Sony looking to expand PlayStation Studios titles to Xbox and Nintendo, according to Job Listing

We have to protect Nintendo. Hopefully they dont have Rasputin type consultants which MS and Sony have right now.
There is some high chance that margins with the Switch 2 generation will be lower than with Switch 1, I don't see them doing Multiplatform strategy in the next 10 years or so but eventually they'll get there.
 
Nothings changed. If things were going to change then playstation would've put lego horizon on xbox and not just nintendo. But they didn't even let that happen. I expect 0 big playstation single player 1st party hitters to sniff the xbox platform.
I don't even know if an XB will even exist by the time Sony puts any major title on Switch 2 btw
 
Not sure if shitpost, but those games would sell exactly 0 copies on Nintendo ecosystem.
Games like Witcher 3, Dragon Quest 11, and Monster Hunter sold well there; the Switch audience likes these kind of games.

 
Last edited:
They're not being financially forced; they just have stupid people employed who lack critical thinking and creative impetus to scale down costs while still retaining real value proposition to their platform.

Spiderman 3 projected to cost $400 million? Go tell Marvel to renegotiate their terms, or risk losing access to the best studio for single-player superhero games in the gaming market. Cut out the redundant extortion consultancy groups. Split the games into smaller parts you release every 2-3 years at cheaper price ($40 per installment). There are various solutions, but SIE leadership want the path of least resistance. They want the most brain-dead approach that doesn't require too much investment.
I understand, but when i say "financially forced" im also talking about what you are referencing (the consultancy groups) and the internal woke/DEI ideology within these studios.

This practice is meant to bring in new and diverse demographics (more revenue/profits — or so they say), which in turn makes studios bloated and production more expensive and time-consuming. Now, for whatever the fuck reason, you need a narrative team three times the size just to produce a worse, lamer story and uninspired, boring, by-the-books game design and gameplay, all to appeal to the biggest audience. The obfuscation of the myth of the modern audience/the cult aspect of this corporate ideology is kind of pushing these companies to compensate (by reaching) for the nonexistent modern audience everywhere.

without this ideology sony could save like 30-50M in budget easy.
 
Brace Yourself Here We Go GIF by MOODMAN
My exact reaction to reading the title lol
 
So why the hell are they still planning to invest in their own console? Are they really going after brand cannibalization just for scraps from the competition? Are we heading toward a boring future with nothing but Nintendos and PCs?
 
It's GaaS (but it won't stop the torrent of takes here)
Dude I'll tell you right now that you are wrong.

This isn't 1998, Sony/MS/Nintendo etc has all the metrics and they know what every person cracking open a brand new console downloads first.

They can immediately identify how many consoles were sold through Spider-Man 2 or Mario Kart World or Starfield etc.

The console wars are about to turn into marketshare wars over which platform best plays Fortnite or Roblox. Look at most of the bundles Sony and Microsoft ran this gen, half of them were Fortnite-related.
 
Price of entry for a gaming PC is much worse than an console, but after that everething is better. But the main reason is that since i can play Sony 1st party games on PC, i have no more need to buy a PS. Now on PC i can enjoy the Sony 1st party games + Xbox 1st party games + PC exclusive games, and i can even add mods to avoid bullshit censorship Sony loves to introduce from time to time and if i want to play a MP game i dont have to worry about paying an extra subscription fee.

I also dont play games on the living room, so the advantage and confort a console provides for the living room plug and play experience, does not apply to me as well. Sony porting they games to PC, removed the only reason i was still buying playstation consoles. To play PS exclusives.
The point is that you — or anyone who decides to switch to PC — will be in exactly the same situation as someone who owns a PlayStation: you'll be on a platform that's mostly made up of multiplatform games.

And I highly doubt that Sony is going to simply abandon exclusives. They'll likely continue with timed exclusivity, releasing those games on other platforms only years later. The job description itself suggests this: it's about managing the commercial strategy for already released PlayStation Studios games on non-PlayStation platforms, driving long-term revenue and expanding audience reach. Also, and this kind of language strongly suggests live service titles.
 
aTj7O3Nkc3SIMnwP.jpg

A reasonable take, particularly the 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Although they don't point out the obvious: by saying Sony haven't invested in their IPs well enough they seemingly implicate Microsoft have, but that is absolutely not true. Microsoft's IP management has been a disaster; they simply bought two of the biggest publishers to revive (and save) their gaming division's revenues and profits.

Either way, mostly in agreement. They could've approached multiplatform through porting very old catalogue games (PS3 and earlier) and some GAAS to non-PlayStation platforms, and made a real virtuous cycle in bringing new exclusives to their own console (1P and 3P). They could still be doing that, but I have strong doubts at this point since it'd require way different steps early on vs. what steps they've actually been making with their multiplat strategy.

The point is that you — or anyone who decides to switch to PC — will be in exactly the same situation as someone who owns a PlayStation: you'll be on a platform that's mostly made up of multiplatform games.

And I highly doubt that Sony is going to simply abandon exclusives. They'll likely continue with timed exclusivity, releasing those games on other platforms only years later. The job description itself suggests this: it's about managing the commercial strategy for already released PlayStation Studios games on non-PlayStation platforms, driving long-term revenue and expanding audience reach. Also, and this kind of language strongly suggests live service titles.

If it goes in the direction it feels things will, then SIE's approach will be virtually indistinguishable from Microsoft's.

Also, I just re-read the position listing, and what you're specifically saying isn't mentioned anywhere in there. I think you're simply choosing to interpret it that way but the language described throughout the job listing suggests games in general, not just live service titles. Otherwise, it would have explicitly mentioned live-service titles because, y'know, that's not too difficult to do?
 
Last edited:
A.I will porting those games no problem, thus why many developers will be laid off and almost everything will be multiplaform.
 
Last edited:
Imagine in the future if somehow Nintendo gets in a pickle like the WiiU days. All they have to do is release a Mario on Android and iOS and BOOM. Sales out the Wazoo.
 
duh, only a matter of time. Forza selling 2. 5 million on PS5 was the confirmation, Sony will do the same with old games

Probably start with something like Returnal or something
They'll most likely do Horizon Zero Dawn / Forbidden West, TLOU 1 and 2, and Spider-Man.

I think those 3 games will be first "big" single-player games to launch on Xbox / Nintendo, because Sony is clearly (too) obssessed about lifecycle managment of games. In that context, those 3 would pop out the most for Sony executives to consider.
 
Games like Witcher 3, Dragon Quest 11, and Monster Hunter sold well there; the Switch audience likes these kind of games.


Those are good games, Horizon is just not.
 
Last edited:
aTj7O3Nkc3SIMnwP.jpg

A reasonable take, particularly the 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Although they don't point out the obvious: by saying Sony haven't invested in their IPs well enough they seemingly implicate Microsoft have, but that is absolutely not true. Microsoft's IP management has been a disaster; they simply bought two of the biggest publishers to revive (and save) their gaming division's revenues and profits.
MS have not invested in their IPs well enough either but they have bought a bunch that were already well established like Minecraft and CoD, and are trying to guerilla market a bunch of others too like FH. So if MS have failed with this strategy when the odds were in their favour Sony isn't stupid to do the same with lower odds. He's mostly right. Especially about how this job listing doesn't mean much in terms of a change in strategy. As he said they already have somebody in a similar role and they've been doing late multiplatform ports already. There is nothing to suggest this has changed in the job listing. In fact it even mentions out-of-year strategy, and late ports of already released games suggesting a continuation of the status quo. Something they just said in June too. That there is no change.
 
Last edited:
So why the hell are they still planning to invest in their own console? Are they really going after brand cannibalization just for scraps from the competition? Are we heading toward a boring future with nothing but Nintendos and PCs?

I think they realize most people are where they are and that's it. I'm on PS what am I going to do do? I hate pc gaming. Nintendo games aren't for me. So it's Xbox or PS and I chose PS. There's no reason for me to leave. I do think it's premature to do this right now but to me this always seemed like the next step after establishing yourself as the default console.
 
If it goes in the direction it feels things will, then SIE's approach will be virtually indistinguishable from Microsoft's.

Also, I just re-read the position listing, and what you're specifically saying isn't mentioned anywhere in there. I think you're simply choosing to interpret it that way but the language described throughout the job listing suggests games in general, not just live service titles. Otherwise, it would have explicitly mentioned live-service titles because, y'know, that's not too difficult to do?
The language in the listing — "driving long-term revenue" — is more commonly associated with live service games, not traditional single-player titles, which usually see most of their sales in the launch window.

You're right that it doesn't explicitly say "live service," but that's not unusual. Companies often avoid being that direct in job listings — especially when the role might touch multiple types of products. The phrasing they did choose still strongly hints at games with ongoing monetization or engagement strategies.

As for the comparison to Microsoft's approach — if Sony eventually adopts a hybrid strategy for some of their titles while keeping their core single-player experiences timed-exclusive, that's still meaningfully different from Microsoft's current model, which pushes same-day multiplatform releases.

So yeah, it's an interpretation — but it's one based on reasonable inferences from the language used and recent actions from SIE.
 
Well, they already have been doing it for a while.

If it goes in the direction it feels things will, then SIE's approach will be virtually indistinguishable from Microsoft's.
Nah, they have pretty different strategies and results.

Plus Sony doesn't put their games (plus expensive 3rd party ones) day one in a subscription and doesn't put all their games day one in PC, and have a good management that keeps delivering every single year multiple goty candidate or winners with high scores in reviews and keep breaking many records like sales ones while GOTY candidate/winner level games are pretty rare in MS's output.

Sony is the market leader in consoles and MS is about to leave the console platform holder business. MS breaks the bank with GP generating huge loses, while Sony instead keeps a profitable business and is the leader of (non-mobile) game subs.

The language in the listing — "driving long-term revenue" — is more commonly associated with live service games
Nah, non-live service games also keep selling during years. Like those released at high prices that later over time get discounts and price cuts, or get late ports to other platforms after some timed exclusivity.

In any case, it isn't something new for Sony to release games in other platforms. Or to make live service games.
 
Last edited:
Nothings changed. If things were going to change then playstation would've put lego horizon on xbox and not just nintendo. But they didn't even let that happen. I expect 0 big playstation single player 1st party hitters to sniff the xbox platform.
Then you will be disappointed I guess?
 
The language in the listing — "driving long-term revenue" — is more commonly associated with live service games, not traditional single-player titles, which usually see most of their sales in the launch window.

You're right that it doesn't explicitly say "live service," but that's not unusual. Companies often avoid being that direct in job listings — especially when the role might touch multiple types of products. The phrasing they did choose still strongly hints at games with ongoing monetization or engagement strategies.

As for the comparison to Microsoft's approach — if Sony eventually adopts a hybrid strategy for some of their titles while keeping their core single-player experiences timed-exclusive, that's still meaningfully different from Microsoft's current model, which pushes same-day multiplatform releases.

So yeah, it's an interpretation — but it's one based on reasonable inferences from the language used and recent actions from SIE.
Long term revenue would apply to both GaaS and extending the initial revenue from sales on Playstation consoles later down the line on other platforms. Their current strategy.
 
Games like Witcher 3, Dragon Quest 11, and Monster Hunter sold well there; the Switch audience likes these kind of games.


Are you really comparing those games with Horizon franchise?
 
crushed noo GIF

How am I meant to show how superior I am now, without my exclusives I'm nothing.
Being told by a multi billion corp that you are not as important to them as you thought you are is seemingly very upsetting lol.

Sony is not even gonna do some weird podcast where Hulst promises only 4 games or whatever, they're just gonna go in with zero lube rofl.
 
It sold like 35 million copies iirc with far less history behind it, so why not?

Numbers without context. How many games Horizon Zero Dawn would compete in Nintendo ecosystem? How many times Horizon got discount while Nintendo first party never do and still beat their asses?
You already had a taste of how well Horizon franchise did on others plataforms, but somehow is always ignored.

Big numbers not always tell shit. Sony first party games get discount all the bloody time. I lost the count of how many times Horizon Zero Dawn got discount in Brazil, a country that ask R$399,90 for games, ask R$90 or less for Horizon. I even got a digital copy of Horizon for free from Playstation, can you believe I have a physical copy and digital version of Horizon Zero Dawn? I hope this doesn't enter into the sales metric.

This is like saying Mcdonalds burgers are the best because sell more than any other.
 
Top Bottom