Forums - Sony Discussion - Have Sony listened to previous E3 complains?

After the complains about Sony saying Indies weren't relevant anymore this year we got the pre-E3 reveals from Sony focusing more on no-AAA games.

This seems like a compromise between the plenty of Indies during 2013 E3 and no Indies last year.

Do you think this is the best approach or would you rather see they go plenty of Indies on E3 or the opposite and don't even have these on pre-show?



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

Sony never once said indies weren’t relevant anymore. They simply stated that they won’t be as crucial to PS4 going forward, as they were at the beginning of the gen. Clearly they still find indies to be relevant, considering we get so many each month. They’re just not going to market the majority of indies the same way they market their AAA WWS titles.



0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

DonFerrari said:

After the complains about Sony saying Indies weren't relevant anymore this year we got the pre-E3 reveals from Sony focusing more on no-AAA games.

This seems like a compromise between the plenty of Indies during 2013 E3 and no Indies last year.

Do you think this is the best approach or would you rather see they go plenty of Indies on E3 or the opposite and don't even have these on pre-show?

Well they were focusing on VR (which included indies). They just werent focussing on indies in general.

And this year isnt any different from last year. The preshow for E3 had stuff like Undertale and Matterfallm and those PlayLink games. The preshow for Gamescom last year had Spelunky 2 and Gucamelee 2 reveals.

What they are doing now is exactly what they did last year, just the preshow format is different. And with less games this time.



DialgaMarine said:
Sony never once said indies weren’t relevant anymore. They simply stated that they won’t be as crucial to PS4 going forward, as they were at the beginning of the gen. Clearly they still find indies to be relevant, considering we get so many each month. They’re just not going to market the majority of indies the same way they market their AAA WWS titles.

Indies launching on PS4 isn't the same as they not thinking it's not relevant.



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:
DialgaMarine said:
Sony never once said indies weren’t relevant anymore. They simply stated that they won’t be as crucial to PS4 going forward, as they were at the beginning of the gen. Clearly they still find indies to be relevant, considering we get so many each month. They’re just not going to market the majority of indies the same way they market their AAA WWS titles.

Indies launching on PS4 isn't the same as they not thinking it's not relevant.

 But my point is they still advertise them and support them; they simply don’t have a whole entire segment devoted to them during shows like E3. 



0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

Around the Network

I think Sony handled this very well. Announcements in the usual pre-show usually get overshadowed by the big hitters, so a countdown like this gives each reveal a little more publicity, a little more exposure.

This also clears the way for Sony E3 to strictly focus on the thing people most want: the huge AAA games, without wasting their time on VR or indies.




Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

DonFerrari said:

After the complains about Sony saying Indies weren't relevant anymore this year we got the pre-E3 reveals from Sony focusing more on no-AAA games.

Reading your comment, I thought Sony said that indie games were not relevant anymore. Looking up the actual conversation, what he said was: it's not as relevant to talk about indies anymore.
The context of that conversation is that Sony at the early stages of PS4 wanted to get the message of indies across to the public. They now think that message has been received, and would now like to focus on getting the message of VR across more properly.

Whether I agree with that sentiment or not, the way you phrased your sentence made me not only clueless to the situation without having to google it, but also gave me the wrong impression.

As for the question at hand, I think they should show some indie games. But because my interest mainly lies in the bigger titles, I'd like for it to take up a minimal amount of time.

Last edited by Hiku - on 09 June 2018

DialgaMarine said:
DonFerrari said:

Indies launching on PS4 isn't the same as they not thinking it's not relevant.

 But my point is they still advertise them and support them; they simply don’t have a whole entire segment devoted to them during shows like E3. 

Sorry but I don't see they doing it like they done to NMS anymore... so the advertise isn't really showing it to be relevant.



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