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.
