Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

Sony’s CFO insists AAA game quality ‘will deteriorate’ if it adopts Game Pass-style strategy | VGC

Sony CFO Hikori Totoki has suggested that the quality of Sony’s first-party games may decline if they were to be added to PlayStation Plus on day one.

www.videogameschronicle.com

Speaking as part of the Q&A session following Sony’s financial results this week, CFO Totoki inferred that were Sony to follow Microsoft’s Game Pass model, it could result in fewer resources allocated to first-party titles, and thus a decline in quality.

“AAA titles on PlayStation 5, if we distribute them on the subscription service we may need to shrink the investment needed for that. That will deteriorate the first-party title quality and that is our concern,” Totoki said (transcribed by VGC).

“So we want to make sure we spend the appropriate development costs to have solid products and titles to be introduced in the right manner.”

 

[Punished Miku]

I'm kind of looking forward to that a bit on the MS side, honestly. Tango Gameworks said they're looking into making smaller titles that are more experimental since they're not bound by the traditional retail model anymore. Decreasing AAA graphics bloat and making more AA content is honestly going to be more appealing to me. Seems Obsidian is trying something similar with the rumored "one game a year" plan. I'm hoping Call of Duty studios get to slow down and maybe even try smaller, more experimental titles if that deal goes through.

Sony can keep doing what they're doing and that's fine with me. No one else is really putting out these cinematic AAAA games but them. I like it when all 3 consoles have some differences as it keeps things more interesting.

 

[nominedomine]

That is pretty obvious. No point in taking risks or making big investments if you won't be seeing the money back.

Let's say Sony spends tons of money on Spider-man 2, then you just go and play it over the cloud for $15 on release? With cloud gaming you wouldn't even have to buy their hardware. Sounds terrible to their business.

Sony can't release one of these every month, what you get is a few of them each year and since they are single player games it's really easy to abuse the system to play them for just $15 or $30.

That's not even factoring that they already have close to 50m subs just on the back of paid online, all they really need to do from their perspective is the bare minimum to convince you to pay $15 or $17 instead of $10.

 

[Urban]

Didn’t we had a thread about this one ?

 

[The_Observer]

It’s so fucking obvious but fanboys can’t admit it and can only rage when you say this.

 

[Exanthus]

Here we go again

Rivet trigger Deez nuts

 

[RoboFu]

I seriously doubt this is true. Even more so for the service holder. Maybe if you could release a AAA game every month…

 

[Hezekiah]

I don't think the quality will necessarily deteriorate because I think MS will have already planned out staged price increases once their internal studios starting putting out AAA games regularly.

At the moment they're still in the loss leader phase.

 

[MHubert]

Who would've thunk

 

[Grumpy Toe Nail]

Of course they would say that. Just an opportunity for Sony to claim gamepass/xbox is bad. If i want to only play 3rd person adventure games ill get a playstation.

 

[Chukhopops]

I'm kind of looking forward to that a bit on the MS side, honestly. Tango Gameworks said they're looking into making smaller titles that are more experimental since they're not bound by the traditional retail model anymore. Decreasing AAA graphics bloat and making more AA content is honestly going to be more appealing to me. Seems Obsidian is trying something similar with the rumored "one game a year" plan. I'm hoping Call of Duty studios get to slow down and maybe even try smaller, more experimental titles if that deal goes through.

Sony can keep doing what they're doing and that's fine with me. No one else is really putting out these cinematic AAAA games but them. I like it when all 3 consoles have some differences as it keeps things more interesting.

Yeah this idea that quality = budget is just dumb unless you only care about graphics and game size (which some people do of course).

I’m ok with waiting a year or so for their 1st party to join PS+ and sub once in a while to play it. It will still save me some money and, in some cases, disappointment.

 

[SLB1904]

Of course they would say that. Just an opportunity for Sony to claim gamepass/xbox is bad. If i want to only play 3rd person adventure games ill get a playstation.

Next time read before going on a rampage. They specifically said they don't know and don't want to talk about ms strategy. They are specifically tslk about their own business

 

[Helghan]

Lol, such bs. Let's not pretend you aren't doing it because the quality will go lower, you're not doing it because you believe you can get more money out of consumers when you sell it day one. The Playstation division is making a profit, you could allocate that profit towards putting your games on a subscription service.

 

[Limba]

 

[yazenov]

No lies detected.

The model they are trying to emulate is Netflix. Most shows on Netflix are of low quality , quantity over quality mentality. You just cant have it both was.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yeah this idea that quality = budget is just dumb unless you only care about graphics and game size (which some people do of course).

I’m ok with waiting a year or so for their 1st party to join PS+ and sub once in a while to play it. It will still save me some money and, in some cases, disappointment.

I think quality depends on the devs themselves. While budget can give them the resources to make the game big. It still is possible to make smaller high quality titles with a low budget.

 

[Roberts]

As long as Gamepass exists, MS will make AAA (do we really believe they are going to cut budget on stuff like Forza or Gears?) and AA games. And I am all for it, because we will see lesser budget but more experimental games that push the medium forward.

 

[SLB1904]

Lol, such bs. Let's not pretend you aren't doing it because the quality will go lower, you're not doing it because you believe you can get more money out of consumers when you sell it day one. The Playstation division is making a profit, you could allocate that profit towards putting your games on a subscription service.

They make profit because they sold a lot of games. Or do you think the profit came out of thin air?

 

[Rea]

It makes sense, there's no doubt about it. Sony can't afford to tank the production cost of their games and wait for the subs to grow.

 

[Airbus Jr]

 

[Wohc]

Surprise. If you mostly make cinematics for hundreds of millions it's not possible to put them into a subscription service. Everybody would just subscribe for a month instead of spending 80 bucks,

 

[nominedomine]

I don't think the quality will necessarily deteriorate because I think MS will have already planned out staged price increases once their internal studios starting putting out AAA games regularly.

At the moment they're still in the loss leader phase.

It wasn't even possible for the quality or volume of AAA produced by MS to deteriorate when they came up with Gamepass because they had pretty much nothing. Come on, their output of games last gen was putrid and then a new gen release and they had pretty much nothing for more than a year.

Sony is on a completely different position, every AAA studio they have seems to have sustained success, with very few exception. Their studios all seemed to be in a good place before they started with any acquisitions. MS pretty much had to completely rebuild their gaming division over the past years.

Why won't Sony keep selling games at full price with so many of them selling 20m+ or 10m+? Do people expect Nintendo to copy MS as well? When they are making more money than Xbox and PlayStation combined using the traditional pricing model?

Nintendo showed up extremely late with an online sub that is pretty much offensive when it comes to value. Yet it succeeded already because of how strong their position is.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Next time read before going on a rampage. They specifically said they don't know and don't want to talk about ms strategy. They are specifically tslk about their own business

Yes they certainly wouldn't be looking at the competitions financials to determine what they can do with their own company. People need to keep in mind that this isn't about Microsoft rather Sony and their business models plus capabilities.

 

[FingerBang]

I don't blame them. It's pure math and they don't have the margin to play the same game MS is playing.

Of course they would say that. Just an opportunity for Sony to claim gamepass/xbox is bad. If i want to only play 3rd person adventure games ill get a playstation.

You reading this as "game pass is bad" says a lot about you.

 

[STARSBarry]

Can't wait for this argument to be rendered mute by the influx of shitty GaaS titles Sony has already announced to take priority going forward.

 

[Helghan]

They make profit because they sold a lot of games. Or do you think the profit came out of thin air?

And subscriptions won't generate any cash? Even if subscriptions don't generate as much money as selling a game directly, you could still allocate that cost towards development. You might not make a profit, we don't know since Microsoft doesn't share this information. Otherwise do you think Microsoft's long term strategy is to make a loss?

 

[adamsapple]

Of course he'll say that, cause they're not doing it right now.

 

[Unknown?]

This is true of Netflix and their trash original content so yeah, makes sense.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I don't blame them. It's pure math and they don't have the margin to play the same game MS is playing.


You reading this as "game pass is bad" says a lot about you.

I read it more like "it isn't viable for US"

This comment isn't a Sony vs MS one. People need to take that in mind.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Simple math says it's likely not true. I wonder what the real reason is.

 

[M1chl]

It wasn't enough 340490829038 times before I guess.

 

[nominedomine]

Lol, such bs. Let's not pretend you aren't doing it because the quality will go lower, you're not doing it because you believe you can get more money out of consumers when you sell it day one. The Playstation division is making a profit, you could allocate that profit towards putting your games on a subscription service.

Is MS a charity or something? You think MS thinks they would be making more money without Gampeass?

 

[sircaw]

No lies detected.

The model they are trying to emulate is Netflix. Most shows on Netflix are of low quality , quantity over quality mentality. You just cant have it both was.

To be fair, mindhunter, queens gambit and better call saul are some of the best series i have ever seen.

 

[Chukhopops]

I think quality depends on the devs themselves. While budget can give them the resources to make the game big. It still is possible to make smaller high quality titles with a low budget.

Yes that’s what I think too. You need of course a minimum level of budget based on the game’s scope but the quality won’t scale with budget past a point.

Simple math says it's likely not true. I wonder what the real reason is.

The real reason is that they make more profit that way and that they are confident demos and older games will be enough to attract people to their higher sub tiers. And based on the reaction to the announcement it seems they are right.

 

[SLB1904]

Yes they certainly wouldn't be looking at the competitions financials to determine what they can do with their own company. People need to keep in mind that this isn't about Microsoft rather Sony and their business models plus capabilities.

What baffles me in these threads, you have people claiming in some that Sony is broke can't afford this and that but at same time get mad because Sony is trying to do business that makes sense for them.
The subscription plans you have to pay for a bunch of 3rd parties plus the development costs from their own internal studios, and for some reason some people think that is remotely sustainable, it might be sustainable for a trillion dollar company but that doesn't apply to Sony for obvious reasons.

And subscriptions won't generate any cash? Even if subscriptions don't generate as much money as selling a game directly, you could still allocate that cost towards development. You might not make a profit, we don't know since Microsoft doesn't share this information. Otherwise do you think Microsoft's long term strategy is to make a loss?

Microsoft can afford having xbox making no money at all for as long as they want, xbox is only 9% of their revenue. Cash flow at lost still lost. The best you can hope is being on black but investors don't like that because you have to show potential growth. Is like Netflix struggle doesn't teach people anything, even with their budget stuff they are crying because is not enough and how many subscribers they have? also TV shows doesn't take 5 years or more to make.
Also how hbo backtrack with their day and date movies release?
I mean there is like a ton of evidence but let's ignore that

 

[yazenov]

To be fair, mindhunter, queens gambit and better call saul are some of the best series i have ever seen.

Yes of course you would have a handful of hidden gems occasionally but the majority are trash.

Sony has a proven track record of quality 1st party games, and their current business model is clearly working for them. That could change if it was a subcription model where quantity over quality is more sustainable to keep those subscribers occupied.

 

[C2brixx]

What makes a game "Quality" is the real question? Is it this...

Seems the loud majority have decided that 3rd person single player adventure games are the bar for which "quality" is judged. Beyond this one genre of games I don't see where Sony's "quality" is any better than any other developer.

 

[Punished Miku]

What makes a game "Quality" is the real question? Is it this...

Seems the loud majority have decided that 3rd person single player adventure games are the bar for which "quality" is judged. Beyond this one genre of games I don't see where Sony's "quality" is any better than any other developer.

Up to player preference at the end of the day. One thing that can't be disputed is that this style of Sony game costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make. The use of the word "quality" in the OP is going to be up to player interpretation like you said. What he could have said instead is "budget," and that would be objective. These games are expensive.

 

[sircaw]

What makes a game "Quality" is the real question? Is it this...

Seems the loud majority have decided that 3rd person single player adventure games are the bar for which "quality" is judged. Beyond this one genre of games I don't see where Sony's "quality" is any better than any other developer.

Outside of those games, sonys list is still gigantic in terms of quality.

Rachet and clank x2
Spiderman
Bloodborne
Ghost of Tshuima
final fan 7
Gran T
Returnal


Off the top of my head, I mean, that is a lot of quality don't you think?

 

[SLB1904]

What makes a game "Quality" is the real question? Is it this...

Seems the loud majority have decided that 3rd person single player adventure games are the bar for which "quality" is judged. Beyond this one genre of games I don't see where Sony's "quality" is any better than any other developer.

Does matter if 3rd person adventure games. Their talking about budget.
1000s of people make these games. Millions of dollars are invested and they want see returns.

 

[Physiognomonics]

Quality is also deteriorating with their cross-gen PC strategy. We can already see it in Horizon (the technically worse Guerrilla game) and maybe less in GT7.

 

[NahaNago]

I'm kind of looking forward to that a bit on the MS side, honestly. Tango Gameworks said they're looking into making smaller titles that are more experimental since they're not bound by the traditional retail model anymore. Decreasing AAA graphics bloat and making more AA content is honestly going to be more appealing to me. Seems Obsidian is trying something similar with the rumored "one game a year" plan. I'm hoping Call of Duty studios get to slow down and maybe even try smaller, more experimental titles if that deal goes through.

Sony can keep doing what they're doing and that's fine with me. No one else is really putting out these cinematic AAAA games but them. I like it when all 3 consoles have some differences as it keeps things more interesting.

I actually would like Sony to do more AA and smaller or artsy games. They don't need to only do these AAA big budget cinematic games. They could easily just have media molecule just expand to have a couple of teams to make a bunch of artsy games.

Making a bunch of smaller more experimental games makes a ton of sense for gamepass. You just need to make sure you also have a couple of AAA games a year on their as well.

 

[Papacheeks]

I actually would like Sony to do more AA and smaller or artsy games. They don't need to only do these AAA big budget cinematic games.

Making a bunch of smaller more experimental games makes a ton of sense for gamepass. You just need to make sure you also have a couple of AAA games a year on their as well.

Thats why they hunt around for games like Sifu, LIttle devil inside, stray and Kena. Quality smaller AA style games from indie studios.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I'm kind of looking forward to that a bit on the MS side, honestly. Tango Gameworks said they're looking into making smaller titles that are more experimental since they're not bound by the traditional retail model anymore. Decreasing AAA graphics bloat and making more AA content is honestly going to be more appealing to me. Seems Obsidian is trying something similar with the rumored "one game a year" plan. I'm hoping Call of Duty studios get to slow down and maybe even try smaller, more experimental titles if that deal goes through.

Sony can keep doing what they're doing and that's fine with me. No one else is really putting out these cinematic AAAA games but them. I like it when all 3 consoles have some differences as it keeps things more interesting.

It's like i can see where this is going...basically release games like Life is Strange. In chapters...like we get TV shows on streaming platforms or something. Yeah...no. I'd rather get the full game experience and pay for it full price.

What makes a game "Quality" is the real question? Is it this...

Seems the loud majority have decided that 3rd person single player adventure games are the bar for which "quality" is judged. Beyond this one genre of games I don't see where Sony's "quality" is any better than any other developer.

Where's Sackboy? Ratchet? Killzone? Gran Turismo? Dreams? Spider-Man? Concrete Genie? Returnal? That probably wouldn't fit the narrative, right?

Funny thing is that picture was created to mock people that criticize PlayStation games...and it's now being used like a serious thing by that same crowd, lmao.

Let me grab the Nintendo template. I'm sure they also have trees in more than 2 games...or MS.

 

[kingfey]

Corporate talks, which users will eat it happily.
At this point, Sony will look like clowns, once they do day1 on their subscription service.
Its better for them to shut up, and let their sales do the talk, like it always does.

 

[NahaNago]

Thats why they hunt around for games like Sifu, LIttle devil inside, stray and Kena. Quality smaller AA style games from indie studios.

If you're just talking about publishing indies, then they need to do a lot more. If they just used the amount of money they put into any one of these first party AAA game they could publish a dozen or more indie games that they could spread out over a couple of years alongside the AAA first party games. I also would barely consider any of those AA games outside of possibly Kena. I know I'm being picky but I keep on thinking if Ratchet and Horizon are AAA then what would should a game that is one less A look like and most of those games don't seem to be it.

I still would like Sony to have their own personal AA and indie/ artsy studio. Or even have their AAA studio crank out a small artsy game a year and a half while working on their larger titles

 

[C2brixx]

It's like i can see where this is going...basically release games like Life is Strange. In chapters...like we get TV shows on streaming platforms or something. Yeah...no. I'd rather get the full game experience and pay for it full price.


Where's Sackboy? Ratchet? Killzone? Gran Turismo? Dreams? Spider-Man? Concrete Genie? Returnal? That probably wouldn't fit the narrative, right?

Funny thing is that picture was created to mock people that criticize PlayStation games...and it's now being used like a serious thing by that same crowd, lmao.

Let me grab the Nintendo template. I'm sure they also have trees in more than 2 games...or MS.

Would Sackboy, Dreams, Ratchet, Killzone, fit into the big budget games that Sony is saying would suffer if were put in a subscription?

 

[kingfey]

What makes a game "Quality" is the real question? Is it this...

Seems the loud majority have decided that 3rd person single player adventure games are the bar for which "quality" is judged. Beyond this one genre of games I don't see where Sony's "quality" is any better than any other developer.

One things Sony can't do very well is the RPG games. While horizon and God of War have some element RPG, it's not really a true RPG games.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Am I a moron? Why everyone keeps focusing on day one releases on a service? Obviously, that move is dumb-dumb.

The smarter thing should be just like the movies:

1. To have a 'theatrical' release window = you can only buy a game (for a period of time).

2. Then, the game comes to your own service. (Which can even be a service tier for this access).

3.After another period of time, your game comes to other platforms (PC for example).

In this fashion, your game could have a cycle between 18 to 24 months to reach each platform.

 

[Papacheeks]

Corporate talks, which users will eat it happily.
At this point, Sony will look like clowns, once they do day1 on their subscription service.
Its better for them to shut up, and let their sales do the talk, like it always does.

They do let their sales do the talking for them?

Less than 2 years and 470 Million pieces of software sold?

Their games chart everytime they have stock?

I think the results show they have the right plan....for them.