Shane Kim 1up interview

[bRoNx]

HOME is "very difficult to do", according to Shane. I wonder if MS tried something similar but found it "difficult". And if HOME goes according to plan and is the success that SONY obviously hopes it'll be, does this mean that SONY as the hardware horse just one-up'd it's software counterpart? Interesting.

BTW, I didn't know Allard was replaced! Good for MS, I'd say. At least this guy isn't trying to be "cool"!

 

[aselto]

I think Microsoft chose their partners very wisely. PGR3 was definitely a fine game, Gears sold over 3M units, Crackdown is a well acclaimed game, too, Mass Effect will very likely sell really good and so on. Granted they now wish they were publishers of Heavenly Sword, but overall they have very solid lineup.

 

[chris100]

I think Microsoft chose their partners very wisely. PGR3 was definitely a fine game, Gears sold over 3M units, Crackdown is a well acclaimed game, too, Mass Effect will very likely sell really good and so on. Granted they now wish they were publishers of Heavenly Sword, but overall they have very solid lineup.

I think MS still needs to get more premium studios to make games ONLY for Xbox platgform.Just like Naughty Dogs and Insomniac games.

 

[aselto]

I think MS still needs to get more premium studios to make games ONLY for Xbox platgform.Just like Naughty Dogs and Insomniac games.

More is always better, but it's not bad as it is. You could always spin it the other way around
"I think Sony still needs to get more premium studios to make games ONLY for Playstation platgform.Just like Rare and Bungie games."

 

[Sis]

HOME is "very difficult to do", according to Shane. I wonder if MS tried something similar but found it "difficult". And if HOME goes according to plan and is the success that SONY obviously hopes it'll be, does this mean that SONY as the hardware horse just one-up'd it's software counterpart? Interesting.

BTW, I didn't know Allard was replaced! Good for MS, I'd say. At least this guy isn't trying to be "cool"!

You make an interesting assumption that Home is the right way to do it, and the only reason others haven't done so yet is due to difficulty of implementation.

I also find it interesting that, back a year or so ago, there were constant debates here about just how easy and trivial it is putting together a system like Xbox Live (with some going so far as to say it's just an instant messaging platform). Given how easy some seem to think it is to do and Sony was unable even to deliver that base line feature set, yet now they will "one-up" Microsoft by releasing a Second Live/WoW/Xbox Live/YouTube mashup?

I think the idea of Home is cool--I'd never use it, but I can see how it excites some people. But I have zero faith in Sony's ability to deliver on this singular vision.

Also, Allard moved over to head up the Zune project, if I recall, quite some time ago (about the time he went dark).

 

[Inane_Dork]

I think MS still needs to get more premium studios to make games ONLY for Xbox platgform.Just like Naughty Dogs and Insomniac games.

I'm going to try to not start a list war here, but it seems to me that whether you think MS's list of developers is small or not depends on if you like the games they are making. If you like racing, FPS and RPG, you'll probably be quite happy with MS's list. If you go more for platformers or action/swordplay, you probably will not be very happy with MS's list.

 

[Sonic]

Good, please do not sart a list in order to prevent the thread from being derailed.

The amount of games coming to the 360 is definitely impressive. Shane Kim is doing an amazing job so far ans really shows us that he can fill the role Allard left and fill it better.

It's good to see PGR4 wil be coming soon, it is by far my favorite racing game series of the past few years.

Halo 3 will be a huge game this year and I can't wait to get a chance to see it live.

 

[Acert93]

I also find it interesting that, back a year or so ago, there were constant debates here about just how easy and trivial it is putting together a system like Xbox Live (with some going so far as to say it's just an instant messaging platform).

I agree, I think people have misunderestimated the complexity of Live and the amount of resources to deploy and maintain such. A year ago there was a demo/game coder making statements how he could program a unified Live like service in 6 or 9 months and yet we see Sony in the same timeframe is still struggling to get many of their features they were discussing in 2006 "online" and in games. It isn't easy, and with MS progressing the Live platform and expanding it they have a moving target to hit. Where I think Sony has some room is game services (something MS has been slower on in Live progression... like clan support) as well as "community" services like forums and blogging "myspace" stuff which is something they are aiming at. MS seems to have shifted focused some to media distribution which I think could be a weak point for them if they are not mindful.

On Kim, I like him. Kim, Bach, and Moore seem to be likeable fellows. Kim and Bach always seem to be pretty down to earth and business oriented whereas Moore, while business oriented, expresses it in more flowerly/hyperbole. Allard got moved along a long time ago (!!) suprised people are mentioning it now, but as much as Allard is a nice guy I think some of his goals and politics are NOT what the Xbox needs. Some in the MS camp are more "it is done when it done" in regards to games and others are more "EA--hit strategic dates". As a platform owner they have a responsibility to setting the bar for quality and ensuring it has compelling software thus a trend leaning more toward "it is done when it is done" is more fitting.

It is funny how we look at the industry "faces". We are probably the only people who ever care! I like Reg a lot (probably my favorite face in the industry), but due to Iwata (ugh) and Kaplan (ho hum) I think I gravitate toward liking the Kim/Bach/Moore combo best. Phil seems like a likable guy in a hard spot, and Kaz seems like someone who would be cool to chat with off the record (but not so much in his official capacity over the last couple years) but Trenton and KK are not my type at all from a relations standpoint (not these peoples primary jobs in most ways so irrelevant), although I am sure Ken would be by far the best of the bunch across the board to sit next to with a drink and shoot the breeze about the vision for the industry and games. I am sure he could get the most cynical among us excited about his vision! You could probably say the same for Myamoto and Gates as well in this capacity depending on your interest. I just want to get an interview with Dave Baumann

 

[patsu]

You make an interesting assumption that Home is the right way to do it, and the only reason others haven't done so yet is due to difficulty of implementation.

I also find it interesting that, back a year or so ago, there were constant debates here about just how easy and trivial it is putting together a system like Xbox Live (with some going so far as to say it's just an instant messaging platform). Given how easy some seem to think it is to do and Sony was unable even to deliver that base line feature set, yet now they will "one-up" Microsoft by releasing a Second Live/WoW/Xbox Live/YouTube mashup?

The fact that Sony does not create an Xbox Live-alike system may not imply that Sony cannot do it. It is most likely due to strategic marketing and business factors than technical reasons.

It will be a mistake for Sony to "merely" clone an Xbox Live system. Home is the right path for them because it embeds more business models suitable for Sony, and target the right audience (for Sony). As for whether they will be successful or can deliver, we will know soon.

Finally, it's also a mistake to compare Xbox Live to Home. It may be more appropriate to compare Playstation Network to Xbox Live. Home is something different, although there may be some overlap with Playstation Network (The latter implements the underlying mechanism).

 

[nintenho]

The fact that Sony does not create an Xbox Live-alike system may not imply that Sony cannot do it. It is most likely due to strategic marketing and business factors than technical reasons.
It will be a mistake for Sony to "merely" clone an Xbox Live system. Home is the right path for them because it embeds more business models suitable for Sony, and target the right audience (for Sony). As for whether they will be successful or can deliver, we will know soon.
Finally, it's also a mistake to compare Xbox Live to Home. It may be more appropriate to compare Playstation Network to Xbox Live. Home is something different, although there may be some overlap with Playstation Network (The latter implements the underlying mechanism).

The difference is that PSN and Live are absolutely required. Sony understands this and creates Home as a seperate thing than the system for the online play in their PS3 games (not sure if the arcade games you could play have online play).

I'm sure you could buy content that could only be used in Home in PSN and vice-versa.

My point is Live is as straightforward as an online service on a games console could get since the first priority is how easy it is to use it (we have to WAIT to see this for Home) than the second priority is to provide a steady stream of content. Live is right now working on the second stream of content and even though they don't have a Home-like system they're still having trouble keeping up with demand (arcade games, movies, etc).

 

[patsu]

My point is Live is as straightforward as an online service on a games console could get since the first priority is how easy it is to use it (we have to WAIT to see this for Playstation Network) than the second priority is to provide a steady stream of content. Live is right now working on the second stream of content and even though they don't have a Home-like system they're still having trouble keeping up with demand (arcade games, movies, etc).

Fixed. Home rests on PSN and has different goals. (Most of) PSN can also be assessed from XMB directly to provide quick and easy interactions like in Xbox Live.

 

[RobertR1]

The fact that Sony does not create an Xbox Live-alike system may not imply that Sony cannot do it. It is most likely due to strategic marketing and business factors than technical reasons.

It will be a mistake for Sony to "merely" clone an Xbox Live system. Home is the right path for them because it embeds more business models suitable for Sony, and target the right audience (for Sony). As for whether they will be successful or can deliver, we will know soon.

Finally, it's also a mistake to compare Xbox Live to Home. It may be more appropriate to compare Playstation Network to Xbox Live. Home is something different, although there may be some overlap with Playstation Network (The latter implements the underlying mechanism).

Whatever the reasons, I doubt many lose sleep over the techincalities. In the end, the end product is inferior and needs to be addressed sooner than later.

 

[patsu]

Whatever the reasons, I doubt many lose sleep over the techincalities. In the end, the end product is inferior and needs to be addressed sooner than later.

I was answering to previous questions regarding Sony's moves.

EDIT: One of the posters in another thread faulted Home for delaying PSN implementations, which I'm not sure I agree (yet). They are most likely done by different teams. Adding more resources to the PSN team may or may not help to speed up the project if they already have "enough" people. I certainly hope that they roll out PSN feature sets without syncing it with the Home environment (coz that will really slow down PSN rollout). People should still being able to access new PSN features via XMB (and Virtual PSP) during the Home beta.

PSN is also based on an open platform approach where third party middleware can be used. Sony may need more time doing interoperability tests with the partners. The scope is more complex than a single vendor implementation. It will be interesting to see what final form it takes (whether there's any compromise in user experience in exchange for third party innovations).

 

[pipo]

I also find it interesting that, back a year or so ago, there were constant debates here about just how easy and trivial it is putting together a system like Xbox Live (with some going so far as to say it's just an instant messaging platform).

Indeedy. And I still think they won't be able to 'patch' some fundamental stuff...

 

[Sis]

The fact that Sony does not create an Xbox Live-alike system may not imply that Sony cannot do it. It is most likely due to strategic marketing and business factors than technical reasons.

It will be a mistake for Sony to "merely" clone an Xbox Live system. Home is the right path for them because it embeds more business models suitable for Sony, and target the right audience (for Sony). As for whether they will be successful or can deliver, we will know soon.

Finally, it's also a mistake to compare Xbox Live to Home. It may be more appropriate to compare Playstation Network to Xbox Live. Home is something different, although there may be some overlap with Playstation Network (The latter implements the underlying mechanism).

But they've tried to copy Xbox Live in some areas and are updating PSN in the next firmware to get even closer, so I don't agree that it's a strategic move. I also am not implying that Sony can't do it, just that in terms of work effort it's more than taking some open source instant messaging platform and dropping it on the system. And while Sony is building this other system that complements the online experience, Microsoft will be adding features and improving their own.

Sony will need an Xbox Live-story, one where match making is not done in 3d and I can see my friends without having to use some quirky interface. With the introduction of Home, I think Sony has committed themselves to building both this new 3d world and a simplified one that behaves much like Xbox Live's interface.

 

[patsu]

But they've tried to copy Xbox Live in some areas and are updating PSN in the next firmware to get even closer, so I don't agree that it's a strategic move. I also am not implying that Sony can't do it, just that in terms of work effort it's more than taking some open source instant messaging platform and dropping it on the system. And while Sony is building this other system that complements the online experience, Microsoft will be adding features and improving their own.

Sony will need an Xbox Live-story, one where match making is not done in 3d and I can see my friends without having to use some quirky interface. With the introduction of Home, I think Sony has committed themselves to building both this new 3d world and a simplified one that behaves much like Xbox Live's interface.

You might want to check out the GDC thread for a lot of these discussions (cuz it's tiring to repeat it here and will derail this thread). Essentially...

You can access online gaming functionality (including Xbox-style achievements) from XMB itself. So you should be able to see your friends without having to use some quirky interface (XMB does that in limited form today, except that the list is not integrated in-games yet).

Online gaming functionality provided in PSN are enabling functions and basic features. The strategy part of PSN is to keep it open for third party to come in. In addition, the business planning and marketing behind Home is also a strategic move.

PSN may indeed be taking a Jabber like approach where a central platform interoperates with probably IM platforms (e.g., MSN, Yahoo IM and AOL). But in terms of work effort, they will need to come up with a more efficient implementation; the general idea may be not far off (We don't know for sure yet). XBL of course has deeper developer support today, more features like movie download and may be improved further e.g., spectator TV in the future, but ...

It's not clear what Sony's scope for PSN is today. They may attempt to leapfrog in 1 or 2 specific areas. The open platform approach typically takes more time to jump start. Time will tell.

And yes... "Sony has committed themselves to building both this new 3d world and a simplified one that behaves much like Xbox Live's interface" Depending on how Sony package the final experience, you may be able to jump between these 2 worlds seamlessly. The community aspect of Home is a lot deeper.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The fact that Sony does not create an Xbox Live-alike system may not imply that Sony cannot do it. It is most likely due to strategic marketing and business factors than technical reasons.

It will be a mistake for Sony to "merely" clone an Xbox Live system. Home is the right path for them because it embeds more business models suitable for Sony, and target the right audience (for Sony). As for whether they will be successful or can deliver, we will know soon.

Finally, it's also a mistake to compare Xbox Live to Home. It may be more appropriate to compare Playstation Network to Xbox Live. Home is something different, although there may be some overlap with Playstation Network (The latter implements the underlying mechanism).

No one said they should 'clone Live', he said they have been unable to provide even the 'baseline featureset', i.e. universal friends list, easy ingame invites etc features that are necessary for any online gaming network, are still missing.

 

[patsu]

No one said they should copy Sony, he said they have been unable to provide even the 'baseline featureset" features that are necessary for any online gaming network and are still missing.

Sure... I thought that is clear ? The subtle difference is whether "Sony has been unable to ..." or "Sony has not provided baseline features yet".

Given how easy some seem to think it is to do and Sony was unable even to deliver that base line feature set, yet now they will "one-up" Microsoft by releasing a Second Live/WoW/Xbox Live/YouTube mashup?

Home is a separate effort and addresses issues that Xbox Live does not.

EDIT: This is a Shane Kim interview thread, so if we want to talk about Home and PSN, it might be better to do it in another one.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Sure... I thought that is clear ? The subtle difference is whether "Sony has been unable to ..." or "Sony has not provided baseline features yet".

It doesn't matter, the point is simply: These features are not as easily implemented as some around here would argue. No one ever claimed that Sony was unable to implement them in the future, just that they were unable to produce them in time for the system launch, or even 6months past.

 

[patsu]

It doesn't matter, the point is simply: These features are not as easily implemented as some around here would argue. No one ever claimed that Sony was unable to implement them.

Which particular features are you talking about ?

Many of these technologies and services exist today in the form of 3rd party solutions.

I'm not sure if the delay is caused by dependencies on third party (e.g., interoperability testing), missing Game OS functionality (e.g., "preemptive" multitasking due to Cell's newness ?), operational and business requirements, or something else (e.g., working on some areas to leapfrog).

EDIT: Note that they have just released PS3 3-4 months ago, there may be a lot of complexity and priority conflicts due to the way different things are layered together, and the fact that Sony is rolling them out together.