SONY/SIE: The Balance Of Chasing Margins, Multiplat Expansion, And Maximizing The Console

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

**NOTE: For a TL;DR that's shorter and summarizes the write-up, go to the "BRIEF SUMMATION" section.

SONY/SIE: HOW DO THEY IMPROVE MARGINS & EXPAND, WHILE RESPECTING PLAYSTATION'S ROOTS?

​

[WHAT ARE PLAYSTATION'S ROOTS?]

The legacy of PlayStation can be traced to its roots, specifically the prime motivations that brought the platform into existence. These can be traced to several factors, covering a period of some years leading to the first console's release. These are listed in no particular order:

1: HOLISTIC HARDWARE ECOSYSTEMS​

​

Even as far back as Sony's MSX computers, the company always seemed to value hardware ecosystems with various parts serving a greater whole. In terms of their MSX machines, this encompassed manufacture of all necessary peripherals made compatible with machines, in an era where such tight integration was only seen with microcomputer platforms like the Amiga. In terms of the PlayStation, it was through a unified chipset design, each component consciously built to uplift overall performance. In both cases, making things streamlined for software creators.​

​

2: INDUSTRY-DEFINING STANDARDS​

​

Also traceable to Sony's MSX line of computers (if not even earlier), is a strong presence of leveraging hardware technologies to lead what seemed could or should be new industry standards. With MSX, it was in supporting a relatively open PC platform for Eastern markets (which in time replaced closed standards like those from NEC, as PC-compatibles running Windows gained popularity in the mid-'90s). With the Super Famicom, it was CD-quality sound & sampling for video games (at a time when other consoles mostly used standards like FM synthesis). With the Walkman, it was portable music. With CD, it was the promise (and realization) of the then-futuristic data format. And with PlayStation, it was 3D visuals in the home to complete what was a pinnacle of immersive gaming for the time.​

​

3: MARKET LIBERATION​

​

This is in the act of establishing business standards which allowed Sony & various 3P to manufacture, distribute, & promote with more flexibility, while increasing revenue and profit margins. PlayStation's licensing policy stood in stark contrast to comparatively more draconian Nintendo & SEGA ones. Sony's deep experience with licensable open standards like the MSX computer, combined with their experience as a software publisher prior to PlayStation via Sony Imagesoft, informed their business model for the console.​

​

4: PARTNER FOCUS​

​

With the PlayStation, Sony was the first platform holder to truly place stock & value in enabling 3P developers, publishers, and their content on their platform. Whereas those like Nintendo & SEGA prioritized their own 1P offerings in lieu of 3P focus (unless they were a heavily favored 3P, such as Squaresoft with Nintendo or EA with SEGA), Sony sought to work closely with 3P to elevate their development & market pipelines. A good example of this is the collaboration with Namco on System 11 & System 12 arcade boards, which would go on to spawn cherished IP such as Tekken.​

​

5: LIBRARY UNIQUENESS​

​

Thanks to understandings of content differentiation in the film & music industries, combined with feature differentiation in the electronics market, and synergized development for the PlayStation, Sony were able to amass both a significant amount of exclusive & primary support from 3P software creators towards the platform. The market presence PlayStation amassed, combined with the industry growth this helped stimulate, made PlayStation the favored platform for "defacto exclusives" from many 3P in obtaining more-than-desired revenue & profits. For those whom exclusivity (defacto or not) did not present, the PlayStation's qualities made it attractive as a lead platform for multi-platform development & marketing efforts for games originating on platforms such as arcade or PC, console ports.​

These five tenets helped PlayStation fulfil the traditional console business model goals. That model's goals are:

1: Intensive R&D on prototyping, architecting, design, QA testing & refinement of embedded system specs targeting a specific TDP profile​

2: Manufacture finalized hardware designs at mass scale (multi-millions per fiscal quarter), includes securing large wafer volume for chip production​

3: Sell hardware at a set MSRP and take direct loss on hardware being sold (aka hardware subsidization) to aggressively push install base size​

4: Recoup losses on hardware with combination of B2P software, add-on content, subscription and peripheral sales (peripherals often sold at for-profit prices)​

5: Design marketing campaigns to draw in customers at scale to justify rate of hardware production (can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, in phases)​

6: Develop lots of exclusive gaming content (combination of 1P and 3P) to draw customers to the platform vs direct rivals​

7: Create virtuous cycle where preceding six elements generate enough revenue & profit to create feedback loop of positive reinforcement (lower production costs, lower MSRPs, bigger budgets for exclusive content, more ROI per advertising dollar, etc.)​

The original PlayStation realized certain goals differently, given the make-up of the console market in the mid 1990s; for example, "subscriptions" could be interpretable as official PlayStation magazines
providing content & demos for readers, some subscribing for 1-2 years via mail. However, the main points of the model were as true back then as they are today, and Sony were able to achieve these seven goals with their first console, thanks to adhering of the five core brand tenets.

Such extended to other consoles such as the PlayStation 2, where a combination of momentum plus adhering to the five core brand's tenets, can shape the success of the given platform generation. The PS2 saw significant increase in some of the five precepts, which helped in achieving the seven goals of the traditional console business model even more than the first PlayStation, leading to growth in the market compared to contemporaries, who each struggled with one or more of their own "core brand values", thus could not maximize the seven aims of the traditional console business model as effectively as Sony.

Other Sony consoles, such as the PlayStation 3, failed to respect one or more of the brand's five tenets, and were unable to achieve the seven goals of the business model (either wholly, in effectiveness, or both) as direct result. Quickly, here are the PS3's mistakes in respecting the five root brand values:

1: HOLISTIC HARDWARE ECOSYSTEMS: Sony's ambition for the PS3 included the joint-developed Cell processor. This processor promised to be the revolutionary future of computing, at one point setto be both the PS3's CPU & GPU. However, less-than-desired maturity on the GPU promise, led to a rushed redesign, and a final system that pursued (at the time) ultimate power, yet forced into undesirable compromises.

The result was a system with promising technology, but an extremely high learning curve to extract the potential. Combined with growing software budgets, increased complexity in game development, and less TTL (Time-To-Learn) for programmers vs. the commercial work expected of them, this made the PlayStation 3 a less attractive holistic hardware & product design compared to its direct rival.

2: INDUSTRY-DEFINING STANDARDS: Whereas the PlayStation's pursuit of 3D as standard was a goal aligned with the majority of the gaming market at the time (even if through proprietary
means), the PlayStation 3's push for heterogeneous programming via the Cell, was partly forward-thinking ambition obfuscated by corporate-driven financial desires and industry control on the parts of Sony, IBM, & Toshiba. Sony's specific implementation of heterogeneous computing clashed with desires from the majority of the games industry.

Similarly, the push for Blu-Ray disc standard was seen by many, as less games "needing" that level of additional storage (at least tied to a single disc), and more a push from companies like Sony to assert format control in the market. This created friction between Sony, 3P developers & publishers, plus increased costs for the PS3 beyond at-the-time tolerable levels for the majority, hampering adoption rates.

3: MARKET LIBERATION: With PS3, Sony failed to correctly gauge the demand for online-based multiplayer gaming. This led to many a massive multiplayer games that generation, such as COD & Halo 3, to either be exclusive on or prefer their direct console rival, Microsoft's Xbox 360. Also, during this time the console market in the US would reach its peak in terms of growth rate, PS3 being the least poised of the Big 3 to capitalize.

While Sony were able to leverage other markets globally to offset many of the install base loss in the US & UK, it was never enough to meaningfully overtake the 360 in install base.

4: PARTNER FOCUS: With a complex architecture, high level of TTL (Time-To-Learn), & lack of market share in key markets relative competitors, the PS3 was mostly unable to leverage strong
3P partnerships, particularly Western 3P developers & publishers in the AAA space. For example, with 360, Microsoft provided strong brand synergies with IP such as COD, Saint's Row, & the Mass Effect trilogy. Sony were incapable of this aside with some Japanese 3P such as Konami; with Western 3P, it'd be later that gen with games such as GTA V.

5: LIBRARY UNIQUENESS: With the PS3, Sony lost many "defacto exclusives", with many once-exclusive Japanese 3P franchises either going multi-console with Xbox 360, turning towards breakouts like the Nintendo Wii, or both. Many Japanese 3P who primarily focused on PlayStation hardware in the past, turned to doing exclusives for rival consoles. For example, Capcom launched the IP Lost Planet & Dead Rising on the 360, while that system also got early JRPG exclusives such as Blue Dragon & Lost Odyssey.

Western-wise, rivals like the 360 saw preferred support from devs like Bethesda, Volition, Obsidian, EA, & Silicon Knights, either with exclusive IP exclusive, or with games that ran much better on 360 vs Sony's console. The PlayStation 3 would not see parity in most Western 3P releases until the second half of that console generation, and never saw priority from Western studios for new or exclusive IP the way 360 did. Things went better on the Eastern side, with Sony's Japan Studio partnering with From Software to birth the "Soulsborne" genre via 2009's Demon's Souls, and securing exclusives (in some cases defacto) with games like Metal Gear Solid 4.

Problems with Sony Corporation during the latter '00s compounded on the PS3, the company facing significant financial turmoil, needing to make changes. Kaz Hirai became the President of SCE (now SIE) during this time (later CEO of Sony Corp in 2012), helping both it & the PlayStation 3 remarkably recover. We will look at some of the things done to help in this recovery.

1: HOLISTIC HARDWARE ECOSYSTEMS: Aside PS3 itself, Sony made changes in reorganizing its TV & appliances sectors, plus selling off the VAIO line of computers, which proved financially unsound. Specific to the PS3, hardware redesigns removed some non-critical functions (though removal of native PS2 hardware for BC would become controversial in hindsight), simplified the motherboard, found cheaper alternatives for component costs, increased storage capacities, and effectively rebranded the console platform with a new marketing campaign in 2009.​

​

Meanwhile, new peripherals such as the Move controllers provided options to PS3 owners for gaming experiences, paired with successive iterations of the Eye Toy, & various other peripherals 1P & 3P. The proliferation of 3D-enabled televisions in the market later that era saw the PS3 provide support. Considered a gimmick by some, it nonetheless was present for owners, helping condition acceptance for future products such as the PlayStation VR (PSVR), released for PS3's successor, the PS4.​

​

2: INDUSTRY-DEFINING STANDARDS: While not intended, Sony's inability to iterate their online gaming infrastructure as well as rival Microsoft, meant their online gaming service stayed a free option for console owners. This wound up attracting gamers during the generation to pick up a PlayStation 3 as the price came down, becoming a convenient marketing point against Microsoft's paid-online walled garden of Xbox Live.​

​

Although the Cell was a complicated chip to learn, its design was nonetheless forward-thinking, and contributed long-term to game developers adopting what became the standard for heterogeneous computing in the consumer electronics space, more so than Microsoft's ambitious-but-simpler Xenon CPU. Blu-Ray, similarly, in time proved its worth to the gaming market, being the preferred option vs. using multiple DVD discs (increasing physical production costs along the way), as was to be the norm with the 360, particularly since the add-on HD-DVD player (in the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD format war of the late 2000s) gained zero traction.​

​

3: MARKET LIBERATION: While forgotten today, Sony were the first platform holder to advocate for cross-play. However, a stern rejection from Microsoft, whose 360 was dominating the North American & United Kingdom markets, kept that from happening. Additionally, many today consider the incidental aspect of free online on PS3, the preferred model for online gaming in the console market, something even Sony reversed course on with the PS4.​

​

The PS3's use of Blu-Ray was also liberation for the market, helping to reduce manufacturing costs for physical games. Instead of needing up to 4x DVD-ROMs, a single Blu-Ray could hold the same amount of data. This helped with keeping case sizes small & counts lower, aiding with logistics of materials shipping for physical games on the platform, often as a benefit vs. the 360, which prioritized the aging DVD-ROM format.​

​

Sony's PS3 also standardized mandatory game installs & user-replaceable non-proprietary HDDs. The latter became a godsend for many core enthusiasts who sought larger capacities of storage at a cheap price for their growing catalog of games. Conversely, the 360 began a more questionable trend of Xbox consoles using proprietary storage solutions often limited in capacity and more expensive per GB than open market standards.​

​

4: PARTNER FOCUS: Late in the PS3's lifecycle, Sony made efforts to court support from favored 3P developers & publishers, both to eliminate challenges related to development for the system, & getting more support for it in general. This included: reaching out to Valve to get The Orange Box collection on PS3, & Rockstar to prioritize the PS3 as the lead platform for GTA V (alongside a marketing deal). Updating the PS3 SDK & documentation so that programming for Cell became less of a barrier, was also a major focus for them during this time.​

​

5: LIBRARY UNIQUENESS: Since the PS3 lost a lot of defacto exclusives to a competitive Xbox 360 & even (or better to say in different ways) Nintendo's Wii, Sony were forced to double-down on a combination of 1P & select 3P co-developed exclusives to add brand identity & value to the PS3. This resulted in a swell of 1P exclusives, such as the big push for what would become a signature "cinematic" narrative-driven action/adventure focus, with games such as the Uncharted series, The Last of Us, Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls.​

​

This combined with new entries in established IP such as Gran Turismo (GT5 & GT6), God of War, Twisted Metal, Warhawk, & SOCOM. As well, new IP would be fostered, both among 1P teams & in conjunction with select 3P studios, such as Puppeteer, Echochrome, the Motorstorm series, the Little Big Planet series, the "Metaverse before Metaverse" PlayStation Home, PS All-Stars, & seminal favorite (plus precursor to the modern-day Soulsborne sub-genre) Demon's Souls (Japan Studio x From Software).​

​

[CON'T BELOW...]​

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

We can see how Sony addressed the concerns of the market, both for their own platform & vested interests, plus various 3P, with the PS3 in due time, to help it recover from a troubled launch. The PS4 would see the benefits of these improvements from Day 1, helping it gain market share over its direct rival, the Xbox One, surmounting a staggering lead in the years to follow. However, 2017 saw the resurgence of Nintendo with the Switch, helping them take a significant majority of market share in Japan & act as a larger, yet soft/indirect challenger, to Sony's PS4 in the global markets. The second half of the 2010s also saw a rise for both the PC gaming market, thanks to Valve's Steam, and the mobile gaming market, thanks to both Apple's iOS (&, Apple Arcade) & Google's Play store.

While these other competitors were not as direct a challenge to PlayStation as Microsoft's Xbox, they still competed for gaming time and dollars in some form, with varying degrees of customer cross-over. In particular, while yet to be confirmed, the combination of more console-exclusive or console-orientated 3P devs/pubs (particularly from Japan) expanding software support to PC platforms like Steam (itself with most of its base on Windows OS) & Microsoft's own push for Day 1 PC releases of all 1P games, likely helped heavily contribute not only towards declining demand of the Xbox One in its latter
years, but even (natural) demand for their 9th-gen consoles, the Xbox Series X & S. It's arguable that, had the effects of the pandemic not occurred, sales momentum for the Series consoles would have collapsed sooner than it actually did, as at current the consoles struggle to catch up with the oft-derided Xbox One in lifetime sales launch-aligned.

Other things which have come to "compete" against PlayStation's position in the market are external factors outside of Sony's control. Chiefly, the incurred, exponetial growth in required costs for producing big-budget AAA games pushing the envelope of production values, alongside high-powered gaming silicon needed to enable the creation & play of such games, at volumes of many millions over the course of a console generation. These costs do not come cheap, plus shrink margins. For the world's #1 entertainment industry by revenue, the desire from shareholders & investors to "chase growth", has created pressures far greater than in the past, leading to crucial decisions.

Sony's answers to these newfound points of concern & changing market dynamics, have been varied. We will briefly look at them now, then gauge probable short/mid/long-term effects of them.

1: HOLISTIC HARDWARE ECOSYSTEMS: New stress points for stability & growth in the industry have driven Sony to adopt a semi-tiered strategy of expanding PlayStation's brand reach to platforms beyond the console, while doubling-down on enticing peripheral options to complement the console experience. This has caused an increasingly aggressive push for porting of 1P software to PC, primarily Steam, & expanding SIE's publishing arm to that platform. It has also resulted in new peripherals such as the DualSense Edge (a premium DualSense controller), PSVR2 (a premium VR headset & successor to PS4's PSVR1), PlayStation Portal (a local streaming-orientated companion device), PlayStation Pulse headset, earbuds, etc.​

​

2: INDUSTRY-DEFINING STANDARDS: With PS5, game prices for new AAA released increased by $10, from $60 to $70. While Sony were not the first publisher to go through with this increase, they nonetheless joined the choir & made this new price point the standard for their big 1P releases. Adjustments were made to the PlayStation Plus subscription service, including consolidating the then independent PS Now streaming service into it, plus increasing prices to match.​

​

Recently, streaming functionality of PS Plus has enabled 4K quality to PS5 owners, allowing for things such as trying out anticipated games as a streamed demo (foregoing the need to download files directly) before committing to a purchase & download. This contrasts with streaming-side features of competing subscription services, such as Microsoft's Game Pass, which only offer Series S-level 1080p streaming quality, dinging usefulness as a demo feature for Series X owners to gauge aspects of a game before committing to a download.​

​

Other examples include a limited multi-console publishing strategy, which can be seen with IP like MLB: The Show, a title now available on Microsoft's Xbox Series systems & Nintendo's Switch. Although in a way, this is nothing new for Sony; after completing the purchase of publisher Psygonsis in 1993, they released ports of select IP primarily made for PlayStation, such as Wipeout, on competitors SEGA Saturn and Nintendo 64, even platforms like PC.​

​

3: MARKET LIBERATION: One could argue that Sony's more aggressive push for 1P content on non-PlayStation platforms like PC, gives would-be customers on those platforms more choice in where to buy & play these games. Though not the entirety of Sony's catalog & no Day 1 for titles besides certain GaaS (most recent example being breakout hit Helldivers 2), the option is still there & has shown some measure in properly pursuing such a model, while balancing needs of the primary device in that ecosystem family. At least, in theory.​

​

4: PARTNER FOCUS: This has involved a mixture of initiatives in solidifying relationships with select 3P. For example, Sony have engaged in a continued partnership as the premier platform for mainline Final Fantasy content from 3P Square-Enix, with timed exclusivity on console before getting ports to PC, but skip other platforms like Microsoft's Xbox. They have also fostered co-development opportunities with studios like Ember Lab for Kena: Bridge of Spirits, Housemarque for Returnal, & Bluepoint for Demon's Souls Remake. The latter two were acquired by SIE (Sony's gaming subsidiary; SIE and Sony are used interchangeably throughout this writing) shortly after then-recent projects released.​

​

Sony have also worked with new up-and-coming studios, via global initiatives in the China Hero Project, India Hero Project, & Africa Hero Project. Certain games from these initiatives, the upcoming Stellar Blade (South Korean developer Shift Up), are very promising, with that one in particular resulting in a tightly coupled strategic partnership. While certain competitors set sights on acquiring massive 3P publishers, Sony's M&A focus in gaming has been more reserved; beyond the aforementioned Housemarque & Bluepoint, they've mainly stuck to smaller studios, like Firesprite or upstart Haven (with industry veterans Jade Raymond & PS4/PS5 architect Mark Cerny at the helm). An outlier exists in the form of Bungie, who recently became a publisher after ceasing a publishing partnership with ABK.​

​

Aside from various project initiatives & M&As, Sony have placed investments into companies like Epic Games, plus purchased minority stakes in developers like From Software & its parent company, Kadokawa. Most recently, Sony was one of two main entities (the other being Tencent) responsible for helping From Software acquire the massively successful Elden Ring IP rights from publisher Bandai Namco.​

​

5: LIBRARY UNIQUENESS: As more of what were once defacto PlayStation-exclusive or primary 3P franchises have spread their wings to other platforms like Xbox, Nintendo, & PC (mainly Steam), Sony have sought to try forms of software exclusivity through a mixture of 1P titles via internal studios (i.e Demon's Souls remake from Bluepoint, GT7 from Polyphony Digital, Rachet & Clank: Rift Apart from Insomniac & God of War: Ragnarok from Sony Santa Monica), 3P co-funded & co-developed exclusives (such as Death Stranding 2 from Kojima Productions & Stellar Blade from Shift-Up), plus 3P timed exclusives (like Final Fantasy VII Rebirth from Square-Enix, Sifu from NoClap Studios, Stray from Annapurna etc.).​

​

Meanwhile, 3P content unable to be secured as exclusive to PS5 (either wholly or as console exclusives), like Street Fighter 6, Tekken 8, Harry Potter: Hogwart's Legacy & more, have established marketing deals with SIE, to push brand association between them & PlayStation to help bolster market appeal & sales. A growing number of Sony's own 1P & 1P-owned (in terms of IP rights) games have seen ports to PC anywhere from time frames of Day 1 (exclusive to GaaS titles, like Helldivers 2), to 6 months (i.e TLOU Remake), up to 2 years (i.e the upcoming Horizon Forbidden West).​

​

This, combined with a large bulk of previous releases this generation up until Spiderman 2 (released October 2023) being cross-gen titles, has created a need for balance in maintaining sufficient library uniqueness on the console while leveraging a multiplatform expansion policy to other ecosystems which naturally conflicts with the drive for library uniqueness.​

So, how have these measures panned out for Sony so far this generation? Well, hardware sales for the PS5 are at a very respectable 50+ million sold through as of the beginning of 2024. Although this grants a 2:1 lead over the closest direct rival, Xbox Series, current tracking of PS5 sales for the fiscal year have fallen short of Sony's ambitious 25 million target. This, despite a heavier-than-expected collapse in sales for the Xbox Series systems in the same time frame, & Nintendo's Switch at last showing clear signs of sales slowdown. Leaked information from an Insomniac ransomware hack over the Christmas holiday of 2023, revealed sales & revenue of later game ports to PC underperformed relative expectations. In light of seemingly major success for SIE's Helldivers 2 on the platform, however, some have mentioned this as a sign to shift porting windows of 1P console titles to PC sooner, perhaps even Day 1 for all titles, mirroring Microsoft's strategy for the platform.

Additionally, the subject of game budgets, production costs & profit margins has reared its head, from none other than Sony Corp's CFO and acting interim CEO of the SIE subsidiary, Hiroki Totoki. Totoki, who took the position as interim CEO of SIE shortly after current CEO Jim Ryan's retirement, addressed concerns amid SIE's razor thin profit margins over the past few years.

These margins, partly affected by the amortizing of Bungie, have become a focal point of discussion by many in the industry as they stand in stark contrast to the record revenue generated by the SIE subsidiary. This has also led to speculation of causes for the low profit margins, like climbing development costs for AAA content, plus ideas on how to offset these costs & expand margins, many hastily concluding for SIE to follow in Microsoft Gaming's direction with Day 1 PC releases of all 1P content. Or to another extreme, even bringing their 1P content to competing platforms such as Xbox & Nintendo (beyond the select handful of non-tentpole titles like MLB: The Show) altogether.

A few other plans floated among Sony Corp, like selling off the profitable & stable (but low growth opportunity) financial unit, have been suggested as possibly helping SIE financially. Personally, selling off this unit feels risky, as it's been a consistent pillar for revenue & high profit margins for the company over the past decade, which feels like the opposite of "cutting fat", something that could be better reserved to actual low-performing arms of the company, i.e areas of Sony Pictures.

One thing is certain though: for SIE to both thrive in the future & increase margins significantly, they will have to do some combination of costs control on hardware & software production PLUS expand the ecosystem reach for the brand beyond console, to devices such as PC, mobile & potentially even other consoles, without jeopardizing the long-term appeal of their own console to gaming customers (specifically small-install/high-ARPU hardcore & core enthusiasts of the console population base).

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

How does Sony accomplish these goals? Well, if we remember the five tenets of the brand's roots & keep those in mind alongside the seven goals of the traditional console business model, accounting for some adjustments for a quasi-nontraditional model in select areas, an earnest set of solutions present themselves. One such set of solutions are proposed below; these are split into Inner & Outer focuses. 'Inner' pertaining to hardware devices & software catalogs completely under the domain of SIE's ownership/vertical stack of integration. Meanwhile, 'Outer' pertains to hardware & software under the ownership of other companies (i.e Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple, Square-Enix etc.) that Sony (SIE specifically) will leverage in some capacity for broader, curated ecosystem reach.

[BRIEF SUMMATION]

This is the TL;DR for those pressed on time. It takes all of the main points from the larger section below and lists them in short summaries. The expanded parts of the larger section can provide more clarity, but should not be required to get the gist of the ideas.

As a summation, a preferable approach for Sony to expand PlayStation's multiplatform reach while not jeopardizing the console (and in fact, giving the console more value), can look as follows:

[HARDWARE/USER EXPERIENCE]​

​

-Future hardware i.e PS6 prioritizing smart chiplet design, AI-powered resolution upscaling, frame generation, LOD/mesh/texture auto-scaling up/down based on inference data (i.e similar to BVH traversal intersection tests), faster storage and more robust decompression. MSRP $499 (512 GB storage) - $599 (1 TB storage); both include "Entry" level PSVR3 headset (read below)​

​

-Future hardware i.e "New PlayStation Portable" leveraging scaled-down chiplet hardware from PS6 (eliminate need for distinct wafers per system), native PS5, PS5 Pro and PS6 play of games with no or very little dev intervention. Utilize AI-powered scaling hardware (based on that found in PS6) to accomplish system-smart inference and auto-scaling of assets to run on handheld resources. MSRP $299-$399​

​

-Future hardware i.e "PSVR3" as highly scalable line of VR/AR headsets. Entry model targeting somewhere slightly higher than PSVR1 specs (e.g 1240p or 1440p per eye vs. 1080p). Slim 'chic' design, able to be used wired or wireless out of the box. Majority processing offloaded to console, leverage Remote Play & PS.Link for lower-latency streaming. Entry model BOM target $75-$100 max, MSRP $149 max. 1x entry-model headset included with every PS6.​

​

Higher-tiered headsets (e.g "Enthusiast", "Elite") with more built-in local processing, higher-resolution lenses, higher-quality cameras possible; sold separately.​

​

-Future hardware i.e "DualSense 2 VR" as traditional/VR controller. Segment-based design. Two main halfs & center piece. Haptics and gyro for each half, wireless & positional detect for center piece. MSRP $99. One included with every PS6. Optional "DualSense 2" without segment design & VR functions sold separately, MSRP $69-$79.​

​

-Future hardware i.e "VR MultiTap" for ability to host up to 4x wireless "Elite"-spec VR headsets simultaneously in same physical space. May include additional processing logic for wireless relaying, framebuffer upscaling on-the-fly to connected headsets. Could come in two variants ("Entry", "Max"). MSRPs of $99-$249. Optional add-on.​

​

-Future hardware i.e "Expansion Modules" for non-critical peripheral ports (additional USB ports, Thunderbolt ports, additional HDMI Out ports, additional Ethernet ports, additional WiFi module & antenna, microSD card slots etc.). MSRP $99-$149​

​

-Future hardware i.e "Fit-To-Form Physical Disc Drive" for physical media. Two models; Entry model for PS4, PS5 & PS6 game discs only (MSRP $69), & "Max" model with Entry model features + PS3, PS2, PS1 disc support + BC (mix of native & emulation) of PS3/2/1/Vita/PSP games + support for native PS3/2/1 peripherals (controllers, steering wheels, arcade sticks, memory cards etc.). "Max" model MSRP $149 - $199​

​

-User Interface for console built with seamless traditional & VR/AR usage in mind, including seamless image transfer from one space to the other, dual feed outputs (1x to traditional TV, 1x to VR headset; simultaneous)​

​

-"New PlayStation Portable" compatible with PSVR3 line of VR/AR headsets​

​

[FIRST-PARTY SOFTWARE PRODUCTION/PRICING/VARIETY]​

​

-Scale back on 1P AAA titles with too much genre/demo crossover; use saving from redundancy elimination to bulk up remaining 1P AAA and do more 1P AA production​

​

-Limit cross-gen of non-GaaS 1P AAA/AA content to 1-1.5 years max​

​

-Break up 1P AAA non-GaaS titles into smaller "installments/parts" comparable to UC4: Lost Legacy or Miles Morales in terms of content & content depth (8-10/12 per part)​

​

-Release new installments/parts every 2-3 years, depending on scope/size of part/installment​

​

-Each installment/part MUST feel like a complete game unto itself narratively, game mechanic-wise, game loop-wise and challenge/difficulty-wise, but still also serve as part of larger experience in totality. Requires new ways of telling narratives, adding new main game mechanics to each part building off previous installments​

​

-Each installment/part priced at $20-$30 MSRP at launch​

​

-1P AA non-GaaS titles can take similar "part/installment" approach, but will be less likely (less expensive to make, shorter dev times, smaller team sizes etc.)​

​

-As last part/installment releases, also release compiled parts as single unified game on console. If 4-6 year window satisfied, port unified version to PC of 1P AAA non-GaaS if desired (ensure new equivalent game comes exclusive to PS in 1-2 years time of port)​

​

-Focus on sensible, varied 1P GaaS titles with little genre/demo crossover/cannibalization. 4-5 sustainable GaaS a gen (mix of AAA, AA, full/partial GaaS/live-service, paid/F2P etc.) should be aim​

​

-Leverage console/mobile synergies for certain AA game pushes​

​

-Provide per-game fixed monthly subscription payment options for non-F2P AAA & AA games. Allow for flexible payment contract renegotiations if game price drops to new low permanently during payment phase. Payment phases of 3-12 months (case-by-case for each title).​

​

[THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE EXCLUSIVITY]​

​

-Aim for smaller/lesser known 3P IP with deep ties to PlayStation platforms to prioritize as co-developed/co-funded exclusives. E.g Parasite Eve, MGS1, Onimusha, Point Blank, Ridge Racer etc.​

​

-Depending on game, prioritize either full exclusivity (only on PlayStation, no PC version at launch) or console exclusivity (only on PlayStation consoles; PC version at launch). Case-by-case, may also depend on scale & scope of game, the type (i.e new AAA installment vs AA remake).​

​

-Try securing 1-2 year full exclusivity/2-3 year console exclusivity of games that ARE set as timed exclusive, depending on scale/scope of game and platform(s) to port to​

​

-Aim for leveraging key 3P for co-developed & co-funded exclusives based on legacy SIE gaming IP, where able (e.g Wipeout, Parappa, Sly Cooper, Motorstorm etc.)​

​

[OUTER-ECOSYSTEM PLATFORM PRIORITIZATION & TIERED MULTIPLATFORM DEPLOYMENTS]​

​

*NOTE: Strongly recommend to at least read the Detailed Summation [Inner] & [Outer] sections for this part to get context via percentile ranges, which influence the rankings a lot and​

further break down time tables between Day 1/6-12 months/1-2 years/2-4 years/4-6 years​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AAA GaaS:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: PC > mobile & Xbox > Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AA GaaS:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: mobile > PC > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AAA F2P:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: PC > mobile & Xbox > Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AA F2P:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: mobile > PC > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AAA Traditional, New/Ongoing:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: PC > mobile > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AAA Traditional, Remake:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: PC > mobile > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AAA Traditional, Remaster:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: PC > mobile > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AA Traditional, New/Ongoing:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: mobile > PC > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AA Traditional, Remake:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: mobile > PC > Xbox & Nintendo​

​

-Tier of non-PS platforms (most/medium/least), 1P AA Traditional, Remaster:​

​

Day 1, Total Releases: mobile > PC > Xbox & Nintendo​

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

[DETAILED SUMMATION]

​

[INNER]​

​

1: HOLISTIC HARDWARE ECOSYSTEMS: Game development costs & resources for AAA titles have only continued to increase. Advances in areas like AI will help curb some costs, but Sony are in position to honor a root aspect of the PlayStation brand, in using hardware to speed up & simplify aspects of development for both themselves & 3P. The PS5 accomplished a good deal of this between hardware innovations such as its SSD I/O subsystem, which handled various things like data check-in & cache coherency automatically, plus customizations in the GPU such as cache scrubbers that further aided in cache coherency & mitigating congestion of data traffic on the memory bus. These focused designs also help in reducing some of the strain of LOD & framebuffer management on developers, as the decompression bandwidth of the I/O subsystem can unpack large quantities of data within tight frame-time budgets.​

​

The PlayStation 6 could see a combination of both hardware & software-driven solutions to alleviate aspects of game data management for programmers, freeing up parts of the pipeline for asset artists. For example, having hardware logic built in to auto-scale LOD for assets in the framebuffer on the fly depending on vantage point of the asset from the player's camera, with the scaling working both decreasing & increasing the levels of detail.​

​

This way artists would only need to create a single mesh package of texture assets, then train an iterative AI model using metadata to learn how to scale the mesh, texture & even skeletal assets higher & lower, package the trained data as some type of runtime code that relevant AI logic inference hardware within the PS6 could be set to interpret from game logic processed on the CPU. Afterwards, access & prioritize the metadata which the system contextually determines necessary to adjust the LOD qualities for assets in the framebuffer by inferencing feedback of data within the framebuffer itself. Part of this could, as an analogy, work similar to BVH traversal intersection tests for raytracing in the current systems, just geared towards a different purpose.​

​

Meanwhile, as the gap between consoles & mid-range PC GPUs continues to widen in favor of the latter (let alone high-end GPUs), combined with escalating costs and dev times for large AAA epics, consoles will likely need to pursue aspects of immersion to distinguish themselves against the PC market & an increasingly more capable mobile gaming market. While not 1:1 with the situation arcades faced in the late '90s/early '00s, there are trace parallels present, but consoles have the benefit of still serving as the bedrock for core-orientated gaming. SIE, in particular, can also keep this focus on core gaming central even with a shift to more immersive ways to play, something it has shown in the past capable of doing, arguably better than rivals.​

​

Sony, who have shown innovations with VR technology, having various patents for controller concepts that seem to be centered on immersive feedback that could also be beneficial to VR, is in the best position among platform holders to finally make this technology mainstream in the gaming space, bringing experiences leveraging it in full. Recent rumors of testing PC compatibility for PSVR2 combined with lack of sales update lead some to believe Sony are sunsetting the device & future ambitions with the technology. However, this would be premature. The PSVR2 itself may have a limited path forward, but Sony could focus on making the technology scalable. This would include finding ways to present an acceptable VR/AR experience at a low production cost at mass scale (BOM no more than $75-$100), low MSRP (no more than $149 for entry model headset), slim/lightweight design profile evoking elements of 'chic' with a wider audience (would include a passthrough camera to remove isolation factor, if not also flip panel of some type), among other things.​

​

Advances with technologies like Remote Play & PS.Link make possible offloading of substantial processing from the local headset to the console itself, relying on low-latency streaming to drive the headset experience. In turn, this would help lower production & MSRP costs, allowing wiggle room for margins on individually sold headsets. For example, if the PSVR1 were to be manufactured today with ~ same amount of performance, plus modern & cheaper-cost select materials, it could likely retail for an MSRP no higher than $249 with a decent profit margin. Perhaps it could do with a slight bump in display resolution (1080p < 1440p per eye), but with 3-4 years of R&D, such a headset could be possible at the prices mentioned above. Meanwhile, pricier headsets could increase resolution of the lenses & enable higher refresh rates (e.g 165 Hz), built-in mechanisms for fit-to-form headphones, higher resolution per eye (e.g 4K), etc.​

​

This could also see innovations in the controller via dual-function for traditional & VR games with a segmented design. When whole, it could work as a traditional controller, & when segmented, each part could work as a VR controller (one for each hand). Some of the positional tracking for VR space could be built into the controller vs. the entry-level headset, the latter using cheaper syncing sensors calibrating with the one in the controller, to determine head positional tracking. The price this new controller could increase a bit in terms of BOM & MSRP prices, but there'd remain the option of a "traditional" controller for those who only want to use the VR headset for looking while controlling the game as a regular sit-down experience.​

​

Joining peripherals like the headset & controller could be a new portable handheld. Marrying functions of the PSP/Vita line with the PS Portal, but designed chiefly as a means of portable PS4 and PS5, plus potentially PS6, games on the go. Accomplishing the latter would require both a clever design of a chiplet-based APU (shaders, ROP/TMU units etc. could be physically removed from the package, without requiring a separate wafer line just for the portable), alongside as effortless a way for developers to simply "turn on a switch" to scale down resolution & certain other aspects of game assets to run on the portable.​

​

This is where ideas like the auto-LOD mention earlier would be very helpful, plus emphasizing fast storage with even better decompression rates versus going for larger storage capacities (both for the portable & console). It'd allow for a smaller memory capacity footprint but still provide necessary amounts for assets targeting an optimal resolution on the handheld. The most important part being, rendering configurations could be handled by the hardware itself & only a few simple flags of code implemented by the programmer; no further management on the developer's part required. Such a​

handheld would be a major boon in many global markets, such as Japan, & provide a nice option for gamers who don't need or want the console or its VR/AR experience, but still want a means to play PS6 games Day 1 (just at lower resolutions & settings) alongside natively play PS5 & PS4 titles, all on one portable device.​

​

2: INDUSTRY-DEFINING STANDARDS: Making VR/AR standard with the PlayStation 6 platform, via an entry-level headset, could help to grow the adoption rate of the technology. With it present in all SKUs, game developers could be assured that game design innovations leveraging VR & AR-style technologies would be accessible by millions of gamers. A form of default VR included with every PS6 would also open up opportunities for seamless traditional/VR UI experiences for customers, adding to QOL usage of the product.​

​

Curbing the stigma of social isolation with VR would also be worth tackling. This would require headsets capable of functioning both wired & wirelessly, right out of the box. Another feature would be the system's ability to host multiple concurrent VR users for local multiplayer sessions, preferably up to a maximum of four users. This could be further achieved via optional peripherals designed for better wireless connectivity of multiple headset users in the same space (i.e a living room). Said optional peripheral could also have built-in hardware for resampling & up-sampling data from the console, to upscale an output resolution to multiple headset users, even up to the maximum resolution support of the connected headset in question. It could also feature additional hardware for proximity & positional detection of multiple headset users at once.​

​

Premium headset variants could have some of hardware of the aforementioned peripheral built within them, to help with things related to latency. These sort of advances, alongside prior mentioned features of a new controller type & a more slim/'chic' headset, could help to massively bolster mainstream sentiment & adoption of VR + light AR in the gaming entertainment space, as long as the content is there to support it.​

​

Though a challenge, Sony should treat the potential benefits of this adoption similar to CD in the '90s, or DVD in the early '00s. In both cases, the PS1 & PS2 were used to act as "Trojan Horses" for gathering mainstream support towards the formats, benefiting those consoles. The same can even be said for the PS3's use of Blu-Ray, albeit to a lesser extent due to other issues surrounding the hardware's early days. Nonetheless, these three systems should prove one thing: the way to get technological standards accepted in the mainstream is by making them part of the default experience, not as simply optional (oft-times expensive) peripherals.​

​

With increased competition from platforms like Steam, SIE should recognize that there are very useful features which PlayStation could incorporate into its own user experience. These would include a more laxed Eary Access program (perhaps as part of PS+), transparent player metrics & data for CCUs/playtime hours/trophies, pricing history, integrated forum communities, & more elaborate support for mod content. Adding these features to the PlayStation console experience would be a boon for customers, give additional reasons to prefer a PlayStation console over alternatives, plus convince other console platform holders to follow suit, incidentally enriching the experience for players across even other systems. As a platform holder, Sony would have to implement certain measures of control, to avoid pitfalls seen with Steam's implementation & also appeasing 3P partners, but the efforts would be worth it.​

​

This could give rise for Sony to scale back the requirement of PS+ for playing games online. As they bring GAAS titles to PC for example, they must account for the fact PC players do not pay for online play but the console buyers do. Ridding the need for a subscription service to game online on console would be a net win, especially if new features like those aforementioned (& others) are added to the UI & service to increase value by other means. Either that, or make it a habit to provide console owners more free perks & content for GAAS non-F2P titles if they have a PS+ subscription. That said, this alternative posits a problem where in some future Sony bring PS+ to non-PlayStation platforms, the defacto exclusivity of the perk to PlayStation console owners is lost, the situation returning to square one.​

​

3: MARKET LIBERATION: Multi-game subscription services like Game Pass have suffered scrutiny over claims of sustainability, not to mention statistical stagnation in subscriber growth compared to the pandemic era. The concept of new releases from Microsoft as Day 1 on the service holds a certain level of intrigue, but little in way of results to prove it a profitable venture.​

​

Even so, some form of subscription gaming is useful to Sony, who could take charge & leverage the global appeal of the PlayStation brand. Making AAA titles more affordable to customers Day 1 is paramount, so the introduction of a per-game fixed subscription model, where the customer pays a small amount per month or period of months, in exchange for Day 1 access to the game as normal (& monthly license check-ins to perform successive payments), could be lucrative.​

​

Rather than pay $70 or more Day 1 for a new release, a user could pay $5.99 a month over the course of a year & amortize the game's cost. In the advent of permanent price drops that take effect during payment time, they could option to either stick with the original pay plan (& receive some credit towards a future purchase), or renegotiate a new plan based on the current price if they have enough "reputation points" or what-have-you. The "reputation points" could be earned through combinations of buying software on the store, having an active PS+ subscription, achieving certain trophies in games, doing certain deeds for players on the network, plus other things.​

​

This model could entice many players to buy more games, knowing they have an added degree of payment flexibility. It also would help with games being able to retain their MSRP value over longer periods of time, since the optional pricing model alleviates the need for price cuts as often to stimulate sales after the initial launch period. The per-game basis allows publishers to retain flexibility in payment options on a case-by-case scheme, or even to decide what games have the payment model vs which ones do not (although there are clear incentives to providing it for all games). Since the model essentially covers the price of the game, just broken into smaller chunks, publishers can count the subscription as a point of sale, knowing there are measures in place at the larger system level for validating installment pays & implementing control measures for skipped payments (& modifying the game files to no longer require pay validation check-ins once the payments have been made in full).​

​

SIE could also extend a form of this model towards how they handle pricing & release of 1P AAA non-GAAS/F2P releases. If the games are taking longer to make, they could consider dividing the games into smaller installments/parts, where each part is closer to an expansion such as Uncharted 4: Lost Legacy, or Spiderman: Miles Morales. Each installment would feel like a game unto itself, anywhere between 8-12 hours worth of content, with full stories that both work at the micro (installment) & macro (total parts) level. Save progress would carry between installments, & content hidden in prior parts could be unlocked when new parts are released. QOL & other features introduced with new parts could be added to previous ones retroactively, with each installment providing a full game loop upon itself with fleshed out mechanics & expected difficulty curve maximizing usage of the mechanics. New installments would be able to introduce their own unique mechanics on top of those from previous parts, with the expected difficulty curve but overall being harder installments than the previous ones when aligned.​

​

Pricing for such 1P AAA games released as installments could vary from $20-$30 each depending on number of parts, the goal being that new parts release every couple of years. Developing narratives for a game where each installment needs to both feel story-complete unto itself & contribute towards a larger story strung between all parts could be challenging, but welcomed. Gamers would be able to start playing these epics sooner rather than later; while some may choose to wait until a singular build of all the installments for the parts released at the typical $70 price tag or cheaper, far more would be willing to buy the installments as they come out. This could equal higher revenue & profit per game, while overall production budgets would at worst stay the same as if releasing the game the current way.​

​

Though more likely, costs could lower as more parts of the development pipeline are adjustable during development between installments, & certain aspects of production could be changed in pricing on per-installment contracts. For example, this model could prove lucrative where instead of renting a production facility for mo-cap at a set price early on a 7-year contract with little or room for renegotiable rates, that same facility could have new leasing contracts made every couple of years timed to each installment. That way, if market prices fluctuate, contract costs can shift with them. This benefit could also extend towards negotiating power for certain IP licenses, such as having a contract covering both the total planned installments & some portion of the fees that are adjustable on a per-installment basis.​

​

4: PARTNER FOCUS: When people think of PlayStation's legacy in terms of classic games, they may be surprised to see that many of them were from 3P developers but, regardless, are IP with strong brand association to PlayStation. Despite SEGA's efforts to decouple, the Persona series is one such IP still strongly associated with Sony's platform, especially in Asian regions. Others include Square-Enix's Final Fantasy, Konami's Metal Gear Solid, Capcom's Resident Evil, & Bandai-Namco's Tekken & Ridge Racer. A lot of these 3P IP with strong PlayStation brand association (both commercially & culturally) tend to be Asian-focused, particularly from Japan, as the timing of these associations coincided with Nintendo losing their grip on 3P Japanese developers following the Super Famicom's commercial run.​

​

While many of these IP or associated games, once "defacto exclusives", have since gone multiplatform (in particular, many seeing huge gains on platforms like Steam), there are plenty others with incredibly strong cult followings & deep ties to the PlayStation brand, that have yet to re-materialize. IP such as the Onimusha series, Parasite Eve, Einhander, Katamari Damacy, Bloody Roar, Fear Effect, Rogue Galaxy, SaGa Frontier, Point Blank, RayStorm series, & more, are just some examples.​

​

Sometime last year there was a rumor of Sony working with SEGA & Bandai-Namco to do AA revivals of legacy IP, like Wipeout. Regardless if that rumor held merit, the idea behind it is very sound. The PlayStation platform could benefit from working with key 3P to co-fund & co-develop new entries of both 1P & 3P cherished IP tied closely to it, on sensible budgets & time scales. Many of these IP can be further innovated upon to appeal towards both old & new audiences alike. Synergies established through these working partnerships can lead to high levels of creative output, technical polish, revenue streams & profits (not just from the games, but also associated transmedia initiatives & merchandise sales).​

​

These somewhat smaller, more obscure or niche deep-cut IP are just as valuable & important to the PlayStation brand as the Spidermans, God of Wars, Final Fantasies etc. They just hold such at the other end of the scale. Utilizing partnerships with key 3P to invest in, create, publish & distribute content based on these types of IP is both financially lucrative, & financially responsible.​

​

5: LIBRARY UNIQUENESS: This compounds with the Partner Focus, as that would help to drive a compelling offering of exclusive content for the PlayStation platform either wholly owned & published by SIE, or partially developed & funded by SIE along with 3P partners. A PS6 making VR part of the default experience, inherently gives more value to PS6 games not only exclusive, but even those which are multiplatform, as more 3P have incentive to design VR-compatible content for traditional games, or augment VR/AR-centric games to take advantage of the PS6's unique VR experience in the solo & local multiplayer departments.​

​

Having a mix of select 1P GAAS, AAA traditional & AA traditional titles covering new & returning IP in both traditional & VR/AR compatible formats, gives a PS6 immense value proposition to attract many different segments of the gaming customer market. Combined with aforementioned release & payment option strategies, this content becomes more accessible for those customers on the console while providing as much (in many cases more) revenue & profit margins for Sony & partners. In turn, PlayStation consoles are able to better stand out in the market, attracting more customers seeking it as both a primary & supplementary addition to their gaming set-ups.​

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

[OUTER]​

​

1: HOLISTIC HARDWARE ECOSYSTEMS: Sony's expansion to other hardware & software ecosystems to expand PlayStation's reach includes PC & mobile in the short to mid-term. However, looking at select games like MLB: The Show, partially includes rival platforms like Nintendo & Microsoft. While some of this can be chalked up to dealing with growing game budgets, that would not be a valid reason in the long run if steps were taken to curb production costs, maximize revenue, profits & flow of content within the PlayStation console ecosystem itself.​

​

So how do these non-Sony platforms justify their presence if that becomes the case? Simple: as tiered, secondary endpoint offerings of 1P content when it has served its full commercial relevance on the console...at least in the case of big tentpole non-GaaS AAA titles. As they are the ones that most drive demand among hardcore & core enthusiasts to be early adopters, & set the sales pace of hardware & software which draws many casual/mainstream gamers throughout the console generation, their role as exclusive content only to the console should be heightened, not diminished.​

​

That said, other types of games can provide flexibility in how outsider platforms are leveraged for a multiplat strategy, with one thing always true: anything done with these other platforms should ALWAYS create a "closed loop", a virtuous cycle where something of equivalent or more comes new exclusively to Sony console hardware within a reasonable span of time (~ 1-2 years). This sets an acceptable cadence & acts as *showing* customers the console's importance within that larger ecosystem, rather than just talking it with no proof.​

​

2: INDUSTRY-DEFINING STANDARDS: Taking a measured approach utilizing non-Sony platforms for a sensible multiplatform strategy, could signal to more staunched platform holders such as Nintendo & Valve that this strategy is beneficial & justified aside from "needing" to improve margins, or as a necessity due to their own platform failing (a case arguably behind the push for Microsoft's shifting multiplatform strategy). A Sony taking measured implementations suggested in this write-up would have an incredibly healthy PlayStation console ecosystem, while still valuing a tiered approach, bringing​

select titles to other platforms where it makes sense.​

​

Seeing a successful platform holder like Sony taking this option, could encourage others like Nintendo & Valve to experiment similarly, bringing select titles in a tiered approach to platforms like PlayStation, Xbox, GOG, EGS, & iOS when convenient, when deemed good to do so (i.e does not pose a direct threat to the value proposition of their own platform). A measured implementation is best; while Sony may feel it more "necessary" due to margins, it is also in the best position to do so in a successful matter that ultimately strengthens the appeal of their own console.​

​

3: MARKET LIBERATION: Continuing, SIE having means to bring various titles to other platforms in measured intervals where appropriate, creates more choice for customers &, over time, gives them more​

options in which to choose where they access content. It also may encourage other platform holders beyond Microsoft to do similar, in ways that best fit their overall business models, just as Sony's would for their own. This would be the industry's way of expanding choice to customers in a time-released matter, while still providing agency for customers to choose waiting for those additional options to come forth, or go where the content is first available exclusively, to engage with it sooner rather vs later.​

​

If the timing intervals between platform rollouts is done sensibly, Sony still nets users who'd rather get the content now. Other things implemented i.e suggested alternative payment models, would net even more Johnny-come-lately buyers to opt-in for Day 1 where the content is first exclusively available for some duration). Conversely, the option remains where they can meet latter-time customers where they are, be it their own platform or those of others.​

​

4: PARTNER FOCUS: Designing a sensibly tiered & timed multiplatform strategy could open opportunities for Sony to work closer with select 3P developers. Examples of this would be securing publishing rights to certain games on their platform in return for partial co-funding/co-development of the title, then publishing that title on other platforms at a later date or allowing a 3P publisher to do so on said platforms, on a case-by-case basis depending on specifics of the title, agreed upon by both parties.​

​

In terms of PlayStation hardware manufacture, there'd be opportunity for Sony to work with 3P hardware manufacturers produce their own variant PS6 systems. This is similar to what they do in a limited capacity with PS5, where an ASUS subsidiary manufactures some units for the North American market. However, for PS6 this could be expanded to electronics-focused manufacturers providing additional non-performance hardware features to variant PS6 units sold at higher prices. Sony could even have other branches of their own company make such variants. This in tandem with things like shifting non-critical additional USB, media & backend ports to optional hardware peripherals compatible with the PS6, could help in managing & reducing production costs on console hardware, focusing budgets to the components actually critical to the gaming & entertainment experience, while still providing choice for power users who want extra non-critical features for their system.​

​

5: LIBRARY UNIQUENESS: With emphasis on a multi-platform strategy, how does Sony balance that & providing maximized vale proposition of 1P & exclusive software towards their own console? The answer is simple. Making it a tiered multiplat approach considering both scale & type of game, plus ensures that any support for non-PlayStation platforms still ensures something new & exclusive to PlayStation consoles for a duration of time, allows for the best granularity in strategy. "Game Scale" can be interpreted by budget type (high/mid/low AAA, high/mid/low AA), while "Game Type" can be interpreted by model (GAAS, traditional, F2P). Lastly, there is "Game Category", which considers a specific status of the game IP-wise (New, Ongoing, Remake, Remaster).​

​

The three can be abbreviated as "GS" (Game Scale), GT" (Game Type) and "GC" (Game Category); below are suggestions for how SIE can best leverage their catalog for the console & other platforms. While the following pertains to 1P titles (either internal studios, Sony-owned IP co-developed with 3P developers, or titles co-developed with 3P developers), it is also applicable to 3P exclusives; simply slash the time estimates for additional platform deploys by half or increase non-PlayStation platform percentage range listings by 2x for 3P titles.​

​

Lastly: the percentages listed below are for suggested gauging of total content type to release on listed platforms at the specified timing intervals over a typical console generation, NOT the probability that each particular game which DOES release on said platforms has at doing so in the specified timing intervals.​

​

[TYPE 1]​

​

GS: AAA​

​

GT: GAAS ​

​

GC: NEW, ONGOING ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-70%), MOBILE (40%-50%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (10%-30%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-70%), MOBILE (40%-50%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (10%-30%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (70%-80%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (20%-40%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (70%-90%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (20%-50%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (80%-90%), MOBILE (60%-70%), XBOX (30%-50%), NINTENDO (20%-40%)​

​

*Not all GAAS need to be on platforms like PC. Sony can keep 1-2 exclusive to PlayStation consoles the same way Valve keeps games like​

CounterStrike 2 and DOTA 2 exclusive to their own platform, Steam.​

​

[TYPE 2]​

​

GS: AA ​

​

GT: GAAS ​

​

GC: NEW, ONGOING ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-50%), MOBILE (40%-50%), XBOX (40%-50%), NINTENDO (40%-50%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-60%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (40%-50%), NINTENDO (40%-50%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-70%), MOBILE (40%-80%), XBOX (50%-60%), NINTENDO (50%-60%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-80%), MOBILE (50%-90%), XBOX (50%-70%), NINTENDO (50%-70%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-80%), MOBILE (60%-90%), XBOX (50%-70%), NINTENDO (50%-70%)​

​

[TYPE 3]​

​

GS: AAA ​

​

GT: F2P ​

​

GC: NEW,ONGOING​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-70%), MOBILE (40%-50%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (10%-30%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-80%), MOBILE (40%-50%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (10%-30%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (70%-90%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (20%-40%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (80%-90%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (20%-50%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (80%-90%), MOBILE (60%-70%), XBOX (20%-50%), NINTENDO (20%-40%)​

​

[TYPE 4]​

​

GS: AA​

​

GT: F2P ​

​

GC: NEW, ONGOING ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-50%), MOBILE (40%-50%), XBOX (40%-50%), NINTENDO (40%-50%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-60%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (40%-50%), NINTENDO (40%-50%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-70%), MOBILE (40%-80%), XBOX (50%-60%), NINTENDO (50%-60%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-80%), MOBILE (50%-90%), XBOX (50%-70%), NINTENDO (50%-70%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-80%), MOBILE (60%-90%), XBOX (50%-70%), NINTENDO (50%-70%)​

​

[TYPE 5]​

​

GS: AAA ​

​

GT: TRADITIONAL ​

​

GC: NEW, ONGOING ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (0%), MOBILE (0%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (0%), MOBILE (0%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (0%), MOBILE (0%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (0%), MOBILE (0%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-60%), MOBILE (10%-20%), XBOX (0%-10%), NINTENDO (0%-10%)​

​

[TYPE 6]​

​

GS: AAA ​

​

GT: TRADITIONAL ​

​

GC: REMAKE ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (0%-20%), MOBILE (0%-10%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (0%-20%), MOBILE (0%-10%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (10%-30%), MOBILE (10%-20%), XBOX (0%), NINTENDO (0%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-60%), MOBILE (20%-30%), XBOX (0%-10%), NINTENDO (0%-10%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-60%), MOBILE (30%-40%), XBOX (0%-20%), NINTENDO (0%-20%)​

​

*These are games at least one console generation old, for games considered 'AAA' in their day​

​

[TYPE 7]​

​

GS: AAA ​

​

GT: TRADITIONAL ​

​

GC: REMASTER ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-70%), MOBILE (50%-70%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-70%), MOBILE (50%-70%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-80%), MOBILE (50%-80%), XBOX (20%-40%), NINTENDO (20%-40%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-100%), MOBILE (50%-90%), XBOX (20%-50%), NINTENDO (20%-50%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (70%-100%), MOBILE (60%-90%), XBOX (30%-50%), NINTENDO (30%-50%)​

​

*These are games at least one console generation old, for games considered 'AAA' in their day​

​

[TYPE 8]​

​

GS: AA ​

​

GT: TRADITIONAL ​

​

GC: NEW, ONGOING ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (20%-30%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (10%-30%), NINTENDO (10%-30%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (20%-40%), MOBILE (50%-60%), XBOX (10%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (30%-50%), MOBILE (50%-60%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-60%), MOBILE (50%-70%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-60%), MOBILE (50%-70%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

[TYPE 9]​

​

GS: AA​

​

GT: TRADITIONAL ​

​

GC: REMAKE ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (20%-40%), MOBILE (40%-60%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (20%-40%), MOBILE (50%-60%), XBOX (20%-30%), NINTENDO (20%-30%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (40%-60%), MOBILE (50%-70%), XBOX (20%-40%), NINTENDO (30%-40%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-70%), MOBILE (60%-70%), XBOX (30%-40%), NINTENDO (30%-40%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-70%), MOBILE (70%-80%), XBOX (30%-40%), NINTENDO (30%-50%)​

​

[TYPE 10]​

​

GS: AA​

​

GT: TRADITIONAL ​

​

GC: REMASTER ​

​

DAY 1 PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (50%-80%), MOBILE (60%-90%), XBOX (30%-40%), NINTENDO (30%-50%)​

​

6 MONTH - 1 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (60%-90%), MOBILE (70%-90%), XBOX (30%-50%), NINTENDO (40%-60%)​

​

1-2 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (70%-90%), MOBILE (80%-90%), XBOX (40%-50%), NINTENDO (50%-60%)​

​

2-4 YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (80%-90%), MOBILE (80%-90%), XBOX (40%-50%), NINTENDO (50%-60%)​

​

4-6+ YEAR PLATFORMS (% RANGE 0 - 100): PLAYSTATION (100%), PC (80%-100%), MOBILE (80%-100%), XBOX (50%-60%), NINTENDO (50%-70%)​

​

There are a few caveats worth mentioning:​

​

1: For Remakes, the goal should be to target games at least one console generation old, if not older.​

​

2: For Remasters, the goal should be the same as with Remakes (arguably more than one console generation old), and also focus on larger collection anthologies the older and smaller (both in size and scale) the games get.​

​

3: Some AA games on mobile should be exclusive and curated specifically for that market, leveraging console current & legacy IP where able (e.g Pokemon GO!).​

​

4: All "downstream" ports platform-wise should correspond with new upstream games (type-wise) at least one tier up the stack, designated for launch exclusively on the current-gen PlayStation console (or current & previous-gen PlayStation consoles for cross-gen titles) within 1-2 years of that port. I.e a 1P AAA traditional Remake that gets ported to PC and/or other platforms after a couple of years, should result in a new PlayStation console exclusive within the next 1-2 years of any of the following types:​

​

-1P AAA traditional Remake​

-1P AAA traditional New/Ongoing installment​

-1P AA traditional New/Ongoing installment​

​

Situations in the same scenario where the new type of game would be, for example, a 1P AAA or AA GAAS or F2P, or a Remaster, would not meet the criteria of equivalent new content to the PlayStation console platform as exclusive.​

​

5: Announcements of ports of once-exclusive PlayStation console games to other platforms should be within a 3-4 month window from announcement of the port to release. Doing so any earlier can negatively curb impression of exclusivity to the console and also suppress sales of the game on console (for example, this could have been a soft factor in Final Fantasy XIV sales missing SE's "very high" bracket sales goal in a certain period, because they officially alluded to the PC version before the PS5 version even launched).​

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I hope that this write-up has been informative and insightful; many aspects were considered and what felt to be the best balance of perspective from all parties was settled upon. Various parts mentioned could be fine-tuned or elaborated upon even more, but the main purpose was to illustrate that Sony can effectively increase revenue, increase margins, streamline production budgets and delivery timelines, provide more options for publishers & customers, develop smart technological advances that make development faster & easier for devs, prioritize features that make future PlayStation hardware stand out in the market beyond simply being more graphically powerful than previous systems (an innovative dead-end), expand on 1P software offerings, and become less reliant on 3P while still favoring select 3P for strategic content development and funding partnerships.

Most importantly, these things and others show how PlayStation can become more competitive with various non-Sony gaming platforms, while simultaneously leveraging the same non-Sony platforms for selective/targeted growth in the overall video game market. I would like to believe these are in totality or at least in part, approaches that leadership at SIE and Sony Corp are seriously considering for the future of the PlayStation brand, as ultimately, these steps seem to best satisfy the core tenets of the brand's roots & identity, while fully achieving the goals of the traditional console business model AND allowing enough flexibility to successfully accomplish complementary goals of a more non-traditional console business model (or to say, a semi console-agnostic business model).

As usual, interested to hear what the community has to say, what ideas you feel different on, agree with, or would like to add onto. The discussions shall prove, hopefully, ultimately fruitful.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This is probably the biggest write-up I've posted online. Kind of want to do one for Nintendo, but it may be a while. This one took even longer than the Microsoft analysis o.0

 

[Old Gamer]

This looks like it will be your master piece, @thicc_girls_are_teh_best .

Reserving this post for a proper reply...

 

[AllBizness]

More exclusives

 

[RE4-City]

I never seen that photo of Kaz making the 3 symbol that uncropped before!

 

[flaccidsnake]

PS Plus is a gaping hole in the choices. It should be a big area of growth on the one hand, on the other, PS+ Essential has got to go. I think they should really improve Extra and drive people to sub it, and also recognize that multiplayer gaming is not a premium feature in 2024. Raising the price to $80 is a constant motivator to not buy games on PS5.

 

[Etifilio]

more exclusive games (real exclusives, not on PC)

 

[Etifilio]

bring back Only On PlayStation, short the length of the games to 15 - 20h max, next gen increase the price to $80, profitable without having to kill your console

 

[Etifilio]

and btw don't put games on PS Plus Extra/Premium until they're at least 24 months old, NEVER make the same mistake done with Horizon Forbidden West

 

[Zzero]

Voted exclusives, 3rd party co-dev and community features. I doubt you'll get much disagreement from this audience.

 

[anonpuffs]

-Exclusives, expanding AA library, partner initiative helping JP devs come to grips with modernizing their development pipelines and techniques.
-Hardware price/perf ratio, DLSS competitor/upscaling, focus on native 60fps. Not necessarily cheaper, just adequate. PS5 is feeling a bit inadequate sometimes due to the shitty upscaling/insufficiency of optimization to maintain 60fps
-continue to invest in up and comers like mihoyo, shift up, arrowhead, bluepoint, etc. The way forward is to keep bringing up smaller studios to do mid/upper level projects. Keep santa monica, guerilla, naughty dog being the studios doing titanic projects, I want games like demons souls and returnal.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This looks like it will be your master piece, @thicc_girls_are_teh_best .

Reserving this post for a proper reply...

Appreciate the dedicated read bro! This is basically a summary of all the thoughts I've had for PlayStation as a platform and its future, or a future I'd prefer to see play out.

But I've tried being both optimistic & realistic, so there are things here which should satiate SIE/Sony, investors/shareholders, people on other platforms, myself, and genuine PlayStation fans.

I never seen that photo of Kaz making the 3 symbol that uncropped before!

The meme came up in my head so I had to go look for the pic. Just came across that one and went with it xD

PS Plus is a gaping hole in the choices. It should be a big area of growth on the one hand, on the other, PS+ Essential has got to go. I think they should really improve Extra and drive people to sub it, and also recognize that multiplayer gaming is not a premium feature in 2024. Raising the price to $80 is a constant motivator to not buy games on PS5.

Would've slotted more options if there was space for them; getting rid of the paid online paywall would've been one of the choices. I think there are other ways to drive value towards PS+ besides gating non-F2P online play behind it.

That's a weak spot with consoles in general compared to platforms like PC, but I think with even some of the suggestions mentioned here taken into effect, Sony wouldn't need to lock online play behind PS+ going forward.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

and btw don't put games on PS Plus Extra/Premium until they're at least 24 months old, NEVER make the same mistake done with Horizon Forbidden West

Yeah, definitely. Also with big 1P games like that, they don't need to stay in the service for long. Maybe a couple of weeks, maybe a month at most, then rotate them out. Once they're particularly old games (4+ years old if not older), that's maybe when they can stay more permanently in the service.

Voted exclusives, 3rd party co-dev and community features. I doubt you'll get much disagreement from this audience.

Well, I didn't completely shut out non-PlayStation platforms from getting 1P games and you know some here wouldn't like that (all love to 'em tho, @Nhomnhom a very vocal one on that point)

-Exclusives, expanding AA library, partner initiative helping JP devs come to grips with modernizing their development pipelines and techniques.
-Hardware price/perf ratio, DLSS competitor/upscaling, focus on native 60fps. Not necessarily cheaper, just adequate. PS5 is feeling a bit inadequate sometimes due to the shitty upscaling/insufficiency of optimization to maintain 60fps
-continue to invest in up and comers like mihoyo, shift up, arrowhead, bluepoint, etc. The way forward is to keep bringing up smaller studios to do mid/upper level projects. Keep santa monica, guerilla, naughty dog being the studios doing titanic projects, I want games like demons souls and returnal.

Sound suggestions. No need to go crazy with M&As; Sony have the IP and studio relationships to more than do fine with their own stuff and not rely on 3P for that type of strategy. But they could be doing more with select IP in maximizing their potential, IMO.

That's where working with Japanese studios for example would be really beneficial; they seem to have a better grip on dev timelines and budgets than Western counterparts. Speaking of up-&-coming investments, I do hope SIE are doing something with that one South Korean game that was like an action/adventure Pokemon x Sonic x Earthbound vibe. I loved the showing and all, but it's going on three years and there's been no real update on it sadly.

 

[anonpuffs]

Yeah, definitely. Also with big 1P games like that, they don't need to stay in the service for long. Maybe a couple of weeks, maybe a month at most, then rotate them out. Once they're particularly old games (4+ years old if not older), that's maybe when they can stay more permanently in the service.



Well, I didn't completely shut out non-PlayStation platforms from getting 1P games and you know some here wouldn't like that (all love to 'em tho, @Nhomnhom a very vocal one on that point)



Sound suggestions. No need to go crazy with M&As; Sony have the IP and studio relationships to more than do fine with their own stuff and not rely on 3P for that type of strategy. But they could be doing more with select IP in maximizing their potential, IMO.

That's where working with Japanese studios for example would be really beneficial; they seem to have a better grip on dev timelines and budgets than Western counterparts. Speaking of up-&-coming investments, I do hope SIE are doing something with that one South Korean game that was like an action/adventure Pokemon x Sonic x Earthbound vibe. I loved the showing and all, but it's going on three years and there's been no real update on it sadly.

you mean dokev? it got delayed because the studio was struggling on crimson desert iirc.

 

[voke]

Legendary thread

Now I don’t know if this strategy is in Sonys best BUSINESS interest, but I’d like is for them to keep doing what they’ve always done. Build 3rd parties up and make something special of them.

Crash ~~> The Last of Us
Spyro ~~> Spiderman
Sly Cooper ~~> Ghost of Tsushima
Magicka ~~~> Helldivers 2
Demon Souls ~~> Bloodborne

Do you see where I’m going with this? They give small studios a massive glo up, and give them the chance to make games that can go toe to toe with the biggest games. Some of them have went on to become legendary studios. I don’t really care if they own the studio or not, go out there and give talent a budget & spotlight. This alongside guaranteed third party support, IMO will always make PlayStation a special platform.