thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
This isn't going to be like the other next-gen speculation threads I've done in the past, as it's less about raw power and more about business strategy. We already know the PS6 and next Xbox device(s) will be more powerful than the current boxes. However, at the rate pricing and product trends seem to be going, not to mention game release strategy from SIE and MS, simply having "more power" isn't going to be a great selling point for 10th gen hardware. The visual gains more powerful consoles can afford just aren't going to be as impressive as going from PS1 to PS2, or SNES to N64.
So, how do the next round of consoles actually retain market relevance? Well aside from the games themselves, I think it'll come down to business strategies. But first, I want to dispel some ideas around what expected benefits more powerful consoles would bring next gen:
MYTH #1: WE'LL GET SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER-LOOKING GAMES
TRUTH: At this point, aside from arguably more dedicated RT & ML hardware solutions, the power of PS5 and Series X aren't what's holding most games back from being massive visual leaps over 8th-gen titles. It's budgets, manpower/manhours and lengthy development cycles. I could also arguably throw in the ever-increasing open-worldness factor games pursue (more content volume = less time for visual polish) and pursuit of GAAS (by their nature, GAAS target high framerates and huge gamut of system specs, necessitating simpler art styles & less demanding graphics).
A PS6 or NextBox offering 16x the TF and bandwidth of current-gen systems, only means it'll take 7-8 years for a massive 1,000+ person studio to put out a single AAA game actually leveraging that hardware to its fullest. And by that point, new hardware will be ready to launch. Simply pushing ever-more-powerful versions of what we already have is a band-aid to the problem of overly complex and bloated development cycles, which are the REAL bottleneck in us getting a consistent flow of significantly better-looking games (industry trends in areas like GAAS being a good runner-up).
MYTH #2: EVERYTHING WILL SCALE WITH MORE POWERFUL HARDWARE B/C OF SMALLER NODES
TRUTH: When some people see "N3P", they think every component of the APU/SOC will be linearly scaled at the same rate. That isn't true; in fact, some components aren't even on that particular node process, and certain layers of a given chip component could be on larger, older node processes.
As an example, on-chip cache generally does not scale down at a linear rate the same way shader cores might (assuming they are architecturally the same as those on an older process). Other things like the memory controllers scale down even worst, or in some cases not at all, so those are things which still can take up a considerable amount of die space even if the chip design is moving to a smaller process.
MYTH #3: MORE POWERFUL CONSOLES WILL MEAN MORE GAMEPLAY INNOVATIONS
TRUTH: This has been a thing of increasingly less happenstance gen-over-gen, and in the past when it DID happen, was usually paired with technological innovations in some other area, such as controller inputs, storage, online connectivity etc. The PS5 and Series consoles have mainly offered up simply prettier iterations of games that were common on the PS4 & XBO, albeit with streamlining (some would say oversimplification) in certain areas following "best practices" and things of that nature. One could argue the 8th gen was the same to 7th gen, but I'd also argue 8th gen both streamlined certain game design choices & practices, while also making certain emerging genres fully mainstream, such as GAAS battle royales, hero shooters, and single-player cinematic 3P games.
Considering increases in team sizes, budgets, time-of-development windows and the negative effect that has on risk-taking choices of game design & experimentation (not to mention decreased presence of things like VR/AR), what technological innovations will come paired with power increases to drive new ideas and concepts in game design of AAA titles?
Now that we've gotten the clearing of those myths out the way, what actual business innovations can 10th gen bring to customers to excite dedicated & casual customers? Perhaps even expand the customer base again? Well, this is mainly going to be a reiteration over things I've mentioned in the past, hopefully with more clarity. I'll also be breaking it down by platform holder, and try keeping things as brief as possible.
[SONY/SIE]
[PART 2 BELOW...]
So, how do the next round of consoles actually retain market relevance? Well aside from the games themselves, I think it'll come down to business strategies. But first, I want to dispel some ideas around what expected benefits more powerful consoles would bring next gen:
MYTH #1: WE'LL GET SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER-LOOKING GAMES
TRUTH: At this point, aside from arguably more dedicated RT & ML hardware solutions, the power of PS5 and Series X aren't what's holding most games back from being massive visual leaps over 8th-gen titles. It's budgets, manpower/manhours and lengthy development cycles. I could also arguably throw in the ever-increasing open-worldness factor games pursue (more content volume = less time for visual polish) and pursuit of GAAS (by their nature, GAAS target high framerates and huge gamut of system specs, necessitating simpler art styles & less demanding graphics).
A PS6 or NextBox offering 16x the TF and bandwidth of current-gen systems, only means it'll take 7-8 years for a massive 1,000+ person studio to put out a single AAA game actually leveraging that hardware to its fullest. And by that point, new hardware will be ready to launch. Simply pushing ever-more-powerful versions of what we already have is a band-aid to the problem of overly complex and bloated development cycles, which are the REAL bottleneck in us getting a consistent flow of significantly better-looking games (industry trends in areas like GAAS being a good runner-up).
MYTH #2: EVERYTHING WILL SCALE WITH MORE POWERFUL HARDWARE B/C OF SMALLER NODES
TRUTH: When some people see "N3P", they think every component of the APU/SOC will be linearly scaled at the same rate. That isn't true; in fact, some components aren't even on that particular node process, and certain layers of a given chip component could be on larger, older node processes.
As an example, on-chip cache generally does not scale down at a linear rate the same way shader cores might (assuming they are architecturally the same as those on an older process). Other things like the memory controllers scale down even worst, or in some cases not at all, so those are things which still can take up a considerable amount of die space even if the chip design is moving to a smaller process.
MYTH #3: MORE POWERFUL CONSOLES WILL MEAN MORE GAMEPLAY INNOVATIONS
TRUTH: This has been a thing of increasingly less happenstance gen-over-gen, and in the past when it DID happen, was usually paired with technological innovations in some other area, such as controller inputs, storage, online connectivity etc. The PS5 and Series consoles have mainly offered up simply prettier iterations of games that were common on the PS4 & XBO, albeit with streamlining (some would say oversimplification) in certain areas following "best practices" and things of that nature. One could argue the 8th gen was the same to 7th gen, but I'd also argue 8th gen both streamlined certain game design choices & practices, while also making certain emerging genres fully mainstream, such as GAAS battle royales, hero shooters, and single-player cinematic 3P games.
Considering increases in team sizes, budgets, time-of-development windows and the negative effect that has on risk-taking choices of game design & experimentation (not to mention decreased presence of things like VR/AR), what technological innovations will come paired with power increases to drive new ideas and concepts in game design of AAA titles?
Now that we've gotten the clearing of those myths out the way, what actual business innovations can 10th gen bring to customers to excite dedicated & casual customers? Perhaps even expand the customer base again? Well, this is mainly going to be a reiteration over things I've mentioned in the past, hopefully with more clarity. I'll also be breaking it down by platform holder, and try keeping things as brief as possible.
[SONY/SIE]
[MICROCOMPUTER-IZING THE PLAYSTATION]
This should be simple in concept: in the same way the Amiga could do productivity tasks alongside having a focus on pushing games (for its time), I feel PlayStation will eventually have to take a similar
approach if pricing trends this gen continue, and things like tariff trade wars become more common. In addition to providing value which can grant the system categorization exemptions and tax benefits, it also generally acts as an easy way of buffing the value proposition.
Additionally, it acts as a way of expanding that value proposition while still securing the general operating environment, i.e keeping the OS locked down to a single proprietary provider (the platform holder). It would bring just enough of the open aspects of PC, without having to relinquish vertical integration of the stack (kernel, OS, storefront, hardware, APIs). SIE don't even have to necessarily farm out development of productivity software components to 3P; they make certain applications for Windows and could simply port them over to the PS OS, while making additional applications to round out the package offering. Means of providing such software could be in the form of both individual software license purchases, and including them accessible in a running subscription to PS+.
As for what such software packages would provide, well the easiest way to imagine that to look at the PC space and drawing equivalents. So things in areas like music production, audio engineering, video production, graphics modeling (general 3D modeling, CAD etc.), spreadsheets, business documents, audio/video players, chat clients and more. Either developed in-house or in partnership with 3P software developers, with more intensive ones (i.e 3D modeling & CAD) having input from various SIE 1P studios to enable the best technical performance possible.
[ABOLISH THE ONLINE PAYWALL]
Honestly, this is something that will become an inevitability sooner or later. In a world where F2P has gained dominance (and where the paywall is already waived for said F2P on console), not to mention growing influence of PC gaming where online play is generally not paywalled, consoles like PlayStation where 90%+ of the library is shared with PC, WILL have to remove their online paywall to keep competitive. Just the simple truth and, yes, despite what some SIE heads would say, the markets of console and PC are becoming increasingly more competitive with one another for gaming time and dollars.
It's an antiquated approach that has allowed console platform holders to get away with low value proposition in their online services, implemented at a time when game libraries were largely divergent, consoles still enforced many permanent exclusives (intentional & defacto), and consoles had a very large pricing advantage against PC gaming setups providing even "good enough" baseline performance, let alone performance matching & exceeding consoles of that gen. It's time to move on; besides, a company like SIE can add things like aforementioned productivity software suites to subscription service tiers to increase the value proposition (in lieu of removing the online paywall) and potentially make more money along the way.
[A NEW PORTABLE COMPANION]
Thanks to leakers like K KeplerL2 , we've got a fairly good understanding of what SIE's next gen portable plans are looking like. The fact SIE are in fact looking into doing one is, IMO, crucial, because they need something that'll appeal to markets like Japan, where currently the PS5 is doing rather poorly (especially WRT software sales). In that regard, a portable doesn't suddenly make their fortunes better, but it DOES drastically improve their odds provided other critical components come together (i.e appealing software exclusives).
For non-Japanese markets, where the PS Portal has been doing decently well, it adds optional value to those with a PlayStation console, or an alternative means of playing PlayStation games if they don't see need for a dormant, stay-at-home console. What's less known, is if the portable will provide hybrid-like functionality, or natively play PS6 games. Even things like a downscale wrapper, while rumored via leaks, well it's not known how that's implemented or how good an implementation it'll be.
IMO, a hybrid-like approach isn't necessarily a requirement, and by "hybrid" I mean a portable with detachable controls or where part of the processing is in a dock module. Like the PS Vita, it'll have some way to cast output to a connected television (preferably both wired & wireless as options), and a dock could provide substantial active cooling allowing the portable to boost clocks for unlocked performance. Bigger areas of focus should be in ensuring local streaming latency is even lower, and having a scalable design that can facilitate as a cheaper, streaming-only (local & cloud) handheld option for those who don't want local native PS4, PS5 and PS6 play on the go.
As for PS6 compatibility, it sure would be nice if advances with PSSR and other technologies could ensure downscaling of target performance for the handheld, in a way with little dev intervention (outside maybe metadata support), but I'm not holding my breath. Native PS6 game support on the portable will probably be selective, with many games relying on streaming (local & cloud). This could make things a bit tricky, and hopefully SIE have a solution for cloud streaming where at least two game instances can be ran on a single PS6-based server unit at reduced settings (relying on upscaling in the portable to boost settings on the user's end), just to keep the cloud side of things manageable.
[A RETURN TO CONSISTENT AA]
Part of ensuring the rumored portable sees traction in certain markets (such as, again, Japan) is making sure there's a consistent slate of quality exclusive software appealing to the region while also fitting the use-case of a portable. This is where SIE needs to focus on more AA internal productions, or at least co-developed & published productions. Titles like Astro Bot are a great example of what they can do in the AA space, but in Japan that game may've been hamstrung both by PS5's poor software situation plus the lack of physical availability early on.
Currently SIE are relying on 3P timed exclusives and remasters to pad between 1P AAA releases, but that strategy won't be viable next gen. They're running out of (recent/semi-recent) games to remaster and 3P are increasingly less willing to do exclusivity deals. For the ones they are, the window of exclusivity is shrinking, and SIE's own multiplatform efforts this gen have probably made it harder to sell 3P on doing for PlayStation systems, what SIE have seemed less willing to do themselves. Faced with that, SIE's AAA are generally games which overlap a lot in a similar space/niche, and the number of such releases annually has continued to decline for various reasons mostly related to increased time & budgets.
Also, and we can't forget, the concept of AAA games on-the-go was already tried with the PSP, and while at first novel, ultimately wasn't sustainable. People who want cinematic blockbuster AAA games prefer playing them a certain way, generally on a big screen and on the couch, so portability gets little value proposition from such. These types of games also ask for long sessions where a person's very engrossed into the narrative experience...imagine trying to do that on a bus commute. Not gonna happen (I've tried
).
This is why you need AA games that, while they can work well for a console experience, also work just as well (if not even better) for a portable games platform. Games that have smaller budgets, therefore can afford to be quirkier & riskier in various concepts (as well as target demographics), have shorter development cycles and can add variety to the audiences that portable appeals to. If you take a look at many of the Switch's best-selling titles both in Japan and globally, you'll see they typically benefit from being heavily pick-up-and-play experiences with smaller budgets, affording more frequent releases across shorter time windows. They are experiences that work very well for on-the-go lifestyles but, all the same, work well when sat at the big screen.
SIE needs more of those types of games not just for the portable, but PlayStation in general.
[MORE MANAGEABLE AAA]
Loading studios with the task of carrying a console platform, with a AAA game that can take upwards 7-8 years to make, is a model that will eventually be unsustainable. Doing so with budgets pushing $300 million (or more) onto a single release, will become unsustainable. Do so with team sizes close to 1K or even more, is unsustainable. If the total addressable customer base for most AAA games is in the 10-20 million range (with exceptions), that type of development cycle is NOT sustainable.
So how do companies like SIE keep up the production values & quality, while making the development process more sustainable? To me it's a multi-pronged approach. On the backend side, they need investments in technologies that can expediate parts of the pipeline while lowering costs. The AI demonstration they showed with Aloy a while ago is a good example of this (while also being a reasonable implementation of AI that's on the more ethical side). The development of things like AI image filters, which we've seen demonstrations of for a while now, is also something SIE should be looking into. Again, there are smart and ethical ways to implement AI technologies into the game development process, and it's time people just accept that because the tech itself isn't going away.
Another thing SIE should probably start reconsidering is their dependence on Hollywood for script writing & VA work of AAA games. I'm not advocating this in order to screw people out of a job; however it's worth asking if the quality of what has been provided the past few years justifies the costs. Did Spiderman 2's story really benefit that much from having multiple Hollywood writers on it? Considering the criticisms, the answer is likely "no". Games like Horizon may benefit from having a few notable VA talent like the late Lance Reddick (RIP), but does such a game need an entire cast of Hollywood VAs? Probably not; after all, a fantastic voice director (or whatever you'd call such a person) can get great performances out of an average non-Hollywood person with good effort & cooperation.
The model for distribution of these AAA games could probably change a bit, as well. On the one hand, waiting 7-8 years for a studio's singular AAA magnum opus of a gen means a lot of time SIE has to eat in not having that game actively benefit the platform pre-release. Between start of development and completion, the entire market could change. The entire audience of those interested could disappear. On the other hand, cutting down ambition and scope of the game simply to release it quicker, can rob the game of potential impact and added value to the platform. It could even damage the reputation of the publisher and studio, and make people weary of future releases from them.
That said, SIE already provided something of a solution in the past, but have for whatever reason stepped away from it: the mid-step spinoff. Uncharted 4 had The Lost Legacy, while Spiderman had Miles Morales. In both cases, you got rather self-contained experiences which built off their immediate predecessors, while still connecting to them narratively & gameplay-wise, having expediated dev cycles (since they were beneficiaries of engine work done on the original installments prior), and keeping momentum going between new mainline installments. For whatever reason (likely due to the misguided GAAS gambit & PC porting initative), SIE stepped away from this approach and their lineup has suffered somewhat for it.
Going forward, I think bringing back that format while addressing points raised earlier WRT bottlenecks in the AAA dev pipeline, can ultimately make them more manageable projects for SIE. Why have a studio take 7-8 years on Horizon Next or TLOU3, when they can split the game into 2 or 3 fully-realized installments interspersed every 2 or so years during the length of the generation? Why take the former approach for a one-time $70 (or $80) sale that'll drop in price within a few months anyway, versus the latter where each installment can go for $30 or $40? You still have the option of compiling the installments into a "final" release later at full price anyhow (and IF you feel it's needed, can do a multiplatform release with that "final" version)?
Keep in mind, I'm not talking about installments where they clearly feel unfinished or like hardline parts of a whole game. Rather, they should feel like total game experiences unto themselves, with a typical difficulty & complexity curve, a fully realized story, a realized cast of characters, a "full-feeling" content package (say 10-20 hours worth of main & side content, depending on game type). All the same, there should be an obvious through line narratively between installments being built up, plus the ability for progress to be carried over between them. If you want a damn-near perfect example of what I'm referring to as a reference, look no further to...Shining Force III. Yes, the Shining Force III games released for the SEGA Saturn almost 30 years ago at this point. THAT'S how you do a series of individual installments wholly full games unto themselves, but still connecting together effortlessly as a larger game experience.
And that is the type of model more of SIE's 1P AAA games should probably aspire to replicating.
[A SMARTER MULTIPLATFORM APPROACH]
So not to mince words, but my opinion on SIE's multiplat approach this gen is summed well in three words: it's been shit. Their PC support went from something reasonable, to what I now call very unreasonable. It was supposed to be a way of providing teases & samples to one audience (PC gamers) and entice them towards getting a console for the full experience. That worked when it was a very small handful of ports, mainly of games like Predator: Hunting Ground or 3+ year-old ports of titles like Horizon Zero Dawn. That worked when the majority of their 1P games were still exclusive to the console and remained so for all or most of the active console gen lifecycle. However, even prior to the PS5 Pro, SIE ended up porting all but a small handful of their 1P offerings this gen to Steam, weakening the impact of those games as long-term value propositions to the PS5 and even the PS5 Pro.
As well, the strategy's now conditioned many Steam players to not bother getting a PS5, feeling they can better wait for a port and get the game cheaper on PC instead. SIE's GAAS spread out between console & PC, have various other incentives on PC that aren't matched on console, such as cheaper pricing, free online, a wider range of options for competitive advantages (better CPUs, GPUs, lower-latency KB&M support, lower-latency monitors with higher refresh rates, etc.). Generally speaking, the PC support has been eroding at reasons to justify the console and in some regions, sales are beginning to reflect this.
The strategy even has problems when speaking of other consoles. Somehow the Switch was able to get a port of LEGO Horizon but not the PS4? They seem to have a licensing agreement with Bandai-Namco to bring legacy IP to Nintendo platforms and Steam which are clearly not GAAS and clearly not non-GAAS taking 2+ years to go from PlayStation exclusivity to other platforms, as was the original promise with the multiplat strategy. Yet all the same, Switch versions of games like Patapon 1 & 2 have features not present in the PlayStation version...how did this come to pass? The frequency of ports to Switch and Day 1 non-GAAS to Steam also increases the likelihood games like Astro Bot, despite protests to otherwise, could definitely come to Switch 2 and Steam sooner vs. later.
To fix these weak points, it's probably time SIE establish some firm rules and indications on a multiplatform pipeline that shows their console is still the epicenter of things, rather than giving it mentions in passing. No matter if they want to pretend otherwise, consoles NEED exclusives and in fact, ALL platforms do, in order to effectively compete. The more you have and the longer they remain exclusive, the better the platform's odds in the market. This doesn't just go for games, but also for any entertainment medium/space, as we can see with the film/TV streaming services. Since 3P exclusives will be harder to come by, for SIE that means 1P has to fill in the void, and their strongest ace in that regard are the AAA non-GAAS titles. SIE need to establish so that 1P AAA non-GAAS remain exclusive for either half the lifecycle of a gen (remakes, mainly) or for the whole 7-8 years. Games releasing after that midway point or near the end of a gen, should range between 3/4 - 7/8 years of exclusivity at minimum, if not longer. Exclusivity shows faith in the platform where those games are exclusive, and also provides motivation to make that platform as competitive as possible so those exclusives can prosper as much as possible, too.
It's a bit different with GAAS; no, I don't think every GAAS needs to be multiplatform. Look at Valve, and see how their GAAS (DOTA 2, Counterstrike 2, Deadlocked etc.) do perfectly fine despite being exclusive to Steam, which has an install base comparable to PlayStation of any given generation. Look at Epic, who at least on PC, maintain exclusivity of Fortnite to the Epic Game Store. Look at Nintendo, with quasi-GAAS titles like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. easily selling tens of millions every iteration while being wholly exclusive to their own hardware. The myth that GAAS need multiplatform (much like the myth exclusives need to be multiplatform) for success only took hold for losers within the gaming space, and serves as a decoy in many cases to have new GAAS fail under the weight of "support bloat"; that is to say, the stress of needing to simplify concepts to safely bring the game to multiple platforms Day 1, provide optimization for all supported platforms Day 1 (big costs), AND provide long-term support for all supported platforms (even bigger costs), leaving little budget for design innovations or polished content updates. Entrenched mega-GAAS (which in some cases are platforms unto themselves) can afford that ubiquitous multiplatform support strategy right out of the gate, but it's becoming a death sentence for new, smaller GAAS titles.
Therefore I'd suggest SIE look at keeping some GAAS titles console-exclusive, while bringing others to additional platforms. But that doesn't mean all the multplat GAAS have to be on all the platforms; Helldivers 2 for example is on PS5 & PC; no Xbox or Switch versions, nor does the game really need them. While scale up the number of platforms to support, without increasing the studio size and support team network (not to mention server capacity) to accomplish that, while still having to maintain a steady clip of content updates? For increases that could be rather sizable gambles at the end of the day?
AA games (of the small and larger varieties) should have yet another approach. Again, since we're talking non-GAAS, leveraging them as much as possible for exclusivity is key, but the windows for exclusivity (in theory) can be more lenient. It should be very selective, but I don't think too many would get upset if, say, an Arc The Lad or PoPoLoCrois remake went to Switch 2 3 or so years after being exclusive to PlayStation. Or say they did both remakes; maybe one stays exclusive permanently but the other is a Day 1 PlayStation/Switch 2 release. What matters is ensuring the cadence of such multiplatform releases doesn't become so established that people can safely assume "oh they're just going to bring all the games here by ("x" date) anyway!", or assume such ports are inevitable.
Finally, in the case of both AAA and AA titles which eventually go multiplatform, SIE should make very sure that it's a one-way transaction. Obviously I don't mean expecting or demanding Valve & Nintendo bring a game to PlayStation; rather I mean that SIE ensures a new installment or equivalent is coming exclusively to their own platform within a "reasonable" span of time (1-2 years), and that would be a cadence they SHOULD create to act as assuredness for PlayStation customers.
So, you don't want a pattern where you're porting too many games (or too many too soon), while you do want to establish the expectation of when there's a port, it's going to result in something new exclusively for PS hardware within a manageable amount of time.
This should be simple in concept: in the same way the Amiga could do productivity tasks alongside having a focus on pushing games (for its time), I feel PlayStation will eventually have to take a similar
approach if pricing trends this gen continue, and things like tariff trade wars become more common. In addition to providing value which can grant the system categorization exemptions and tax benefits, it also generally acts as an easy way of buffing the value proposition.
Additionally, it acts as a way of expanding that value proposition while still securing the general operating environment, i.e keeping the OS locked down to a single proprietary provider (the platform holder). It would bring just enough of the open aspects of PC, without having to relinquish vertical integration of the stack (kernel, OS, storefront, hardware, APIs). SIE don't even have to necessarily farm out development of productivity software components to 3P; they make certain applications for Windows and could simply port them over to the PS OS, while making additional applications to round out the package offering. Means of providing such software could be in the form of both individual software license purchases, and including them accessible in a running subscription to PS+.
As for what such software packages would provide, well the easiest way to imagine that to look at the PC space and drawing equivalents. So things in areas like music production, audio engineering, video production, graphics modeling (general 3D modeling, CAD etc.), spreadsheets, business documents, audio/video players, chat clients and more. Either developed in-house or in partnership with 3P software developers, with more intensive ones (i.e 3D modeling & CAD) having input from various SIE 1P studios to enable the best technical performance possible.
[ABOLISH THE ONLINE PAYWALL]
Honestly, this is something that will become an inevitability sooner or later. In a world where F2P has gained dominance (and where the paywall is already waived for said F2P on console), not to mention growing influence of PC gaming where online play is generally not paywalled, consoles like PlayStation where 90%+ of the library is shared with PC, WILL have to remove their online paywall to keep competitive. Just the simple truth and, yes, despite what some SIE heads would say, the markets of console and PC are becoming increasingly more competitive with one another for gaming time and dollars.
It's an antiquated approach that has allowed console platform holders to get away with low value proposition in their online services, implemented at a time when game libraries were largely divergent, consoles still enforced many permanent exclusives (intentional & defacto), and consoles had a very large pricing advantage against PC gaming setups providing even "good enough" baseline performance, let alone performance matching & exceeding consoles of that gen. It's time to move on; besides, a company like SIE can add things like aforementioned productivity software suites to subscription service tiers to increase the value proposition (in lieu of removing the online paywall) and potentially make more money along the way.
[A NEW PORTABLE COMPANION]
Thanks to leakers like K KeplerL2 , we've got a fairly good understanding of what SIE's next gen portable plans are looking like. The fact SIE are in fact looking into doing one is, IMO, crucial, because they need something that'll appeal to markets like Japan, where currently the PS5 is doing rather poorly (especially WRT software sales). In that regard, a portable doesn't suddenly make their fortunes better, but it DOES drastically improve their odds provided other critical components come together (i.e appealing software exclusives).
For non-Japanese markets, where the PS Portal has been doing decently well, it adds optional value to those with a PlayStation console, or an alternative means of playing PlayStation games if they don't see need for a dormant, stay-at-home console. What's less known, is if the portable will provide hybrid-like functionality, or natively play PS6 games. Even things like a downscale wrapper, while rumored via leaks, well it's not known how that's implemented or how good an implementation it'll be.
IMO, a hybrid-like approach isn't necessarily a requirement, and by "hybrid" I mean a portable with detachable controls or where part of the processing is in a dock module. Like the PS Vita, it'll have some way to cast output to a connected television (preferably both wired & wireless as options), and a dock could provide substantial active cooling allowing the portable to boost clocks for unlocked performance. Bigger areas of focus should be in ensuring local streaming latency is even lower, and having a scalable design that can facilitate as a cheaper, streaming-only (local & cloud) handheld option for those who don't want local native PS4, PS5 and PS6 play on the go.
As for PS6 compatibility, it sure would be nice if advances with PSSR and other technologies could ensure downscaling of target performance for the handheld, in a way with little dev intervention (outside maybe metadata support), but I'm not holding my breath. Native PS6 game support on the portable will probably be selective, with many games relying on streaming (local & cloud). This could make things a bit tricky, and hopefully SIE have a solution for cloud streaming where at least two game instances can be ran on a single PS6-based server unit at reduced settings (relying on upscaling in the portable to boost settings on the user's end), just to keep the cloud side of things manageable.
[A RETURN TO CONSISTENT AA]
Part of ensuring the rumored portable sees traction in certain markets (such as, again, Japan) is making sure there's a consistent slate of quality exclusive software appealing to the region while also fitting the use-case of a portable. This is where SIE needs to focus on more AA internal productions, or at least co-developed & published productions. Titles like Astro Bot are a great example of what they can do in the AA space, but in Japan that game may've been hamstrung both by PS5's poor software situation plus the lack of physical availability early on.
Currently SIE are relying on 3P timed exclusives and remasters to pad between 1P AAA releases, but that strategy won't be viable next gen. They're running out of (recent/semi-recent) games to remaster and 3P are increasingly less willing to do exclusivity deals. For the ones they are, the window of exclusivity is shrinking, and SIE's own multiplatform efforts this gen have probably made it harder to sell 3P on doing for PlayStation systems, what SIE have seemed less willing to do themselves. Faced with that, SIE's AAA are generally games which overlap a lot in a similar space/niche, and the number of such releases annually has continued to decline for various reasons mostly related to increased time & budgets.
Also, and we can't forget, the concept of AAA games on-the-go was already tried with the PSP, and while at first novel, ultimately wasn't sustainable. People who want cinematic blockbuster AAA games prefer playing them a certain way, generally on a big screen and on the couch, so portability gets little value proposition from such. These types of games also ask for long sessions where a person's very engrossed into the narrative experience...imagine trying to do that on a bus commute. Not gonna happen (I've tried
). This is why you need AA games that, while they can work well for a console experience, also work just as well (if not even better) for a portable games platform. Games that have smaller budgets, therefore can afford to be quirkier & riskier in various concepts (as well as target demographics), have shorter development cycles and can add variety to the audiences that portable appeals to. If you take a look at many of the Switch's best-selling titles both in Japan and globally, you'll see they typically benefit from being heavily pick-up-and-play experiences with smaller budgets, affording more frequent releases across shorter time windows. They are experiences that work very well for on-the-go lifestyles but, all the same, work well when sat at the big screen.
SIE needs more of those types of games not just for the portable, but PlayStation in general.
[MORE MANAGEABLE AAA]
Loading studios with the task of carrying a console platform, with a AAA game that can take upwards 7-8 years to make, is a model that will eventually be unsustainable. Doing so with budgets pushing $300 million (or more) onto a single release, will become unsustainable. Do so with team sizes close to 1K or even more, is unsustainable. If the total addressable customer base for most AAA games is in the 10-20 million range (with exceptions), that type of development cycle is NOT sustainable.
So how do companies like SIE keep up the production values & quality, while making the development process more sustainable? To me it's a multi-pronged approach. On the backend side, they need investments in technologies that can expediate parts of the pipeline while lowering costs. The AI demonstration they showed with Aloy a while ago is a good example of this (while also being a reasonable implementation of AI that's on the more ethical side). The development of things like AI image filters, which we've seen demonstrations of for a while now, is also something SIE should be looking into. Again, there are smart and ethical ways to implement AI technologies into the game development process, and it's time people just accept that because the tech itself isn't going away.
Another thing SIE should probably start reconsidering is their dependence on Hollywood for script writing & VA work of AAA games. I'm not advocating this in order to screw people out of a job; however it's worth asking if the quality of what has been provided the past few years justifies the costs. Did Spiderman 2's story really benefit that much from having multiple Hollywood writers on it? Considering the criticisms, the answer is likely "no". Games like Horizon may benefit from having a few notable VA talent like the late Lance Reddick (RIP), but does such a game need an entire cast of Hollywood VAs? Probably not; after all, a fantastic voice director (or whatever you'd call such a person) can get great performances out of an average non-Hollywood person with good effort & cooperation.
The model for distribution of these AAA games could probably change a bit, as well. On the one hand, waiting 7-8 years for a studio's singular AAA magnum opus of a gen means a lot of time SIE has to eat in not having that game actively benefit the platform pre-release. Between start of development and completion, the entire market could change. The entire audience of those interested could disappear. On the other hand, cutting down ambition and scope of the game simply to release it quicker, can rob the game of potential impact and added value to the platform. It could even damage the reputation of the publisher and studio, and make people weary of future releases from them.
That said, SIE already provided something of a solution in the past, but have for whatever reason stepped away from it: the mid-step spinoff. Uncharted 4 had The Lost Legacy, while Spiderman had Miles Morales. In both cases, you got rather self-contained experiences which built off their immediate predecessors, while still connecting to them narratively & gameplay-wise, having expediated dev cycles (since they were beneficiaries of engine work done on the original installments prior), and keeping momentum going between new mainline installments. For whatever reason (likely due to the misguided GAAS gambit & PC porting initative), SIE stepped away from this approach and their lineup has suffered somewhat for it.
Going forward, I think bringing back that format while addressing points raised earlier WRT bottlenecks in the AAA dev pipeline, can ultimately make them more manageable projects for SIE. Why have a studio take 7-8 years on Horizon Next or TLOU3, when they can split the game into 2 or 3 fully-realized installments interspersed every 2 or so years during the length of the generation? Why take the former approach for a one-time $70 (or $80) sale that'll drop in price within a few months anyway, versus the latter where each installment can go for $30 or $40? You still have the option of compiling the installments into a "final" release later at full price anyhow (and IF you feel it's needed, can do a multiplatform release with that "final" version)?
Keep in mind, I'm not talking about installments where they clearly feel unfinished or like hardline parts of a whole game. Rather, they should feel like total game experiences unto themselves, with a typical difficulty & complexity curve, a fully realized story, a realized cast of characters, a "full-feeling" content package (say 10-20 hours worth of main & side content, depending on game type). All the same, there should be an obvious through line narratively between installments being built up, plus the ability for progress to be carried over between them. If you want a damn-near perfect example of what I'm referring to as a reference, look no further to...Shining Force III. Yes, the Shining Force III games released for the SEGA Saturn almost 30 years ago at this point. THAT'S how you do a series of individual installments wholly full games unto themselves, but still connecting together effortlessly as a larger game experience.
And that is the type of model more of SIE's 1P AAA games should probably aspire to replicating.
[A SMARTER MULTIPLATFORM APPROACH]
So not to mince words, but my opinion on SIE's multiplat approach this gen is summed well in three words: it's been shit. Their PC support went from something reasonable, to what I now call very unreasonable. It was supposed to be a way of providing teases & samples to one audience (PC gamers) and entice them towards getting a console for the full experience. That worked when it was a very small handful of ports, mainly of games like Predator: Hunting Ground or 3+ year-old ports of titles like Horizon Zero Dawn. That worked when the majority of their 1P games were still exclusive to the console and remained so for all or most of the active console gen lifecycle. However, even prior to the PS5 Pro, SIE ended up porting all but a small handful of their 1P offerings this gen to Steam, weakening the impact of those games as long-term value propositions to the PS5 and even the PS5 Pro.
As well, the strategy's now conditioned many Steam players to not bother getting a PS5, feeling they can better wait for a port and get the game cheaper on PC instead. SIE's GAAS spread out between console & PC, have various other incentives on PC that aren't matched on console, such as cheaper pricing, free online, a wider range of options for competitive advantages (better CPUs, GPUs, lower-latency KB&M support, lower-latency monitors with higher refresh rates, etc.). Generally speaking, the PC support has been eroding at reasons to justify the console and in some regions, sales are beginning to reflect this.
The strategy even has problems when speaking of other consoles. Somehow the Switch was able to get a port of LEGO Horizon but not the PS4? They seem to have a licensing agreement with Bandai-Namco to bring legacy IP to Nintendo platforms and Steam which are clearly not GAAS and clearly not non-GAAS taking 2+ years to go from PlayStation exclusivity to other platforms, as was the original promise with the multiplat strategy. Yet all the same, Switch versions of games like Patapon 1 & 2 have features not present in the PlayStation version...how did this come to pass? The frequency of ports to Switch and Day 1 non-GAAS to Steam also increases the likelihood games like Astro Bot, despite protests to otherwise, could definitely come to Switch 2 and Steam sooner vs. later.
To fix these weak points, it's probably time SIE establish some firm rules and indications on a multiplatform pipeline that shows their console is still the epicenter of things, rather than giving it mentions in passing. No matter if they want to pretend otherwise, consoles NEED exclusives and in fact, ALL platforms do, in order to effectively compete. The more you have and the longer they remain exclusive, the better the platform's odds in the market. This doesn't just go for games, but also for any entertainment medium/space, as we can see with the film/TV streaming services. Since 3P exclusives will be harder to come by, for SIE that means 1P has to fill in the void, and their strongest ace in that regard are the AAA non-GAAS titles. SIE need to establish so that 1P AAA non-GAAS remain exclusive for either half the lifecycle of a gen (remakes, mainly) or for the whole 7-8 years. Games releasing after that midway point or near the end of a gen, should range between 3/4 - 7/8 years of exclusivity at minimum, if not longer. Exclusivity shows faith in the platform where those games are exclusive, and also provides motivation to make that platform as competitive as possible so those exclusives can prosper as much as possible, too.
It's a bit different with GAAS; no, I don't think every GAAS needs to be multiplatform. Look at Valve, and see how their GAAS (DOTA 2, Counterstrike 2, Deadlocked etc.) do perfectly fine despite being exclusive to Steam, which has an install base comparable to PlayStation of any given generation. Look at Epic, who at least on PC, maintain exclusivity of Fortnite to the Epic Game Store. Look at Nintendo, with quasi-GAAS titles like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. easily selling tens of millions every iteration while being wholly exclusive to their own hardware. The myth that GAAS need multiplatform (much like the myth exclusives need to be multiplatform) for success only took hold for losers within the gaming space, and serves as a decoy in many cases to have new GAAS fail under the weight of "support bloat"; that is to say, the stress of needing to simplify concepts to safely bring the game to multiple platforms Day 1, provide optimization for all supported platforms Day 1 (big costs), AND provide long-term support for all supported platforms (even bigger costs), leaving little budget for design innovations or polished content updates. Entrenched mega-GAAS (which in some cases are platforms unto themselves) can afford that ubiquitous multiplatform support strategy right out of the gate, but it's becoming a death sentence for new, smaller GAAS titles.
Therefore I'd suggest SIE look at keeping some GAAS titles console-exclusive, while bringing others to additional platforms. But that doesn't mean all the multplat GAAS have to be on all the platforms; Helldivers 2 for example is on PS5 & PC; no Xbox or Switch versions, nor does the game really need them. While scale up the number of platforms to support, without increasing the studio size and support team network (not to mention server capacity) to accomplish that, while still having to maintain a steady clip of content updates? For increases that could be rather sizable gambles at the end of the day?
AA games (of the small and larger varieties) should have yet another approach. Again, since we're talking non-GAAS, leveraging them as much as possible for exclusivity is key, but the windows for exclusivity (in theory) can be more lenient. It should be very selective, but I don't think too many would get upset if, say, an Arc The Lad or PoPoLoCrois remake went to Switch 2 3 or so years after being exclusive to PlayStation. Or say they did both remakes; maybe one stays exclusive permanently but the other is a Day 1 PlayStation/Switch 2 release. What matters is ensuring the cadence of such multiplatform releases doesn't become so established that people can safely assume "oh they're just going to bring all the games here by ("x" date) anyway!", or assume such ports are inevitable.
Finally, in the case of both AAA and AA titles which eventually go multiplatform, SIE should make very sure that it's a one-way transaction. Obviously I don't mean expecting or demanding Valve & Nintendo bring a game to PlayStation; rather I mean that SIE ensures a new installment or equivalent is coming exclusively to their own platform within a "reasonable" span of time (1-2 years), and that would be a cadence they SHOULD create to act as assuredness for PlayStation customers.
So, you don't want a pattern where you're porting too many games (or too many too soon), while you do want to establish the expectation of when there's a port, it's going to result in something new exclusively for PS hardware within a manageable amount of time.
[PART 2 BELOW...]
. Not much maybe need be said here.
