 31d ago )

Yet he was In charge and led the PlayStation to overtake xbox

Console VR was birthed because if him he pushed the whole psvr project if that isn't innovative then what is.

Doesn't matter how many alts you use to try and constuct ab alt narrative shu is highly respected in the industry and has done as much for gaming as some of the best names in the industry

Obscure_Observer31d ago (Edited 31d ago )

@Profchaos

I don´t care what he did in the past.

Sony didn´t cared for him either as he was forced to accept a role as CEO of Indie games or get out! After everything he done for the company.

https://www.eurogamer.net/f...

I been seeing LOTS of innovative day one games on Gamepass (Including Clair Obscur) and all I´ve been seeing for Playstation first party @Full Priced is mostly (but not only) GaaS and Remasters. Deny all you want, that´s the truth.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 31d ago
XiNatsuDragnel32d ago

I can agree with that on some level

robtion32d ago

Subscription services are absolutely awful. They have essentially destroyed the movie industry and unfortunately gaming may be next.

In the long term you will end up needing 10 different subscriptions and the prices will keep going up while the quality keeps going down.

MrDead32d ago

Subscription services have f***ed the movie industry and it's work force, caused massive studio buyups by companies like Disney consolidating huge parts of the industry under one roof and have creatively sterilised the IP's they've gobbled up. The same thing is happening to gaming, MS being the main greedy piggy.

goken32d ago

Well… if you’re talking about the US movie industry, then I couldn’t agreed with you more.
But the movie industry isn’t just the US. For some other countries, it’s been considered good. Like where i am, the movie industry here used to be terrible, now it’s a bit less terrible. Mostly this is because in the past movies only can make money mostly on it’s cinema run, but now after the cinema run they can get some funds from the subscription services. Which helps significantly.
But these movies mostly suck due to the low budgets and general lack of talent lol

Vits32d ago

I get what he's saying, but I don’t think we need subscription services to see a lot of the problems he's pointing out. All we really have to do is look at the gaming industry over the last two console generations. Even without subscriptions, the big AAA publishers have already been moving in a direction where almost every game feels like it's built from the same template. It’s all about streamlined, safe design choices that are meant to appeal to the widest possible audience. At this point, you could probably ask an AI to make a AAA game from a certain publisher and it would spit out something pretty close to what they’re actually making.

Now, about the whole “walled garden” thing... that’s not some future problem, it’s already here. Consoles have always worked like that. Their entire business model is based on controlling what gets released on their platforms. Sure, maybe they’re not as locked down as the extreme examples people bring up, but the end result is similar. If you’re not making the kind of game the platform holder wants, you’re probably not getting through the door. We’ve seen it with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, even Valve does this in its own way with Steam. So yeah, the issue isn’t new or exclusive to subscription services.

Would a subscription-only future make that problem worse? Sure, it definitely could. But I don’t think we’re heading in that direction anytime soon. Unless physical hardware truly becomes a thing of the past and everyone switches to streaming games, I just don’t see subscriptions becoming the dominant model. They’ll stick around as an option, but I doubt they’ll take over completely.

Now, what will take over completely is digital media, and that’s a whole different issue that’s going to hit us a lot sooner. PC and mobile are already basically 100% digital, and that makes up around 70% of the gaming market. The remaining 30% is consoles, and even there we’re seeing the shift. Sony’s removing the disc drive from boxed consoles, Nintendo is releasing just one super expensive 64GB cartridge for their new system, which means almost all third-party publishers will end up going digital and Microsoft is mostly digital already. You either get a digital-only or a physical box with disc that only acts as a activation key. So yeah, that future’s already knocking on the door and the damage will be enormous.

CrimsonWing6932d ago

Right, because then you can’t sell individual games at $80, which is an incredible value for the consumer!

BLow32d ago (Edited 32d ago )

I find this statement quite telling. Apparently a certain fan base wasn't buying games at $60 or $70 dollars either. That's why the Gamepass model exists with day and date. What was the excuse then?

We as gamers want it all but don't want to pay for anything. Well, I take that back. A good chunk of them. You don't have to buy a game at $80. Wait for to go down in price. Most gamers have a massive backlog. Play those games until the one you wants drops and n price. Simple

goken32d ago

I never buy any games at full price, it’s up to the consumer to wait for a price cut.

Generally I don’t buy above $10, normally around $5. So don’t agree with 80 70 60? Just wait a bit

CrimsonWing6931d ago

Totally fair if that approach works for you, but the flip side is that some dev studios do rely on full-price sales to stay afloat—especially smaller or AA teams. The ‘just wait for a sale’ mindset can really hurt games that aren’t backed by massive budgets or publishers.

It’s also kind of a bummer to finally see a game release you’ve been hyped for, only to feel like you have to wait another year or two just to get a decent discount.

That said, I think the deeper issue is with bloated dev budgets. It’s wild seeing games like First Berserker or Expedition 33 launching at $50 while still managing to look great and make a profit. Meanwhile, some AAA studios say $70 isn’t enough to break even. That raises real questions about where the money’s going and whether the pricing problem is actually a budgeting problem.

thorstein31d ago

To me, it depends on who made it and who will profit.

I bought No Man's Sky back in 2016. They gave me all updates, PSVR,PS5, and PSVR2 versions all for free.

That makes it worth every dollar I spent. Same with Balatro, Stardew Valley, Dave the Diver etc.

Chevalier32d ago

Yeah weird it's like a certain fan base that doesn't buy ANY games and their sales cratered that was why prices has gone up to $80...... hmmm...... they've the same one that has tried to buy up the industry and now has to release games on competing platforms to be viable now...... but you know the studio/company slipped my mind

goken31d ago

You have a point on the bloated development budgets.

I mean look at black myth wukong’s $80m budget vs the $150-200m (possibly more) budget of concord.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 31d ago
Show all comments (37)