Nurturing creative talent is not as simple as throwing money at it - Jim Ryan (Sony)

[Gizmo_Duck]

Duh. Look at how Nintendo cooks every other studio in terms of releases. Not just in terms of development, but also publishing.

Money doesn't substitute creativity.

Sony is learning from nintendo in terms of how to treat your 1st party games. Since like streaming got popular for tv, every platform is gonna need their own line up of exclusive content now.

Nintendo also said that buying a bunch of studios isn’t their goal and that organic growth makes the most sense with game development.

 

[Rekkapryde]

He’s 100% right.
Sony has done a tremendous job with their first-party studios. The creative freedom, full support, and time given to their devs is felt in the quality of their titles.
The quality and polish of their games can’t be denied.

True, it's not always money. It's environment and freedom in a lot of situations

As the old adage goes, all money ain't good money

And throwing money at shyt don't make it better

 

[The Wolf Among You]

No he’s not right.

How do you give them freedom and time?

It’s money. That’s it. You give them money.

Dude just likes to say stuff to rile up the stans.

Creative freedom allows their studios to explore new ideas, and time, Sony’s no stranger to delaying if they need to.
Of course money is important, but there’s more to cultivating a healthy environment for devs than just money.
From what I’ve seen thus far, Sony’s doing a good job.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Creative freedom allows their studios to explore new ideas, and time, Sony’s no stranger to delaying if they need to.
Of course money is important, but there’s more to cultivating a healthy environment for devs than just money.
From what I’ve seen thus far, Sony’s doing a good job.

Money is what you need for creative freedom.

Why is it that a studio may not have creative freedom? Cause they don’t have enough money to pursue their creativity. That’s it.

Time is money. When a studio is told to cut content or change their vision to monetize the game, or add multiplayer GAS stuff. It’s all about money. You give them money, you give them freedom.

The statement is BS based off just trying to rile up the fans. Sony spends billions on both their own studios and literally buying exclusive content from other studios.

 

[The Wolf Among You]

Money is what you need for creative freedom.

Why is it that a studio may not have creative freedom? Cause they don’t have enough money to pursue their creativity. That’s it.

Time is money. When a studio is told to cut content or change their vision to monetize the game, or add multiplayer GAS stuff. It’s all about money. You give them money, you give them freedom.

The statement is BS based off just trying to rile up the fans. Sony spends billions on both their own studios and literally buying exclusive content from other studios.

That’s not what allows studios creative freedom, breh.
What allows creative freedom is the publisher being willing to take a chance on new, unique and unproven ideas.
I can easily tell that his comment is a thinly veiled shot at Xbox, but I’m not gonna disagree because he’s dog whistling to their stans.
He is right, money alone will not net you high quality studios. I think the big 3 are well aware of this, not just Sony.

 

[Rekkapryde]

That’s not what allows studios creative freedom, breh.
What allows creative freedom is the publisher being willing to take a chance on new, unique and unproven ideas.
I can easily tell that his comment is a thinly veiled shot at Xbox, but I’m not gonna disagree because he’s dog whistling to their stans.
He is right, money alone will not net you high quality studios. I think the big 3 are well aware of this, not just Sony.

Remember why Bungie left......

 

[MeachTheMonster]

That’s not what allows studios creative freedom, breh.
What allows creative freedom is the publisher being willing to take a chance on new, unique and unproven ideas.

Now why would a publisher not take a chance?? MONEY is the answer. A publishers intervention is ALWAYS about money. That’s literally what they exist for. If a dev didn’t need money they wouldn’t need a publisher.

I can easily tell that his comment is a thinly veiled shot at Xbox, but I’m not gonna disagree because he’s dog whistling to their stans.
He is right, money alone will not net you high quality studios. I think the big 3 are well aware of this, not just Sony.

But he’s lying. Money is exactly, Specifically what you need to cultivate a studios creativity. Especially from his perspective as a platform holder.

 

[The Wolf Among You]

Remember why Bungie left......

Sure. But the people running the show then aren’t running the show now.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Seems like sony and microsoft are diggin into their petty bag as of late. First Spencer and Greenberg with the PC comments pertaining sony now sony with this. I like that energy

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Remember why Bungie left......

Because Microsoft would not fund another franchise for them. They wanted to spend money on Halo.

Had they “thrown money” at bungee they would have had the freedom to try another franchise.

They signed with activision which was a mistake because their money had creative strings attached too.

It’s all money. Money is the answer.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Because Microsoft would not fund another franchise for them. They wanted to spend money on Halo.

Had they “thrown money” at bungee they would have had the freedom to try another franchise.

They signed with activision which was a mistake because their money had creative strings attached too.

It’s all money. Money is the answer.

The point is taking chances and not forcing them to keep doing Halo

Destiny could have been theirs

 

[The Wolf Among You]

Now why would a publisher not take a chance?? MONEY is the answer. A publishers intervention is ALWAYS about money. That’s literally what they exist for. If a dev didn’t need money they wouldn’t need a publisher.


But he’s lying. Money is exactly, Specifically what you need to cultivate a studios creativity. Especially from his perspective as a platform holder.

How are you reading his quote? Because that’s where I think we’re disconnecting.
What I am taking away from his statement is that simply buying studios will not facilitate success without giving them the chance to try new things.
You are 100% correct about money, and how much it factors into decisions made, but it is not always the only thing that matters.

Creative freedom does not mean a publisher has to give every single studio a $100 million dollar budget and 10 years of Dev time, creative freedom is a trifecta of creativity, risk taking, and smart funding.

If Naughty Dog wanted their next game to be a roguelite I believe Sony would allow it, would it have the same budget as The Last of Us Part II, no. But it doesn’t need it either.
A different publisher with a different ideology would never go for that, not just because of the money but also because Naughty Dog is unproven in that particular genre.

 

[Fatboi1]

Because Microsoft would not fund another franchise for them. They wanted to spend money on Halo.

Had they “thrown money” at bungee they would have had the freedom to try another franchise.

They signed with activision which was a mistake because their money had creative strings attached too.

It’s all money. Money is the answer.

Did each Halo game not require funds?

 

[winb83]

I wonder if Jim Ryan worked for a company that had a CEO that gave him a blank check to the point they could spend $7-8 billion on a company if he'd be saying that?

What Microsoft is doing isn't drastically different that what Netflix did. When building out such a service money is going to have to be invested to secure content.

One company is more a curator of content for a service and the other simply isn't that.

 

[winb83]

How are you reading his quote? Because that’s where I think we’re disconnecting.
What I am taking away from his statement is that simply buying studios will not facilitate success without giving them the chance to try new things.
You are 100% correct about money, and how much it factors into decisions made, but it is not always the only thing that matters.

Creative freedom does not mean a publisher has to give every single studio a $100 million dollar budget and 10 years of Dev time, creative freedom is a trifecta of creativity, risk taking, and smart funding.

If Naughty Dog wanted their next game to be a roguelite I believe Sony would allow it, would it have the same budget as The Last of Us Part II, no. But it doesn’t need it either.
A different publisher with a different ideology would never go for that, not just because of the money but also because Naughty Dog is unproven in that particular genre.

But could Sony Bend make Days Gone 2 if they wanted? Naughty Dog is kind of an exception to the rule. Also in the last 2 decades Naughty Dog has made Jak, Uncharted, and Last of Us games exclusively so while they have limited freedom it's still amounts to them constantly being a franchise factory long term.

Take Rare. They wanted to make Viva Pinata. They got to make it. Even got a cartoon for it and the Stampers threw a tantrum and left because they thought Microsoft should put Gears of War money into it and the game came out and didn't make waves.