By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Sony devs should switch to three-year development cycles.

 

Do you agree?

Yes 7 10.61%
 
Sure, if the time is used efficiently 15 22.73%
 
No 31 46.97%
 
No, 2.5 years is better 13 19.70%
 
Total:66
darkknightkryta on 09 July 2011

Take it one step further and get all games back to 3 year dev cycles. Games this gen have been getting shorter and shorter. I mean, let's use Insomniac as an example, they went on a 2 year cycle of Resistance and Ratchet, one after the other, how about we throw in a third game to that cycle? Space out the games and let the first game get a bit of rest before coming back to the forefront.

Edit:  The Insomniac example is an example of how devs should set themselves up.



Around the Network
Mad55 on 09 July 2011

i dont know about that one.



fauzman on 10 July 2011
Jay520 said:
psrock said:
Jay520 said:
psrock said:
Because the 3 year cycle games are better?


Not necessarily, but some devs would benefit from it I'm sure.


You can't make a sucky game better, you can release new content, new items, but the core can never be changed. Sony games don't have a issue being released too quickly, they actually take too long. 

Look at forza Vs GT, how's the quality of each games, how's the cycle helping each games.

I don't mean games that suck at the core. I mean a game like Killzone 3. It was pretty good , but it was sort of lacking in the content side. I haven't played inFamous 2 yet, but some people feel that the game could have been better with more dev time. Now, a game like SOCOM 4 was just bad at the core, and no delays would have changed that. 

My plan is wrong because I say that all devs should follow a three-year cycle when in actuality it varies with each developer. I should change my OP to suggest that Sony gives it's devs more flexibilty as opposed to just giving them more time.

As for Sony games taking too long. I agree to a certain point. But I think Sony gets a bad rep for its dev length and delays. GT5 and TLG are really the only games that really took a long time to release. 

I don't know about GT vs Forza, haven't played much of either. I can't really comment. I do know it was a disappointment to many. It had problems with its core rather than its content. The main complaint was it being too bland I believe.


I agree that sony should give the developer the flexibility to decide when they are ready to release a game. However, isnt that what they are doing already. Sony have a reputation for good relations with their developers and for allowing them to release games at their own time (as happened with GOW3). GT5 was rushed admittedly and could have benefitted from greater dev. time, but considering how long it had taken to develop GT5 and the delays in release, I think sony were justified to enforce a release (if thats what they did) on the basis that they may have lost fans.

Getting back to your point, i dont think sony forces releases their developers and such issues are more due to the developer than sony.



<a href="https://psnprofiles.com/fauzman"><img src="https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/fauzman.png" border="0"></a>

Ajescent on 10 July 2011
WiseOwl said:
I think Sony games are just fine because Sony games are good.



That, if it ain't broke don't fix it.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Ajescent on 10 July 2011
badgenome said:
Since you talk about FF Versus XIII like it's a game that will ever actually exist, it's hard to take the rest of your post seriously.



So much win right here.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Around the Network
KBG29 on 10 July 2011

I think you are heading in the right direction with more time, but what might have an even greater effect is mixing up releases from developers. So Naughty Dog for example, could start off next gen with a 4 year dev time on their first PS4 game. Get an engine taylored to the hardware and make a polished start to a new franchise. Then they could take two years going back to a Jak or Drake game, or even try something in a totally new direction. During this time they could also be looking at new advances in gameplay and tech through the industry, plus new internal ideas for their new franchise. After game two completes they could go back to a 3 year dev time for their return to their big gun, and create a fresher, more polished, and thought out experience.

Even as pathetic and uncreative as I am, taking time off a main focus and returning to it fresh makes a major difference. It really helps you see the flaws, and bring a new perspective.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

mchaza on 10 July 2011

you know the last two gens naughty dog released games annually, only this gen have they released games every 2 years.

I think there is no need for 3 years at the moment when Naughty dog can do a Uncharted 2 and improve every aspect of uncharted 1 to make a great enjoyable experience which is highly polished and could i say almost perfect.



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

Munkeh111 on 10 July 2011
Jay520 said:
Munkeh111 said:

Now, with some dev studios a longer dev cycle is probably the answer. But there are better ways, with some like Naughty Dog, which I think is to simply expand the studio. But, you essentially split the studio into 3, teams 1, 2 and 3

So you start with teams 1 doing pre work on game 1, while teams 2 & 3 work on game 2
Then once game 2 is shipped, team 3 change onto game 1, and then team 2 works on game 3

This way, each game actually gets 4 years of development, but they release a game every 2 years, or something like that


Sounds like a good idea, but It seems very unstable. Is Naughty Dog big enough to be split into 3 different teams? What if the three teams have different visions for the game? 

If they can somehow make it work, then I'm down for it.

Well the point is that there are 2 teams who work on different games, so you only need 2 teams to be in agreement. But maybe you could have a junior team who comes in to help finish off the game so they will be less keen to change the direction of the game?