thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Look I'm as much a cautionary type as the next guy when it comes to a lot of these modern games, but I do have to think there's a sentiment in certain places that actively want to see PlayStation fail its GAAS initiative altogether, and I don't think that's completely down to core PlayStation fans who want more single-player games. If you've paid attention to ResetERA even just over the past few weeks, let alone the past couple of years, you'd have noticed that there's a general level of FUD and bias their admin and mods both allow and help proliferate WRT PlayStation that is simply not tolerated with Xbox. This preferential treatment arguably hit its worst during the ABK acquisition phase, but the aftermath is still clearly visible. The fact they have certain journalists who use the forum that have made their biases for Xbox known the past few years also doesn't help. Oh, and did you know Phil Spencer has a ResetERA account?
Anyway, back on topic. We know that there is a strong wave of Xbox fans (spread out among the remnants of the console, among PC/Steam and multi-device owners who prefer Xbox) and I'd say a decent wave of Steam fans (and maybe a portion of Nintendo fans) who now want to view the context of Xbox vs PlayStation as a "platform war" rather than a "console war". So to them, it's more about what the respective divisions are able to do in various areas related to gaming, primarily in growing their revenue bases. This is where I think an idea I've seen some other people talk about starts to hold weight.
That idea is simple: a large part of the anti-GAAS narrative against PlayStation is in wanting SIE to be subservient/dependent on Microsoft for GAAS (and to a lesser extent, WRPG) revenue. Another version of that same idea is that many of those same people, want SIE to be dependent on 3P for GAAS revenue (as it'd mean less control for SIE, and potentially more valuable 3P for Microsoft to buy). Everyone knows Microsoft bought two of the largest 3P in gaming just a couple years back, and to some fanboys, if they can't "beat" Sony console-to-console, they at least hope Microsoft can "beat" Sony in overall control of big IP, specifically GAAS. Which in part is why we're seeing such major pushback against the GAAS initiative from places like Reset.
It's just important to keep in mind not everyone against the GAAS push, is against it for genuine reasons. Sometimes we lose sight of that. Many actual PlayStation fans were driven away from ResetERA during the ABK shenanigans, so when you see thee posts from people there almost seemingly gleeful and praying the next SIE GAAS title flops, just remember most of them aren't really saying that because they want more of the single-player story-driven content. Take the OP of the image I quoted above: this person is under the idea that Concord was made for fans of games like HFW, GOW Ragnarok, TLOU2 etc. But it NEVER was; it was made...for so-called progressive types on forums like ResetERA. But funnily enough, the people Concord was really made for, spent more time talking about it failing than buying and playing the game. Which maybe just proves that devs & pubs chasing after this so-called progressive audience are wasting their time on people who only talk a big game of being progressive but in truth like all the same stuff so-called "chuds" do but...well, that's another discussion altogether....
Might also be worth touching upon the rather laser-focused, overly dramatic & pessimistic (I would also say: disingenuous) tone of the entire thread. Why are so many people more vested in calling out a game's imminent failure versus having a more optimistic take, wondering if lessons will be learned that can be applied to the next game (in this case Fairgame$) to ensure it avoids Concord's pitfalls? Well if you've been keeping up, at least for some such people the reason again come back to: wanting SIE's GAAS to fail so PlayStation is dependent on MS purchased IP like COD, Overwatch, ESO, F'76 etc. for GAAS revenue, and 3P revenue. Since some of these same types think Microsoft will buy yet more 3P publishers, and think SIE either can't or won't (mainly due to BS FUD they've fallen for), that just means more points of access for Microsoft to make SIE a dependent. I'm not kidding: some of these folks GENUINELY think this way, especially on places like ResetERA. Hence why you see some of the same folks with the same delusional takes time and again.
Anyhow, this was just some metacommentary I had wanted to say when seeing that thread, touching upon a larger point of importance. I'm one of those people who though SIE's 12-GAAS gambit was stupid almost from the jump, and should have always been culled back to half of that, and smarter choices. Although SIE weren't involved in Concord's development from the beginning, pushing the game through versus finding a way to make Factions 2 or the Spiderman GAAS work was just plain poor management choice from the upper levels of SIE; the game should've been shelved even if finished and made a tax write-off, or delayed a year to fix problems (mainly character designs). They chose neither and ended up with both an embarrassment and a failure.
However, I also don't think it's practical for SIE to abandon GAAS altogether, and neither should anyone else. Like it or not, GAAS is a lucrative evergreen money machine if you make it work. I think SIE's problem was them pinning a massive glut of GAAS to market to act as shortcuts for cleaning up budget pipelines of the big AAA single-player games. When really, a mix of suitable GAAS + finding new pricing models, content deployment models/cycles, ridding of content redundancies, production redundancies, unnecessary consultation firms etc. plus expanding back into AA dev was always going to be the better option. Their GAAS titles need to be in less saturated market segments, and their AAA story-driven games need to shake up the design template formula a bit. The AA games can be even more creative while having shorter dev times to fill out the release schedules without relying as much on 3P exclusivity deals.
That has been my view on how SIE should have been approaching GAAS (and other game dev) this gen, for a long time now. So no I'm not gonna sit around and just hawk on the next SIE GAAS failure because it's trendy or because I don't understand the wider market or because I secretly want them to be subservient to other companies that had to spend $80+ billion to have some big-moneymaking IP again. I genuinely want SIE to look at where Concord failed, and make sure Fairgame$ avoids every single one of those pitfalls. Not like they don't know what the mistakes were: mostly horrid/lazy/uninspired character designs, marketing obsession over cinematics (GAAS players don't really care about this), making a hero shooter in current year B2P @ $40, limited beta test periods, unappealing art/visual style (in most areas), clunky UI etc.
Paramount above them all though, is get the character designs on point. If there are ANY characters in Fairgame$ with the same design issues as the Concord ones, SIE better be pushing redesigns ASAP. Strong, appealing (both in terms of visual aesthetic and, yes, sex appeal) character designs are how you get your foot in the door. Shouting from the chest what gameplay makes your GAAS different from others on the market is the 2nd step. You can't fail on these two points and expect most people to give you a chance, Concord found that out the hard way. Don't make FairGame$ suffer the same fate.
)
