Forums - Gaming Discussion - E3 2017: Indies 'Less Relevant Now,' Says PlayStation's Jim Ryan

DonFerrari said:
SegataSanshiro said:

Sony were dicks to my friend developing a game for them.  Also PSM (not PSN) was an absolute terror to use until they switched to Unity. Sony isn't always great. He's not bitter towards them but not exactly excited about Sony games or consoles anymore. He's an indie dev.

I believe it, not all relationships go wrong, but do you agree that sometimes unproven talents get a little ahead of theirselves on their demands?When we are starting we need to be even more humble and receptive to them prove ourselves and get our space and respect.

I mean yeah. He's a good friend and he has experience working with R* but when on your own it's different in how you do things and look at things. I adore my PS4 and it's easily becoming one of my fave systems ever. That said Sony like Nintendo or MS is a corporation and they will be dicks on occasion. Some more than others.



Around the Network
SegataSanshiro said:
DonFerrari said:

I believe it, not all relationships go wrong, but do you agree that sometimes unproven talents get a little ahead of theirselves on their demands?When we are starting we need to be even more humble and receptive to them prove ourselves and get our space and respect.

I mean yeah. He's a good friend and he has experience working with R* but when on your own it's different in how you do things and look at things. I adore my PS4 and it's easily becoming one of my fave systems ever. That said Sony like Nintendo or MS is a corporation and they will be dicks on occasion. Some more than others.

Totally, usually not easy to be the small guy



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

Ali_16x said:
jason1637 said:

The only reason Microsoft started to treat indies good was when Sony did, same with Nintendo. Indies have gotten so successful on consoles BECAUSE of Sony. That's why the PS4 has the most indies. And even then, Sony still treats indies good, they give them so much marketing on Twitter/YouTube.

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)



SegataSanshiro said:
So Sony didn't treat RiME dev all that great
http://sirusgaming.info/2017/06/rime-developers-had-more-creative-freedom-with-greybox-as-publisher-than-sony/
Sony didn't allow the creative freedom they needed.

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Mr Puggsly said:
Ali_16x said:

The only reason Microsoft started to treat indies good was when Sony did, same with Nintendo. Indies have gotten so successful on consoles BECAUSE of Sony. That's why the PS4 has the most indies. And even then, Sony still treats indies good, they give them so much marketing on Twitter/YouTube.

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 



"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"

Around the Network
Ali_16x said:
SegataSanshiro said:
So Sony didn't treat RiME dev all that great
http://sirusgaming.info/2017/06/rime-developers-had-more-creative-freedom-with-greybox-as-publisher-than-sony
Sony didn't allow the creative freedom they needed.

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Mr Puggsly said:

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

If you wanna argue neither company was great to indies, there is totally a discussion. But Sony was worse and thats why MS got great support early on. Over time, Sony relaxed and got better support.

However, your original point was Sony started the indie boom when MS actually deserves the credit.

Frankly, it doesent really matter and I do agree the indie scene has become oversaturated. But there are still gems.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Ali_16x said:
SegataSanshiro said:
So Sony didn't treat RiME dev all that great
http://sirusgaming.info/2017/06/rime-developers-had-more-creative-freedom-with-greybox-as-publisher-than-sony/
Sony didn't allow the creative freedom they needed.

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Mr Puggsly said:

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

No it's an opinion.



SegataSanshiro said:
Ali_16x said:

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

No it's an opinion.

Lol, not it really isn't. Nintendo definitely doesn't give their developers creative freedom since we're still getting Zelda and Mario, and tons and tons of Mario verse games. Same with Microsoft, the Gears team was making a new IP, nope, Gears. Halo team still making Halo, Lion Head was still making Fable. 

Sony is always giving their developers freedom. 

If Sony was either Nintendo or Microsoft, Sucker Punch would still be making Sly Cooper, but nope, they made inFamous and now again, they're working on a new IP.

Sony Japan is always making new IPs.

Naughty Dog with Crash -> Jak -> Uncharted -> Last of Us

Bend would be making Syphon Filter, nope new IP.

Santa Monica was given freedom to make a new IP, even though it didn't work, they still tried. 

Media Molecule with LBP -> Tearaway -> Dreams. 

Guerilla with Killzone to Horizon. 

Even with their second party like Insomniac with Spyro -> Ratchet -> Resistance, and Level 5 and more.

I can go on, even their yearly studio, MLB Team is given some sort of freedom with finding new games to help produce like ModNation Racers and a bunch of others. And same with Poly, they've made a couple of non 

Lmao, please. It's a fact.

EDIT: Lol Sony has the most IPs, so I'm not even sure why I bothered with the whole list.



"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"

Mr Puggsly said:
Ali_16x said:

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

If you wanna argue neither company was great to indies, there is totally a discussion. But Sony was worse and thats why MS got great support early on. Over time, Sony relaxed and got better support.

However, your original point was Sony started the indie boom when MS actually deserves the credit.

Frankly, it doesent really matter and I do agree the indie scene has become oversaturated. But there are still gems.

Please give me examples as I don't know any. I've actually given you tons of examples. And even if Sony did treat indies worse, which I haven't heard of anything, Microsoft got indies because they looked for them. It was just a plan, like how Microsoft is doing BC right now, it's just a plan. 

And again, you seem to be confusing Microsoft getting indies first to indies being in a health environment. So if you can't give me any facts, and even if you did, it doesn't change what I've said, they've changed all their shit, BECAUSE OF SONY. It's a fact, you can see that RIGHT NOW, with how indies are given so much freedom now. You can see now that MS doesn't have a partiy rule or atleast not as severve as it use to be, you can see that indies don't need a publisher, they can actually publish their game themselves. You can not say that indies were better off in the 360/PS3 era than right now. You just can't. And I have a feeling you're going to reply and basically say nothing, like you just did, don't bother.



"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"

Ali_16x said:
SegataSanshiro said:

No it's an opinion.

Lol, not it really isn't. Nintendo definitely doesn't give their developers creative freedom since we're still getting Zelda and Mario, and tons and tons of Mario verse games. Same with Microsoft, the Gears team was making a new IP, nope, Gears. Halo team still making Halo, Lion Head was still making Fable. 

Sony is always giving their developers freedom. 

If Sony was either Nintendo or Microsoft, Sucker Punch would still be making Sly Cooper, but nope, they made inFamous and now again, they're working on a new IP.

Sony Japan is always making new IPs.

Naughty Dog with Crash -> Jak -> Uncharted -> Last of Us

Bend would be making Syphon Filter, nope new IP.

Santa Monica was given freedom to make a new IP, even though it didn't work, they still tried. 

Media Molecule with LBP -> Tearaway -> Dreams. 

Guerilla with Killzone to Horizon. 

Even with their second party like Insomniac with Spyro -> Ratchet -> Resistance, and Level 5 and more.

I can go on, even their yearly studio, MLB Team is given some sort of freedom with finding new games to help produce like ModNation Racers and a bunch of others. And same with Poly, they've made a couple of non 

Lmao, please. It's a fact.

EDIT: Lol Sony has the most IPs, so I'm not even sure why I bothered with the whole list.

You're assuming and wrong but that's fine. Not that much freedom when most of Sony's IPs last several years are shooters. Keep waving that flag tho not bothered.