Studio Liverpool axed?

[Ghostz]

I would have agreed with you on that not long ago as I thought that's how it operated, but the blog post does suggest that the internal studios don't have as much freedom to do their own thing as I believed. I guess a studio needs to have earned a lot of faith to be given carte blanche to spend Sony's money without Sony getting a say. I also wonder if there's a lot of regional difference, as the SCEE financiers are bound to be different people with different values to those running SCEJ and SCEA. A lot of positive comments I've heard about Sony this gen have been associated more with Phil Harrison. Looking at this list of Sony's 16 studios, I'm seeing a lot of one-or-two IP 'factories'. Guerilla just produce Killzone. PD just produce GT. Liverpool just produced Wipeout and Formula One. I can see three studios producing a lot of varied content - Studio Japan, Santa Monica, and Cambridge. (goes googling) Tell a lie, Santa Monica is a God of War franchise machine with support for other developers creating their broad library. Only Japan and Cambridge are producing multiple different games.

So it really does seem to me to be a case of Sony seeing their internal studios as producing staple AAA titles. GoW, GT, Infamous, Killzone, Motorstorm - whatever a studio enters into a generation with is what they typically will see it out with. That makes some sense. "You've made this great title and it's sold lots. We'd like to cash in on another iteration rather than risk a new franchise that might not be so well received." Then again, it could be the studio naturally wants to develop its ideas over the years. One obvious difference I see between Liverpool and other studios is that they stuck with the same franchises from PS2 to PS3. But then so did PD. I'd certainly like to know who's call that was. Given that we hear Liverpool were working on a new IP for next-gen, it sounds like they were trying to make a change and had been given the go ahead, but Sony had a change of heart. Perhaps it was too ambitious and Sony don't feel able to carry devs for too long now. I'm sure Team ICO's debacle has made Sony reevaluate more critically than perhaps their internal studios have been used to.

You are obviously being completely selective, ignoring my point, so I have nothing further to add.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Oh boy here we go with the smarty snide comments again. This is why quote mining....you ignored the whole other part of my point which puts into perspective. Pitching a concept that's expensive and has no market appeal will get you nowhere fast. No matter how far ahead of the curve they think they are. Here's an idea I know you haven't thought of: maybe, just maybe they don't have the pedigree of a ND to execute on their ideas. Did you ever think of that? Nobody would close up a studio that's brimming with talent and ideas, that doesn't happen. Heck, they still haven't closed the Last Guardian studio and that game has been in development hell for years.

Maybe, just maybe Naughty Dog is better than the whole of those studios in the UK. Maybe, just maybe, as a studio they are less like Sony's Santa Monica studios and more like Team Ico in which expensive ideas become more expensive not having the talent and skill to execute on concepts. Who wants more of those around? Seriously, the writing is on the wall anybody can see it. So, I'm not buying it (yes I believe that overall, these are all talentless studios that will be getting Darwin's treatment and the few that are talented will find work in other studios or start their own) and neither is Sony. I suspect more of these Sony studios just like them to close down, they are poorly managed and can't sustain themselves. You can't ignore the business side of game development. /The end

You did get the part where their ideas that they pitched for a game were developed by other studios?

So they weren't unworkable or sucky ideas. An don't have the pedigree of ND? Er... Uh... They've been making games since the 80's. They were successful enough that they were able to transform themselves from a successful game developer into a successful games publisher.

Sony then spent a lot of money to aquire them due to their success as not only a games developer but as a games publisher. Both of which means being able to not only come up with ideas but to judge whether those ideas can be realized into an actual game and then whether you can actually make a profit on it.

And considering that their ideas went on to form the basis of games that Sony then allowed other internal devs to develope and from there become commercially successful... They obviously werent bad ideas.

It just sounds like Sony only wanted them to develope Wipeout and Formula 1 and didn't want them branching out. Same as I'm sure Sony won't allow PD to make anything but GT games. Or have Guerilla making anything other than Killzone. Etc. As Shifty pointed out, there aren't many internal studios that actually get to decide what they make.

Seriously...

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You did get the part where their ideas that they pitched for a game were developed by other studios?

Unless I misunderstand your reference, that was Sony Cambridge, and their ideas were developed for other non-Sony developers.

So they weren't unworkable or sucky ideas. An don't have the pedigree of ND? Er... Uh... They've been making games since the 80's...

Regardless of a company's history, it's their current ability to perform that justifies their maintenance. If Studio Liverpool have lost the ability to deliver, then they should get the chop in favour of other developers. Of course if that's the case, one should question why. Had the management changed and lost their verve? Had their best designers left and they were unable to find suitable design talent? Or was it Sony HQ choosing what they'd make and then deciding they didn't want the ongoing cost of the studio?

It just sounds like Sony only wanted them to develope Wipeout and Formula 1 and didn't want them branching out.

I don't really know, but it seems that way to me at the moment seeing the content from the first party studios over the past ten years. Liverpool are the Wipeout devs. Sony no longer wants Wipeout, and already has their future investments in other studios. Sony closes Wipeout dev to save the expense. However, that's an assumption unsupported by hard evidence.

 

[tuna]

You did get the part where their ideas that they pitched for a game were developed by other studios?

What ideas were developed by other studios?

 

[catisfit]

Perhaps if they had released Wipeout HD as a £40 retail release rather than a £11 PSN download they might have looked more profitable?

I guess that was Sony's call, wanting to prove to consumers that there was quality available on PSN while also proving to publishers that PSN was a viable publishing platform. Doesn't make sense to beat Studio Liverpool with the profitability stick if that was Sony's decision as publisher, though.

Perhaps Sony were pissed that what was supposed to be a quick release - upscale some old PSP tracks to 1080p and release - became a technically brilliant game (dynamic framebuffer, etc) but delayed until two years after PS3 launch.

Thinking back, I see Studio Liverpool as some fantastic engineers coming up with some leading edge engine features but not really focusing on actually getting games out into the wild. From that narrow viewpoint it makes sense to keep the tech guys and hand the Wipeout franchise to Evolution or someone. I think other people have noted that some of the great old Psygnosis games were with them as publisher rather than developer.

 

[DJ12]

Who would've bought it for £40?

I loved the original wipeout on PS1, but would never have even bought Wipeout HD. Only reason I have it is because it was free.

 

[Phil]

Who would've bought it for £40?

I loved the original wipeout on PS1, but would never have even bought Wipeout HD. Only reason I have it is because it was free.

I would. I'd buy it twice for that amount of money. It's may come down to a matter of taste, but IMO - it's pure awesomness. I'm not sure what the game sold on PSone and Fusion on PS2 ruined some of its brilliance, but HD IMO combines the best aspects of the series. Great sound, stylish graphics, exhilirating speed, excellent replayability and there's a multi player mode too.

There's so much quality in this game, I wonder why they didn't sell it as a full retail game and market it as such. I also wonder if people (like some friends of mine) ignored this game because it was sold purely on PSN when it would have made such a bigger impression if it was sold on disc with some decent marketing behind it. I also wonder if starting at a "bargain price" made people think this was just some shoddy port of an old outdated game?

Either way - I think this game could have been a much bigger success than it is/was. The price at which it was sold (and given away for free) is clearly under its true value though.

 

[user542745831]

Just came across this:

http://www.vg247.com/2012/09/17/son...sts-cryptic-we-are-alive-message-wipeout-art/

 

[KongRudi]

Psygnosis were fantastic on the Amiga, as soon as you saw the owl, you knew you were to play a great game.

Studio Liverpool specialized themselves in the racing-genre, and seemingly this genre has become less and less popular this generation. I doub't Liverpool will be the last casualty in the genre, racing studios seem to be at high risk. :-/

I don't think Sony were unhappy with the quality of WipeOut, however, I think Motorstorm have probably taken the spot as Sony's second most popular internal racing-franchise in Europe, behind GT. :-/