Support NeoGAF

[LakeOf9]

Last generation, after decades of hard work put into building up its first party, Sony finally hit it big with its in house effort, with first party titles being breakout critical successes and commercial mainstream hits, selling literally tens of millions of copies, in turn selling a lot of PS4 consoles as well.

But times are changing, and exclusives are no longer the primary currency of the industry as they once used to be. This brings to mind a simple question, which is, if Sony's games have the sauce to do as well in a market where they are simply one of many third party publishers.

Put simply, Sony's games doing as well as they did when they were tentpole exclusives for their consoles made sense – if you're a PS4 owner, of course you will keep an eye on Horizon or God of War or Spider-Man or The Last of Us, because these are the games that fully leverage the console. They got a big boost in stature and prestige thanks to the backing that comes from being marketed as an event by a platform holder.

In the past, we have seen first parties that go third party lose that sort of status for their releases. We saw this with Sega, who struggled for the better part of two decades before they were able to reach a stage where their releases were events again (and the bulk of those releases are ones that came to them via acquisition), and even Microsoft, who similarly saw Halo and Gears begin to lose the place they held in the industry once Microsoft started publishing to PC in addition to Xbox, and then later on as they continued to go third party.

Now in each of these cases, the multiplatform publishing effort was also accompanied with a perceived decline in quality; Sonic games have never gotten as good as the Adventure duo logy on Dreamcast, and Halo and Gears both shit the bed after the Xbox 360. But similarly, we have also seen Sony's first party disappoint this generation very frequently; that perceived decline, combined with them going third party, do you think it influences the stature enjoyed by Sony games? In a world where they are just a third party publisher, why is a new release from Sony any more notable than one from EA or Ubisoft, particularly with the quality in decline?

 

[TintoConCasera]

There are other factors affecting that prestige/stature you are talking about. DEI hirings, focus on GaaS, woke writting and poorly paced games with more lines on their script than on their code.

Imo a game being on multiple platforms should not affect it's prestige nor perceived quality, that's console warrior behavior and it's sad. A good game is a good game.

 

[LakeOf9]

Imo a game being on multiple platforms should not affect it's prestige nor perceived quality, that's console warrior behavior and it's sad. A good game is a good game.

I agree with this specific point, but humans don't work this way. Scarcity leads to the perception of higher value, that is the basis for jewelry, trading cards, special collectibles, and so on. I think the boost that comes with being a highly marketed exclusive impacts how a game is perceived, for good or for bad. Even though, rationally speaking, it's not like God of War 2018 is a meaningfully better game than something like Resident Evil 4 or Hollow Knight, which are the most multiplatform ass games possible.

 

[Punished Miku]

We'll see if Kojima is interested in playing it. Only way to be sure.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

To some.

I don't think the vast majority of general consumers care either way.

 

[Rush2112]

It absolutely does. It's a form of welfare for the peasants. So yes, major devaluing of the console brand

 

[ProtoByte]

It already has. Not just in terms of market value, but actual quality.

 

[Danjin44]

For me they lost "prestige/stature" of their first party when they went more towards western market.

 

[Zacfoldor]

Yes and no.

The game is the game is the game. That's the no part.

The yes part is perception.

We, our shared consciousness, perceive exclusives as more prestigious. That's true. You can deny it all you want.

 

[Cobbet]

For me the only reason to buy a console is the exclusives. If all games are on PC day one I'll just game on PC, simple as that!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

yes, you just watch.

the" Exclsuvie subsidy" will vanish.

 

[LakeOf9]

We, our shared consciousness, perceive exclusives as more prestigious. That's true. You can deny it all you want.

This is exactly what I am saying. It's not ideal, but this is how our psychology works. Scarcity adds to the perception of value, and with games, nothing is more scarce than software that outright needs entire hardware to be purchased to be able to be accessed.

 

[Zacfoldor]

This is exactly what I am saying. It's not ideal, but this is how our psychology works. Scarcity adds to the perception of value, and with games, nothing is more scarce than software that outright needs entire hardware to be purchased to be able to be accessed.

Sorry, the "you can deny it all you want" wasn't aimed at you OP, it was aimed at those Schrodinger's cats who haven't posted yet. Some will disagree. That line will stifle their confidence. It's an old parlor trick from my days in the circus.

 

[TintoConCasera]

I agree with this specific point, but humans don't work this way. Scarcity leads to the perception of higher value, that is the basis for jewelry, trading cards, special collectibles, and so on. I think the boost that comes with being a highly marketed exclusive impacts how a game is perceived, for good or for bad. Even though, rationally speaking, it's not like God of War 2018 is a meaningfully better game than something like Resident Evil 4 or Hollow Knight, which are the most multiplatform ass games possible.

Yeah I agree with you here 100%. People will assume something is better based just on exclusivity, price, brand or whatever other factors that don't really have anything to do with the quality of the product.

It's kinda fucked up, but it is what it is.

 

[PauloRoberto]

Going selectively multi plat? No.
Focus on Gaas? Also no.
Halt the single-player initiative to focus 'only' on Gaas? YES, that was was VERY stupid.

 

[LakeOf9]

Yeah I agree with you here 100%. People will assume something is better based just on exclusivity, price, brand or whatever other factors that don't really have anything to do with the quality of the product.

It's kinda fucked up, but it is what it is.

Exactly! Not saying that Sony games are better for being exclusives, but that once they stop being exclusives, they stop being special to a lot of people. It sucks that's how our brains work lol, but it is what it is

I am curious about how that plays out in real life for sure

 

[viveks86]

Don't care about their prestige or stature. That's not why most people buy their games.

But with the new Xbox and AMD strategy, their consoles would certainly be offering less value. Something tells me this is going to force their hand to reconsider how they move forward. Either open the multiplatform tap completely, become a 3rd party publisher like MS and compete on pricing and features or close the tap completely. Knowing Sony, they would never do the former as they are the market leader. So the latter becomes more likely.

 

[RoboFu]

Sony only has a couple of game left with any prestige that they are actively putting out.

They have a lot they are doing nothing with though.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

This is exactly what I am saying. It's not ideal, but this is how our psychology works. Scarcity adds to the perception of value, and with games, nothing is more scarce than software that outright needs entire hardware to be purchased to be able to be accessed.

Did you purchased PS5 due to a piece of software or was it a default purchase?

Will you buy PS6 once a system seller drops, or will it be a default purchase?

Why is Switch 2 selling so much, it literally has one game?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Sony lost a lot of 'Prestige' for me this gen.
Microsoft lost it's 'P' card with the XBone head console, never gained it back.
Nintendo is losing its 'P" card with me curently with the Switch 2. They might lose me if they don't get it together soon.
P
This gen taking the P.

 

[Trogdor1123]

No.

 

[LakeOf9]

Did you purchased PS5 due to a piece of software or was it a default purchase?

Will you buy PS6 once a system seller drops, or will it be a default purchase?

Why is Switch 2 selling so much, it literally has one game?

I purchased it for Sony exclusives, which have... largely not shown up this gen

I will probably not get a PS6

Switch 2 is selling on the basis of the 2 exclusives it has at the moment, as well as the promise of continued Nintendo exclusives for the next 6-8 years. You don't nee exclusives released, you need the market convinced there will be enough of them worth spending money over. Sony did that with PS5, Nintendo has done that with Switch 2. If you fail to deliver on the promise, like Sony arguably has this gen, then that impacts whether or not people will take you at your word next time around.

 

[diffusionx]

Yes, it devalues their platform. And it doesn't help when they release garbage PC ports that get overwhelmingly negative on Steam.

Not sure it is worth torching a brand you spent 30 years building up to get that sweet sweet 2000 Steam CCU at launch weekend.

 

[Connificent]

The whole PS5 gen is a fuckup

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Of course. This is a no brainer.

BY DEFINITION, exclusivity makes things more valuable, both objectively and subjectively, and that applies to everything.

A Versace plain white shirt is perceived as more valuable than a Temu plain white shirt because of exclusivity. Both are equally shit.

Besides, going MP has another pernicious effect. Cattering to a bigger audience is like offering a cheaper product, which means that you start losing your edge and give up on excellency. We are already seeing that.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Yes. Exclusivity increases the perception of value. Not just in videogames, but all products.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I purchased it for Sony exclusives, which have... largely not shown up this gen

I will probably not get a PS6

Switch 2 is selling on the basis of the 2 exclusives it has at the moment, as well as the promise of continued Nintendo exclusives for the next 6-8 years. You don't nee exclusives released, you need the market convinced there will be enough of them worth spending money over. Sony did that with PS5, Nintendo has done that with Switch 2. If you fail to deliver on the promise, like Sony arguably has this gen, then that impacts whether or not people will take you at your word next time around.

This also points towards exclusives loosing their importance.

They have announced Intergalactic, SSM has at least one title incoming.

So, 2 major games are coming at least in 2 yrs. But thats not enough apparently.

During older generations, these would be enough to justify system. PS3 was sold on promise of GOW3 and Uncharted 2.

 

[Facism]

Tbf their first party output this gen has been doing that already. Damn this gaas nonsense

 

[GermanZepp]

Yes screw them.

Edit: to add more to theme. It devalue the Playstation brand. Not the game per se. ¿Why I would buy a playtation if the games once were exclusive can be played anywhere else?

 

[Ar¢tos]

What prestige?
Lame boring ultra safe sequels that are impossible to tell apart from the originals? (Horizon, God of War, Spider-Meh, Ghost of Yotei)
Or DEI ass licking to try to be trendy?

 

[diffusionx]

During older generations, these would be enough to justify system. PS3 was sold on promise of GOW3 and Uncharted 2.

lol what

Check the PS3 release list some time, Sony released a lot more than they do now.

 

[Judge Magister]

Yes, it's better to be Nintendo than to be Xbox.

But they better make more cool exclusives because those "cinematic experiences" are s*.

 

[Lith808]

yup, it 100% devalues their platform. Why would I bother with a PS6 when I know all their games will come out on PC or even Xbox? I can just buy them elsewhere and not on Playstation.

I bought Playstation consoles for their exclusives which usually signalled a quality game and they used to have at least one single player game a year. Right now, who knows whether their first party games will have the same appeal or even quality when they are made for multiplatforms and have live service as a primary focus.

 

[ItsGreat]

Most of my friends IRL who own ps5 pros don't play the prestige games.

They play the shitty hunting games, FIFA and golf. They do their daily grind on GT7. They play the freebies each month and all pile on Helldivers and Ready or Not. Then drop off.

I think Sony are desperate for sales- as they're losing out to the most mundane games imaginable,

All that beefy ps5 silicone being used to hide in bushes and shoot deer.

 

[Moriarty1889]

It is insane watching Sony follow MS in doing what has helped to ruin the Xbox brand. It is comical at this point.

 

[Ebrietas]

It's not about prestige. That depends entirely on game quality. It's about business strategy. The goals and incentives of first party game development and multiplatform publishing are fundamentally at odds with each other. You can't travel down both roads at the same time. Sooner or later you will have to commit to one path as we've seen with MS. One strategy will invariably win over the other.

Let's look at this logically. What is the purpose of a first party game? As in, why would a platform owner like Sony be compelled to spend their own money to make a video game when they are getting free, passive 30% cuts from everyone else's games? Why get into risky, potentially money losing projects? It's to act as an exclusive piece of software that only your platform has. The entire portfolio of exclusives is the main competitive edge that one console has over another. Anything else is a minor point of differentiation, especially nowadays with the increased homogenization of gaming hardware, to the point where even the console/PC line is becoming blurred.

Hypothetically if your console had no competitor there would be no justification for funding first party game development. It would be pissing money away for no benefit. This was basically the situation Sony was in during the ps1/ps2 generations due to their market position. And it was what Valve enjoys now in the PC space. There is a reason they don't make games anymore.

So Sony loses all of their prior de facto third party exclusives heading into the ps3 generation. Now the only way to have exclusives was to make them themselves. So they did that, and with great success. That combined with lowering their console price saved their business from the brink of collapse and brought them back into the pole position in the ps4 generation.

Fast forward to ps5 and suddenly Sony is funding games with their own money just to launch them on competing platforms, because apparently they are too expensive now and even some paltry sales numbers on Steam look mouthwatering to them. Except that literally defeats the entire purpose of first party game development. It's putting the cart before the horse. The solution to the budget problem is to lower budgets, not port the games to the competition (who in turn will NOT port their exclusives over to ps5, just ask Valve and Nintendo). Not only is Sony not fixing the underlying budget problems (multiplatform development actually increases costs, and they've even wasted acquisition money on an entire studio to help with this), they are barely increasing their profitability and are still running razor thin margins despite their huge revenues. All they are doing is helping their competition sell their consoles. An Xbox console with Helldivers 2 is a much easier sell than an Xbox console without Helldivers 2.

This is a self-destructive strategy that Sony is employing right now. It's so bad they would actually be better off, both financially and competitively, if they just shut down their entire first party development.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Halt the single-player initiative to focus 'only' on Gaas? YES, that was was VERY stupid.

Was?

They never did so.

 

[LordOcidax]

Here… Yes. In the real world No.

 

[Fbh]

I think it devalues the console more than the games itself.
If the games are good I don't think them being multiplaform takes away their prestige.

I think the devaluation of Sony first party this gen has been a result of the games themselves. A slow release schedule combined with very samey sequels that arguably have inferior narratives to their predecessors. Forbidden West, Ragnarok and Spiderman 2 all felt like "more of the same" with shittier stories than the originals, and I wouldn't be surprised if Yotei follows the same trend.

 

[Truthtellers]

They aren't going multiplatform.

 

[Topher]

I think it devalues the console more than the games itself.
If the games are good I don't think them being multiplaform takes away their prestige.

I think the devaluation of Sony first party this gen has been a result of the games themselves. A slow release schedule combined with very samey sequels that arguably have inferior narratives to their predecessors. Forbidden West, Ragnarok and Spiderman 2 all felt like "more of the same" with shittier stories than the originals, and I wouldn't be surprised if Yotei follows the same trend.

Pretty much what I was going to say

 

[Hudo]

Here… Yes. In the real world No.

This is the correct answer.

 

[SILKYSMOOTH30FPS]

If the system has no exclusives, it's a system that is not worth owning to someone with a pc. So not only is it hurting, it's killing the platform as a whole.

 

[Signalis]

Imo a game being on multiple platforms should not affect it's prestige nor perceived quality, that's console warrior behavior and it's sad. A good game is a good game.

Man, shut the fuck up and pick a side

 

[tommyleelynn]

Yes and no. It's like watching an HBO show or IMAX movie on a platform it was not originally designed for.

It premiered elsewhere with the artistic intent that it be experienced there first. However, the fact that more people can experience it later does not diminish that it is still prestigious or of high stature.

It may not be Christopher Nolan's intent for you to watch Tenet at home on your phone to get the full atmospheric effect, but you can still be draw into a good narrative or game either way.

The proliferation of PlayStation is good for both PlayStation and players who would like access to their games on other devices.

Sure, it may not be the best way to enjoy them arguably. I doubt PlayStation wants to release subpar ports of games if they can help it. There will always be media purists that have to experience the way it was "meant to be played."

Hopefully increased sales of PS 1st Party titles will increase the volume, quality and turnaround of projects, but I'd remain skeptical.

 

[Durin]

We saw this with Sega, who struggled for the better part of two decades before they were able to reach a stage where their releases were events again (and the bulk of those releases are ones that came to them via acquisition), and even Microsoft, who similarly saw Halo and Gears begin to lose the place they held in the industry once Microsoft started publishing to PC in addition to Xbox, and then later on as they continued to go third party.

Neither of these examples work. Sega didn't lose prestige because they went multi-platform, they were simply unable to move a platform vs their competitors, and once they didn't have a platform to sell they stopped using as many IP + making worse entries in the remaining IP (see sooo many bad Sonic games).

Microsoft didn't magically lose prestige for porting their IP to PC...Gears 1 and Halo 1-2 even came out on PC back then. It was the later entries they made exclusive, and it was passing those IP along to other studios that devalued them. EVERY 343 Halo has been shit compared to Bungie, and The Coalition while doing better by comparison....nothing they've made is Gears 3 quality, much less really innovated on the formula.

The real underlying reasons people keep bringing this up with Sony is their first-party output is slower this gen, the GAAS attempt mostly failed, their big single-player first-party games have been well-made but iterative sequels (GoW:R, Spiderman 2, Horizon: Forbidden West), and very little new single-player first-party IP. If they had more banger single-player first-party games, 1-2 year delayed ports wouldn't do much.

 

[Lith808]

BY DEFINITION, exclusivity makes things more valuable, both objectively and subjectively, and that applies to everything.

I agree. In the manufacturing sector we call that "Artificial Scarcity". Essentially, you limit the number of goods you want to make and where you want to sell them, even though you can manufacture as many items as you want and can sell them anywhere. That way the item and the brand has a higher perceived value and has more demand than supply. This is the basis of any luxury brand. Getting rid of that devalues the brand and Sony is doing exactly that.

 

[PauloRoberto]

Was?

They never did so.

Sorry, but that is exactly what they did, that's why they help fund/publish game from other companies - I'm not complaining, I really liked Stellar Blade, for example.

 

[LordOcidax]

This is the correct answer.

95% of the people that buy video games (casuals) probably doesn't even know what a first party game is.

 

[Fess]

Feels like it's too late to think about this when almost everything is on PC now. It doesn't matter anymore. This year has been really bad software-wise and they said "at least one tentpole release per year", which means it might not be more than that. It's just not enough. Can't buy a console for exclusives anymore unless it's from Nintendo.