OP
OP
i'm not saying they need to buy everything they can, i'm saying they need more first party studios to be able to deliver at least 2 or more AAA games per year
might be a terrible take, but i want Sony to stop making third party exclusives and start investing more in first party studios
- Thread starter Etifilio
- Start date
OP
OP
agree, they should buy studios that make sense, Ballistic Moon can be the survival horror studio, Arrowhead can be another multiplayer studio, these studios are not expensive, they don't need to make expensive acquisitions to have great games
There is very little long term value for temporary exclusives, that has been pointed out many years ago already by anyone paying attention.
Sony at this point is completely out of the exclusive game, they are at the same stage Xbox was in the second half of the Xbox One with pretty much all game being ported to PC.
Sony at this point is completely out of the exclusive game, they are at the same stage Xbox was in the second half of the Xbox One with pretty much all game being ported to PC.
Stan harder, 2-4 IPs each? Most of them can barely manage to release a single game per gen.
Bungie is worse than useless, they are a net negative for the PlayStation brand, one of the most toxic studios in the industry that does not show any respect towards players. Shameful.
Last edited:
Regarding potential acquisitions, please remember they don't plan them for the short term, pretty likely because they want to wait for the cash from selling their banks parts and to complete the related payments of the previous acquisitions, which they are still paying.
Such payments of previous acquisitions, combined with the unexpected rise of the costs of components (+related stuff like shipments, inflation) caused them a profits decrease, which I assume they'll want to address while waiting for the banks cash before continuing making (not tiny) acquisitions.
I think Arrowhead and Ballistic Moon -if the Until Dawn remake and the sequel I'd bet they are codeveloping with Firesprite (who has many several Supermassive devs) ends being a successful project- are maybe the most likely candidates because of their very long relationship (Balllistic Moon devs are mostly former Supermassive devs, who made a lot Supermassive devs).
Regarding bigger acquisitions of cases like Koei Tecmo, Arc System Works, Capcom, FromSoft/Kadokawa, Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, etc. could be more complex because of higher prices, having some of them on some markets where Sony may not be interesting (like pachinko/pachislo, manga/books/magazines, etc), some of them being public companies (so maybe having shareholders who may not want to sell, etc). But hey, if they do it I'd like it.
Regarding acquisitions vs 3P exclusivity deals, I think it isn't something they have to choose between one thing of the other. They can continue doing both, which is what I think they'll continue doing going forward.
2nd party game = 1st party game with a lead dev studio not owned by the platform holder.
Such payments of previous acquisitions, combined with the unexpected rise of the costs of components (+related stuff like shipments, inflation) caused them a profits decrease, which I assume they'll want to address while waiting for the banks cash before continuing making (not tiny) acquisitions.
I think Arrowhead and Ballistic Moon -if the Until Dawn remake and the sequel I'd bet they are codeveloping with Firesprite (who has many several Supermassive devs) ends being a successful project- are maybe the most likely candidates because of their very long relationship (Balllistic Moon devs are mostly former Supermassive devs, who made a lot Supermassive devs).
Regarding bigger acquisitions of cases like Koei Tecmo, Arc System Works, Capcom, FromSoft/Kadokawa, Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, etc. could be more complex because of higher prices, having some of them on some markets where Sony may not be interesting (like pachinko/pachislo, manga/books/magazines, etc), some of them being public companies (so maybe having shareholders who may not want to sell, etc). But hey, if they do it I'd like it.
Regarding acquisitions vs 3P exclusivity deals, I think it isn't something they have to choose between one thing of the other. They can continue doing both, which is what I think they'll continue doing going forward.
In games first party doesn't mean owned or developed by the platform owner. It means published by the platform owner. Meaning, 2nd party games like Wild Arms are also 1st party games.
2nd party game = 1st party game with a lead dev studio not owned by the platform holder.
Sony teams apparently working on multiple IPs:
- Insomniac: Venom, Wolverine, Spider-Man, Ratchet, and soon X-Men and new IP
- Bungie: Destiny, Marathon, Matter and pretty likely something else
- Naugthy Dog: 2/3 new single player games, it's fair to assume each from a different IP
- Firesprite: working in minimum a MP game with on-foot and vehicle combat and a horror adventure
- SSM: GoW + new IP
- Team Asobi: next game + multiple prototypes being incubated
- XDEV (2nd party): just released Helldivers 2 and Rise of the Ronin plus have Stellar Blade, Death Stranding 2, Physint, Convallaria, Lost Soul Aside and probably more
- Nixxes: support team who makes PC ports for different IPs
- PS Studios Creative Arts (San Diego, San Mateo, Malaysia, etc): internal global teams (include Production, Visual, Audio etc teams) who works in most of their 1st and 2nd party games.
- Polyphony: GT7 + GT8
- Guerrilla: Horizon 3 + Horizon Online
- Media Molecule
- Housemarque
- Firewalk
- Haven
- Bend
- San Diego
- Bluepoint (support team)
- Fabrik (support team, merged into Firesprite)
- Valkyrie (support team)
Last edited:
how about no more consolidation? it leads with less games, fired developers and less quality overall, less innovation, basically everything less because there is less competition, which leads to do better.
fuck m$, fuck sony.
Third party exclusives are what helped Sony become dominant. FF7, MGS, GtA3… lol FORTNITE. Lunacy.
Deals for games with third party developers gave you Demon’s Souls and Bloodborne: better games than 95% of Sony’s internal stuff. Next up Stellar Blade.
By no means whatsoever should they not still push forward with third party partnerships full steam. It’s already carried the first half of the year for ps5.
Deals for games with third party developers gave you Demon’s Souls and Bloodborne: better games than 95% of Sony’s internal stuff. Next up Stellar Blade.
By no means whatsoever should they not still push forward with third party partnerships full steam. It’s already carried the first half of the year for ps5.
sony barely did any and if m$ won't stop, stuff will get in their hands to be ruined.
but all in all - I hate consolidation. its bad for the industry of course
Bungie is one of the most important and successful studios in gaming history regarding FPS, console GaaS and creation of new IP.
It is nonsensical to think they'll stop doing so now and flatearthical to say they paid that only for "an old game" and "no new product in sight". This game is from the IP that back then broke the record for the fastest selling new IP ever, redefined FPS and popularized GaaS in console, and have plans to expand it to movies/tv shows. Meaning, pretty likely will continue making games with it. And well, will continue also with that game because it continues making hundreds of millions per year and appearing in the top grossing rankings of Steam.
They are also announced their next game, with a teaser that broke records on youtube, plus shown other game on an update to talk about new job positions. Which is supposed to be different than the Matter game they trademarked. On top of that, they also are supporting their other GaaS titles with their knowledge, data and tools.
Firesprite is basically Liverpool Studio + Evolution Studios + Bizarre Creations + several people from Supermassive and other AAA teams. They did their biggest and most important PSVR2 released title plus are flexible having worked on projects of very different size, type, platforms and genres.
Haven's key team was the key team on multiple record breaking new IPs, plus several other top selling AAA games (also including GaaS). Their game was progressing faster than expected and has a propietary gamedev tech that make dev teams way more productive and efficient. Jade also quickly building and leading several AAA teams and studios known for having been very productive and successful. They got the attention of Mark Cerny, who is now working with them.
Firewalk is basically a dream team of top shooter devs whose game is apparently very cool and got Hermen's attention.
Regarding London and Pixel Opus, let's say they didn't put the world on fire with their past games and probably their upcoming games.
I'd bet that after the pause on acquisition Sony mentioned pretty likley they'll continue doing both.
First because Sony said they'll continue with acquisitions after this pause.
Second because they always made 3rd party exclusivity deals and there isn't any reason to stop it now.
Third because it's perfectly possible to make both as they always did.
They don't have to be the biggest, nor is that a possibility. But they could be doing a lot more than at current.
As time goes on it looks like timed exclusivity deals for games like Rebirth will not only get more expensive, but also come with less benefits in the long run for PlayStation. If at some point it's costing them say $100 - $125 million for 3 month timed exclusivity of say FF XVII...is that really worth the cost? Or would they be better off going cheaper for a global marketing deal where the game otherwise is Day 1 on multiple platforms?
Because taking the second route, they could use the money saved and put it towards a 1P AA game, or expansion for a current AAA game, or towards funding another 1P AAA title. You still have marketing rights to a FF XVII, you still know that the majority of copies are going to be sold on your system, and now you have additional money to put towards more genuine exclusive content for your console platform. I would consider that better than pursuing timed exclusivity again TBH.
We have to remember, SIE have already said they want to be less reliant on 3P for profit cuts. Part of that would likely mean not pursuing 3P timed exclusivity if it doesn't make a lot of financial sense. What rate have current 3P timed exclusives like XVI contributed towards expanding hardware sales, or fostering additional 1P & 3P B2P sales from customers within the console ecosystem? At what price is timed exclusivity worth it knowing that kind of data? At what price is it not worth it?
We also have to consider that the CEOs and head honchos at these 3P are changing on a semi-regular basis. Square-Enix got a new person recently for CEO and this person seems focused on a more multiplatform strategy. What that means in practice, we don't know yet. But we do know that if they're intent on, say, doing PC Day 1 for future FF games, it doesn't matter how much money Sony offers or how much co-funding they provide; unless it's an obscene amount, Square-Enix may not be interested in taking the bag. At that point, rather than offer that type of cash, shouldn't Sony instead focus on doing something with one of their own JRPG IPs?
They don't necessarily need to "buy" a 3P in order to do something with an IP they own, that's what partnerships are for. Heck, even in a case where say future FFs are Day 1 multiplats, that doesn't mean Sony can't work with Square-Enix to co-fund & co-develop a PlayStation-exclusive RPG based on one of Sony's IP. Or even do such with one of Square-Enix's other legacy IP. All of those things could transpire simultaneously. My thing is, Sony have to be focused on ensuring that for whatever once-exclusive 3P game/franchise that then becomes multiplat, they at least try replacing either 1P (internal) or 2P (w/ 3P co-development)-wise with an IP in the equivalent genre that will be an exclusive.
Since we're focused on JRPGs: I can't really picture a reality where PlayStation loses exclusivity status (defacto or otherwise) on Persona, Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter (maybe not considered a JRPG by some but work with me here), Ys, AND Final Fantasy without offering something of their own in that space to act as a content differentiator on their console. They can acquire a 3P studio for that, or they could partner with one to co-develop and fund that type of project. It doesn't even have to be a 3P studio; it could be a 3P publisher (again, like Square-Enix, or SEGA/Atlus, Bandai-Namco etc.). These are all viable options. Just as long as they do something to bring that exclusive offering to their system with one of the many RPG IP they own.
Heck, it could even be with ANY IP they have, technically speaking. What would a Rachet & Clank JRPG look or play like, for example? Or how about one based on Parappa the Rapper? What about one that mashes several IP together? Even budget/scale-wise there can be a lot of room here; it doesn't have to be a AAA-budget game for example.
So would more 1P offerings (either as internally developed titles or in partnership with 3P devs). And the benefit there being, Sony would have the IP, have more say & control over QA through the development process, more creative input, and maximize the revenue and profit margins.
There are a lot of benefits to Sony taking that approach, and as long as the variety in offerings are sensible, at least the same benefits to us as the typical 3P exclusivity deal brings nowadays. More benefits, I would say, since most of the 3P deals are "just" timed console exclusivity.
Keep in mind I'm not saying Sony should abandon those types of deals altogether; that's an incredibly stupid decision to take. 3P exclusivity deals can have their benefits; I just think they need to be balanced with 1P or 2P initiatives that can cover the gaps in case future 3P exclusivity deals aren't as prominent or lucrative for whatever reason. For example, a shift in priorities among the 3P with leadership changes.
At some point the costs for the deal could outweigh the benefits they bring to the platform, vs. putting that money towards a 1P or 2P equivalent. That's what I think OP is trying to drive at and in that case, I would agree.
I think you're exaggerating on the Demon's Souls & Bloodborne part. Yes those are high-quality games but they also serve a specific niche and for that specific niche, maybe they were better than 95% of Sony's internal 1P efforts. Outside of that niche though, they were likely not considered as highly in terms of preference, which is probably in some way backed up by sales trajectories. Also it's extremely difficult to directly compare say a Demon's Souls to a GT5 or even Uncharted 2; they're all aiming for very different experiences.
As for the FF7, MGS, GTA3 etc. stuff? Well most of those were defacto exclusives, either because the devs were so acclimated to the hardware of the time (and had so many other projects to get to) that ports weren't justified, or the other consoles out at the time were significantly smaller in market share, to the point where ports weren't worth the costs and effort. Sony didn't have to make arrangements for the vast majority of 3P exclusives they had in the PS1 or PS2 days.
But even back then, some titles like FF7 DID get ports to platforms like PC after a year or so on PS1. So the current strat with Square-Enix and new FFs isn't any different than back with the original game. The actual difference now is, PC gaming is a LOT more similar to the console gaming experience (in terms of shared software library) than it ever was back in the late '90s. The costs for "acceptable" PC gaming today are also much less relative to consoles vs back in the '90s.
For example today, if you want a PC that can play games roughly at PS5 performance levels, provided the game itself is well-optimized, you don't need to spend more than $1K. But to get a PC that could play say FFVII stable at PS1 settings, or a PC that offered something similar to Tekken 3 at that time? You were easily looking at over $1K, maybe close to $1500 minimum, to guarantee that type of performance or to play most new PC games at the time at acceptable to good settings. Meanwhile actual PS1 were like $199 by that point. And let's not forget, actually getting the game to run correctly on PC was a lot more effort back then than it is today; automated processes and stuff like Steam were nonexistent in the '90s.
So those factors have shifted drastically between consoles & PC from then vs today, which is probably what makes waiting for PC ports of these exclusives a lot more doable by many more in current times, as long as they don't have some strong case of FOMO.
Last edited:
What's the point of getting large overhead costs? When you can secure titles and deals without the risk of bloating your company??
And where has this notion come from? If you look at the PS4 era with 1st party and cut MLB most years Sony only had 1 or 2 titles. 2017 was great because of the deals like Nier, Nioh, Persona 5, Yakuza 0
And if the logic is you want high production titles then you can't expect them to churn out 3 a year wo diminishing the quality. Then you get the Matt Booty philosophy. Double A games with high polish to seem triple A. PS studios has tripled in size since the arms race under Jim Ryan, you can't expect results in the short term especially since the bigger studios already dropped a game early in the PS5 gen.
And where has this notion come from? If you look at the PS4 era with 1st party and cut MLB most years Sony only had 1 or 2 titles. 2017 was great because of the deals like Nier, Nioh, Persona 5, Yakuza 0
And if the logic is you want high production titles then you can't expect them to churn out 3 a year wo diminishing the quality. Then you get the Matt Booty philosophy. Double A games with high polish to seem triple A. PS studios has tripled in size since the arms race under Jim Ryan, you can't expect results in the short term especially since the bigger studios already dropped a game early in the PS5 gen.
You talk about wanting Sony to invest in 1st party by acquiring more teams, but it doesn't change the fact those games will still take upwards of four years to make anyway. You will still be waiting no matter how many they buy. At least with the 3rd exclusives the wait for more 1st party content will be more tolerable.
If you want Sony to *seriously* invest in 1st party, it isn't with buying more studios, but buying manpower for the studios they *already* have. Otherwise it's pointless because you're still waiting five years.
If you want Sony to *seriously* invest in 1st party, it isn't with buying more studios, but buying manpower for the studios they *already* have. Otherwise it's pointless because you're still waiting five years.
The issue as I see it, is that those types of deals are getting more and more expensive over time with less and less value when it comes to exclusivity (i.e shorter exclusivity periods and a lot of cases, still Day 1 on PC which is increasingly competitive with consoles). Also games like Persona 5 were not explicit exclusivity deals; they were defacto exclusives because Atlus saw no value in doing Xbox or PC versions at the time (or for a VERY long time). Sony didn't have to do anything to get that game or others like Nier as PS4 exclusives, whereas nowadays they would have to. And, at much higher costs if they wanted exclusivity matching that of older entries on prior systems.
The question then is, what's the upper limit before those types of deals have costs that outweigh the benefits? I think we are reaching a point of that being the case over the course of this generation. Considering that a lot of what were once defacto Japanese exclusives for PS4 last gen are now getting Steam Day 1 releases, and even Xbox Day 1 releases in most cases (not to mention Switch for the ones that can run well on it), shows at least on the publisher end they don't think making the games defacto exclusives for PS is worth it in the long-run.
Which means, Sony are paying more out of pocket for any type of exclusivity for those games; as dev costs increase, revenue and profit targets also increase, so more money for exclusivity deals that usually come with less timed exclusivity anyway AND often Day 1 on competing platforms like PC (Steam) anyhow.
So in those cases, would Sony be better off making equivalent experiences with their 1P IP leveraging internal 1P studios or 3P in 2P co-dev/co-funding partnerships? I think the answer to that is definitely a "Yes!". And it doesn't mean they have to stop with 3P exclusivity deals altogether, it just means being smarter with them. For example Stellar Blade is in many ways a 2P type of deal, though Sony don't own the IP (to my understanding). I think for the investment vs. potential return, they're going to get more out of Stellar Blade than they'll get out of FFVII Rebirth. Whereas say with Rebirth, they probably could've done better with a global marketing deal but having that game go at least PS5 & PC Day 1 instead.
And I'm not saying that to validate the bad faith idiots who want to make exclusivity look like a bad thing, or call 3P exclusives "anti-consumer" or similar BS, who just want Sony to have no exclusives so PlayStation can turn into Xbox and have a similar fate of irrelevance in the console market. I'm saying this because for that type of investment, I'd rather Sony provide equivalent games/experiences with the IP they own, in development deals where they have more of a creative say, in partnership with 3P or with 1P teams or a mix of that in co-dev/co-funding partnerships (IF say M&As aren't on the table).
Sony can't control what 3P want to do, at the end of the day, especially with IP Sony don't own. They can have some influence through stock ownership & investments, yes, but going for timed exclusivity is a case-by-case and the 3P still has to look out for their financial interests at the end of the day. So if costs for timed exclusivity keep increasing, and the benefits for PlayStation consoles shrinks, why do it for those cases vs. invest in your own? Why run the risk of striking exclusivity deals for a FF or Persona to keep them console exclusive when you can have a guaranteed exclusive with your own Legend of Dragoon or White Knight Chronicles? Or even target exclusivity for a smaller IP already strongly associated with your console like a Xenogears or SaGa Frontier?
That is the way I am choosing to look at the topic these days.
The obvious: Sony does these deals to fill in the gaps between their own Studios' releases.
The not-so-obvious: Sony does this to assess smaller third party studios to see if they're a good fit for PlayStation Studios (think Bluepoint, House Marque, etc). Arrowhead and maaaaybe Square are clearly lined up.
Sony has to continue doing these deals because they have to cycle through new talented teams overtime because 15-20 years from now, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Santa Monica, etc. might be on the verge to being shuttered due to bad games and/or finances. New* talent is paramount and third party deals are how you find said new* talent.
The not-so-obvious: Sony does this to assess smaller third party studios to see if they're a good fit for PlayStation Studios (think Bluepoint, House Marque, etc). Arrowhead and maaaaybe Square are clearly lined up.
Sony has to continue doing these deals because they have to cycle through new talented teams overtime because 15-20 years from now, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Santa Monica, etc. might be on the verge to being shuttered due to bad games and/or finances. New* talent is paramount and third party deals are how you find said new* talent.
It depends. For starters it depends on the type of 3P deal.
I think you might be conflating things like timed exclusivity with 3P co-development/partnership deals; the latter are more valuable and produce the type of potentials you are referring to in your comment. The former? Not so much, since they're usually with bigger 3P publishers. Maybe you get some investments and share options out of it (which is good), but M&As are less likely.
And scouting talent out of those type of timed exclusivity deals probably even less likely than an M&A because the scale of talent you'd want to get would be a lot bigger than the small handful who decide to leave that 3P and go to a platform holder's stable afterwards.
This I agree with. 3rd party deals are just a temporary solution. You can sigh a deal for a few games, only to lose access to future ones because someone paid more.
Acquisitions are the only way to prevent that.
Acquisitions are the only way to prevent that.