Ready At Dawn president Didier Malenfant has told GamesIndustry.biz that Sony's performance in the next-gen console market will be determined by the actions of the company itself, not those of its rivals.
"It's their market to lose. That's the reality," Malenfant observed.
"It doesn't depend on Nintendo or Microsoft - it depends on them. They've got a great platform in the PS3, they've got great teams working with them, but every hardware transition is difficult.
"Next-gen involves a lot of money, it's a big investment, and it's going to be a difficult time of transition whether you're Microsoft or Sony."
From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.
maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad
This is very much a “dummy who volunteers themselves to the middle” comment.
The real enemy is a common phrase, people use it all the time.
Calm down.
You don't seem calm at all. Don't take this so seriously, you seem desperate responding to others defending your opinion that lacks any value or critical thought.
stop projecting
i'm not desperately dong anything, i'm tapping at keys on my keyboard bud
DEI was never the problem and it was an ignorant take to begin with.
DEI is why games like Kena Bridge of Spirits, South of Midnight, and Ghost of Tsushima exist.
DEI is why we have a huge resurgence in Japanese, Chineses, and Korean developers producing games like Stellar Blade, Black Myth, and why Nintendo & Sony exist.
DEI is why more and more games have HUGE accessibility options with both Sony and MS fully behind this.
DEI was never a bad thing, the entire purpose of DEI is representation of all people, genders, disabilities, etc…
The problem was people used DEI as a default derogatory term to describe what they believed was forced representation, which allowed colorist, racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic fools to run away with the negative DEI narrative.
Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.
The fact that they also rarely have any real expertise in game development compounds things. They'll look at what's been successful elsewhere, lack the knowledge to properly understand why they have been successful and then force a team to 'reproduce' their badly interpreted idea of that success.
We see it so often with sequels to games that were successful too. The team are left well alone, they have a break through hit and all of sudden the money men descend on the IP and completely railroad the dev team's ideas. Usually winds up being 'make the same game but MORE'
This is true throughout all of the corporate and public sector organisations to be honest. CEO's generally move amongst the corporate world without any need to have experience of a particular industry, they simply need to rely on their senior leadership credentials. A CEO of a retail giant will just as easily transition to a CEO role in the energy sector for example.
Not defending CEOs here to be clear, I think it's a huge part of the reason the western world is so fucked up. CEOs don't need to care about the sector they work in, in fact it's better if they don't care if they want to screw everyone to make profits.
Companies don’t hire executives to break even. If the goal is breaking even then why start the company in the first place.
That's understood; it's getting record profits and expecting to always beat those record profits, and seeing anything less as a total failure. Then they lay people off and raise prices to reach those record profit levels again, just to sate shareholders. It's setting expectations way too high just to spike share prices, then inevitably falling short. It's feeling entitled to being more successful than everyone else. It's the CEOs doing all this to boost their own bonuses.
Growth benefits the company’s profits and therefore the company’s stock if publicly traded, which pleases the shareholders making them more and more rich, which is why Growth is always at the forefront of the vast majority of any publicly traded company.
More growth = More Money and the people at the top want all the money they can get. I can’t really blame them anyone would love to see their profits go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to multi-millions it’s almost like a gambling addiction.
But it also goes to show someone how morals can go out the window for a lot of these people, and how amazing some CEOs are when they catch this early and provide a balance solution that takes complete care of their employees across the board while keeping the business sustainable IE: Insomniac Games ALWAYS on the best places to work list. The rest of the industry could learn.
honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it
I think the reality that we don't want to convince ourselves of is that without the rise of "horse armor" and DLC, game budgets would have essentially stagnated (smaller teams/smaller games), or game prices would have risen much more dramatically than they have. There was an incessant drive for bigger worlds, infinite detail, and hundreds of hours of "gameplay" over the last two decades, that while perhaps a natural evolution of things, needed a suitable funding stream to accomplish.
What...CEOs make tens of millions and that doesnt include SLT etc etc...we now have multiple editions of games, in game currency, MT's, battle passes.....and what do we get..worse game than what was coming out 20 years ago....dont drink the cool aid, its this nickel and dime crap that is absolutely leading us to gaming destruction.
This is the worst possible answer to this conundrum. Blaming the masses is blaming the only people who are constantly “told” to buy.
Consumers are the only ones not to blame here. People make their own choices all the time. Disney movies are bombing and DEInis being blamed. Has that been enough to put Disney out of business? No and it never will.
Disagree. Businesses are able to do what they do because people are bad consumers and don't think critically about purchases. Disney got away with doing shit stuff for years and it's just the last year where people got tired of it. It's not like it didn't work for 5 years or so for Disney to do the things they've done. They'll just move onto another way to get people to see movies and it will be just as bad but more profitable until people wake up and realize it.
Consumerism drives business behavior. It's not so much "blaming" as it is observing behavior. The point I'm making is that the direction that games have gone are driven by the spending. Consumers are spending on DLC and they are driving the expectation of more glitz and padded out (lengthier) games. If they continue to pay, they will continue to drive that direction until a threshold is reached that forces a change in behavior.
Corporate advertising is the most powerful force on the planet.
This is N4G for god sake, every day there are arguments between people who are Team Xbox and Team PlayStation because they’ve been convinced that having an identity built on paying money to Sony and Microsoft matters more than having one as individual gamers who can play whatever they want.
And THEN we get to the corporate advertising part: to play whatever you want is to sink MORE into the advertising pits, making it so that you can more than one specific product.
ah you're right
they were told to buy it, it's clearly impossible to avoid that
if enough people stopped supporting, it would stop
disney not stopping would only be because enough people didn't stop
Agreed. I’ve been saying for years, announce you won’t be buying the upcoming game because of the practices of the previous game, then you only have to stick to your guns once, see how quickly things change for the better.
We have to unite in what we shouldn’t purchase.
just imagine a world, fifa came out worse, nobody buys the next one until they see proof it's better and stick to it
or games being forced online for single player and nobody buys it
things would change so fast
Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.
I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.
It's been officially over 2,500 days since The Elder Scrolls 6 was revealed, and fans are still waiting for more than a logo and a mountain range.
It will come out in another 1000-2000 days or so. I’d rather they remake Morrowind. After they added quest arrows, sprint button, making stats lesser and the big nerfs to spells Elder Scrolls has been too simplified. They could change that with ES6 but I don’t have much faith in modern Bethesda. I would love to be wrong
Play as Polly, a silent girl on the run from her dark past in this neon-soaked psychological horror shooter.
"Sony's performance in the next-gen console market will be determined by the actions of the company itself, not those of its rivals. "
Only partly true. Ofcourse their lies, failures and fals promisses don't help the PS3.
But don't underestimate the power of the Wii and 360 in the games, graphics, gameplay or premium online service. With that, the performance of Sony is determined also. Anyone saying it's a non-factor in their performance is probably mental.
Anyone overhere posting that this wouldn't be true is mad also. I would actually say the same if it was MS if it was in Sony's bad position and they said PS3/Wii wouldn't be part of the things that determined the 360's succes.
Come on be real and don't get this fake marketingtalk out... gees
Then everyone will be running for a ps3, but at the moment the price is too high and it hasn,t got enough games and only a cople of the ps3 games got a good review.
IM OUT...///
End of 2000
PS2 - 6.4 million
End of 2001
PS2 - 24.99 million
XBX - 1.5 million
GCN - 510,000 (September 30, 2001)
GCN - 3.8 million (March 31, 2002)
End of 2002
PS2 - 49.59 million
XBX - 8 million
GCN - 6.68 million (September 30, 2002)
GCN - 9.55 million (March 31, 2003)
End of 2003
PS2 - 69.46 million
XBX - 13.7 million
GCN - 13.94 million
End of 2004
PS2 - 81.39 million
XBX - 19.9 million
GCN - 18.03 million
End of 2005
PS2 - 101.37 million
XBX - 24 million
GCN - 20.61 million
Judging by the past market. I think this is indirectly saying. I may be very wrong but. The Wii does directly interfer with Sony's target market .And Microsofts market is pretty much settled. I mean most people that buy a Wii will more than likely be purchasing another console. And Even though there is some Mega hits coming for Xbox360 there is still more than enough reason to purchase it now yet its still not flying off shelves. Leaving one to believe that they have to snatched Sony's market up. They more so built a new market or picked up where there old market left off. Wich can still account for another 10 million sales. They would have to surpass 24 million before they are labled as an actual threat. Cause lets just say the first 24 million consoles are just people upgrading. Then that was there market to begin with. I cant see someone loving Xbox and then not showing even more love for XBox360. Basically the Large majority of the market is out there waiting for PS3 to pick up. Or we can call them PS2 upgraders. Alot of people said they went from PS2 to Xbox but that leaves room for speculation. Although people will make this claim if you were actually into your PS2 like most and really liked there franchises and style of games your more likely not going to make a permanent console jump. You will sooner or later want to see if the PS3 has any of that to offer. I dont believe there is a god honest PS2 lover who can honestly say "I hate Sony I hate PS3 I will never buy it". Its a bit of a waiting game with Sony. People are just waiting especially for $600. Who the heck wants to drop more than half a grand then sit through early hardware bugs and a game drought. Thats just not logical. So its fair to believe there is a huge consumer base out there waiting for Sony to get there act together. "Price,Games,Features ETC."
Sony's fate is up to Sony. THe fact that I got a 360 has nothing to do with a PS3. I got a 360 on launch day. This was before the price of the PS3 was even out. THe price however has kept me from getting one now. Why spend $600 now when I can get a 60 gig PS3 for $500 when the price drops. And trust me guys it will drop.
right now nothing can beat sony except sony. if all the things they banked on work in their favor they could blow the comp out the water. if not the ps3 will be my last sony console...hope it last 10 years