1040°

Sony and Microsoft to explore strategic partnership

Companies to collaborate on new cloud-based solutions for gaming experiences and AI solutions TOKYO and REDMOND, Wash. — May 16, 2019 — Sony Corporation (Sony) and Microsoft Corp. (Microsoft) announced on Thursday that the two companies will partner on new innovations to enhance customer experiences in their direct-to-consumer entertainment platforms and AI solutions.

Read Full Story >>
news.microsoft.com
gangsta_red2221d ago

"In addition, the two companies will explore the use of current Microsoft Azure datacenter-based solutions for Sony’s game and content-streaming services. "

You don't say....

"By integrating Sony’s cutting-edge image sensors with Microsoft’s Azure AI technology in a hybrid manner across cloud and edge, as well as solutions that leverage Sony’s semiconductors and Microsoft cloud technology, the companies aim to provide enhanced capabilities for enterprise customers."

You don't say....

"For many years, Microsoft has been a key business partner for us, though of course the two companies have also been competing in some areas. I believe that our joint development of future cloud solutions will contribute greatly to the advancement of interactive content." - said Kenichiro Yoshida,

You don't say....

“Sony has always been a leader in both entertainment and technology, and the collaboration we announced today builds on this history of innovation,” said Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft. “Our partnership brings the power of Azure and Azure AI to Sony to deliver new gaming and entertainment experiences for customers.”

You...don't say!

- Who was that???

HE DIDN'T SAY!

Kribwalker2221d ago

Does that technically make MS Sony’s landlord in the cloud processing field?

Razzer2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

"By integrating Sony’s cutting-edge image sensors with Microsoft’s Azure AI technology in a hybrid manner across cloud and edge, as well as solutions that leverage Sony’s semiconductors and Microsoft cloud technology"

Does that technically make Sony MS's landlord in the semiconductor and image sensors field?

Unspoken2221d ago

Do either of you even know what is being referenced here?

crazyCoconuts2221d ago

Not yet, but possibly in the future. Memo of understanding is not really much of a commitment.

AspiringProGenji2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

@Unspoken

They got low IQ to know both companies have been partners and exhanging tech for years and that this has nothing to do with console war

fiveby92221d ago

Is there a possibility that both companies are concerned strategically about companies like Google and Amazon entering the traditional gaming market via their cloud initiatives? I gotta wonder. But this is rather nebulous at this point and I don't want to read too much into this.

Zeref2221d ago

despite the downvotes that is basically what it means.

OB1Biker2220d ago

'joint development of future cloud solutions'

Dark_Knightmare22220d ago

You both are such pathetic fanboys it’s sad. This news should be celebrated instead the first thing you and gangsta do is fanboy grow up.

darthv722220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

Sounds like a very good deal is in the works for all. MS has the storage space and infrastructure to deliver the content quickly to consumers and Sony has the content for that which to be delivered. It's a win-win for both companies and the consumers.

gangsta_red2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

@Dark_Knightmare2
"This news should be celebrated instead the first thing you and gangsta do is fanboy grow up."

Lol, i just love comments that are only aimed at specific people, exactly where did I ..fanboy...anything up? This news is exciting and I left the quotes to prove just that. MS and Sony are collaborating on streaming and possibly other gaming related avenues using MS's Azure cloud. Which tells me that streaming is definitely going to be something of extreme importance in the years to come.

Now kindly calm down, not everything is waging your console fanboy war that you need to jump in eyes close and swing your arms in the air at nothing for.

indysurfn2220d ago

That would be a Good analogy Kribwalker if you say MS is Sonys GARAGE landlord for Sony's racecars!

LOL....just kidding!

naruga2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

big mistake for Sony ....wherever MS has sank its teeth in has failed 10/10 times with the only benefitted being MS ... ...just look Nokia and other examples ..

rainslacker2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

No. But I'm sure that's the narrative that we'll be hearing as fact in the near future. Because I know you and Gansta above you will love to act like Sony needs MS for this, despite Sony owning so many cloud game streaming patents that it'd cost both google and MS millions to implement new solutions which may not work as well, or would end up infringing on existing patents. Sony still has it's own data centers, and as of now, no agreement has been made.

So, interesting tidbit....Sony, MS, and Nintendo have patents for consoles, or gaming in general, that they license from one another and use in their respective hardware. Sometimes it's just better for everyone to do that.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2220d ago
DaDrunkenJester2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

This is very interesting news. So Microsoft is going to help them update and build their future streaming services. I wonder if there is any other benefit being had here besides MS obviously making a piece of Sonys streaming pie

gangsta_red2221d ago

"...had here besides MS obviously making a piece of Sonys streaming pie"

I think that's the biggest and probably the main benefit of this collaboration for MS. Sony is now going to be a customer using MS's cloud structure. Which makes me think that there may be something to this cloud gaming from MS if Sony is willing to jump on board and use it too.

travestyj2221d ago

Sony is getting a piece of the Azure pie. A much bigger pie than game streaming.

2220d ago
itsmebryan2220d ago

Yeah. $$$$$ 😁. They make money on every console. Where are the power that laughed at the power of the cloud?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2220d ago
Christopher2221d ago

According to old news, Microsoft just lost one of its best weapons:

https://www.businessinsider...

This is a win-win for both. Sony remains competitive in their field, MS gets payola off Sony's success, both can remain competitive to hold off Google and similar outsiders.

gangsta_red2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

"...both can remain competitive to hold off Google and similar outsiders."

Why am I picturing Game of Thrones and the white walker battle?

It also makes me wonder just how big this streaming is about to get when we have MS and Sony joining up.

Razzer2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

I remember having conversations a while back about MS cloud and suggesting MS would absolutely sell Azure services to Sony. Folks balked and said why would they? They are competitors. Fact is MS doesn't have Azure for its own benefit. It exists primarily to sell to others who are not in the business of cloud. Companies such as.....Sony.

@gangsta_red

"Why am I picturing Game of Thrones and the white walker battle? "

I was just thinking the same thing. lol

BlackTar1872221d ago

@razzer

common enemy (Google) means common alliance(MS & Sony) also people get all fanboyish here and everywhere but in the boardroom, it's always business.

Razzer2221d ago

"in the boardroom, it's always business"

Yep. In the end, these guys don't report to gamers. They report to stockholders.

RememberThe3572221d ago

With Google and even maybe Netflix trying to elbow their way into the industry, it only makes sense for Sony and MS to team up to fight back. I hope they still compete in gaming but sharing tech and working together on the underlying tech would be awesome. I honestly expect Nintendo to pick a side as well, but we'll see.

I really like this move. A lot.

Zeref2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

PSnow is going to be running on xCloud technology. That is actually pretty cool to say the least. Hopefully Sony will start actually providing more AAA games on PSnow. I would definitely pay for it then. Because streaming is fine for single player games and the best Sony games are single player experiences anyway. Definitely looking forward to this.

I can see Nintendo joining in as well eventually as they already back Xbox Live.

So it's going to really be xCloud(The Big three joining forces) vs Google,Amazon and Apple.

Mr_Writer852221d ago

@zeref

Define AAA

Because from what I can see PSNow has loads....

UltraNova2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

Its definitely a win win for both(like when MS finally adopted Blu-ray). The cloud gaming scene looks like its going to be cut-throat with Google, Apple and Netflix wanting a piece of the pie so this Sony-MS collaboration is great news.

Sony gets to upgrade their PS Now infrastructure and MS gets renting money. Additionally, both get to collaborate on AI Cloud systems.

Who knows, if Google etc turn out to be formidable in the game streaming arena whats stopping MS and Sony from combining forces and forming a unified Cloud gaming platform? Game Pass Now ??(nuh, but you get the point).

rainslacker2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

What's funny is Sony is making money off Google and MS as well, because they own so many patents which they're licensing out to the companies. MS already makes money off Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo makes money off MS and Nintendo. They all collaborate. They compete in the consumer market, and among industry professionals, but when it comes down to it, they all do things that's best for them.

Anyhow, we already see some people already trying to lay the ground work for how this is a huge win for MS, and how Sony needs MS to make it work, despite this not being anything more than an exploration, where there seems to be an equal collaboration.

When it comes down to it, MS would allow any paying customer to use Azure. It's unlikely to be a straight up trade for the use of the service. MS proper isn't going to say no to Sony just because Xbox fan boys think it's a bad idea, and Sony isn't going to worry about fan boy criticism if it's significantly cheaper to allow MS to host the services.

I don't even think it's to just compete against Google. If Sony and Google could make something work, they'd work together too.

andibandit2220d ago

Im not sure streaming will hit it big, but I can understand sony not wanting to be left behind if it does

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2220d ago
Dirtnapstor2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

I know it's been touted as superior, but I've never been impressed with MS's online. Always took twice as long to download anything on my Xbox vs my PS3/PS4. From what I experienced, the "services" everyone boasted on simply amounted to connecting/chatting with friends.
I'll admit there's room for improvement with Sony services, but truly, MS has boasted on their Cloud streaming services and whatnot forever...where is it? And you know this has only come about since the announcement of Stadia. I believe they've agreed to scratch each others back. Bottom line, the console market is wanting to ensure they stay a step ahead of Google's game streaming service.

NarutoFox2219d ago

"They got low IQ to know both companies have been partners and exhanging tech for years and that this has nothing to do with console war"

Well said

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2219d ago
ArchangelMike2221d ago

Is this the start of a one console future... hmm... 😎

gangsta_red2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

The power of the cloud!! Lol

Gunstar752221d ago

Brilliant. Even Sony have succumb to its powah lol

SublimeStylee22221d ago

Correction^ The Power of Playstation!!

froy4022220d ago

Children, go to bed let the adults talk

sander97022220d ago

It's just another small step into the GAS chamber.

Tross2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

Nintendo says hi, and MS has been friendly with them lately too. Also, MS isn't cancelling their next Xbox. They might be exploring options in case it doesn't perform as well as they hope, but they're still hanging on in the console market for the time being.

kneon2221d ago

No, it's just Microsoft signing up another big Azure customer. Azure is much more important to Microsoft than the Xbox business.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2220d ago
2221d ago Replies(2)
Kribwalker2221d ago

I wonder if this puts to rest who has a better network? Seeing as Sony is going to now use MS’ network for their cloud processing. Definitely interesting to see them work together on something like this

Razzer2221d ago (Edited 2221d ago )

lol.....anyone who ever said Sony had better cloud infrastructure than Azure doesn't know what they are talking about. But trying to equate this to online gaming performance is silly. This isn't about "a better network".

Kribwalker2221d ago

isn’t it? if sony had a better network, why would they partner with MS to use there’s?

Razzer2221d ago

You are reading this as Sony will be moving PSN to Azure. That is not what they said at all.

Ricegum2221d ago

Krib

You are so out of touch of what's actually happening it is hilarious.

Xavi4K2220d ago

Several people on this website said so when there was a report out about the number of users for Ps now.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2220d ago
Deathdeliverer2221d ago

Cloud is totally separate from PSN or Xbox live. Azure was a better CLOUD solution. The PSN/XBOX live argument rages on.

mynd2221d ago

How can they be seperate? Xbox live runs on azure, it literally the back bone of Live.

Kribwalker2221d ago

@mynd

My thoughts exactly

Zeref2221d ago

no it doesn't. we all know Xbox live is the better service. It has never been hacked,creditcards stolen or been down for more than an hour or 2. meanwhile PSN has been hacked,credit cards stolen and has been down for several days a few years ago.

RememberThe3572220d ago

PSN will still probably be running on Sony owned servers as long as PSN is a thing. But for cloud gaming and underlying infrastructure they will collaborate. Sony will supply some hardware and MS will supply some software. I assume there will be nuance to all of this and I highly doubt either company is throwing all their eggs in the others basket, so all these platitudes are nonsense. These are two tech giants that are choosing to work together to fight off coming competition, but fanboys like Kird here can't just let it be what it is.

badz1492220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

@Zeref

"...Xbox live is the better service. It has never been hacked,creditcards stolen or been down for more than an hour or 2. meanwhile PSN has been hacked,credit cards stolen and has been down for several days..."

XBL has never been hacked? HAHAHAHA

and there was no proof any CC info was stolen during the 2011 PSN outage. no money was stolen. Sony detected a breach and cut-off the communication for inspection and forced to upgrade the infrastructure. they did issue a warning and urged people to change their CC for safety precaution but if I'm not mistaken, no CC actually got "stolen" as in no money was stolen even though hackers "claimed" they have those info.

you xbox fanboys are the most misinformed and deluded people on the planet!

andibandit2220d ago

@badz149

Noone really knows, I think the encryption on the database saved the data from exposure, but that really should be the last line of defense, not the first

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2220d ago
WelkinCole2220d ago

Obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

rainslacker2220d ago

Could you quote from the report where it says that Sony will move all it's gaming services to Azure. No report from Sony that I see that says they're giving up their datacenters. Nowhere does it say that, only to help Sony provide better performance to more customers, probably based on the fact that Azure is more widespread.

You did read the report didn't you? You do understand what exploratory means right? You also realize this was released by Microsoft proper....not the Xbox division. You notice how this also involved technology that wasn't confined to gaming right?

Azure is a very good service. And I don't know anyone who said that PSNow was ever better....just that it was fine for what it was offering.

Cobra9512220d ago

Well, that IS the better network. So, why not. Microsoft isn't doing it to be kind to their rivals either. They're getting something that Sony does better in return--if a deal actually happens. Right now, they just agreed to explore making a deal.

DigitalRaptor2220d ago (Edited 2220d ago )

You want it to mean that, but for gaming, I'm not so sure this concludes the debate at all. This just means that Sony thinks Azure is better for the future of their gaming services than AWS and whatever OpenStack pipeline they have been using for the longest time.

Cloud processing is just one aspect of the cogs that drive a network and its content and services infrastructure, just like Sony supplying hardware to make the most of what Azure can do is only one part of the future of Microsoft's network.

It is interesting to see though.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2220d ago
bluefox7552221d ago ShowReplies(3)
Show all comments (247)
80°

Inside the ‘Dragon Age’ Debacle That Gutted EA’s BioWare Studio

The latest game in BioWare’s fantasy role-playing series went through ten years of development turmoil

In early November, on the eve of the crucial holiday shopping season, staffers at the video-game studio BioWare were feeling optimistic. After an excruciating development cycle, they had finally released their latest game, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, and the early reception was largely positive. The role-playing game was topping sales charts on Steam, and solid, if not spectacular, reviews were rolling in.

HyperMoused2d ago

Its easy they called the die hard fans people in their nerd caves who will buy anything and then went woke to reach modern audiences....insulting the nerds in their caves along the way showing utter contempt for their fan base. very hapy it failed and any company who insults their fan base and treat their customers with contempt and insults, in future, i also hope fail.

neutralgamer19921d 21h ago

It’s disappointing but not surprising to see what's happening with Dragon Age: The Veilguard and the broader situation at BioWare. The layoffs are tragic — no one wants to see talented developers lose their jobs. But when studios repeatedly create games that alienate their own fanbase, outcomes like this become unfortunately predictable.

There’s a pattern we’re seeing far too often: beloved franchises are revived, only to be reshaped into something almost unrecognizable. Changes are made that no one asked for, often at the expense of what originally made these games special. Then, when long-time fans express concern or lose interest, they’re told, “This game might not be for you.” But when those same fans heed that advice and don’t buy the game, suddenly they're labeled as toxic, sexist, bigoted, or worse.

Let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of gamers have no issue with diversity, LGBTQ+ representation, or strong female leads. In fact, some of the most iconic characters in gaming — like Aloy, Ellie, or FemShep — are proof that inclusivity and excellent storytelling can and do go hand in hand. The issue arises when diversity feels performative, forced, or disconnected from the narrative — when characters or themes are inserted not to serve the story, but to satisfy a corporate DEI checklist. Audiences can tell the difference.

When studios chase approval from a vocal minority that often doesn’t even buy games — while simultaneously dismissing loyal fans who actually do — they risk not just the success of individual titles, but the health of their entire studio. Telling your core customers “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is not a viable business strategy. Because guess what? Many of us won’t. And when the game fails commercially, blaming those very fans for not supporting it is both unfair and self-defeating.

Gamers aren’t asking for less diversity or less progress. We’re asking for better writing, thoughtful character development, and a respect for the franchises we’ve supported for decades. When you give people great games that speak to them — whether they’re old fans or new players — they will show up. But if you keep making games for people who don’t play them, don’t be surprised when those who do stop showing up

Armaggedon1d 15h ago

I thought the writing and character development were fine. Sometimes things just dont resonate with people.

90°

Report: Just Cause 5 Was in Development at Sumo Digital, But Got Cancelled

Recent evidence we discovered indicates that the next game in the Just Cause series may have been canceled, potentially two years ago.

RaidenBlack4d ago

NOooooooooooooooooooooo....... ..............

mkis0073d ago

Well if it went back to being more like 3 I would have liked it. 4 was crap.

280°

Bend Studio Reportedly Lays Off 30 Percent of Staff Following Live-Service Project Cancellation

Sony's Bend Studio lays off 30 percent of its workforce following the cancellation of its live-service project.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
Jin_Sakai4d ago

And to think we could’ve been playing Days Gone 2 by now.

RaidenBlack4d ago

I would even pay 80 bucks for an UE5 based more immersive Days Gone 2 .... or even a new Syphon Filter.
But nah .... rather lay off staff & re-remasters Days Gone i.e Days Gone Reloaded.

Cacabunga3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Stubborn Sony not wanting to listen to fans is paying the price of its arrogance. They could have let these studios grow and do what they do best and let others like Bungie maybe make gaas for those who want it.

Days Gone 2 is obviously what they should focus on next. We’ve had enough remasters and reeditions of the first one

Profchaos3d ago

Sony's not paying the price its workers are.

z2g3d ago

They were listening to the money that games like Fortnite were pulling in. Market research shows service games when successful make more money. It’s a gamble that Sony was too cocky to worry about. Now ppl are losing their jobs in an economy that’s gonna slow down any minute.

gerbintosh2d ago

@Profchaos

The workers let go were probably hired for the live service game and released now because it was cancelled

jznrpg3d ago

People needed to buy the first game! And not at 20$

neutralgamer19923d ago

I understand the argument that if fans truly wanted a sequel to Days Gone, they should've supported it at launch at full price. But that perspective misses a lot of important context.

First of all, Days Gone launched in a broken state. It needed several patches just to become stable and playable. For many gamers, paying $60 for something clearly unfinished just wasn’t justifiable. That wasn’t a lack of support—it was a fair response to a product that didn’t meet expectations out of the gate.

Despite that, over 8 million people eventually bought the game. It built a strong, passionate fanbase—proof that the game had value and potential once it was properly patched. A sequel would’ve had a much stronger foundation: a team that had learned from the first game, a loyal audience, and way more hype around a continued story.

But Days Gone also had to contend with another challenge—it was unfairly judged against other first-party PlayStation exclusives. Critics compared it directly to polished, masterful experiences like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and God of War. And while those comparisons might make sense from a branding perspective, they didn’t reflect the reality of the situation.

Studios like Naughty Dog and Santa Monica Studio had years—sometimes decades—of experience working with big teams and high budgets on flagship titles. Days Gone was Sony Bend Studio’s first major AAA console release in a very long time—their last being Syphon Filter back in the PS1 era. Before that, they were mostly focused on handheld games. Expecting them to match the output of the most elite studios in the industry, right out of the gate, was unrealistic and frankly unfair.

The harsh critical reception didn’t reflect the potential Days Gone actually had, and it probably played a big role in Sony's decision not to greenlight a sequel. Instead, they pushed Bend and other talented studios like Bluepoint toward live service projects—chasing trends instead of trusting the kinds of games their fans consistently show up for. Many of those live service games have since been canceled, likely wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and valuable time that could’ve gone toward meaningful single-player experiences.

So when people say, “You should’ve bought Days Gone at launch if you wanted a sequel,” they’re ignoring the bigger picture. Gamers didn’t reject the game—they waited for it to be worth their time. And once it was, they absolutely showed up. That should’ve been seen as a foundation to build on, not a reason to walk away from the franchise

InUrFoxHole2d ago

@neutralgamer1992
Has a point. I supported this game day 1. There was either and audio sync issue or a cut scene issue that ruined the game for me early on. I dont blame gamers at all for holding off until it meets their standard.

raWfodog3d ago

I seriously wonder who makes these types of decisions. Days Gone was a solid game. It didn't get that much love at first but people eventually saw the diamond in the rough. The ending basically guaranteed a sequel, but someone said "nope, let's pitch a LS game instead". And the yes-men were all "Great idea, sir!!"

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
-Foxtrot4d ago

Urgh. Jim Ryan’s sh***y GaaS plans still ripple across their studios even today.

Such a shame, they should have just been allowed to make Days Gone 2.

Sony need to truly let go of their live service plans once and for all.

OMNlPOTENT3d ago

Agreed. I think the live service era is dead. Even titans like Destiny are starting to fall apart. Sony needs to shift their focus back to their single player games.

ABizzel13d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I don’t think the GaaS overall was a bad idea they’ve seen the success of others, however, forcing all your studios to focus on it was absolutely insane.

Those kind of games are backed by hundreds if not thousands over 1,000 developers working on those games year-round even after release for continuous new content monthly, quarterly, and huge annual or bi-annual updates. It was stupid to expect taking your single-player focused studios and have them become GaaS focused studios when many of them have skipped Multi-player modes the entire last generation (a stepping stone into GaaS).

He was after his Fortnite, Apex, etc… and I feel they could have found that by building a singular new studio dedicated to helping developers like Naughty Dog bring Faction 2.0 to life. At most they should have had:

Factions 2.0 GaaS (PlayStation’s Open World Survival)
Destiny 3 (Bungie needs to revamp Destiny)
Horizon GaaS (PlayStation’s Monster Hunter)
A new AAA IP

That’s it. I mean technically Gran Turismo is a GaaS so that could count, and an Open World InFamous meets DC Universe Online could work with custom hero / villain classes.

raWfodog3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

"I don’t think the GaaS overall was a bad idea they’ve seen the success of others, however, forcing all your studios to focus on it was absolutely insane."

What's more interesting is that SIE was not actually 'forcing' their studios to make GaaS games. I have to find the article again but it was explained that these studios knew about Jim's plans for GaaS games and typically pitched those types of games to SIE because they would have a better chance of getting greenlit for production. They were chasing dollars instead of their ideal games.

Edit: I found the article. Take it for what it is, lol

https://wccftech.com/playst...

ABizzel12d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@ra

I don’t think they were forcing all of their studios, however, that initiative didn’t just come out of no where. Jim Ryan’s entire purpose was to make PlayStation more profitable than ever, and a collection of successful GaaS across platforms would have definitely done that. Based on his talk tracks and interviews he is a numbers guy, and he and Herman Hulst ran with this GaaS solution to all the PlayStation teams.

And when your CEO says this is what we’re getting behind and what the company and shareholders want going forward, everyone falls in line and pushes towards it.

Naughty Dog probably wanted Faction 2 with or without influence.

Sony Bend wanted Days Gone 2 and it was shot down, and now more than ever it makes way more sense, since the game, while initial impressions were slightly above average (which at the time wasn’t good enough being compared to God of War, Ghost, TLoUs, etc…), has found a cult following and has ended up selling extremely well across both PS4 and PS5. But instead they were dropped into this GaaS IP that failed and now they’ve wasted years of development when Days Gone 2 could have already been released or releasing.

4d ago
Obscure_Observer4d ago

Sony literally sent Playstation studios into a death trap!

They forced studios into this GaaS bs just cancel their games midway in development and fire thousand of people in the end!

WTF is happening over there? Why those CEOs still got to keep their jobs after billions and billions dollars invested in new studios and games just to so many developers fired and projects canceled in the end?

This is the worst generation of Playstation! Period!

CrimsonWing693d ago

Jim Ryan got fir—err I mean, retired.

anast3d ago

Jimmy followed Phil's advice.

3d ago
raWfodog3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

They didn't actually 'force' their studios, per se, but the initiative was certainly there.

https://wccftech.com/playst...

-Foxtrot3d ago

They didn't have a choice lets be honest, a new boss comes in and lays out all these plans....what are any of them going to do? Pitch a single player game with none of the things that guy is asking for? You're just asking to be given less funding, less notice, less resources and the like. or maybe you're scared incase the guy decides to get rid of you for someone who will actually give him things that he wants.

They didn't get brutally forced but they had no choice but to go with the flow or Jim would find someone who would.

raWfodog2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@Foxtrot
No, they definitely had a choice but many chose the path of least resistance.

We have plenty of single-player, non-LS games that began development during the LS initiative. Those projects obviously got greenlit for production. These studios just needed to have good ideas for single player games, but most just chose to come up with half-assed LS pitches.

slate914d ago

Can't believe Sony has been shooting themselves in the foot this gen. Abandoning what made them great to chase industry trends

Skyfly473d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Alanah explains the reasons why in this video which goes into more detail: https://www.youtube.com/wat... But its basically down to appeasing their shareholders

Show all comments (44)