LEGO Horizon getting a Switch announcement of all things is just the icing on the cake, the final proof of what I've been sensing is a shift for SIE going forward. However, their PC initiative was already strongly suggesting this to be the case. I have since come to terms with what this new direction for SIE means and, yes, it does mean Sony Too™, in a sense.
I think the days of SIE prioritizing their own platform to the absolute limits, are over. We can speculate why, for any myriad of reasons, but what SIE of today is doing with games like LEGO Horizon, the SIE of even a generation ago would never have done, let alone prior. There are both positives and negatives to this, and I think those should be touched upon.
I'm beyond the point now of arguing in favor or opposition of any particular aspect of their strategy. Similar to Microsoft, I have simply just come to acknowledge this is the path SIE walks. That does not mean I necessarily approve the path they are choosing to go; just simply means I accept this is the reality and won't complain as if it isn't.
And, like Microsoft, I hope it works out for the best for them...I just also hope they know what the inherent risks are.
So let's take a brief look at the good and the bad...
[THE GOOD]
[THE BAD]
[THE MESSY]
So, that's my perspective on SIE's strategy in a nutshell. I do personally think they are now moving towards shorter stagger windows for tentpole ports to PC, and those games will probably be Day 1 by the end of the generation. Those of IP they own, but made by 3P, like Death Stranding 2, could even be Day 1 PC as soon as next year. I also personally think, that they'll be publishing more games on Nintendo & Microsoft systems, just not to the degree or speed they will on PC.
It feels much like SIE want to move PlayStation into being a brand where the console is just one of many access points to get their gaming content. Not really any different from Microsoft's shift, in all honesty. The main differences for SIE are in keeping tentpole single-player games from their internal studios timed exclusive to their console, and porting less games to other consoles than Microsoft are. However, over time, this could easily change, if SIE are influenced by the sales success of ports to other platforms and see increases in revenue & profit tied to releasing versions closer to each other timing-wise.
And ultimately, that's the main reason both SIE and Microsoft are doing what they're doing: they want to increase profits and revenue. However, Microsoft were (IMO) forced into their path because their console brand tanked in value; SIE feel PlayStation as a console is big enough to weather any negative impacts and still sustain itself even if they become more multiplatform. I guess, for the kind of games SIE produce/want to produce, they feel this is a justified approach. They may also feel that for the games they and most of the 3P industry make, the hardware isn't the big driver in game design innovation.
Personally, I wouldn't agree with that perspective. I don't agree with the idea that AAA games need to be multiplatform in order to justify themselves. I don't even agree with the idea that GAAS titles need to be, either. And, there are plenty of examples already out there which support my viewpoint. But ultimately, as I've come to find out, it isn't about what I think. For companies like SIE, it's about what their shareholders, investors, & board of directors want. And, giving them that while trying to satisfy as many customers as possible.
Again, I do not necessarily approve of this multiplatform strategy by SIE, or what it will very likely evolve into as time goes on. I feel that on the side of game creativity, pushing specific hardware to its limits, and fostering innovative strength through genuine competition, this strategy will have heavy negatives. But for SIE, I guess if it ultimately means record revenue and profits, especially if its more than enough to offset 'only' a couple million or so diehards phasing out of the ecosystem WRT PS hardware & services, then it'll be worth it. Much like how, I'm sure, Microsoft feel their multiplatform strategy is ultimately worth it for them (particularly since in their case, the console is practically dead commercially).
Well...what do you all think?
I think the days of SIE prioritizing their own platform to the absolute limits, are over. We can speculate why, for any myriad of reasons, but what SIE of today is doing with games like LEGO Horizon, the SIE of even a generation ago would never have done, let alone prior. There are both positives and negatives to this, and I think those should be touched upon.
I'm beyond the point now of arguing in favor or opposition of any particular aspect of their strategy. Similar to Microsoft, I have simply just come to acknowledge this is the path SIE walks. That does not mean I necessarily approve the path they are choosing to go; just simply means I accept this is the reality and won't complain as if it isn't.
And, like Microsoft, I hope it works out for the best for them...I just also hope they know what the inherent risks are.
So let's take a brief look at the good and the bad...
[THE GOOD]
1: "MORE GAMES TO MORE PEOPLE"
-Gamers are not locked down to only PlayStation hardware to play PlayStation games
-More choice in where to play provides more options for people to have games meet them where they already are
-Customers who felt they were for some reason legally barred from buying a PlayStation to access its games, will no longer have to pretend to feel that way*
*Speaking of gamers in territories where PlayStation hardware, PS+ and PS Store have been readily available for years if not decades
2: INCREASED REVENUE STREAMS & PROFITS
-Gives SIE increased profit margins across the subsidiary
-Allows studios to float their worth among SIE, avoiding cutbacks, firings, and closures
-Provides more room for larger investments for game and hardware budgets
3: INCREASED USER METRICS (MAU)
-Shareholders/investors interested in growth can be easily pleased with increased MAU metrics
-More user data allows SIE to better discern what games are performing, which aren't, and decide on funding & development opportunities in light of such data
4: INCENTIVIZES FULLER DAY 1 ACROSS MULTIPLE PLATFORMS
-Growing sales of published games on other platforms will encourage shorter delay windows across platforms like PC (non-GAAS)
-Encourages more Day 1 support across PC and even other platforms (i.e Nintendo Switch/Switch 2, Microsoft Xbox)
5: MAXIMAL USE OF MARKETING BUDGET/FOCUS
-A more full multiplatform release strategy gets "more bang for the buck" when it comes to advertisement dollars
-Reach the most platforms possible while spending the least amount of money to advertise to customers where they already are
[THE BAD]
1: NO MORE 'LIMIT-PUSHING' 1P EXCLUSIVES
-Increased multiplatform strategy inherently works against focus on very specific PS hardware configurations
-Multiplatform approach might incentivize creatively safer works, to better contend with both 1P and 3P offerings on non-PS platforms
-Lack of needing to push a single platform in the market might decrease incentive to leverage 1P software to push it creatively & technically
-Removal of single-console confines has real risk of removing impetus to make new industry-defining experiences that also showcase specific hardware
2: POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DAY 1 BUGS/GLITCHES, LACK OF POLISH
-Optimization/QA budgets are not infinite. More simultaneous/near-simultaneous platforms = smaller slice of optimization/QA "budget pie" each
-Stressed QA budgets could lead to oversight, more Day 1 bugs & glitches, and longer wait times for patches to fix problems
-This in turn can affect overall product quality
3: LONGER WAIT TIMES FOR PS CONSOLE OWNERS TO GET 1P GAMES
-Already evidence by games such as Insomniac's 'Wolverine' from the ransomware hack, due to simultaneous PS5/PC development schedules (likey asynchronous)
-Console owners will likely end up with less 1P games over the course of a generation due to increased dev times required for multiplatform development &
optimization efforts
4: THERE WILL BE SOME IMPACT ON PS CONSOLE ADOPTION RATES
-Cadence of 1P ports (GAAS & non-GAAS) to platforms like PC, likely more frequently-accounted future platforms like Nintendo & Xbox, combined with potentially shorter
stagger windows in some ports plus Day 1 for others, could affect future PS console sales
-A segment of the high/mid/low high-ARPU hardcore/core gaming enthusiast market might option to buy other platforms and get SIE games there instead
-Personal estimate of this slice of high-ARPU hardcore/core enthusiasts: ~ 2-3 million (of typical 100 million PS console gen install base)
-This slice is very likely within the MOE (Margin of Error) for total install base size, but has a disproportionately high rate of spending in the ecosystem vs. their own segment size
-Risk of this slice opting for other platforms like PC (Steam) could convince them to purchase both future 1P and 3P games on those platforms
-Some portion of the slice may not renew PS+ subscriptions, or buy MTX for new games on PS hardware, or buy PS peripherals. However, calculating this is very difficult
-Main impact of this slice changing buying habits would be in early adoption of new hardware (i.e PS5 Pro, PS6 etc.), which could be a bit slower and, in a worst-case, slow influence of future hardware sales to a portion of latter-day console buyers (i.e among a portion of casual & mainstream customers)
-However, this could be offset by converting enough current lower-ARPU casuals and newcomers to PS hardware brand into higher-ARPU enthusiasts & early adopters.
-Could also be offset in other ways i.e large enough growth of brand & IP to customers on other platforms to generate the desired profit targets
[THE MESSY]
1: POOR TRANSPARENCY IN OVERALL MULTIPLATFORM STRATEGY
-No clarity in official brand marketing as to release strategy for game types across multiple platforms
-Lack of official clarity could negatively impact customer purchasing decisions in deciding best place for them to access games
2: MULTIPLATFORM PRICING DISCREPANCIES REAR UGLY HEAD
-GAAS multiplat console/PC strategy will eventually cause issues due to free online for PC vs. paywalled online for PS console users
-Online MP pricing discrepancy must be resolved one way or another
-Options are:
1: Retain paywalled MP for console owners via PS+, but provide free perks (mainly cosmetic, nothing balance-breaking) to PS+ subscribers to compensate
2: Get rid of paid online requirement for non-F2P games (find other value drivers to justify PS+ subscriptions instead)
3: COMMUNITY IN-FIGHTING RUNNING RAMPANT
-Much online toxicity between PlayStation and Steam customers due to various aspects of SIE's current PC porting strategy
-This online toxicity negatively affects genuine discourse around the games and the brand
-No central corporate-level figures (community or not) to unite customers across the platforms and harmonize discourse allows toxicity to fester & grow
-Any true multiplatform strategy will require SIE to engage more directly with community across platforms and harmonize players, turn dissent into more positive engagement
4: 3P EXCLUSIVITY SHRINKS AS 1P MULTIPLATFORM GROWS
-Increasing multiplatform focus for 1P games will signal to 3P to engage in less exclusivity (timed deals, co-developed/co-funded games, etc.), with or without SIE IP involved
-3P publishers should not be burdened with pushing console exclusives if SIE themselves are moving further away from that
-3P exclusivity deals will likely become replaced with bigger focus on 3P marketing deals of otherwise multiplatform games
So, that's my perspective on SIE's strategy in a nutshell. I do personally think they are now moving towards shorter stagger windows for tentpole ports to PC, and those games will probably be Day 1 by the end of the generation. Those of IP they own, but made by 3P, like Death Stranding 2, could even be Day 1 PC as soon as next year. I also personally think, that they'll be publishing more games on Nintendo & Microsoft systems, just not to the degree or speed they will on PC.
It feels much like SIE want to move PlayStation into being a brand where the console is just one of many access points to get their gaming content. Not really any different from Microsoft's shift, in all honesty. The main differences for SIE are in keeping tentpole single-player games from their internal studios timed exclusive to their console, and porting less games to other consoles than Microsoft are. However, over time, this could easily change, if SIE are influenced by the sales success of ports to other platforms and see increases in revenue & profit tied to releasing versions closer to each other timing-wise.
And ultimately, that's the main reason both SIE and Microsoft are doing what they're doing: they want to increase profits and revenue. However, Microsoft were (IMO) forced into their path because their console brand tanked in value; SIE feel PlayStation as a console is big enough to weather any negative impacts and still sustain itself even if they become more multiplatform. I guess, for the kind of games SIE produce/want to produce, they feel this is a justified approach. They may also feel that for the games they and most of the 3P industry make, the hardware isn't the big driver in game design innovation.
Personally, I wouldn't agree with that perspective. I don't agree with the idea that AAA games need to be multiplatform in order to justify themselves. I don't even agree with the idea that GAAS titles need to be, either. And, there are plenty of examples already out there which support my viewpoint. But ultimately, as I've come to find out, it isn't about what I think. For companies like SIE, it's about what their shareholders, investors, & board of directors want. And, giving them that while trying to satisfy as many customers as possible.
Again, I do not necessarily approve of this multiplatform strategy by SIE, or what it will very likely evolve into as time goes on. I feel that on the side of game creativity, pushing specific hardware to its limits, and fostering innovative strength through genuine competition, this strategy will have heavy negatives. But for SIE, I guess if it ultimately means record revenue and profits, especially if its more than enough to offset 'only' a couple million or so diehards phasing out of the ecosystem WRT PS hardware & services, then it'll be worth it. Much like how, I'm sure, Microsoft feel their multiplatform strategy is ultimately worth it for them (particularly since in their case, the console is practically dead commercially).
Well...what do you all think?
same with EA and Ubisoft. 
These idiots don’t value or deserve what they have. And they’ll definitely lose within the next decade, PS4 and Fortnite can’t prop them up forever.