But SIE have other IP besides those two you just mentioned, that could still work for outsourcing of a mobile spinoff. There's a rumor ATM they've spinning up a MLB spinoff for mobile, that's why I was using MLB as an example earlier, and it's something which could naturally work especially if they integrated some fantasy baseball features into it. Sports fans really like that type of thing (for whatever reason; I'm not a sports guy so I don't do fantasy bets).
They might outsource some or develop some in-house but it still be a limited exercise - Sony doesn't really have a lot of franchises that are a) big enough, b) suitable to be converted to gaas
I think from core gaming-oriented companies with successful mobile offerings, it's always been with IPs that are still very commercially relevant on core gaming platforms like console & PC, because you get an influx of console players familiar with the IP playing the mobile version first, and that then draws appeal from mobile-centric players who might only casually know of the IP. It's like with consoles, you have the diehards who act as early adopters, and their early adoption helps build momentum to eventually draw in casuals and mainstream down the line.
Gaas and SP markets are like 98% separate. Using a big name for live service name is a good way to attract attention, helping a lot with marketing. If game already heavy into multiplayer it might bring some people to mobile, those who already played franchise as semi-gaas. But SP players will not migrate in substantial numbers. They avoided reality for years and will continue to do so.
Like people here really like to live in a bubble in relation to live service games, half of them still think that "live service is a trend chasing" even though that factual reality is grim for them.
The truth is that live service "trend" is already 30+ years old, it's first big win was over 20 years ago with WoW, and over this period this trend ate the whole regions (Asia) and platforms (PC and later mobile). And when this "trend" decide to invade the remaining part which is western console space, people start panicking and delude themselves "it's temporary, it'll go away". Where it will go away if it's already 80% of the whole market and it attack where it hurts the most - by converting future generations. In 20 years this last bastion will collapse itself as there will be no people left in it.
I agree and, under prior SIE management, I'd blindly say they'd ensure a mobile spinoff offering would've been top quality. But in a post-Concord world, I can't quite say the same thing.
Lol. They literally have nothing to guarantee top quality. Like NOTHING.
If we look who is a big names in live service games now - they are either big names in online-only/heavy games or mmo companies - Epic, Blizzard, Respawn, Krafton, Nexon, Netease. Or, for newer generation, guys who grew on MMO - Mihoyo, Hyperglyph & co.
Current "mobile" games are mmo-lite, single mode of mmo or parts of mmo spun-off into separate genres. You should have a deep understanding what is what and how mmo plays and operate to make them.
Do SIE have expertise on this topic? No. SOE left long ago and it never was a part of SIE culture.
And outsourcing stuff guarantee nothing as you can't really control quality.
No, actually I mean both, because they're intertwined to a degree. One of the motivators for SIE having that GAAS output was to have more games to push Day 1 on PC, as a way of having their cake and eating it, too. They didn't want to upset diehards with suddenly putting non-GAAS Day 1 on PC, so GAAS titles seemed like a good compromise plus that also fulfilled the desire to have constant revenue generators in as many places as possible.
It's some hard stretching and fantasies
These are two completely separated issues. PC strategy is just maximizing profit by doing late penny ports that have close to zero impact on platform and have rate-of-return of hundreds of percents. Easy money with almost zero risks.
Live service initiative are much more complex stuff, it's not even constant revenue, Sony is in no position to actually need it, and based on scale and efforts required to obtain necessary expertise it'll take them many years to recuperate money invested into initiative. But Sony doesn't seem to care about this initiative not being profitable, same as they never cared about their SP games being profitable on stand-alone basis. Because both main objective is being a face of a platform, raising attractiveness of it and getting people into ecosystem.
Sony business is not selling 1st party SP games, their business is their ecosystem where they got 30% of any sales. And spending 500 mil over 5 years is nothing for them when they earn billions a year.
They've "won" current gen in large part because Xbox self-destructed. IMHO, had they not bought ABK and didn't engage in Project Latitude, the console would be in a better state today. Still trailing PS5 in sales, yes, but at least at 40-45 million by now, instead of the barely 30 or so million they're currently at today. They wouldn't have been distracted by ABK, so maybe would've been more on top of Perfect Dark (so it didn't get cancelled), Forza Motorsport (so Turn 10 didn't become a support studio for Playground), Rare (so Everwild didn't get cancelled), Ninja Theory (so Hellblade 2 had some actual evolution over the original), Compulsion (so South of Mid had a gameplay loop worth playing), and reformed 343i earlier.
They won last gen and MS was in a very tough spot. Continue to bleed, losing more people as time goes forward, that will lead to nowhere. Or try to change things and try some other approaches. They tried and failed, but if they didn't - they would still lose. Dying in slow agony is for sure much worse than try something where you either survive or die quickly.
MS could've kept up with better output of releases and maybe try having some be timed console exclusives before going to PC, and change the Game Pass model into something less self-destructive to B2P on their own platform. But that path would've required patience and a creative vision from people who still cared about the console, neither of which are qualities at Microsoft anymore. So, that timeline didn't happen. A shame of sorts, as they could've had a PS3-style gradual comeback that'd had paid off for the successive console, and that'd of made for more interesting developments in the market for SIE & PlayStation to contend with.
No they wouldn't have PS3 comeback. Market shifted heavily since than. You only care about your own small segment of market and there MS could have some comeback in it, but it would still be a disaster because in other segments that constitute like 80% of console market MS had little chances to win.
Had Xbox gone that way instead, SIE doesn't waste $3.6 billion on Bungie, and they don't push 12 GAAS as a way to appeal to shareholders. They don't sideline studios like Bend & Bluepoint, and they have a more reserved approach to supporting PC. They actually put in some damn effort to save PSVR2 from an early death and work on a cost-reduced version, and find a way to implement PSVR1 BC support. They take some of that $3.6 billion that would've gone to Bungie, and make investments & buy shares in various 3P publishers with prolific GAAS & non-GAAS titles.
As if you can buy prolific GAAS for such penny change. Sony actually bought the most reasonable offer in that situation that gave them access to some expertise and know-how. Will it pay out - we will see, as Herman said at last business segment meeting - live service initiative still in place. And some readjustments are expected.
Well just from my POV I don't care about Fortnite and Geshin, so if that's what SIE focus on in lieu of compelling 1P non-GAAS titles next gen of strong variety, that makes a PS6 a stupidly easy skip for me.
You and some other getting frustrated will have zero effect on PS6
Half of their playerbase and this ratio is on the rise are gaas players and Sony have to cater to them. Another ~shrinking~ half is already locked-in for most part by digital library. The only one who left are highly mobile enthusiasts those really don't have much sense to chase for - they are moody, go for the best offer and not really a market where a lot of money is. They are most vocal on forums though.
Will you go to PC? Okay, not a big loss. Sony will get many more who will flock back for value-for-money as FSR4+ will swing heavily IQ for money ratio back to consoles. PS5 does suffer somewhat as it can't utilize DLSS and FSR is significantly inferior.
