But what if they don't see any other way to justify their exit for PC business, to please both customers and shareholders?
Customers: They can literally just point to the low sales of recent ports and games not Helldivers 2.
Shareholders: They can literally just point to the low sales of recent ports and games not Helldivers 2.
Personally I've never even said Sony should completely step away from PC; a few GAAS titles here and there wouldn't be a bad thing. The problem is:
1: PC gamers can get the GAAS titles cheaper and with free online, with no perks for console buyers to offset it.
2: They've been porting a ton of non-GAAS titles to PC in a short span of time with nowhere near enough new exclusives for their console to offset it.
3: Their stagger windows for ports to PC is too small and risks getting smaller, negatively impacting the console even more over time.
4: They have a shrinking number of internal 1P titles because they refuse to do more expansion-like approaches (Lost Legacy, Miles Morales etc.) or AA games
If SIE could fix those four points, they'd be golden. They could still support PC, and mobile etc. but it should never give the impression that's coming at the expense of your bread-and-butter console, when the console market is still otherwise healthy (provided platform holders are competent enough to support it properly, so that leaves out Microsoft).
They don't need to do some stunt dragging their brand image through the mud just to scale back and change their PC porting strategy.
They cannot lie in front of their shareholders.
Announcing PS5 sales numbers and revenue in meetings and also admitting PS needs to grow beyond console in the same meeting. Both are true.
They are not morons to make this shift... they wouldn't put games on PC if everything was fine like in the PS4 era. The gaming industry doesn't remain the same.
This is not the same as that Game Pass sustainable comment.. it was in some gaming outlet interview, not shareholder meeting. Two different situations.... you cannot lie in meetings. Phil Spencer can run his mouth and bluff during random interviews. And investors don't grill them about gaming as it's not vital for the company so Spencer doesn't care if he lies.
Sony doesn't have this luxury as PS is important and investors demand growth.
Which investors? Let's be honest here: not all investors are asking for this type of growth. It's the ones who have the most shares, and they're the same ones who typically own shares in competing brands. Remember the ValueAct stuff from the Microsoft leaked emails, how that investor was, in Microsoft's words, doing their bidding to "soften up Nintendo" for an M&A by buying shares in Nintendo?
So imagine if Nintendo had to suddenly pursue this "growth" to please "investors"...why should the investor be trusted if they are ValueAct? I also knows gamers who have shares in Sony who
DON'T like this PC strategy...is Sony listening to
those investors? Or are they not "the right voices that need to be heard"?