Interview With Shuhei Yoshida

[Uniqueusername]

Three Speech has an interview (http://threespeech.com/blog/2008/07/interview-with-sonys-president-of-worldwide-studios-shuhei-yoshida/) with Sony's Shuhei Yoshida, President of Worldwide Studios.

Q: I’m wondering about Sony’s policy regarding exclusive PS3 games – it leans more towards internal development rather than paying third parties for exclusives. Are you re-evaluating that policy?

SY: My role is to run first-party development, and we are always exclusive. Because, in this generation, it costs much more to develop one product, it’s just natural for third-party publishers trying to recoup the investment from multiple platforms. I think that’s pure economic pressure, pushing 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; in terms of exclusive titles, our role becomes more important.

It certainly sounds like Sony is expecting internal development to be very important in the future. Shuhei Yoshida is even planning to move his HQ to Japan to allow him to play a larger role in setting company direction.

[Baron Samedi]

Sony is the new Nintendo.

[mkelehan]

Sony is the new Nintendo.

So they're going to make God of War 3 cel-shaded, fall way into third place, and then kick major unexpected ass in the next generation?

[Vandenh]

How does canceling games fit into this?

[Gorvi]

How does canceling games fit into this?
Oddly enough, that's addressed in the linked article.
Q: You have shelved the development of Eight Days and The Getaway: what was the thinking behind that?

SY: People were doing the right things on the projects, and there were things in the games that were working really well, but the projects were coming to the end of the pre-production stage, and that is the time when we evaluate every product. Because after that, we would assign more resources to them, and they would really become major investments. This is a regular appraisal process for every project. We do evaluate and cancel projects all the time, because we do start more projects than we finish, and if we finished the same number of projects that we started, that would mean we were not taking any risks at all, and that wouldn’t move our industry on any further.

There are many new ideas that sound very interesting, but we don’t know whether they would really work, or how much it would take to accomplish our vision – that’s why we use the early pre-production stage to try new ideas and measure how much it would take to develop the product. With all that understanding, and with all the other projects that are going on – perhaps other projects are at the same stage and demanding lots of resources from many fronts, because we support many platforms in PS3, PSP, PS2 and PSN – there are more things we want to do than we can, given the number of people and resources. So, it was not like Eight Days was in jeopardy: it was making progress. But it was more about business situations and priorities.

[Rommel]

I am floored Mr. Yoshida would make these statements. He all but admits that a third party developer has difficulty in recouping expenditures on his company's proprietary entertainment system. If he were working for my company I probably would limit his face time with reporters, going forward. His job is to paint a rosy picture on matters - in short, spin. Providing facts, even one of which may be somewhat damning, is not in Sony's best interest.

What is most surprising is the strategy itself in light of what Mr. Yoshida is forthright about. I see a paradox between Sony's shifting focus towards internal development and the realities of the industy at large. If a designer cannot show profit on a nonexlusive title that does not have hefty exclusivity contracts then why would Sony want to enter this business model? They will not be getting paid to keep the titles at home, and they aren't going to be releasing the old 989 catalogue on the 360 anytime soon. Where as an exclusive title or a multiplatform title can obtain profit with only minor success, an internally developed "1st Party" title will have to be a hit to come out in the black. And of course, cancelled games are losses regardless.

Obviously exclusive titles grows a system's brand and makes one system more lucrative than another for a consumer, pending tastes, but wouldn't it be cheaper to pay for this feature? Doing so equates to guarenteeing more development studios stay afloat without having to provide for your competition while also providing the cost and time saving assest of not having to code for multiple machines. Also, it has a proven track record - EA's refusal to do business with Sega for the Dreamcast dug that system's grave before it had a birth certificate.