There you go, those are the first party single player AAA games you are going to get in the next 5 years. They are not hiding anything.
That does not excite me at all, feels like a repeat of what we got last gen but in lesser quantity.
The Snitch: Sony have multiple game announcements not announced and have a AAA PC Port releasing July.
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
That does not excite me at all, feels like a repeat of what we got last gen but in lesser quantity.
Im excited by a new ip from Naughty Dog and Cory Balrog.
But I admit I want more from the teams expanded. More 1st party Single player games. AAA and smaller.
This is why I complain about Team Gravity and Ueda being disbanded from Japan Studios. They would have 2 unique games just for PS5. Supermassive games should of been purchases. We need a FPS, WRPG, JRPG, Arcade racers, more story driven games, more games altogether.
They just need to create and buy some more studios if they don’t have enough then. They cant produce games at the speed of PS3 gen unfortunately
Right now studios are probably expanding so that they don't take even more time between releases. I would not be surprised to find out the bulk of ND was working to try and ship this game.
I'll also let you have one guess as to what will end up happening to ND if this Factions game ends up being a hit.
What do you think will happen? There like Sony’s main studio or 1-1 along with Santa Monica
Same thing that happened to Rockstar, Valve, Epic or any other studio that had a GaaS hit, they start spending most of their resources supporting those games and lose interest in single player games.
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
Only reason I can think of that fits with Sony's past MO is that they want to lure Microsoft into a false sense of security/have the final word. They did the same with the PS4 release of info. Whenever they went first they released little info. Then Microsoft showed their hand and Sony countered.
That's all i can think of.
We found the game Bluepoint was working on. Demon's Souls PC port. Mystery solved.Hmmmm
Even when E3 was still a thing, Sony parcelled out announcements between the June North America show, Gamescom and Tokyo Game Show, so there’s no chance we saw everything in the pipeline in this week’s show.
They will both underperform like everything after Spiderman
The problem is that both companies rely on gaming revenue COMPLETELY differently and leverage gaming for different purposes when it comes to benefiting other sides of their business.
Microsoft does not need gaming revenue whatsoever. If they got rid of Xbox tomorrow, their share prices would probably see an increase. Xbox only accounts for at best 8 - 10% of their total corporate revenue, and less than that in terms of net profits. However, gaming IS important for them to maintain Windows dominance in the PC OS space, especially in the face of Steam as the dominant storefront and Valve already making many moves to attempt shifting away reliance on Windows (which failed with Steam Machines, but is doing better with the Steam Deck).
That is why Day 1 on PC is such an important strategy for them game-wise: it allows them to tap into a hardcore subset of consumer-line Windows customers, and keep them in the Windows ecosystem (given gaming is their priority on PC) even if they mainly use Steam. That's also a reason why PC Game Pass has been getting pushed so hard. Microsoft values Windows magnitudes more than Xbox so they don't really care (that much) if Day 1on PC hurts Xbox console sales or means fewer copies of games sold on Xbox; if it lets them solidify their Windows dominance, they're happy.
As for Microsoft's push into services; again, this is something that uniquely benefits THEIR business model. Subscription gaming, gaming as a service...it all feeds back into Azure, which is even more valuable to Microsoft than Windows, and therefore many magnitudes more important to them and their bottom line than Xbox has ever been (or ever will be). Microsoft is largely a services company anyway between Azure & Office; they want to transition Windows into a services model (even more than it currently is), and therefore since they have complete ownership of the vertical integration stack (large server clusters/networks, middleware, frameworks, APIs, SDKs, technical support etc.) when it comes to their cloud, it only makes sense for Xbox to follow suit.
Sony has NEITHER of these non-gaming business pillars or priorities!
Sony does not have a PC OS with > 50% market share, they don't even (currently) have their own PC storefront, so heavily prioritizing the publishing of marquee non-live service/GaaS software on a platform that moves that access outside of the vertical stack of their own ecosystem (where they have full control) is not a sound business idea. Forfeiting full software revenue just to pay Valve a 30% cut, and potentially entice core PS console owners who play a lot of their games to switch to PC (and take their 3P purchasing & spending habits with them) is a bad move when PlayStation as a gaming console is your single-largest pillar in terms of revenue and profit. That is growth in one adjacent market at the expense of your main market, the opposite of MS's approach to putting their games on PC which is growth in a main pillar (Windows) at the expense of a comparatively insignificant market (Xbox).
I bring this up mainly to shoot down the people who seemingly can't get it through their heads why Sony closing the window on PC ports for non live-service/GaaS titles would be a catastrophic business move for them, even if I'm personally of the opinion any type of release cadence that isn't several (5-6) years out between console & PC is a potentially bad idea, for those types of games. But hey, at least I am not saying they should keep those games off of PC altogether (which people seem to feel is okay for Nintendo, but not Sony, even though both are in the same camp of having no massive incentives inn the PC space to protect, the way Microsoft does with Windows).
Sony also does not have a global cloud infrastructure or network nearly as multi-faceted or robust as Azure, nor have they many other entertainment segments that have wholly shifted to a subscription or cloud-based model. AFAIK, they do not have their own Netflix-style film/TV show streaming platform, nor does the lack of such compel a reason to say they should suddenly "just make one". They also do not have a music subscription service, again just to my knowledge. Crunchyroll & Funimation ARE subscription services, but relegated to anime content, meanwhile their shows are still primarily produced for television broadcasts and maybe other streaming platforms Where, yes, to an extent that is Sony providing said content outside of a platform ecosystem where they have full control via vertical integration, but the non-gaming streaming market is very different and arguably already congested, and lending their properties to others like Netflix does not create a conflict of interest for PlayStation.
Therefore, shifting their primary content delivery mechanism to a multi-game subscription service for Day 1 access not only leaves B2P sales revenue on the table, but also would drive down demand & need for a PlayStation console (in which hardware revenue benefits the gaming side of operations significantly) because shifting to a subscription service model for primary content delivery inherently creates the demand for cloud streaming of that same content, and once cloud streaming enters the picture, the technical capabilities of the client platform aside its build-in ethernet switch or wifi module, doesn't matter. There is not a market large enough for Day 1 multi-game subscription access in Sony's case that does not also include cloud gaming, because that would relegate the subscription to just PlayStation consoles, and almost all gains in subscriber numbers & associated revenue would be offset by losses in B2P sales and non-linear (slower than linear) growth in Add-on DLC/MTX sales.
Meanwhile, a platform-agnostic cloud streaming option would require significant expansion of their current cloud infrastructure. Which, hey, if the revenue growth would be worth it, they could justify doing. But then would come the question of what content you could leverage for access via cloud among all those platforms. Can you realistically expect to license 3P software for access on all of these devices, especially if you want them Day 1? Do you have enough 1P content to ensure Day 1 availability and keep it regularly flowing? These are reasons why Microsoft have felt they needed to buy big 3P publishers but at least in their case, they already had the scale of their cloud infrastructure & network established well before, even if the reason FOR that early establishment had little to nothing to do with Xbox or even gaming. Not to mention, expansion of required content for such an initiative would inevitably bring up all the same consolidation complaints Microsoft are facing, and regulatory challenges therein, let alone associated costs.
So no, it doesn't in fact make sense for Sony to try copying Microsoft's strategies WRT PC, services & cloud. They do not have the same non-gaming vested interests of Microsoft, they do not have the same financial, software or cloud hardware resources (in many cases both in type and scale). They do not have the same type of non-gaming pillars that completely dwarf their gaming division to help sustain game revenue stalls and market declines due to growth strategies that harm console gaming stability. The way I see it, Sony's best path forward for growth would be to use PC exclusively for Day 1 live-service/GaaS software launches alongside console & mobile (and ports of at least some non live-service/GaaS mobile AA games Day 1/within 1-3 years; AAA games 5-6 years in time for new console-exclusive sequels), use mobile exclusively for 1P and 1P-funded AA growth with legacy IP & new IP, and use console for the marquee non-live service 1P AAA games as well as, naturally, having all of the live-service GaaS & mobile AA games present too Day 1.
That keeps the console at the heart of the ecosystem, but sets clear expectations for how non-console platforms can also fit into the ecosystem where they best make sense. Now that has to be balanced with the ratio of funding towards them and that's something we'll have to see Sony adjust maybe with their FY25 planned allocations, and certainly afterwards, because from what they've shown so far funding for traditional games hasn't really budged over the past 3 years and doesn't seem it'll do so for the next two fiscal years, which isn't inherently a problem. But it could become a problem later on if allocations between traditional (console AAA, mobile AA) and non-traditional (live-service/GaaS) don't balance out or swing back to notable increases for the former.
Hmmmm
Begging for open revolt. I hear they have a console sales target to meet this year. Would be a shame if....
Nvidia keeps getting in the way. All they have to do is drop $100 on cards across the board.
Oh man that's so relieving to hear, hopefully they have a another Showcase in August/September because in 2020, Sony didn't mind having 2 main "PlayStation Showcase" events in a single year, there's hope, people, if they had one, while also not caring if they had shown games way before their release dates with CGI trailers, I'd really like to them to show us the following:
- Ghost of Tsushima 2.
- Cory Barlog's new IP.
- TLOU Factions 2 gameplay.
- Bluepoint's next project.
- Bend Studios new IP.
- Bloodborne Remake/Remaster.
I'm also tagging @Bryank75 because he's a good guy.
- Ghost of Tsushima 2.
- Cory Barlog's new IP.
- TLOU Factions 2 gameplay.
- Bluepoint's next project.
- Bend Studios new IP.
- Bloodborne Remake/Remaster.
I'm also tagging @Bryank75 because he's a good guy.
They always did E3, a keynote at Ganescom that always had a couple of new announcements, and the TGS was a big show like E3.
So many people freaking out like they have no memory or common sense lately that I’m just going to disengage from all gaming talk for a while just to avoid the cavalcade of stupid.
