DannyDanger
Member
I feel like I'm in the PS3 era with this Sony Concern article 
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Forbes] Sony’s Live Service Triple-Down Is A Dangerous Road For PlayStation
- Thread starter Topher
- Start date
Carter Burke
Member
Some manufacturers do not worry at all about trends and still improving their craftsmanship in what they are good at. Example, Nintendo.
But Jim Ryan is a fool. He doesn't know the PlayStation idiosincrasy. He will fail and waste all the advantage they have over Microsoft in single player games.
Jimbo lived comfortably while everything inherited lasted. Demon's Souls, Returnal, Ratchet... Even God of War started while the other crew managed PlayStation.
Ofcourse he wouldn't greenlight Demon's Souls or games like that. He would put BluePoint to develop some trendy game genre and style.
But Jim Ryan is a fool. He doesn't know the PlayStation idiosincrasy. He will fail and waste all the advantage they have over Microsoft in single player games.
Jimbo lived comfortably while everything inherited lasted. Demon's Souls, Returnal, Ratchet... Even God of War started while the other crew managed PlayStation.
Ofcourse he wouldn't greenlight Demon's Souls or games like that. He would put BluePoint to develop some trendy game genre and style.
Last edited:
FeralEcho
Member
People who say we shouldnt be concerned cuz they can do both we only have to take a look at Naughty Dog,instead of giving us a new game by now they made a 1:1 Remake of an already remastered game and fucked around for 3 years with a gaas mp project that now has been significantly downscaled.Sounds good for the future guys
odhiex
Member
Sony wants to diversify it's portfolios, and this is a very sensible investment on areas that have the most money nowadays. Business is about making money after all.
PlayStation studios are already famous with third-person cinematic action games. As long as they are keep making them, I have no problem with this strategy. Live service could also expand the single player experience.
PlayStation studios are already famous with third-person cinematic action games. As long as they are keep making them, I have no problem with this strategy. Live service could also expand the single player experience.
PeteBull
Member
All 12 will flop hard, nowadays they gotta compete vs juggernauts like apex/fortnite/warzone/valorant, hell even destiny 2, which is dieing down nicely.
Most of those GAAS audience is kids/teens who got short attention span and only play those games with school friends, aka extremly hard to establish new ip, especially unknown universum.
To those kids/teens even bungie isnt nostalgia top dogs who made halo, but probably just rando company who is almost finished with supporting destiny 2 now
March Climber
Member
What I’ll never understand: If Gaas was going to be considered a ‘safe bet’ moneymaker for them, why didn’t they go with the safe bet IPs to do this with?
Socom
Warhawk/Starhawk
Killzone
Resistance
Syphon Filter
Drive Club
Little Big Planet
It’s just so odd to me that only TLoU factions(and maybe Horizon based on leaks) is being considered for this plan and so far the newer stuff is brand new IP. If anything, Socom or Killzone should have been number 1 on their list, especially with this ongoing Activision deal.
Socom
Warhawk/Starhawk
Killzone
Resistance
Syphon Filter
Drive Club
Little Big Planet
It’s just so odd to me that only TLoU factions(and maybe Horizon based on leaks) is being considered for this plan and so far the newer stuff is brand new IP. If anything, Socom or Killzone should have been number 1 on their list, especially with this ongoing Activision deal.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Remember when we heard the same concerns about them porting their games to PC?
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
If we don't start seeing some serious shit by this time next year those concerns will turn out to he totally true.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Did you just make this up?
They're shooters. Full stop.
I'm struggling to follow your line of reasoning with this.
Live Service games aren't limited to shooters.
Genshin Impact and Warframe are very popular Live Service games. None of them are shooters.
Horizon Zero Dawn is an action RPG (whether some people like it or not).
Sony's devs just focus on the games they want to make. The genre coverage of Sony's portfolio are only driven by the publisher insofar as there isn't too much overlap with popular multiplatform games; e.g. Sony canceled an MMO shooter from SSM because it was too similar to Destiny.
Also, Sony won't waste their in-house dev studios' time making military shooters when COD and Battlefield rule the roost. Why compete with 3rd party games that sell boatloads on your platform and you make royalties off anyway.
Sony focuses more on the undersaturated AAA gaming genres for their big AAA releases. That's sensible.
No, they aren't. This is your fanfiction. They're continuing to make games like GOW, TLOU and GoT, while ALSO making Live Service games.
You're grossly misframing their strategy to try to make it seem they're changing focus when they are not. They're continuing to deliver what they've always done, whilst also expanding their portfolio to include other different types of games.
There's nothing wrong with that, and only the most irrational, ignorant fanboys are the ones trying to complain.
No I don't because there is no issue. Only a fictional one folks like you are trying to manufacture. It's concern trolling at its core.
No. It will make Sony continue to make more AAA SP games. Because building and maintaining multiple successful Live Service games is virtually impossible. Sony is trying to win at least one by launching 12 new titles. The market for them overall cannot sustain more than a handful of major successful Live Service games. Sony wants at least one of those over the next decade to be a first-party PS title.
Live Service games are a MUCH bigger risk than AAA SP games. AAA SP games are a sure thing for Sony. Their stable of devs know what works and they deliver successfully on that. There's no greater asset in a high capital business like AAA gaming, than AAA franchises that generate steady revenue streams over a long period. These are much lower-risk projects for Sony, so they will continue to pursue them even if only from a purely business standpoint because it's a solid and steady near-guaranteed income. Launching new Live Service games is anything but.
Shareholders don't give a shit about which games PlayStation makes. Sony shareholders only care about Sony overall as a company and Sony is still much more than PS.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
#SonyDoomed
Yoboman
Member
Well we more or less know what they are now. What remains to be seen if they are any good
Already released:
MLB The Show
Gran Turismo
Destiny (post acquisition)
Revealed or leaked beyond FY23:
Marathon
Helldivers
TLOU Factions
Concord
Fairgame$
Horizon
Savage Game Studios mobile game
Rumoured:
Twisted Metal
Canned:
Deviation game
It's not some crazy level of over commitment. A mix of existing IP and new. Mostly coming from new studios rather than existing
Already released:
MLB The Show
Gran Turismo
Destiny (post acquisition)
Revealed or leaked beyond FY23:
Marathon
Helldivers
TLOU Factions
Concord
Fairgame$
Horizon
Savage Game Studios mobile game
Rumoured:
Twisted Metal
Canned:
Deviation game
It's not some crazy level of over commitment. A mix of existing IP and new. Mostly coming from new studios rather than existing
Last edited:
Starbuck2907
Member
So, they want to become Ubisoft?
Bad plan.
Bad plan.
mrmustard
Banned
Why do you think GaaS are generally way more expensive? Most of them got no high end graphics, no motion capturing, no actors, no big story, no cinematics, not much voice acting. All this is among the most expensive stuff in video game making.
Many GaaS are even f2p. If they would be even nearly as expensive as God of War, Spider-Man, TLOU or other AAA stuff there is no way they could be f2p. For example i've read that Fortnite was just a few 100k.
Last edited:
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Source?
Final Strike Games' shooter was cancelled.
As far as we know, Firesprite games' game is still in development. Sony acquired them last year and moved them into a massive new office. You don't do that and then cancel their project.
squidilix
Member
You know... maybe they investing 60% of their budget, but WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH.
You can tell 60%, but 60% of How much?
What I see is the 40% for single player is the same amount (more even) of the 88% of 2019.
Sony is making more money now with the PS+, Extra, more PS5 sales and games / microtransaction. I think they can invest more for games services. So at least 1 game out of 6 works, is a jackpot for Sony. In addition they bought Bungie, so you have to understand that they must now give them budget / salary, and maybe they invest more for Marathon.
Last edited:
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
This is not what the most successful live service game developers are doing.
Content, content and more content. Look at Fortnite, League of Legends, Apex Legends, Destiny 2, Sea of Thieves, Warframe, GTA:O...
Apex Legends just received 10-15 years of additional support: https://www.dualshockers.com/apex-legends-15-year-support/
I know Ubisoft are trying to get into the 'big leagues' in live service every year, but that's their problem.
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
I'm a huge PS fan. But if they're holding back their games to accommodate eventual PC ports, then that's a bad thing.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I don't think that's it. They seem to be on the "Apple approach."
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
Yoboman
Member
I meant Deviation
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Don't feed the trolls,
Topher
. You're better than this.
It's all well and good to have concerns, but at least let those concerns be based on real factual things, and not just pure conjecture in the face of evidence to the complete contrary. It just makes the concerns seem like they're rooted in pure neuroticism and nothing else.
Like, how do you take the content of a single State of Play and decide that this is now somehow, solely, encapsulating the entirety of Sony's first-party publishing strategy from now to forever?
It's entirely irrational.
It's like folks have the memory of a goldfish and think that Sony has never done a weak gaming conference or E3 before. Like... how long have ya'll be gaming?
A single (subjectively) weak conference means nothing.
Topher
. You're better than this.It's all well and good to have concerns, but at least let those concerns be based on real factual things, and not just pure conjecture in the face of evidence to the complete contrary. It just makes the concerns seem like they're rooted in pure neuroticism and nothing else.
Like, how do you take the content of a single State of Play and decide that this is now somehow, solely, encapsulating the entirety of Sony's first-party publishing strategy from now to forever?
It's entirely irrational.
It's like folks have the memory of a goldfish and think that Sony has never done a weak gaming conference or E3 before. Like... how long have ya'll be gaming?
A single (subjectively) weak conference means nothing.
Last edited:
SidViscous
Member
You would think that the people with the most disposable income would also the most time-poor, so who is going to have the time and money to buy multiple overlapping battle passes? maybe the plan is to throw a bunch of GaaS titles at the wall and see which one sticks.
But seeing stuff like Fairgame$ has me thinking they'll fail to find any success in the GaaS market and just backtrack to the usual epic single-player story driven stuff that propels the Sony brand at the moment.
But seeing stuff like Fairgame$ has me thinking they'll fail to find any success in the GaaS market and just backtrack to the usual epic single-player story driven stuff that propels the Sony brand at the moment.
feynoob
Banned
Resident evil games has shooter elements, yet they are categorized as a horror game.
You can create live service games from any thing. Even an episodic game can become a live service game depends on how you approach it.
Killzone as in r6 seige style of game, while socum can be used as COD or warzone. They are a shooter games that can lost longer as a live service games.
Its not. Its restrictive as hell and has tons of invisible walls. It may have rpg elements, but aint rpg.
That is not sensible. That is alinating yourself from core audience, like how Xbox has been doing with SP games.
Look at MS buying Activsion. If that deal got approved and MS locked down COD, sony would have a lost a major Shooter game. Its why you cant trust 3rd party studios for your major games.
Xbox trusted 3rd party for that, and lost dearly during Xbox one, because they neglected to make their own big SP games.
Did you not pay attention to the budget constrain? Those SP games cost alot of money to make. Sony cant make them in the long term, because its getting expensive as time goes on.
Did you watch their recent showcase? or where you in a cave?
We are not in the past anymore. The cost of making SP is getting expensive. And you have 1 year to generate that revenue back to make a profit and recoup your investment. God war ragnorak sold 11m in 3 months, which generated around 550+m to 700+m. Deduct 200+m(if current budget is right) and you are left with 350+m. But that is not going to be the case for other games. 6M copis on average generates you around 300+m revenue. That is barely avoiding a loss.
Shareholders care about money and money only. They want Sony to be a profitable company. I wouldnt be suprised if this live service model come from shareholders nagging them nonstop.
feynoob
Banned
These are the succesful ones. Its not the same for others.
There is a limit to how much you can a support a single game. Unless the game has the potential to last long, it wont.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
This is just sensationalist premature commentary as usual. Which unfortunately is what plagues and drives gaming journalism.
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
That's obviously what PlayStation is trying to do since they bought Bungie to consult.
Lunarorbit
Member
This is gonna hamstring Sony so badly. Instead of focusing some of their resources on 1st party studios working on psvr2 they are going all in on gaas.
2/3s of these games will absolutely fail in my estimation. Not enough of an attach rate is even possible due these games. For every marathon you'll have 3 foam all stars (or whatever that Splatoon rip off is).
Foam all stars is DOA. It's not going to have a prayer. And when that fails Sony will start to get cold feet. That showcase sucked so much and showed me that don't give a shit about psvr2 or building hype. What the fuck is Concord? You just show a splash screen? And haven.....
Robbing single player games to pay for this bloated bullshit is an easy way to predict the future. 12 gaas games in development is too much. Sony is rushing into this way too fast. I'm not interested in 5 FPS gaas at once.
Didn't they learn anything from titanfall 2, cod, and battlefield all releasing at the same time? Fucking idiots
2/3s of these games will absolutely fail in my estimation. Not enough of an attach rate is even possible due these games. For every marathon you'll have 3 foam all stars (or whatever that Splatoon rip off is).
Foam all stars is DOA. It's not going to have a prayer. And when that fails Sony will start to get cold feet. That showcase sucked so much and showed me that don't give a shit about psvr2 or building hype. What the fuck is Concord? You just show a splash screen? And haven.....
Robbing single player games to pay for this bloated bullshit is an easy way to predict the future. 12 gaas games in development is too much. Sony is rushing into this way too fast. I'm not interested in 5 FPS gaas at once.
Didn't they learn anything from titanfall 2, cod, and battlefield all releasing at the same time? Fucking idiots
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
Far be it from me to defend the integrity Paul Tassi's punditry, but he's generally good at calling the game at 4-1 in the last quarter.
I was always against live services, but knew it was stupid to think Sony wouldn't eventually try to break into a space that could wind up generating as much money as it does for the lucky ones, for seemingly little investment. That said, if the Factions, Deviation and Final Strike shit is any indication, it's clear that this isn't going to work. I really hate to say it, but even Greg Miller has seen the forest for the trees here.
Naughty Dog's had to figure out that the live service affair is bullshit, and wasted 4 years and who knows how much money in the interim.
Sony's behavior thus far indicates that they're prepared to completely pivot on this aspect of their plans, but it's going to be a tough lesson learned one way or the other.
feynoob
Banned
Genshin impact and fortnite are the ones that is stopping this from happening.
Both these dumb games make billions a year. That is equivalent of selling a 20m copy game a year.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
And this is why I say this is sensationalist.
Prior to recent events, Sony had only one or two of all their studios making games that could fit into that I've service criteria. Gran Turismo and Factions. So they decide they are going to invest more in live service games, I don't see what the issue is if 90% of that doing more in I've service stems from new acquisitions. That literally is saying they are expanding and not restructuring. If they were doing the latter, then I would be concerned. They aren't.
Its like people forget that Sony is the one that made SOCOM, MAG...etc. I actually commend them for trying to do more, I do not like live service games on bit. Case in point, I do not play any of them...not even Fortnite. I have also never, EVER bought any DLC of any sort or kind, with the exception of story expansions. So this is not like I am advocating for what they are doing.
I just dont see the problem with it yet, I could see it becoming a problem by the end of this gen we look at sony SP output vs East gen and it has dropped from say 12 games to 8 games and then their live service games increase from 2 games to 12 games. I could see it as a problem if studios that were typically known for their SP experiences were being forced by Sony to make GAAS titles.
Until we start seeing evidence of that, evidence of studios not wanting to make a GAAS but Sony forcing them to, then talk like this is sensationalist and based on absolutely nothing other than conjecture and doomsday scenarios.
hyperbertha
Member
Yea no. If their live service games start being successful, they are no longer obligated to make sp games. They'll just turn all their first parties slowly into live services and try to exponentially increase profits because of the very lack of risk you pointed out.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
It’s fucking stupid to throw so much time, effort and talent into a video games genre that is littered with past high profile failures. The industry can’t sustain more than a few GaaS titles, and Jimbo is just being a hyper greedy fuck.
The GaaS push will be regarded as PlayStation’s TV TV TV TV TV moment. Nintendo will punish them for it, but whether Xbox does or not depends on whether Phil can get his fucking act together, or if they fire him for someone more competent.
The GaaS push will be regarded as PlayStation’s TV TV TV TV TV moment. Nintendo will punish them for it, but whether Xbox does or not depends on whether Phil can get his fucking act together, or if they fire him for someone more competent.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The target audience are those who grow up with mobile.
To make it more scary to you, kids who born in 2005 are 18 years old now. These are the new generation of live service audience. That is what they grow up with.
hyperbertha
Member
You don't think naughty dog turning factions into a stand alone game is evidence of a single player studio wasting resources and time on gaas? It should have been a multiplayer mode in the base game, with much less money and time going into it.
hyperbertha
Member
Because those games have existing fanbases that are expecting proper aaa single player games from them. It will create too much anger, like turning captain America into a woman for woke purposes.
FunkMiller
Member
Not suggesting for a moment there isn't a large audience for live service games... but they all gravitate to only a very few of them. Also, all those 18 year olds will grow out of bang bang, pew pew, hyperactive online shooters eventually - just like the rest of us old fucks have.
All evidence of the last few years points to the fact that a GaaS title is more likely to fail than succeed, and that only a half dozen or so are profitable. It's a fucking dumb strategy to put so many of your eggs in that basket, and it's going to bite old Jimmy boy on his executive arse.
Yes, develop one or two of the stupid things for that market... but trying to create multiple GaaS games? Idiotic. Truly fucking stupid. Most of them (if not all) will be Babylon's Fall, not Fortnite.
Last edited:
Mr.Phoenix
Member
That's on naughty dog. That was them choosing to do that, not sony forcing them to do it. And the only reason we are saying it's wasted now, is because its not coming this year or has been canned.
I simply cannot fault Sony for allowing their studios to do what their studios want to do. It goes both ways you know? Where do you draw the one? In the same way, we are saying hey if the studio wants to make a SP game, support them! is the same way we must say, if the studio wants to take on a MP project, support them!.
feynoob
Banned
It's been 5 years since Ubisoft announced this game. And it's still in development hell. That is how risky they are. But the profits of successful ones like r6 siege and the division 2 masks that failure game.
The main reason why live service are big is community. You get to bond with strangers, it's why it's not going any time soon. Even if it's the same boring shit.
FunkMiller
Member
I find it bizarre that Sony would jeopardise a highly successful strategy of first party single player games, in favour of chasing a high risk strategy of so many GaaS games. It's like they are blind to what the industry is so clearly telling them.
Are they expecting to sell consoles with GaaS games? Because good fucking luck with that, in a world where the biggest ones are played primarily on mobile devices. But is that what the Project Q shit is all about really? Trying to coax in the Gen Z crowd with a portable device they can play whatever bullshit take on Fortnite Sony are trying to develop?
None of it makes a lick of sense.
feynoob
Banned
Managements never makes any sense.
Xbox showed that clearly during Xbox one E3.
As long as suit people and money is involved in, all common sense goes out of the way.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
It's 2023 AD and Sony Group Corporation is doomed. Again.
I'm not concerned in the slightest. Almost all GaaS titles are being made by new teams or specifically created for this task B-teams (ND, Guerilla). And ND game, per Bloomberg, is already put on ice after internal evaluations from both Sony and Bungie. Moreso. devs are reshuffled to SP projects. Not fired, ND is not closed, the Sony is happy to change focus even after burning some cash. So yeah, based only on that report only, I'd say Sony is kinda knows what it's doing and not pushing the broken GaaS title for the sake of the release schedule (hello, Redfall!).
Also we had a ton of Sony-made MP games during the PS3 era and SP content on PS3 was just fine. Frankly, I kinda miss PS-cintric MP titles like SOCOM, MAG and Starhawk. GT7 and GT Sport are both GaaS titles too btw, it's not like the skies are falling for PD or GT fans.
I'm not concerned in the slightest. Almost all GaaS titles are being made by new teams or specifically created for this task B-teams (ND, Guerilla). And ND game, per Bloomberg, is already put on ice after internal evaluations from both Sony and Bungie. Moreso. devs are reshuffled to SP projects. Not fired, ND is not closed, the Sony is happy to change focus even after burning some cash. So yeah, based only on that report only, I'd say Sony is kinda knows what it's doing and not pushing the broken GaaS title for the sake of the release schedule (hello, Redfall!).
Also we had a ton of Sony-made MP games during the PS3 era and SP content on PS3 was just fine. Frankly, I kinda miss PS-cintric MP titles like SOCOM, MAG and Starhawk. GT7 and GT Sport are both GaaS titles too btw, it's not like the skies are falling for PD or GT fans.
Physiognomonics
Member
FunkMiller
Member
GT7 is absolutely not a GaaS. I play it every day. It's primarily a single player experience, with multiplayer capabilities.
A GaaS GT game would be no single player element.
Let's not start confusing games terminology here. A GaaS is a very specific kind of game: an online only, multiplayer experience, with ongoing costs, and a continuing revenue model. You can buy GT7 and never pay another penny out.
No one has an issue with multiplayer games, just the persistent online GaaS structure that is solely designed for the purposes of extracting money from the participant.
Sony committing 60% of its time and money to that kind of game is a bad development for them, us, and the industry.
Last edited:
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
Both Genshin and Honkai are SP-driven games lol. Two of the most successful GaaS titles on the market today. Hell, Honkai doesn't even have any sort of MP meta as of now, it's pure single-player JRPG.
Speaking of GT7: GT Sophie, regular content drops and Sport Mode are the heart of GT7 long-standing appeal. Many can argue that GT7 is very light on pure SP content after GT5/6 SP modes. Polyphony is also updating menus from time to time and overall leaning into the virtual racing scene with a recent VR update.
People need to drop the sentiment that GaaS is only about engaging with other players. GaaS is a constantly live and evolving platform with added forms of monetization. It can be MTX (and GT7 has those), it can be gacha with limited banners (Honkai, Genshin), it can be premium content drops. But GaaS =/= Multiplayer. Genshin Impact is a single-player game 90% of the time, believe it or not.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The thing is that it is good that Sony has a good quality control process and they are happy to add resources dedicated to further this new goals rather than decreasing the amount of effort in their main gaming pillars.
Not sure why the author cited Redfall as a cautionary tale: that was a game that came out but should have been retooled (and was also quite buggy on top) or rebooted and polished more which is what Sony is doing with Bungie’s help now (another reason spending money to retain their staff for longer pays off).