Sony Reveals New First Party Org Chart Categorized by Studio Focus

bitbydeath said:
I thought Polyphony would count as Live Service?
Strange they are not but San Diego is.
Click to expand...
I'd say "evolving / multigenre" group may include studios that fall in at least one of these different cases:
  • Teams who are working/worked in a game that features both SP focus and MP/GaaS focus (GT7, open world game with MP elements cancelled at Bend)
  • Studios like MM or Guerrilla who worked and may be working both in GaaS (Dreams, LBP, Horizon Online) or SP only non-GaaS titles (Tearaway, Horizon 3)
  • (I'm not sure about this one, but it's to fit the 'evolving' word) studios that started as SP focused in the past but in recent time have been transitioning to have a MP/GaaS focus
But as you mention, seems weird that San Diego and Polyphony aren't in the same group. Maybe it would be better and more clear to split them into these groups:
  • Single player focus
  • Multiplayer live service focus
  • Both single player and multiplayer live service focus

DeltaPolarBear said:
Single Player games are the best kind of game for a platform owner to make. Because Live Service makes the most money when it is on every piece of hardware, and Sony can make 30% money with no risk by just hosting third party games. You know, the point of the entire business model.

Also, making live service would mean competing for dollars with the 3rd party games on your own platform anyway. You are better off making Single Player games that are in demand and have a finite goal. You make them, release them, then move on with the next game. It might not be trendy but as a platform owner you are suppose to boost the titles that make people want to buy your hardware.

Why try to beat Fortnite when you can just ask Fortnite for 30% rent?
Click to expand...
Excluding Nintendo, most of the money in all gaming platforms is made by 3rd party games. But Sony makes over a billion dollar per year from first party games, so it's normal that they want to continue making them.

And the majority of game revenue in PS, like in mostly everywhere, comes from live service games. So it's normal that they also want to have their own live service games. They could just sit there and get money from 3rd parties, but having 1st party games give their platform an identity and help them showcase its capabilities.

Having a very successful 3rd party game like Fortnite doesn't stop them from making GaaS, and they aren't aiming to outperform it. In the same way that there also super successful games like BotW, Elden Ring, GTAV or Minecraft doesn't stop them from making non-GaaS games and they don't aim to outperform them.
 
Last edited:
yurinka said:
Excluding Nintendo, most of the money in all gaming platforms is made by 3rd party games. But Sony makes over a billion dollar per year from first party games, so it's normal that they want to continue making them.

And the majority of game revenue in PS, like in mostly everywhere, comes from live service games. So it's normal that they also want to have their own live service games. They could just sit there and get money from 3rd parties, but having 1st party games give their platform an identity and help them showcase its capabilities.

Having a very successful 3rd party game like Fortnite doesn't stop them from making GaaS, and they aren't aiming to outperform it. In the same way that there also super successful games like BotW, Elden Ring, GTAV or Minecraft doesn't stop them from making non-GaaS games and they don't aim to outperform them.
Click to expand...
Live Service games take time away for other games. Single player games do not. If you make 10 great single player games a year, they will all sell. The same can't be said for releasing 10 great live service games. Time is a finite resource and single players games are more time efficient.
 
GymWolf said:
And they only wasted more than half gen to understand that, i call this a victory 🕺
Click to expand...

That happens when you fire Jim Ryan a year ago.

DenchDeckard said:
Just my personal taste.

Horizon is awful. Ragnarok was OK to fine and Ghost was fine apart from boring as sin in places.

Sony first party AAA games are basically ubisoft games and we all know it deep down.
Click to expand...

Now you know damn well you're lying! Cut the crap.
 
Luipadre said:
see you on PS6. Whole gen wasted

go fuck yourself middle finger GIF
Click to expand...
Buy the switch, I felt the same with my Xbox One and decided to buy a Wii U. The clock is ticking and you have to do something instead of wasting time.
 
DeltaPolarBear said:
Live Service games take time away for other games. Single player games do not. If you make 10 great single player games a year, they will all sell. The same can't be said for releasing 10 great live service games. Time is a finite resource and single players games are more time efficient.
Click to expand...
Single players also take time from other games, but less. But yes, player's time is a finite resource and GaaS are monopolizing it, so this is one of the reasons of why all big publishers want to make more GaaS now. The other one is that most of the top grossing games are GaaS and that GaaS generate the majority of the game revenue.

And the percentage of playtime and revenue spent on GaaS keeps growing, so for the long term they must invest on GaaS.

In the case of Sony, the investment in GaaS didn't negatively affect the development of non-GaaS, since they also increased the investment in non-GaaS, and made related studio acquisitions and hirings to turn studios (like ND, SSM or Guerrilla) who were working in a single SP game at the same time to become multi-game studios.

And no, not all great games sell (independently if SP or GaaS). Some sell well, other ones tank and other ones do just ok, even if being great.

For them there's another key difference between GaaS and non-GaaS: when very successful, the amount of money that a GaaS is way higher and continues making moeny over years, being less focused on launch. Which gives them extra stability and rely less on if specific game release performs well or not.

As an example, Hermen said that Helldivers 2 is generating more money from addons than from game sales.
 
Last edited:
mckmas8808 said:
Why do yall act as if California doesn't have some of the best programmers and tech people in America?
Click to expand...
I pretty sure they do.. but the mentality and specially the priorities overthere are all fucked up .. taking the same talented devs and studios to another environment might be sufficient for a real change in culture and production.
 
yurinka said:
For them there's another key difference between GaaS and non-GaaS: when very successful, the amount of money that a GaaS is way higher and continues making moeny over years, being less focused on launch. Which gives them extra stability and rely less on if specific game release performs well or not.
Click to expand...
There is no reason for Sony to increase GaaS production because they are already making 30% of ALL micro transactions of every possible title. They are already benefiting from all the successful GaaS out there without needing to risk failure of any kind. The risks they took and the money they lost so far was not necessary at all.

Helldiver 2 worked out, but overall the GaaS initiative was pointless. They got money on PC that they otherwise wouldn't get, but that doesn't balance out the failures. As a platform holder they shouldn't have done that and they finally learned the hard way.
 
Sebastian1295 said:
I wish xbox never would've went third party. The biggest mistake they made was doubling down on gamepass when the results weren't adding up because now it's left them in a terrible situation. They should've realized that it wasn't working and cut the cord which would've pissed off fans in short term, and in the long term they could've went all in on making content exclusive and being cut throat. I just fail to understand why they're so hell bent on gamepass when the growth has stagnated and it's completely sunk the brand reputation in the process.
Click to expand...
Msft as your best customer within your ecosystem is never a good thing. Gamepass dominates Xbox and with pc gamers being price sensitive it makes sense to have one ecosystem then feed off the pc base. Thus gamepass grows and 80 usd makes me think nextgen is near.
 
With recent news of cuts in these dev teams, and what we already know about what they're working on, there isn't much new here to unpack. We continue to wait for 4 or 5 new releases (Intergalactic, Saros, Corey Barlog's new project, and Ghost of Yotei) and will see what some of the new additions bring to the table in a few years. That's not a huge amount of output, even if all of the releases are excellent. I expect to see more third party partnerships in the next few years to pad out the Playstation lineup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sony Reveals Categories/Focus for First Party Studios
2 3
124
10K
Dr. Claus replied
Streum On Studio splits from Focus Entertainment | Teases new title to be announced this summer
0
29
Hideous Snake replied
Sony opens new Bungie spinoff studio. Team LFG.
2 3 4 5 6
275
2K
ChorizoPicozo replied
(Pushsquare) According to Shuhei Yoshida, no first-party Sony studio has been forced to make live service games
2 3
126
6K
Negotiator replied
Will Sony become third party publisher?
2 3 4 5
232
1K
RCX replied
Top Bottom