Why does Sony seemingly not respect its own legacy and history?

[JeffGubb]

I think the people in charge of SIE right now are not exactly the nostalgic type. Like, Shawn Layden only seems proud of the games he worked on, and he doesn't seem to have fondness for them as games. Instead, he treats them as projects on his CV. I don't think there is a single thing wrong with that. He's a professional executive. That's totally fair. But it just isn't in line with what fans think of when they think of Sony and its past.

 

[TheSyldat]

Yeah, and really, you try and honor your whole legacy, not just what you can grab at a quick notice in an attempt to cash in.

Click to shrink...

Exactly my thoughts.

(hope you don't begrudge me for the slap on the hand about open source but really when it comes to gaming the only reason why Linux and BSD have not been gobbled up by Microsoft is because when using their combined forces at the administration boards of the Linux foundation and BSD foundation , only Sony + Nintendo + Disney Pixar saying no is legit the only thing that prevent us from being eaten by BigM ... so I don't take it too kindly when Sony and Nintendo gets scolded for being citizens of the open source family )

 

[Phendrift]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Was it not possible that they didn't want to spend a fortune on a risky new IP with no guarantee of success?



Of course they are. Nintendo's IPs absolutely carried Smash through its first couple of iterations. Honestly, I feel that PSASBR should have been shelved until this generation where they had more IPs to work with in their pocket. Hell, a new one could include Joel / Ellie, Axe Kratos (totally a different character :P), Aloy, and they could have probably even gotten Spider-Man for it.

Click to shrink...

It really could be amazing this gen. They've got the IPs for it now, and they've even got some that could support multiple characters that would have people excited like TLOU, GOW and Uncharted. If they wait a couple of years then Death Stranding, Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima and TLOUII will all be out and it'll be even be better

 

[SuperFakerBros]

Of course they are. Nintendo's IPs absolutely carried Smash through its first couple of iterations. Honestly, I feel that PSASBR should have been shelved until this generation where they had more IPs to work with in their pocket. Hell, a new one could include Joel / Ellie, Axe Kratos (totally a different character :P), Aloy, and they could have probably even gotten Spider-Man for it.

Click to shrink...

Nah, Sony had plenty of characters to work with, even back then. It's not as if their 1st party efforts were lacking last gen, quite the contrary, and, if they paired it with nostalgic 3rd party PlayStation characters, I'm sure it would've had a fantastic roster. They just didn't handle it well

 

[Pyro]

They're not like Nintendo where nostalgia is practically a core pillar of their business (like you say).

A big part of why Xbox is doubling down on their fans is because that's all they have this gen. They're not top dog. And it's so they're well positioned for the next gen (though I would have said the same for Sony last gen when they were playing catch up and now here we are on this thread).

But I still think Sony does respect its legacy.

- Shadow of the Colossus remake
- PaRappa the Rapper remake
- Medievil remake
- Patapon games being ported to PS4
- Vib Ribbon
- 20th anniversary PS4 console
- FF7 remake will be on PS4 first (or rather PS5 in 2025)
- FFVII is on PS4
- FFIX is on PS4
- They probably stopped the PS2 Classic initiative because it wasn't worth it financially

They're just not going above and beyond because they don't have to.

 

[Seiez]

I think the big problem sony has with nostalgia is that they don't really have Ips that are long lasting. Most games that were big during ps1 and ps2 are third party.

Sony themselves have just a handful of Ips that survive more than two console generations. The biggest problem is that the studios working with those Ips are often milking them dry during two console cycles and are forced to build up a new ip for the next generation.

I think Gran turismo is the only ps1 ip that survived to this day. GoW is the only ps2 ip that is still relevant. To their credit, during the ps3 era they got in a good groove and are now making stuff, that could become nostalgic in 10 years.

Being so reliant on third party to kick off a proper nostalgia play is probably a big problem.

 

[QuiteSomething]

"We have a product for people who want to get some form of BC, it's called PS3. But you need to find a second job to buy one."

 

[Transistor]

It really could be amazing this gen. They've got the IPs for it now, and they've even got some that could support multiple characters that would have people excited like TLOU, GOW and Uncharted. If they wait a couple of years then Death Stranding, Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima and TLOUII will all be out and it'll be even be better

Click to shrink...

I agree with you 100%. This is the generation for it.

 

[v_iHuGi]

So why mini classic consoles are so successful?

Click to shrink...

Nostalgia, collectors.

 

[KalBalboa]

My biggest single criticism of Sony with respect to legacy can be equally levied at Nintendo this generation:

Virtual Console and PlayStation Classics were both seemingly abandoned for the "cash grabs" of the classic mini consoles.

 

[Huey]

I don't think people care as much as some think, I think what Microsoft is doing with backwards compatibility is exactly what Sony should do but I think the reason Sony hasn't cared about it since the ps3 is that they didn't see the value in continuing because the interest wasn't there but now with digital being a big motivator in bringing old libraries, I am hoping for the PS5, they step it up again.

Click to shrink...

But that's a self fulfilling prophecy - if you don't provide access to and marketing for a retro library, you're not going to see the interest. Sony removing Ps2 BC from ps3 was a hardware cost saving measure, so wasnt based on lack of interest. As you say, it was also in advance of a digital game market place.

 

[Deleted member 249]

My biggest single criticism of Sony with respect to legacy can be equally levied at Nintendo this generation:

Virtual Console and PlayStation Classics were both seemingly abandoned for the "cash grabs" of the classic mini consoles.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I agree with this. it's a fucking shame, because both of their current machines would be perfect for their respective legacy content.

 

[Kthulhu]

This is all just speculation on my part, but this is why I think they're this way:

Sony has always tried to present a more powerful alternative to it's competitors. As such, 1st party titles are a means to sell hardware and little more. Compared to Nintendo who relies on nostalgia value.

Sony is a consumer electronics company, where Nintendo was a toy company. These different origins affect how they approach the industry. Sometimes this works in Nintendo's favor, allowing them to beat out their opponents superior hardware.

Nintendo is forced to rely on 1st party software more than Sony or MS, so they lean into their legacy more than the others.


I do think Sony is starting to care more about 1st party titles this generation after the disasterous launch of the PS3 and the "PS3 has no games" memes that were thrown around for years.

 

[SilverX]

They're not like Nintendo where nostalgia is practically a core pillar of their business (like you say).

A big part of why Xbox is doubling down on their fans is because that's all they have this gen. They're not top dog. And it's so they're well positioned for the next gen (though I would have said the same for Sony last gen when they were playing catch up and now here we are on this thread).

But I still think Sony does respect its legacy.

- Shadow of the Colossus remake
- PaRappa the Rapper remake
- Medievil remake
- Patapon games being ported to PS4
- Vib Ribbon
- 20th anniversary PS4 console
- FF7 remake will be on PS4 first (or rather PS5 in 2025)
- FFVII is on PS4
- FFIX is on PS4
- They probably stopped the PS2 Classic initiative because it wasn't worth it financially

They're just not going above and beyond because they don't have to.

Click to shrink...

Id like to say the quiet reboot of God of War was possibly one of the most respectful and tasteful ways of modernizing a flagship series. It didn´t forget the series roots at all and did a fantastic job of weaving it into the continuation going a different direction.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

I think it's because Playstation's legacy and Sony's legacy are two different things. I feel like Sony will be much more willing to embrace their legacy when the PS3 gen is considered "classic"

 

[Ninja_Hawk]

I don't believe it is a problem with them "respecting their heritage". Nostalgia is a marketing tool they use frequently enough. They perhaps use it differently and less effectively than Nintendo, but that is a difference in strategy and resources available to them. A huge part of their legacy is built off of third-party IP's that they don't have the same level of access to. In regards to the PS-All Stars and the PS Classic, at least some part of their strategy is getting what they could get. We don't know what deals take place behind the scenes; how or why certain games don't happen. But I find it more unlikely to believe that if they could reasonably and easily get the games people feel they should have, that they wouldn't acquire those games. Also, execs say stupid stuff all time, I don't think this is a good example. It doesn't necessarily excuse it, but i'm not gonna reach and paint it as the company's attitude.

 

[Strat]

Hot take - their legacy is mostly middling or built on the backs of third parties. I personally think Sony themselves really only started nailing it later in the PS3's life cycle. Not to say they haven't had great games in their past, but they're few and far between in the early days and when you revisit them it becomes clear how iterative their sequels are and how much their games rely on technology over pure playability. That's obviously damaging to the idea of presenting people with your legacy in the way Nintendo does.

I honestly don't think Sony has much of their own that is a stone cold, generation spanning classic. At least, nothing to match many of the much older Japanese dev/publishers. I know people say Sony focuses on new IP a lot and because of that their older series fade away or are forgotten, but I think it's more a case of them having an issue getting shit to stick for a long ass time there, especially in the PS2 era where they hit on something decent, then put out a ton of iterative sequels in quick succession until nobody cared anymore. Late PS3/PS4 era Sony seems like a whole different ball game. They're very clearly focused in a different direction and a different kind of game. The kind that take a ton of time, money, talent and patience. Not getting Insomniac to grind out 6 Ratchet sequels in 8 years or whatever obscene number of games it was.

Sony's legacy is more easily utilized by being like "Hey, remember all those good times you had on our hardware?" as opposed to "Hey, remember Game X from 1997 that you loved? Here it is! Play it!"

 

[Bedlam]

I can't believe that there isn't a Motorstorm collection out yet.

Wtf, Sony?!

 

[ArmGunar]

I think Sony will put PS1/PS2/PS3 games on PS Now (streaming and downloadable) for PS5

Not sure about BC with physical disk for PS1/PS2/PS3 but for sure available on PS Now

And obviously PS5 BC with PS4 games

 

[Falconbox]

Fuck the past. Lets focus on the future.

Thats what Sony is doing. they have made some of the best games of this gen. Thats what matters.

Click to shrink...

Why not focus on both, like Nintendo?

 

[Niosai]

I guess I take issue with the fact that Sony doesn't really celebrate its past, and seems almost ashamed of the IPs and old titles that made them successful in the first place.

 

[Comet]

Quite frankly, Sony doesn't go all in on their "legacy" but they have no need to invest there. For Nintendo, releasing the classics and having Virtual Console is a way to get old fans and new fans aware of their IPs while making a few more dollars on the side. Nintendo iterates on their IPs like no one else in this industry, so it's important that everyone knows who Mario, Kirby, Pikachu, Link, Samus, etc. are - because there's a new version of their games around the corner all the time.

Microsoft invests in their legacy as a market differentiator from Sony. They had the architecture from the 360 that lends itself better to playing those games on the X than Sony did between the PS3/4. So.... they tap that advantage and their own data already shown in this thread shows us that people barely use their Xboxs for that.

So what does Sony have to do to show they care about their legacy? Remasters have been discredited already in this thread. They've tried to bring PS3 emulation the best way that their hardware allows and that's via streaming which isn't a good solution. We know that, they know that. The market for PS1/PS2 isn't quite their to justify going into development to figure out how to offer those solutions coupled with the pain in the ass licensing agreements they have to strike up with various parties. It's just not worth it.

So then OP uses their failed Smash clone to show they don't care. I get that the funding quite wasn't what it should be, but neither was Smash 64's funding. The difference was in execution and timing. Sony TRIED, it failed. They're also not going to go balls to the wall and invest in a Smash clone when they're not convinced that fans even want that. I'm not convinced I even want that and I love Sony IPs and Smash.

edit - I will say, don't be surprised when the PS5 comes swinging out the gate with PS4 BC. Sony has been limited by their architectural decisions in the past. That wont be an issue going into the PS5 thanks to how the PS4 is architected and how we all guess the PS5 will be.

 

[talkTOmyHAND]

Big difference between letting a no name manufacturer release a cheap TV plug in console with some of your games vs making your own and aiming for a much higher standard. Let's not act like the PlayStation Classic wasn't made to compete with Nintendo's offerings.

Click to shrink...

One way or another, product was licensed by SEGA and it was their approval.

 

[Deleted member 4093]

No, you both can't be correct, and you are very defensive. Just think next time before you accusing someone of "thinly veiled" silliness, thanks!

Click to shrink...

Please lol

Yall becoming out of order

 

[KalBalboa]

Yes, I agree with this. it's a fucking shame, because both of their current machines would be perfect for their respective legacy content.

Click to shrink...

When you take that into account, the sins of the PlayStation Classic are largely whittled down to "it's a shame third parties are so expensive to get."

Nintendo's legacy is predominantly first party. Sony probably knew they had to cap their PS1 Classic at $100 and had to make some shitty decisions when it came to third party games. As consumers we really don't care, we just want Crash and Tomb Raider, but it is what it is. They went for Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Tekken 3, and Final Fantasy VII.

Personally: the fact it is using PCSX is a bonus for me. I'm hoping to add my own disc rips to the Classic.

 

[impact]

Neither them or Nintendo care about providing fans with a convenient way to play their classics. I wish I understood the logic in demolishing the Classics and Virtual console lines that were so great on PS3 and Wii.

Meanwhile Microsoft with hardly any legacy has this amazing BC, some classics like Conker, NGB and PDO even rendering in 4K.

 

[AegonSnake]

Why not focus on both, like Nintendo?

Click to shrink...

Nintendo hasnt released a single AAA game this year. smash is literally the first big title since Mario last year.

 

[IronicSonic]

they just see more value in re-selling old games as remakes. Fuck preservation. Welcome business

 

[Deleted member 10737]

Hot take - their legacy is mostly middling or built on the backs of third parties.

Click to shrink...

i semi-agree with this as well. i think some sony fans really overestimate sony's earlier first party output or look back at their ps1/ps2/early ps3 games with rose-tinted glasses. obviously their first party output has been super impressive this gen. sony themselves doesn't seem to think they had many classics from that era too.

 

[wondermagenta]

I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Not focusing on nostalgia bait doesn't mean you don't care. It's just the norm for most gaming companies. You're framing the argument with an assumption and I just don't agree with the assumption.

Click to shrink...

Making your library of legacy games easily accessible isn't "nostalgia bait," it SHOULD be the standard.

 

[Transistor]

As consumers we really don't care, we just want Crash and Tomb Raider, but it is what it is.

Click to shrink...

$20 says Activision would have said no to Crash on it anyways because they want people to buy the remastered ones

 

[KalBalboa]

$20 says Activision would have said no to Crash on it anyways because they want people to buy the remastered ones

Click to shrink...

Right, and they're pushing that $59.99 bundle with the Spyro games concurrently with the PS Classic launching.

 

[Merv]

Guys, Sony dropped the ball with the PS Classic. They have the funds, they definitely have the ability to put out something special, but they don't give enough of a fuck to do it. You can make all the excuses you want, while pointing to their first party output as if they don't have the resources to do both. If you are excusing them from doing it I have to ask why? BC and the classic console stuff is great for the fans and adds value even if it's very little. Fans would only benefit if it was done and done right. The only ones benefiting from Sony not doing it or doing it half-assed is Sony shareholders.

 

[Pariah]

A handful of unconnected conjectures through a long period of years. Jim Ryan would be long gone and those words will still be mentioned around here as if his opinion alone was behind the choices made by the board.

It could be done better, they've done as much in the past, but this is pushing things too far.

 

[Celine]

The impression I've got is that Sony was always more focused on what is currently cool while Nintendo instead is more focused on growing and expanding their brand inheritance into timeless properties.
Basically two different approaches.
Think for a moment: the same mustache guy that starred into Donkey Kong during the golden age of arcades, is still the protagonist of recent games that are both critically acclaimed and hugely popular despite mascots being mostly a dying breed nowadays.

 

[SuperFakerBros]

Nintendo hasnt released a single AAA game this year. smash is literally the first big title since Mario last year.

Click to shrink...

Sure but they released plenty last year and will release plenty next year. One quiet year doesn't negate all their other years or the years to come

 

[GingerbreadMan]

By the way the emulator Nintendo used for its NES classic mini was based on a staging core of Higan developped for another low powered SoC the guys at NERD when they made Canoe just made it better and polished it up to the standards of quality that Nintendo asked of them.
.

Click to shrink...

Source?

 

[flexicon]

They don't have much of a legacy to respect. Ratchet & Clank and Shadow of the Colossus being used as counterexamples shows how little there is to care about

 

[SuperFakerBros]

My biggest single criticism of Sony with respect to legacy can be equally levied at Nintendo this generation:

Virtual Console and PlayStation Classics were both seemingly abandoned for the "cash grabs" of the classic mini consoles.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, it's somewhat ironic that Microsoft is practically schooling them, when it comes to offering their back catalog on their consoles, considering how much longer the legacy both Nintendo and Sony have

 

[ThisThingIsUseful]

I think the people in charge of SIE right now are not exactly the nostalgic type. Like, Shawn Layden only seems proud of the games he worked on, and he doesn't seem to have fondness for them as games. Instead, he treats them as projects on his CV. I don't think there is a single thing wrong with that. He's a professional executive. That's totally fair. But it just isn't in line with what fans think of when they think of Sony and its past.

Click to shrink...

I think Shu is the most nostalgic (he was the one who introduced PaRappa, Wipeout, Patapon at PSX 2016).

Quite frankly, Sony doesn't go all in on their "legacy" but they have no need to invest there. For Nintendo, releasing the classics and having Virtual Console is a way to get old fans and new fans aware of their IPs while making a few more dollars on the side. Nintendo iterates on their IPs like no one else in this industry, so it's important that everyone knows who Mario, Kirby, Pikachu, Link, Samus, etc. are - because there's a new version of their games around the corner all the time.

Microsoft invests in their legacy as a market differentiator from Sony. They had the architecture from the 360 that lends itself better to playing those games on the X than Sony did between the PS3/4. So.... they tap that advantage and their own data already shown in this thread shows us that people barely use their Xboxs for that.

So what does Sony have to do to show they care about their legacy? Remasters have been discredited already in this thread. They've tried to bring PS3 emulation the best way that their hardware allows and that's via streaming which isn't a good solution. We know that, they know that. The market for PS1/PS2 isn't quite their to justify going into development to figure out how to offer those solutions coupled with the pain in the ass licensing agreements they have to strike up with various parties. It's just not worth it.

So then OP uses their failed Smash clone to show they don't care. I get that the funding quite wasn't what it should be, but neither was Smash 64's funding. The difference was in execution and timing. Sony TRIED, it failed. They're also not going to go balls to the wall and invest in a Smash clone when they're not convinced that fans even want that. I'm not convinced I even want that and I love Sony IPs and Smash.

Click to shrink...

To the bold: MS seems more long-term with their tech. Like the IDs -- MS's experience in online helped them with the ease of changing your online ID, while Sony's early online strategy didn't seem to have as much of a long-term vision, which is why there are potential issues with changing your name once everyone gets that ability.

I was actually pleasantly surprised with how slick the PS4 looked and how much better the UI was than everything previous.

 

[Phendrift]

My biggest single criticism of Sony with respect to legacy can be equally levied at Nintendo this generation:

Virtual Console and PlayStation Classics were both seemingly abandoned for the "cash grabs" of the classic mini consoles.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the handling of legacy content on Switch is so fucking sad. Like, I'd play so much of it on there due to the form factor.

It's ridiculous because those mini consoles and VC aren't even necessarily the same market. One appeals to nostalgia / Christmas gifts, the other to hardcore Nintendo fans who want their library all on the current system.

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

Honor and shame are an important part of the Japanese culture... Hahahaha
But seriously, why think about the past when they are looking to the future?

 

[ThisThingIsUseful]

They don't have much of a legacy to respect. Ratchet & Clank and Shadow of the Colossus being used as counterexamples shows how little there is to care about

Click to shrink...

wat

 

[KalBalboa]

They don't have much of a legacy to respect. Ratchet & Clank and Shadow of the Colossus being used as counterexamples shows how little there is to care about

Click to shrink...

Hot take. The edge, the edge!

 

[TitanicFall]

Most of their legacy hasn't aged well. I personally feel like the remaster/remake route better serves their customers of old and new.

 

[Prine]

This tells the story.

Click to shrink...

It does not, the method to measure the share was flawed and debunked a long time ago. Also, BC games have appeared many times in sales and most played charts (RDR, COD).

 

[hibikase]

Abandoning the PSOne Classics program with the PS4 was a stupid move that I will never understand. Having a unified PS1 digital library that was compatible across three platforms was awesome. They did what people have always complained that Nintendo didn't do. And then they just abandoned that. Like, fucking why??

Fast forward to today and they haven't even bothered to unify the tiny libraries of PS2 digital offerings between PS3 and PS4. They can't even do that single thing right.

 

[TheSyldat]

Source?

Click to shrink...

The guys at NERD themselves admitting it on stage at SCaLE during the gaming sections of the conferences around open source ...
And their continued involvement in the help for the Linux driver for the Nintendo Switch Pro controller with the blessings of Nintendo Japan ...
I mean it's hardly a secret at this point ...

 

[Freddo]

I just don't understand why ps1 and PS2 games can't be played on PS4. Hell PS1 games can run on every single Sony platform before it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, it really boggles my mind that the PS4 can't run PS1 Classics from the PS Store.

 

[kc44135]

I agree with you, OP. I too am very disappointed in Sony's treatment of legacy content this gen. I don't understand why they seem to value it so little. Also, I don't agree with those saying no one cares about old games. There are so many things that prove this to be outright wrong and untrue. I also don't agree with those that say remakes constitute good legacy support. We got two PS2 games remade (Racthet and Clank, and SOTC) out of hundreds, and that constitutes great legacy support? Like, c'mon.

Remasters and remakes are great, sure, but so few games ever receive that treatment. Moreover, their existence doesn't preclude other forms of legacy support, nor should remakes be considered replacements for the originals in any medium. Like, R&C PS4 may as well be a different game altogether, and even SOTC, while more faithful, still differs greatly in it's art direction, and doesn't fully capture the look and feel of the original. Don't even get me started on the PS2 Classics initiative, or Sony chasing the terrible "Classic Consoles" trend ( and failing at it, no less).

Sony has shown a clear lack of care and respect for their legacy this gen, and it's incredibly disappointing and disheartening as a long-time PlayStation fan.

My biggest single criticism of Sony with respect to legacy can be equally levied at Nintendo this generation:

Virtual Console and PlayStation Classics were both seemingly abandoned for the "cash grabs" of the classic mini consoles.

Click to shrink...

Completely agreed. The lack of VC and PS Classics is a travesty. The Classic Consoles have limited selections, and are also limited release systems. They are not a good means of preserving or making one's legacy accessible. Both should be trying to provide a way to play their classic titles digitally on their modern systems.