Quantcast
Shawn Layden, Head Of PlayStationís Game Studios, Departs

Forums - Sony Discussion - Shawn Layden, Head Of PlayStationís Game Studios, Departs

thismeintiel said:
EricHiggin said:

So with the recent cross play news, Shawn sacrificed himself 4 the players ability to "play together", perhaps?

More like shikamaru317 has it backwards.  If there was a power struggle, the guy who gets ousted doesn't have his policies all of a sudden put in place.

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

So with the recent cross play news, Shawn sacrificed himself 4 the players ability to "play together", perhaps?

Wouldn't make much sense =] for me it seems more like Shawn was hoarding power and putting his policies in place, to the point Japan got pissed and tossed him out, now we are seeing changes, perhaps b PS5 censoring will be gone as well.

thismeintiel said:

More like shikamaru317 has it backwards.  If there was a power struggle, the guy who gets ousted doesn't have his policies all of a sudden put in place.

Yes seems like he got it backward.

It could have gone down that way possibly.

I was basing it off of what was said about Shawn fighting for cross play. If there was a power struggle in general, and cross play wasn't going to happen if he couldn't get his way, if he is the type of person who has to have full control or nothing, or is contemplating retiring or moving on anyway, maybe both, he could have made a deal to have cross play become the norm across the platform, in exchange for his leaving and getting out of the way peacefully. Assuming cross play wouldn't be seen as a major loss to the business, and only a minor one, if at all of course. It could always be revoked when PS5 launches, and only remains on PS4 if the new leadership doesn't really want it, however they try to spin how and why they couldn't or wouldn't do it for next gen.

This would allow him to go out on a high note on his part, even though it's not something PS would really want to explain to the public. It's the kind of thing we would find out in an interview 10 years down the road, like how they opened up about PS3 and it's troubles after all these years. It would partially explain these news events coming out so close together, and the lack of explanation as to Shawn's departure.

Who knows?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
haxxiy said:
thismeintiel said:

 Mass Effect Andromeda hired much of its staff based on diversity instead of skill/experience, and the game performed poorly both gameplay-wise, with many glitches and wonky animations, and sales-wise.

This is false. The issues of ME:A are significantly more complex than a single problem that coincidentally seems to fit a certain narrative. The game had an incredibly turbulent, backbreaking development cycle with multiple reboots etc. and we usually know the fate of such games, such as Duke Nukem Forever (which, according to your perspective, should have been an incredibly successful product), Final Fantasy XV etc.

https://kotaku.com/the-story-behind-mass-effect-andromedas-troubled-five-1795886428

OT - this has long term effects on Sony's mid and long term market strategies, from what I've seen. Jim Ryan is far more focused on the concept of closed platform and streaming being the future... in fact somewhat aligning himself with what Epic, Microsoft, Google, Disney etc. are doing nowadays.

A team composed on people that doesn't have qualifications will certainly increase issues on development and could even lead to the turbulent, backbreaking development cycle.

And Final Fantasy XV is a perfectly fine game.

SpokenTruth said:
thismeintiel said:

Mass Effect Andromeda hired much of its staff based on diversity instead of skill/experience, and the game performed poorly both gameplay-wise, with many glitches and wonky animations, and sales-wise. 

I challenge you to back that up with facts.

1. That BioWare hired their staff on diversity rather than skill/experience.

2. That it directly led to the problems of gameplay, performance and sales.

Sure you can ask for sources on the first. But the second one is quite obvious, if a big chunky of your team is made of unqualified people that were hired based on things other than skill/experience (1st point) then it is expected that the result will be worse than having a qualified team.

EricHiggin said:
thismeintiel said:

More like shikamaru317 has it backwards.  If there was a power struggle, the guy who gets ousted doesn't have his policies all of a sudden put in place.

DonFerrari said:

Wouldn't make much sense =] for me it seems more like Shawn was hoarding power and putting his policies in place, to the point Japan got pissed and tossed him out, now we are seeing changes, perhaps b PS5 censoring will be gone as well.

Yes seems like he got it backward.

It could have gone down that way possibly.

I was basing it off of what was said about Shawn fighting for cross play. If there was a power struggle in general, and cross play wasn't going to happen if he couldn't get his way, if he is the type of person who has to have full control or nothing, or is contemplating retiring or moving on anyway, maybe both, he could have made a deal to have cross play become the norm across the platform, in exchange for his leaving and getting out of the way peacefully. Assuming cross play wouldn't be seen as a major loss to the business, and only a minor one, if at all of course. It could always be revoked when PS5 launches, and only remains on PS4 if the new leadership doesn't really want it, however they try to spin how and why they couldn't or wouldn't do it for next gen.

This would allow him to go out on a high note on his part, even though it's not something PS would really want to explain to the public. It's the kind of thing we would find out in an interview 10 years down the road, like how they opened up about PS3 and it's troubles after all these years. It would partially explain these news events coming out so close together, and the lack of explanation as to Shawn's departure.

Who knows?

Sorry but doesn't make much sense. He is a very high level corporate, so his contract and business ethics would already prevent him from bad mouthing Sony on the terms of his resignation. Don't see why they would have a truce proposition of "if you do what I'm asking for I'll leave the company".



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

i hope the new face brings back conferences, this is why i dont give a fuck about this dude, we dont had a conference in ages and now we have this shit nintendo model of announcing games.



 

DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

I challenge you to back that up with facts.

1. That BioWare hired their staff on diversity rather than skill/experience.

2. That it directly led to the problems of gameplay, performance and sales.

Sure you can ask for sources on the first. But the second one is quite obvious, if a big chunky of your team is made of unqualified people that were hired based on things other than skill/experience (1st point) then it is expected that the result will be worse than having a qualified team.

I highly doubt you can find documentation that proves they hired staff purely for diversity value at the absolute expense of skill/experience.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
i hope the new face brings back conferences, this is why i dont give a fuck about this dude, we dont had a conference in ages and now we have this shit nintendo model of announcing games.

I do like conferences even if we can get all info segregatted and watch trailers on YT.

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Sure you can ask for sources on the first. But the second one is quite obvious, if a big chunky of your team is made of unqualified people that were hired based on things other than skill/experience (1st point) then it is expected that the result will be worse than having a qualified team.

I highly doubt you can find documentation that proves they hired staff purely for diversity value at the absolute expense of skill/experience.

Perhaps he can or can't, who knows, there may be some devs spilling the beans on those forum that are to complain about the company you work at.

But we have seem several cases of company talking about diversity being more important than the skill/experience, because skill they could build and experience they would accumulate there. We even had a case in VGC of a user showing he got throw away from an interview because he replied to a question of if he thought diversity was more important than experience and he replied "company should hire whoever is more qualified". And we had a big discussion on VGC on how much value the diversity would bring to the team that made it more important than the knowledge.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

I highly doubt you can find documentation that proves they hired staff purely for diversity value at the absolute expense of skill/experience.

Perhaps he can or can't, who knows, there may be some devs spilling the beans on those forum that are to complain about the company you work at.

But we have seem several cases of company talking about diversity being more important than the skill/experience, because skill they could build and experience they would accumulate there. We even had a case in VGC of a user showing he got throw away from an interview because he replied to a question of if he thought diversity was more important than experience and he replied "company should hire whoever is more qualified". And we had a big discussion on VGC on how much value the diversity would bring to the team that made it more important than the knowledge.

I think we should have a better understanding of what companies mean when they say diversity is more important that skill/experience.

Some of us seem to believe this to mean that skill/experience is not important at all.  I'll provide a metric and scenario to illustrate what it actually means.


Position A requires Skill B.  The range of possible talent for Skill B could be put on a spectrum from 0 to 100. 0 being no skill at all and 100 being the best possible at said skill. 

Position A requires a 60 score of Skill B.  Now, when diversity becomes a hiring factor, that doesn't mean they will accept a diversity candidate if they do not possess a 60 score of the required skill.   If 2 candidates applied and one scores 70 and one scores 80, they both qualify and both will do a sufficient job for the position.  But if candidate 1 with the 70 score fit the diversity requirement over candidate 2 with the 80 score...candidate 1 will more likely get the job.

This is what is meant by diversity being important over skill/experience.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

It could have gone down that way possibly.

I was basing it off of what was said about Shawn fighting for cross play. If there was a power struggle in general, and cross play wasn't going to happen if he couldn't get his way, if he is the type of person who has to have full control or nothing, or is contemplating retiring or moving on anyway, maybe both, he could have made a deal to have cross play become the norm across the platform, in exchange for his leaving and getting out of the way peacefully. Assuming cross play wouldn't be seen as a major loss to the business, and only a minor one, if at all of course. It could always be revoked when PS5 launches, and only remains on PS4 if the new leadership doesn't really want it, however they try to spin how and why they couldn't or wouldn't do it for next gen.

This would allow him to go out on a high note on his part, even though it's not something PS would really want to explain to the public. It's the kind of thing we would find out in an interview 10 years down the road, like how they opened up about PS3 and it's troubles after all these years. It would partially explain these news events coming out so close together, and the lack of explanation as to Shawn's departure.

Who knows?

Sorry but doesn't make much sense. He is a very high level corporate, so his contract and business ethics would already prevent him from bad mouthing Sony on the terms of his resignation. Don't see why they would have a truce proposition of "if you do what I'm asking for I'll leave the company".

I'm not saying he would try and smear PS, I'm saying if he was starting to hate his job because of the internal conflicts, and it didn't look like he had enough power or control to get his way in terms of what he wanted to implement, he could have decided to leave since he may be thinking it anyway, while getting something he wanted implemented in return for his departure.

I've been part of companies who've done some weird, odd, or downright stupid things before, just to clear up power struggles and major disagreements in management.

I could be wrong though, just figured it may be a possibility.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Perhaps he can or can't, who knows, there may be some devs spilling the beans on those forum that are to complain about the company you work at.

But we have seem several cases of company talking about diversity being more important than the skill/experience, because skill they could build and experience they would accumulate there. We even had a case in VGC of a user showing he got throw away from an interview because he replied to a question of if he thought diversity was more important than experience and he replied "company should hire whoever is more qualified". And we had a big discussion on VGC on how much value the diversity would bring to the team that made it more important than the knowledge.

I think we should have a better understanding of what companies mean when they say diversity is more important that skill/experience.

Some of us seem to believe this to mean that skill/experience is not important at all.  I'll provide a metric and scenario to illustrate what it actually means.


Position A requires Skill B.  The range of possible talent for Skill B could be put on a spectrum from 0 to 100. 0 being no skill at all and 100 being the best possible at said skill. 

Position A requires a 60 score of Skill B.  Now, when diversity becomes a hiring factor, that doesn't mean they will accept a diversity candidate if they do not possess a 60 score of the required skill.   If 2 candidates applied and one scores 70 and one scores 80, they both qualify and both will do a sufficient job for the position.  But if candidate 1 with the 70 score fit the diversity requirement over candidate 2 with the 80 score...candidate 1 will more likely get the job.

This is what is meant by diversity being important over skill/experience.

Yes, sure, snore... then let's just pretend quotas to fill doesn't exist or companies putting the "how diverse they are in percentage". Seems like you have worked to every single company in the HR and see how all of they hire right?

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Sorry but doesn't make much sense. He is a very high level corporate, so his contract and business ethics would already prevent him from bad mouthing Sony on the terms of his resignation. Don't see why they would have a truce proposition of "if you do what I'm asking for I'll leave the company".

I'm not saying he would try and smear PS, I'm saying if he was starting to hate his job because of the internal conflicts, and it didn't look like he had enough power or control to get his way in terms of what he wanted to implement, he could have decided to leave since he may be thinking it anyway, while getting something he wanted implemented in return for his departure.

I've been part of companies who've done some weird, odd, or downright stupid things before, just to clear up power struggles and major disagreements in management.

I could be wrong though, just figured it may be a possibility.

Well I think it would be a hard thing, but sure I can't disprove the possibility existing.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

I'm not saying he would try and smear PS, I'm saying if he was starting to hate his job because of the internal conflicts, and it didn't look like he had enough power or control to get his way in terms of what he wanted to implement, he could have decided to leave since he may be thinking it anyway, while getting something he wanted implemented in return for his departure.

I've been part of companies who've done some weird, odd, or downright stupid things before, just to clear up power struggles and major disagreements in management.

I could be wrong though, just figured it may be a possibility.

Well I think it would be a hard thing, but sure I can't disprove the possibility existing.

Maybe we'll know the truth by PS7.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

I think we should have a better understanding of what companies mean when they say diversity is more important that skill/experience.

Some of us seem to believe this to mean that skill/experience is not important at all.  I'll provide a metric and scenario to illustrate what it actually means.


Position A requires Skill B.  The range of possible talent for Skill B could be put on a spectrum from 0 to 100. 0 being no skill at all and 100 being the best possible at said skill. 

Position A requires a 60 score of Skill B.  Now, when diversity becomes a hiring factor, that doesn't mean they will accept a diversity candidate if they do not possess a 60 score of the required skill.   If 2 candidates applied and one scores 70 and one scores 80, they both qualify and both will do a sufficient job for the position.  But if candidate 1 with the 70 score fit the diversity requirement over candidate 2 with the 80 score...candidate 1 will more likely get the job.

This is what is meant by diversity being important over skill/experience.

Yes, sure, snore... then let's just pretend quotas to fill doesn't exist or companies putting the "how diverse they are in percentage". Seems like you have worked to every single company in the HR and see how all of they hire right?

Don, that's the very definition and function of diversity hiring. This is how it's done.  Everywhere.

I never said quotas don't exist or that companies do not tout how diverse they are.  I simply showed you how they make that diverse hire, how they attain their quotas, how they establish their diversity percentages.

You do realize you are on the verge of suggesting that diverse candidates cannot be both diverse and qualified, don't you? 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."