I've gone through the list of games announced by Sony for PS4, in order to test the claims that Mr. Klepek makes in the article. To start, let's establish clearly what those claims are.
Originally Posted by Patrick Klepek
There's an interesting pattern that emerges when you look back at the last few years, though. While Sony's showmanship is second to none...it's often announcing games you won't play anytime soon. We're not talking games that might ship a few months later, but years after their appearance.
First and most importantly, the claim is made that Sony is heavily reliant on showing games multiple years ahead of release. So in the data, we're looking for release dates over 24 months after presentation. He also makes a further claim:
Originally Posted by Patrick Klepek
But especially in recent years, Sony's managed to paint a picture—and a narrative—about the slate of games scheduled for PlayStation 4, without them (or, in several cases, third party creators) delivering in a timely manner.
That is, this trend has been getting more pronounced over time.
This quote also brings up the question of what scope we're examining. Both first and third party are explicitly mentioned, so it seems he's looking at the entire slate of titles presented. But to be thorough, I'll go ahead and post separate results for all the usual slicings that are brought up in GAF discussion. From most to least inclusive, those categories are:
- All games
- Only AAA games
- Only first-party published games
- Only internally developed first-party games
Keep in mind, Mr. Klepek is taking specifically about E3, so other conferences will not be included. (I can post the wider results later, though, if people are interested.) For each category above, I'll present a suite of numbers. First will be the quantity of games presented, and the quantity still in development. Following that will be stats on those titles which have an interval longer than 24 months. I'll present the current quantity, and also the worst-case scenario (if we assume, unrealistically, that every game in development will go over 24 months before release). For each fork, I'll present the yearly values, to examine the "increasing trend" claim. Let's begin.
ALL GAMES
77 presented; 14 in development
Actual
11.7% over 24 months
4 in 2013, 5 in 2014
Worst Case
24.7% over 24 months
9 in 2013, 16 in 2014, 21 in 2015, 21 in 2016
AAA GAMES
45 presented; 10 in development
Actual
15.6% over 24 months
3 in 2013, 3 in 2014
Worst Case
31.1% over 24 months
5 in 2013, 8 in 2014, 7 in 2015, 12 in 2016
FIRST-PARTY PUBLISHED
19 presented; 5 in development
Actual
0% over 24 months
Worst Case
26.3% over 24 months
1 in 2015, 4 in 2016
INTERNALLY DEVELOPED
12 presented; 3 in development
Actual
0% over 24 months
Worst Case
25.0% over 24 months
1 in 2015, 2 in 2016
Looking over the results, how well-supported are Mr. Klepek's claims? Not very well at all. He says that Sony are often announcing years-away games, and failing to deliver in a timely manner. But the actual highest proportion is only 15.6%. (And this is only achieved by making a category restriction which he didn't specify.) It's notable that focusing on those games more fully within Sony's power--either developed or published by them--finds that no titles at all meet his criteria. And even the very worst of worst-case scenarios does not reach a third of the titles presented. We can say with high confidence that the most fundamental claim of the article is not supported by the data.
So the idea that Sony heavily relies on early announcement is untrue, but perhaps the other claim about the reliance increasing over time is justified? Looking at the numbers, it may seem that a better case can be made. The category Mr. Klepek apparently was speaking of, the whole sweep of games, shows us a string of 9/16/21/21 titles over the years.
However, this apparent pattern is specious. It only exists in the worst-case scenario assumption, where every unreleased game ages excessively before coming out. But based on currently announced release dates for some of them, and on past precedent, the likelihood of hitting this worst-case scenario is vanishingly small.
It's important to keep in mind that we can't make the opposite assertion either. "There has been no increase in two-year release intervals from the past couple E3s" is just as unsupportable. The true conclusion is literally unknowable right now, because not enough time has elapsed to allow full examination. Thus, any statement either way is sheerly a prediction. By even making the claim, Mr. Klepek has divorced his position from fact and relied on personal intuition. He's essentially said, "If we make pessimistic projections, the outcome looks quite disappointing." Well...yes.
These conclusions, along with other confusions in the article's argument, make Mr. Klepek's stance weak and speculative. He does not have much warrant for any of the positions he espouses.
