Future PlayStation will not be the PlayStation you know and Love today. The brand is changing. You're either on board or out!

[KnittedKnight]

The PlayStation brand is changing. The current leadership of SIE, led by Jim Ryan and Hermen Hulst are carrying out this change.

This is the future of the PlayStation brand:

What you see in this simple graph is the relative erosion of investment that goes into making traditional video games vis a vis live service games in Sony's current and future porfolio of games. That is, the traditional model of full prized boxed titles - the AAA, AA titles (Uncharted/God of War and the likes) vs. GAAS (Destiny, Fairgame$ etc) - Games As A Service - where games become like a subscription, a never ending, always evolving title with add-on MTX as a foundational part of it.

For a simple illustration, taking FY 23-25 as the starting point: in the future, for every traditional single player title that ships, in numerical terms, a GAAS title, will also ship ~1.50 and closer to twice as many looking at the pattern of those projections. Obviously it will never fall neatly like that in a release schedule considering games take 2, 3, 4, 5 years to make even but the numbers don't lie. The numbers are clear.

The recent PlayStation games showcase, after 2 years of breaking with tradition through silence woke many fans of PlayStation to the reality that while they thought the PlayStation brand and its marquee showcases stood for something unique in the industry that is no longer the case. In that period of time the brand had been ongoing changes, and the brand is progressively slated to continue this change. How this visually translates to video games - the things you can see and feel.... well we got but just a taste. For example a traditional AAA blockbuster title no longer heads the opening of a showcase but instead a GAAS CGI. This decision, more so than been an artificial change of titles is a clear example of the ongoing change that will consummate itself in the years to come in the future, specially in the PS6 era (provided course correction, as immediate as possible, does not occur).

I think any shrewd observer that matches words and intent with deeds and action is coming to the realization, slowly but surely, that PlayStation is changing, and that such a change may not be necessarily what brings them personally to the brand or makes them happy. The brand is currently, obviously, in a slow transition process to achieve the goals laid out in that infograph. Many of you may be struggling to process this, do not fully understand it or are perhaps Ok with this change but I also know that many of you out there are not OK with this change while many others have not yet realized, for one reason or another, that they too aren't Ok with it.

It's perfectly OK and fine to be against this change for you answer to your likes and wants, to your own self-interests and not to the self-interests of a corporation trying to impose what this current leadership believes is in SIE's own best interests. It's called a clash of conflicting interests and it happens all the time.

The change in the brand is factual, and not hypothetical. This change can not be denied by fanboy denials online or in social media, by coping or falling in line, or claiming everything is fine or that everything will be ok, or that there is an overreaction, or that others need to be reasonable. None of that makes this go away. If you need a case study of this just look at Xbox under Phil Spencer's leadership for the last 10 years.

I do not think this thread would be an appropriate place to discuss whether this future change of the brand will be successful or not business wise because that does not concern your beliefs, your likes and wants, much less your own self-interest (unless you own Sony stock) but concerns hypothetical responses of the gaming market, whether favorable or unfavorable in the consumption of these titles (a business appraisal). Hypothetical response being the operative word.

What this thread does however wants to focus on and get across is a discussion where all Bullshit is shed aside and fans come to an understanding, the earlier the better, of the future of the brand that awaits you.

It's obviously obvious to say that if you're not happy with the future ahead of you, well, the time and window for you to act, scream or whatever you deem is appropriate for you to protest and show your discontent/nonconformity with this laid out future is extremely small and closing faster each day that passes. Conformity for you will not be a solution - it's simply defeat by inaction.

You're either on board for the ride or out. That obviously sounds like a choice many of you do not wish to face or make - not today not tomorrow or in the near future because after all, you're a fan (short for fanatic), in that you love the brand, and even identify yourself with it. However you can only prolong that decision.. today, tomorrow or in a few years time you'll have to face that choice. There is no avoiding it, it's being imposed on you, not by me the OP, but by PlayStation leadership. Given the state of the market and the competitive environment the choices are slim to none unfortunately to escape this future by switching elsewhere. It's in many ways because of this lack of choice that PlayStation leadership can make these moves freely, or so they assume, without any competitor flanking them - for the time being - key word, for the time being.

 

[Satoru]

My own words to all of this are: I know change is coming, I don't agree with it, and if they stop shipping as many AAA single player games as they have, they will lose me as a consumer. As you said, change will happen and there's fuck all I can do about it, so I'll just move away.

 

[Nitro]

Are those the only choices?

Your opening astatement is somewhat undermined by a lack of erosion of investment in traditional games, according to the graph.

Edit: I see the emphasis on relative erosion only now, vis-a-vis live service games. Jumped in with both feet because I see that graph misused regularly. Allow me to reconsider.

Yeah, there's no lowering of investment in traditional games in comparison to live service, so "erosion" is probably the wrong word. I'm happy to give Sony a shot at developing more live service games to future-proof themselves. So, I'm on board until I see evidence of negative impact on traditional games.

 

[Shmunter]

While focus on live is increasing, that 40% of a bigger pie means more SP than the 45% previously represented. The change is more additive than a pivot.

It is a tough hill to climb making live services successful. Keenly watching how it all plays out.

 

[anonpuffs]

Are those the only choices?

Your opening argument is undermined by a lack of erosion of investment in traditional games, according to the graph.

There will be an erosion. Game development costs are rising, per game. A flat level of invesment means a decrease in the quantity or quality of traditional single player titles.

 

[Nhomnhom]

I'm not out but I'm not liking anything I'm seeing.

I have nowhere to run and I already play on PC but to me it is no substitute for a proper PlayStation. If Nintendo had some sort of decent hardware maybe that could do it.

I don't understand why they are doing this. Sure, go peruse your dumb GaaS aspirations but don't do it by sacrificing the good thing you already have going on. To me this is all beyond stupid.

Xbox would kill and pay billions to have the production pipeline, IPs and audience that PlayStation has and Sony seems to want to risk it all in exchange for a few extra PC sales and GaaS success.

 

[anonpuffs]

I'm not out but I'm not liking anything I'm seeing.

I have nowhere to run and I already play on PC but to me it is no substitute for a proper PlayStation. If Nintendo had some sort of decent hardware maybe that could do it.

I don't understand why they are doing this. Sure, go peruse your dumb GaaS aspiration but don't do it by sacrificing the good thing you already have going on. To me this is all beyond stupid.

Xbox would kill and pay billions to have the production pipeline, IPs and audience that PlayStation has and Sony seems to want to risk it all in exchange for a few extra PC sales and GaaS success.

Capitalism has never had an issue with killing the golden goose for a few more cents per share in the quarterly reports.

 

[Nhomnhom]

Capitalism has never had an issue with killing the golden goose for a few more cents per share in the quarterly reports.

This is like killing the golden goose because you dream of having a generic goose. Makes no sense.

Jim Ryan might just be the worst thing to ever happen to PlayStation and this is no exaggeration, if he doesn't get the appeal of a PlayStation it it's over.

I don't want another Xbox, in fact I want Xbox dead and if PlayStation is just another Xbox I'll want it dead as well.

 

[Mild Conviction]

Change merely happens.

What I'm "on board with" or not depends on the quality of the products produced by that change.

If a game looks like shit, I'll avoid it, whether it's live service or not. If a game looks great, I'll play it, whether it's live service or not.

That's simply how I've always operated as a consumer.

 

[anonpuffs]

This is like killing the golden goose because you dream of having a generic goose. Makes no sense.

Jim Ryan might just be the worst thing to ever happen to PlayStation and this is no exaggeration, if he doesn't get the appeal of a PlayStation it it's over.

I don't want another Xbox, in fact I want Xbox dead and if PlayStation is just another Xbox I'll want it dead as well.

I mean the graphs they showed in their financials tell the whole story. They see how much "add-on content" is growing and they want it.

 

[Eternal_Wings]

Guys this is ridiculous. Sony will never abandon their strongest core: SP games. This generation will be defining for them, because of this proposed 10 upcoming GaaS plan, there will likely fail the majority. But that’s the point at least 2 or 3 will succeed I think. This required for them to become less dependent on 3rd Party GaaS games. Remember every big Multiplayer franchise needed at least half a decade to become bright. Sony also have a lot SP exclusives they didn’t reveal. More than the half of Sony 1st Party studios didn’t reveal their next game: Bend Studio, Naughty Dog (probably two games), Sony Santa Monica, Sucker Punch Productions, Media Molecule, Team Asobi, Ballistic Moon, Bluepoint, a lot of unannounced XDEV projects, SIE London Studio, unannounced XDEV Japan collaborations, exclusive games by South Korean/ Asian Developers (e. g. Stellar Blade, Lost Soul Aside), many Japanese exclusive we don’t know about and the list goes on. But to say everything is lost, is pure exaggeration. Before Jim Ryan and Hermen Hulst could drag PlayStation to the abyss, Sony’s executives from Japan would laid them off. It was a disappointing showcase, there is no denying it but it’s still too early for doom and gloom. This probably still because of Activision Blizzard why they keep a low profile. The generation is still long.

 

[KnittedKnight]

My own words to all of this are: I know change is coming, I don't agree with it, and if they stop shipping as many AAA single player games as they have, they will lose me as a consumer. As you said, change will happen and there's fuck all I can do about it, so I'll just move away.

I'm out. There is just no where to go for the time being.

Nintendo is literally the only player you can put your hopes on at this point and that is close to hopeless. Really slim.

We down bad for sure.

 

[Vertigo]

Splatoon has seasons…

 

[Nhomnhom]

I mean the graphs they showed in their financials tell the whole story. They see how much "add-on content" is growing and they want it.

They can want it all they want without the traditional games to attract people to their platform they'll end up seeing less of that live service games money.

You don't just get a successful GaaS game because you want it.

Splatoon has seasons…

So? TF2 has hats.

 

[Bryank75]

There's no other option for me in gaming, I don't like any other platform really.

I really don't mind a few GAAS, however I do resent the seeming lack of expansion in single player game spending and studio acquisitions for that space.

The increase to 2025 for single player spending really isn't much when you consider inflation etc. it might as well be flat.

In my ideal world 70-85% would be for single player games, the rest for GAAS. There would be no PC ports, as they have proven to be a distraction and not really live up to the promise of high revenues / profits.

I understand the worry Sony have..... they nearly lost COD and still could. Microsoft and others are out there willing to spend billions and take these massive games off PlayStation, so they feel a need to control at least a larger portion of the GAAS played on their platform.
They are spending in this type of 'exploratory phase' of GAAS. Trying to see if they can make 1 or 2 hit. Hopefully they get the information they need and realize how important the single player games are.

Everyone can't play GAAS games all year, one is enough to equal a job.... yet people can play many single player games in a year and a thirsty for them and for some reason Sony and others will not make them. They are all pushing into the crowded ultra competitive GAAS arena. It makes so little sense to me.....

 

[Lord Mittens]

Time vs GAAS.

 

[Systemshock2023]

I see you folks worried about PS but make no mistake: PS changed already quite a bit since 1994. The PS1 and PS2 eras had that japanese quirkyness to them with the additional european and american support. Even the early PS3 days. But Playstation changed quite a lot starting with Uncharted 2.

Won't deny it was sucessful but their increasing focus in cinematic walk & talk sad dad games started to bore me to death. And once they castrated Kratos and closed Japan and Evolution, it got to the point of no return to me. They still have something reminding me of that Sony of old: VR, but I am not sure how that is going to play out.

Sony needs to somehow lose a generation to get back on track, get rid of the American DNA and go back to Japan. They are too comfortable, remind me of NVIDIA these days or Intel before Ryzen was released.

The ""good"" thing is that they are pretty late to the GaaS party and don't have the expertise required, save for Bungie. If they burn a lot of money CELL Processor like, I can see them course correcting real fast.

 

[KnittedKnight]

There's no other option for me in gaming, I don't like any other platform really.

The increase to 2025 for single player spending really isn't much when you consider inflation etc. it might as well be flat.

Not just flat, but worse and potentially even worse. We would need to see real numbers to fill in those bars and compare to even earlier fiscal yrs spending wise, and dig exactly what's being allocated to what on a per title/studio basis. Obviously Sony won't disclose that but I can bet you my savings that FairGame$ doesn't cost what TLOU3 will. So, potentially, for every couple FairGame$ you have 1 TLOU - even if a 50/50 split in overall total allocation of traditional vs GAAS - you still get more GAAS titles as output. Spin masters Bsing all over the place.

Those bars serve as a solid picture of the change, there is no denying that however, period. Earlier investment in traditional from previous fiscal years will continue to pour and fill the PS5 lifecycle so the effect for the PS5 will feel more balanced...... but the PS6 is in it for sure. And as you and I know the transitions are where the real pain occurs and competitors leap frog, flank and outmaneuver each other ( Genesis/SNES - PS1/N64/Dreamcast - X360/PS3 - PS4/Xbox One). In transitions the question comes up again: What do you offer that others don't or I can't get elsewhere - clean slate. Who offers a better future for me!

The counter spin from proponents and conformists I'm seeing is that the spending is staying "mostly" flat while the GAAS push is only additional and on top, as opposed to traditional being the whole bar or close to full bar. You're also supposed to be OK with that too btw. Hehe how about fuck you and fuck off! Disingenuous BS - only lying to themselves (or consciously lying to others). It already dipped clearly in 23 - not to mention cost proportion per title basis in unknown but I posit it's favorable to GAAS - for the foreseeable future. Some folks are playing little agenda games online as usual.

 

[FIREK2029]

Overreaction much? I’m only out if they stop making the games I like. As long as Playstation is still getting games like God of War, Horizon, GT7, Ghost of Tsushima, Spiderman, Ratchet and Clank, etc. I’ll continue to own a Playstation. I’ll just keep ignoring GAAS games like I currently do now. It’s not the end of the world. If the GAAS games are trash, they will all flop and Sony will get the message. If they are good and they bring more people into the ecosystem it just means more variety for the platform.

Edit: Now that I think of it, there’s no other place to go. I game heavily on PC but I don’t get the epic single player experiences on PC that I get on Playstation. Nintendo are nice but to be honest I’ve outgrown most of their games. Xbox to me is a joke. Sony are the only ones satisfying that single player itch out there. So I’m with them until they completely stop making single player games (hopefully that never happens)

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The main issue I have with Sony's strategy for financial diversification is that they mainly looked at the wrong playbook. Instead of Microsoft, or even Bungie, they should've mainly looked at Nintendo's. But I think they have a fear that in doing so, they somehow will "cede" the home console market, as that is basically what Nintendo had to end up doing (they don't make traditional home consoles anymore). They may also worry that if they looked at that playbook, they'd have to cede a lot of 3P support, but I don't think either of things are actually true.

If those were the reasons Sony didn't take a more Nintendo-like approach to revenue expansion in gaming, then I feel they let unfounded concerns blind them somewhat. Most PC gamers are not asking for Sony's marquee single-player games, just like how they aren't asking for Nintendo's. The ones doing so are mostly either trolls or console expats straddling the line who want one final good reason to ditch consoles for good and take all their business to PC. But both camps can be safely ignored; again, Nintendo's doing just fine paying no attention to them, and even though a lot of them may not want a Switch, they have one anyway because they know that's the only place they can get Nintendo's games.

I don't think Sony bringing games to PC was 100% a bad idea. However, that should have mainly stayed focused on GaaS titles, and I don't think pushing out 10-12 GaaS titles right off the bat was a great idea, either. There's no need to put out that many just to hope 2-3 really stick their landing; just make sure the 2-3 you put out there are REALLY good and unique in the market. They only needed to start with two big GaaS MP titles IMO: Factions 2, and Marathon. Meanwhile they could have complimented that with 2-3 smaller GaaS MP titles with a quirkier appeal, and could also scale well to mobile.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking things like Twisted Metal, Locoroco, Wipeout etc. and/or things inspired by games like Fall Guys and Among Us but with legacy PS IP. The market for mid-tier, AA quirky GaaS titles doesn't really exist and there's tons of quirky oddball games that are really popular on PC and mobile. Sony could've combined that with a GaaS/live-service model and make some big splashes but it seems they are more focused on more 'serious' AAA live-service/GaaS titles (in genres that are somewhat saturated, so more competition to stand out).

Even bringing the marquee single-player games to PC isn't necessarily a bad idea, but they need a clear cadence that basically says "Look, PC isn't getting this game until we've got a new console-exclusive sequel releasing within a year from the PC port". If you know anything about those, then you know PC naturally wouldn't get those games until 5-6 years after the console. Why jump any sooner to give Valve 30% of your revenue, or give Microsoft's PC OS that much more of a solidified position in the market? Tell them to either wait a few years, or get a console to play the game sooner. They don't have an issue doing that for Nintendo, they shouldn't have an issue doing that for your stuff, either.

I agree with everyone pointing out that the budget for traditional games is basically stagnant for the provided FYs, because it is. Now the optimistic way to view that is, given increases in costs via inflation, if we end up with a nice number of traditional games in a given year it's because Sony are making more AA-style games (either internally or partnered with external studios), and that would be very welcomed to me personally. A Tomba Remake Collection, a new Parappa/UmJammer and maybe even a Parappa-style Paper Mario RPG, a guy can dream. That's in addition to other stuff, obviously, like maybe a Kena 2 and the such. However, the truth is we simply don't know if that is going to be the case, and there's a lot of reason to suspect it may not. So we really could just be looking at years with just two 1P traditional games a year, and in some cases maybe even just one.

Personally I feel Project Q should have been a PS4 portable with PS5 Remote Play, and something specs-wise they could also put into a premium phone. So that they could use the phone sales to subsidize any losses on the portable side to the traditional gaming market. Also, so that they could swap around components fit for each version of the device (SIM card and high-quality megapixel cameras for the phone model, for example). You can't tell me there would not be a big market for such a device, plus they could avoid the issue of splitting up their software pipeline between a PS5 and PS4 portable because guess what!? You would already be designing AA-style games (traditional and GaaS/live-service) that could (in theory) run perfectly fine natively on said PS4 Portable!! Not to mention the 3P devs who will still be targeting PS4-level hardware in the next few years; a PS4 Portable would have given their games a new boost in potential customers to sell to. But, instead we get Project Q .

At the end of the day, I can go on about what Sony should have done, but that doesn't change what they have actually done and what they want to actually do. However, I'm trying to be an optimist and think a few key adjustments can still get them the growth they want, while ensuring those among the core of the fanbase who like what they want, get what they want. I don't see why both sides can't win out, but like I said, it does require Sony to make some key adjustment. They have to increase the proportion of budgeting for traditional games to account for inflation and production costs rising, else they'll likely end up with less 1P AAA games (OTOH, they could balance that out with more AA traditional games, which would be great IMO).

They have to either ensure PC is ONLY for live-service/GaaS titles, or that ports of the marquee single-player games are several years out (at earliest within a year of the console getting a new installment). They have to leverage mobile (both 3P devices/storefronts and, preferably, a PS4-tier portable device) for more of their growth strategy, and use that as a justification for doing more AA (low and mid-scale) games in both the traditional and live-service areas, preferably leveraging legacy IP with unique/quirky concepts.

And, they have to ensure that the only platform where you can get all of those games Day 1, is a PlayStation console.