Sony State of Play on January 31st (Confirmed). 5pm Eastern time. Stellar Blade, Rise of Ronin and 15+. Party time 🎉🔥

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There's two sides to the spectrum. Playstation rebuilt their brand around consolidating on their first party brand and only reached Rockstar/ Nintendo level last generation. Playstation has always been about variety but we cannot deny their exclusives, became the focal point 2009 and onwards.

Many only jumped back into the ecosystem because of these tentpole exclusives. So it's also a bit hypocritical to now come out strong against gamers now expecting to see big first party exclusives.

3rd party exclusives are important but current day 3rd party Exclusives aren't on the same level as the 3rd party exclusives of the PS1 / PS2 generation, let's be real. These aren't system sellers anymore. The paradigm has shifted.

With that said it was a good showing, they definitely are somewhat listening and trying to right the ship.

I think this is a sensible take. However I think it's also fair to ask those who jumped back in, to consider why they were present before jumping out in the first place. If they were only on PlayStation for those massive epic exclusives, chances are they were actually playing the defacto 3P exclusives of the PS1 & PS2 gens which Sony got a LOT of due to a variety of factors. Aside from God of War and Gran Turismo most of Sony's 1P in those gens were more niche AAA or upper-level AA types of games (Ico, Parappa 2, Dark Cloud, Okage etc.). Or games in genre types that became less AAA over time outside of rare exceptions, like Crash and Spyro, obviously fit a more family-friendly vibe than the epic, serious stuff that came later.

People in general underestimate just how many defacto 3P exclusives older PS systems got, and I think in general might have misguided assumptions on 'system sellers' or killer apps today. Outside of stuff like maybe GTA, TOTK, GOW or Spiderman there aren't any singular 'killer app' type of games anymore; no one game really sells a system in droves the way it could back in the '90s. It's more about having a good number and variety of high-quality exclusives that collectively give that type of value, which is what I think Sony are focusing on doing, even if they at times still have that singular type of massive 1P system-seller themselves.

Actually I think people expecting them to release something on the scale of a GOW Ragnarok every single year should look at the years from 2016-onward. Let's say the 2016 equivalent was UC4, 2017 was HZD, and 2018 was GOW and Spiderman. 2019 was probably meant to be Days Gone, but it didn't quite deliver, and Death Stranding was more a very "unique" experience. 2020 had TLOU2 and a surprise hit in GOT. 2021...another "quiet" year in terms of some 1P AAA megaton release. 2022 had GOW Ragnarok, HFW & GT7, and 2023 had Spiderman 2.

So if 2024 is a bit more 'quiet' on that front, that just sort of falls into the pattern. I think like others have said, it's better to look at what the SOP got right: no obsessive focus on GaaS, no truly questionable PC ports announced (I know some would say Until Dawn Remake is one, but it's also a remake to an almost 10-year old, last-gen game), a lot of Japanese & Asian presence, a lot of gameplay shown for a variety of titles, and signs of strengthening strategic partnerships with some key 3P partners, again in this case Japanese-focused.

It's definitely a step in the right direction. So in this context I don't really gel with the doomer vibes, but those folks are allowed to do so if they wish. That's their choice. I obviously disagree with it in light of the SOP, but that's life sometimes.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Am I getting a shaky legs feel?

That stance is non-negotiable.

Well, personally-speaking, my stance on PC has been rather steady for the longest while. Basically the optimal means of going about it would be:

[GaaS]​

​

1: Some (not all) to PC (also some to mobile)​

​

2: Most of those ported should probably be Day 1​

​

3: Some kind of bonus perks should be given to PlayStation owners buying the console version if online is required, such as free skins or such.​

[non-GaaS]​

​

1: Tentpole AAA exclusives (1P) should be exclusive to the console for at least 4-6 years, if not longer/permanent. PC ports should only be within 1-2 years of new console-exclusive entries or new equivalent scale IP from the studio of that game.​

​

2: Tentpole AAA exclusives (3P) should be exclusive to the console for at least 2 years, if not longer.​

​

3: AA 1P games that can leverage console & mobile should do so, with Day 1 availability between both. Some specific AA games tailored for mobile experience even if based on existing IP (i.e like a Pokemon GO!) can be exclusive to the mobile side if desired. Some AA between mobile & console can also be Day 1 on PC.​

​

4: Remakes of very old, last-gen or even older games, that aren't necessarily billed as AAA experiences, can potentially target Day 1 on console & PC, preferably tho when a new entry exclusive to the console is on the way (say 1-2 years out).​

​

5: Remaster collections of much older legacy titles with QOL improvements can be Day 1 across console, PC and mobile (i.e a Jet Moto Remastered collection or Resistance Remastered Collection, etc.). Tho again, preferably also timed with new console-exclusive entries coming within 1-2 years.​

For me, that would be the optimal strategy for games across console, PC and mobile that would help with expanding audience reach on the latter two without really compromising the value proposition of the former to the vast majority of hardcore & core enthusiasts. There's some cadence present, for sure, but you notice it always funnels right back to prioritizing the console first and foremost in very direct ways (exclusivity, and/or new games that will be exclusive for a long duration of time to console).

A lot of this probably starts to change if/when, say, Sony consider pushing a PS storefront on platforms like PC and mobile, although I think if anything they'd go for mobile first before a PC storefront. And it's very possible they just do some type of launcher, rather than a storefront, on either or both platforms (IMO expanding the PS console through 'microcomputerization' would be the better option for value expansion in the ecosystem before turning more fully to outer-ecosystem platforms like PC). However, there's at least another full console gen to go before any such a thing would be fully taken and pushed through on, so it's not a concern for now.

If anyone ever asks what my stance on the porting strategy and multi-platform initiative should be, they can just refer to this post.

 

[Deleted member 223]

That strategy works only if the competition follows with a similar strategy and you're not flanked by the competition offering true exclusive software differentiation. That way you're not getting hammered marketing wise and defacto fueling unit sales for the competition at your own expense.... in short - failed triangulation, with a positioning that amounts to no mans land thus the less desired market choice. That is to say, it works with Xbox positioned as the direct competitor optics wise (i.e they're worse at that particular differentiation). It does not work with Nintendo. The problem is that Nintendo is NOT positioned strictly as a direct competitor to PlayStation, and lacks the third party support that speaks directly to the PlayStation/Xbox hardcore demographic because the hardware does not allow it. Thus there is no competitive fear of whale flight or critical mass exodus for that hardcore demographic to Nintendo hardware. It's however threatened by Valve and PC hardware as audience overlap there is pronounced, with the competitive respite for Sony being affordability and accessibility. Those variables change and there is serious, immediate trouble, as opposed to a slow and "passive" poison. The whole strategy is not fundamentally sound, and rests on assumptions of the competitive market as it's now and the immediate future (definitely not long term).

These write ups by enthusiasts are more an exercise and an urge to reconcile decisions made by someone else (Sony's corporate leadership) rather than natural objective undertakings by the individuals in question. Just an urge to be, look, appear "reasonable" and yield ground to something you can not control and is imposed by some individual elsewhere with the power to do so. Fitting one's opinion within an already decided framework, within predefined limits. This topic overall became a serious "thing" only when Microsoft took the plunge and thus all the "reasonable" explanations started to follow by those attached to this industry.... fanboys, media etc. The talking points and positions morphing in lock-step with Microsoft's strategy evolution (and it's the same case here with Sony as well). But NOT a day before that decision was made was anyone taking seriously the topic of breaking with this console orthodoxy. Same happened with the online paywall. In short, there is absolutely no need to conform to this policy decision by eating away at your true beliefs and core stance just to fit into some crazy constructs of "community" or "fanboy allegiance" and all the other illogical and irrational stupidity that surrounds brand loyalty.... whatever the case may be, and whatever happens to apply.

This is a simple case of agreed upon disarmament (lessened competition) in a duopoly as a ploy to make more money, with a bit of caution sprinkled, as a way to test the waters. The pitfalls, logical contradictions and general thinking that prevented console platform holders from crossing the rubicon before that fateful MS decision did not disappear into a black hole. MS's strategy, on paper, goes well beyond the narrow goals of Sony, which, in MS's thinking, justifies the hit on Xbox console hardware (while a net positive for Windows Gaming). I'm pretty sure the cratering we're seeing for Xbox hardware sales is not something MS is comfortable with due to the fast pace but I'm def sure it was factored in in worse case scenario analyses. Ideally for MS there should be no hit at all, or a slow fall, thus sticking it to Sony hard but that's not how the market works and the market is behaving exactly as it should - despite MS's many attempts to slow the tide. Regardless of that however I'm sure MS is well aware there is no going back, and that the strategy had such potential catastrophe built into it. Thus the course to follow is to continue to push through, to redefine what a platform holder looks like - which is the end goal, and obviously mapped to their advantage long term - a variation of the old triple EEE's.... embrace, extend, extinguish.

It's not by chance that the neutral chosen platform, and biggest net winner in this dilemma is the PC hardware platform, by extension Windows and Windows Gaming. A nice fallback to have if you're Microsoft as that is their core competency, fortified by the fact that MS now controls some of the biggest IP's and devs that serve the PC market (Blizzard/Bethesda) - ensuring PC platform support from a "distance", as well as lessening any potential for critical mass interference and underhanded favoritism that precipitates a "passive" market split to the advantage of a console platform holder..... that is to say, a split that could negatively and adversely affect PC platform dev support, and thus by extension, Windows adoption. It's moreso a pressing matter to cover all the bases of the applications realm in a world where iOS/Mac is strong relative to previous states, Android is also strong, and Harmony OS is poised to grow from a toddler to a child, to a teen, to an adult, regardless of whether U.S/Chinese strategic competition intensifies or not - the ship has sailed. Huawei has all the incentive in the world when Harmony reaches maturity, to branch out into the desktop productivity realm with serious intent, aka into MS's turf, as opposed to say Google or Apple who cede to Microsoft and cohabit as part of the larger American family. Harmony OS has a captive market that allows less impidance from Microsoft for dual track growth, incubation and maturity, before going global - where geopolitics play a role.

This PC push is not a natural evolution of platform and hardware competition. It's a devolution forced by a specific corp angling for better long term strategic positioning, at the expense of the "other" thus forcing the change in the game. It's like the Chinese "win, win" - I love that phrase, extremely orwelian but genius in grace. The pitch is win-win but strategically, it hardly ever is grand scheme. "PC support is win-win". If only a China-man said that phrase so xenophobia could kick in as a natural reflex. Doesn't land the same when "good guy" Phil, or old uncle Jim et al pitch it. Funny.