Support NeoGAF

[megreotsugua]

I understand why Sony would stop funding AA creative games and focus on AAA games instead. Their AA games don't really sell that much to warrant funding since they only release on Sony's platform.

Instead they should just buy (or fund*) AA games from 3rd party developers and put them on PSNow day 1. These games made by 3rd parties have the luxury of releasing on all platforms including the Switch. They have wider reach and less of a risk. The Sony talents from Japan Studio have now created their own studios. And there are a bunch of developers making AA games of different kinds and genre. Shopping from their output is a better strategy than Sony funding their own AA development using their own studios. Buy the rights to put on PSNow Day1.

(Before you @me, I've been a long proponent that Sony should release AA games day 1 on PSNow occasionally, but keep it $60 or make it PS+ Premium higher tier bundle.)

*fund them with an agreement to put the game on PSNow Day1 but they can release on other platforms or something similar of a contract, there can be variance but the idea is that these games will release on all platforms so the games can survive and less of a risk.

Then, focus on AAA games. All Sony Studios focusing on making the next GOTY caliber is the way to go. Keep the distraction of the process of making and marketing a AA game away.

 

[Shanomatic]

Microsoft learned the hard way last gen that relying on 3rd parties to fill in your catalogue is asking for trouble; it’s partially why they’ve been so aggressive with acquisitions as of late.

If Sony wants to learn that same lesson this go around, then so be it.

 

[turtlepowa]

Well, they want 80 Euros for their AA game Returnal so i don't think that's gonna happen.

 

[megreotsugua]

Microsoft learned the hard way last gen that relying on 3rd parties to fill in your catalogue is asking for trouble;

Sony has bunch of first party studios making GOTY caliber games. They will be fine.

The 3rd party strategy will be confined with AA games alone.

 

[megreotsugua]

Well, they want 80 Euros for their AA game Returnal so i don't think that's gonna happen.

Returnal looks AAA to me though. We will know it's true quality when released. For now I will suspend my judgment.

 

[Kagey K]

I think they are perfectly content just buying timed exclusivity.

That way they don't have to fund the game, but still get credit for it being exclusive.

It will be interesting to see how many 3rd parties still want to do business that way this gen, as there seem to be a few different offers coming, and games that come out a year later on other systems tend to sell like shit.

 

[Shanomatic]

Sony has bunch of first party studios making GOTY caliber games. They will be fine.

The 3rd party strategy will be confined with AA games alone.

My point is, 3rd parties can be acquired by other studios, or deals can fall apart, or games can get stuck in development hell and cancelled.

As I said, Microsoft saw this happen last gen. Double Helix got snatched up by Amazon, and suddenly they had no one to make Killer Instinct. Other studios like Moon may not want to work with you again. Don’t even get me started on all the shit that allegedly happened with Scalebound.

At that point, I don’t think Sony has enough studios for them to all put out AAA games consistently enough. I mean, Naughty Dog made 2 games last gen, as did Guerrilla, as did Sucker Punch. Hell, Santa Monica only made one. This isn’t even taking into account that not every game Sony puts out is a guaranteed GOTY smash hit.

Not every studio is equipped to make AAAs anyway, and to get to that point they’d probably have to go through a few lukewarm games first, which isn’t really something you can afford if you’re not putting out enough content.


In my opinion, they should do as much as they can in-house. Trying to make EVERYTHING they make a AAA, $100,000,000 game and leaving the rest to 3rd parties is asking for trouble.

 

[megreotsugua]

In my opinion, they should do as much as they can in-house. Trying to make EVERYTHING they make a AAA, $100,000,000 game and leaving the rest to 3rd parties is asking for trouble.

I think we are in agreement though. They should make everything in-house for their high budget AAA games. I often hear it's hard to nurture a studio to become a studio that can output well-performing AAA games.

For all we know, Japan Studio has restructured in order to make their next AAA games instead of their previous AA game output. We are also hearing of expansion of Guerilla Games and Sony Santa Monica. These studios will make the next AAA that tend to be successful sales wise more often than not.

With that said, the latest AA games from Sony (Little Big Planet, Bugsnacks, Destruction Allstars, etc) have all been made by 3rd parties. I think they are already moving in this direction.

 

[turtlepowa]

Returnal looks AAA to me though. We will know it's true quality when released. For now I will suspend my judgment.

Housemarque was always AA and you will see, Sony won't spend too much for marketing.

 

[Stuart360]

I doubt Sony wont be producing some AA and 'smaller' games to go along with their AAA releases.
The problem inversting soley in AAA games would be that Sony have what 5?, 6?, big name AAA studios?, which would probably mean 2 releases a year, maybe 3 the odd year.
I doubt Sony will want that. I mean even Nintendo would probably be releasing more first party games a year than Sony lol.

 

[nowhat]

Oh FFS. Can we get a single "I'm larping as a Sony executive"-thread and keep it all there?

 

[Kagey K]

Housemarque was always AA and you will see, Sony won't spend too much for marketing.

They shouldn't have to. Selling to a platform dying for new content should be easy.

As long as it reviews half decent and Sony let's people know it's out it should do way higher numbers than it would have if it released in year 5.

They literally just have to slap an ad on the homepage if it reviews higher than 70 and a disproptiobate amount of PS5 players should buy it.

 

[turtlepowa]

They shouldn't have to. Selling to a platform dying for new content should be easy.

As long as it reviews half decent and Sony let's people know it's out it should do way higher numbers than it would have if it released in year 5.

It's a niche genre and the price is very high. Not sure if it's better now or in 5 years, because the user base will be much higher in 5 years. We will see, i like Housemarque and hope Returnal pays off and is not another Destruction Allstars.

 

[Shanomatic]

I think we are in agreement though. They should make everything in-house for their high budget AAA games. I often hear it's hard to nurture a studio to become a studio that can output well-performing AAA games.

For all we know, Japan Studio has restructured in order to make their next AAA games instead of their previous AA game output. We are also hearing of expansion of Guerilla Games and Sony Santa Monica. These studios will make the next AAA that tend to be successful sales wise more often than not.

With that said, the latest AA games from Sony (Little Big Planet, Bugsnacks, Destruction Allstars, etc) have all been made by 3rd parties. I think they are already moving in this direction.

I’m conflicted about the expansion of those teams. On the one hand, they make great, quality content and it would be nice to have more than 2 games from them a decade. On the other hand, I don’t want Sony’s first party output to be centered around 5-6 studios, which I feel is kind of already happening.

Technically speaking, Sony has 14 studios if you’re still counting Japan Studios, but you only ever hear about 5 of them. I mean honestly, when does London Studio ever come up as a studio people are looking forward to games from?

 

[megreotsugua]

I doubt Sony wont be producing some AA and 'smaller' games to go along with their AAA releases.

They don't have to produce them with their own internal studios. They can shop around or fund them with the either: (1) time exclusivity contract (Sony way), (2) PSNow Day1 contract (my preferred way).

 

[Kagey K]

It's a niche genre and the price is very high. Not sure if it's better now or in 5 years, because the user base will be much higher in 5 years. We will see, i like Housemarque and hope Returnal pays off and is not another Destruction Allstars.

Good points. I can see what you are saying.

Very high attach rate on a new console with a low player base might actually be smaller than a small attach rate on a higher player base.

I didnt see it from that side.

 

[megreotsugua]

Technically speaking, Sony has 14 studios if you’re still counting Japan Studios, but you only ever hear about 5 of them. I mean honestly, when does London Studio ever come up as a studio people are looking forward to games from?

I think we don't hear from them as much as the other dominant studios from Sony because they've been confined with AA games. I'm not saying Sony should disband or dissolve their current studios. What I'm saying is they should stop making AA games and just concentrate on making AAA high budget games. Japan Studio was not dissolved, it is being restructured. For what reason? I hope it's because they want that studio to output a AAA game instead of the usual AA games. I think we are really in agreement dude.

I think I read somewhere that London Studio is hiring for a big AAA game they're making.

 

[Shanomatic]

I think we don't hear from them as much as the other dominant studios from Sony because they've been confined with AA games. I'm not saying Sony should disband or dissolve their current studios. What I'm saying is they should stop making AA games and just concentrate on making AAA high budget games. Japan Studio was not dissolved, it is being restructured. For what reason? I hope it's because they want that studio to output a AAA game instead of the usual AA games. I think we are really in agreement dude.

I think I read somewhere that London Studio is hiring for a big AAA game they're making.

I guess my concern is, if Sony pivots those studios to do AAA, how willing are they to let them get through the growing pains? I mean look what happened with Bend. By all accounts, Days Gone was a really solid first attempt at a AAA game, but apparently Sony wasn’t happy with it. It just doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.

 

[megreotsugua]

I guess my concern is, if Sony pivots those studios to do AAA, how willing are they to let them get through the growing pains? I mean look what happened with Bend. By all accounts, Days Gone was a really solid first attempt at a AAA game, but apparently Sony wasn’t happy with it. It just doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.

What happened with Bend though? It was all drama dude. They're making their new IP game now and they can always revisit Days Gone 2 later.

 

[turtlepowa]

Good points. I can see what you are saying.

Very high attach rate on a new console with a low player base might actually be smaller than a small attach rate on a higher player base.

I didnt see it from that side.

But you are not wrong either. At this point with not so many games, people not used to the genre could be more willing to test it out than in 5 years with all the big hitters out. We just don't know.

 

[Kagey K]

What happened with Bend though? It was all drama dude. They're making their new IP game now and they can always revisit Days Gone 2 later.

Or if this one underperformed they get closed or retasked as a support studio.

Sony seems to be making the mistakes MS did in the 360 years and making sequel studios.

 

[[Sigma]]

So you're basically arguing for less games.

 

[megreotsugua]

Or if this one underperformed they get closed or retasked as a support studio.

That was only for as long as they were in pre-production. In order to not lay-off the other devs, they were given task to help support Naughty Dog to release the game as soon as possible. It's synergistic at play within Sony Studios. Good job Herman Hulst.

 

[Kagey K]

But you are not wrong either. At this point with not so many games, people not used to the genre could be more willing to test it out than in 5 years with all the big hitters out. We just don't know.

Appreciate the back and forth.

This is what I come here for. We can have a conversation and have differing viewpoints and somehow agree with each other.

It doesn't happen enough here. So thanks for that.

 

[megreotsugua]

So you're basically arguing for less games.

No? How did you get that from my post?

I'm arguing to let the 3rd parties do the AA games. The Sony talents who left Japan Studio have created their own Studios now. They can always make their own game and Sony could always buy the rights to their games with a contract of: (1) time exclusive (Sony way, (2) Day1 PSNow release (my preferred way).

 

[[Sigma]]

No? How did you get that from my post?

I'm arguing to let the 3rd parties do the AA games. The Sony talents who left Japan Studio have created their own Studios now. They can always make their own game and Sony could always buy the rights to their games with a contract of: (1) time exclusive (Sony way, (2) Day1 PSNow release (my preferred way).

That's the end result tho. Letting 3rd parties produce games don't interfere with what they should be doing themselves. I don't believe it to be a healthy long term strategy neither. It's just going to lead to more dry spells.

 

[HawarMiran]

The sad thing is Sony puts so much effort, years and money into AAA games and they only make a fraction of the profit service games and mobile games do. Compare what God of War made to what Fortnite made the last years... I think we can be lucky if we still get AAA story-driven games. I am sure they will try to emulate what Rockstar is doing with GTA

 

[Godot25]

Maybe a crazy idea...
...but how about making studios decide what kind of project they want to work on?

It's maybe revolutionary, but it is also worth trying...

 

[Keihart]

I mean, yeah, maybe you are on the money but for me it sounds boring. Why would i care about what makes Sony more money instead of what gives them a better library of games?

I have no interest in boasting how much units my game of choice sold. I prefer sony footing the bill to take the risk off teams with crazier ideas that need bigger budgets instead of funding the next safe sequel to something like Uncharted.

People love to give shit to TLoU2 because of some boogyman propaganda, but that game took risks and took a bunch of cash to make too. No conservative publisher would have funded that game, neither something like Death Stranding and TLG to such extents of production values to excute those ideas in full. I like that Sony and not the one interested in sequels and remakes mostly.

This companies are having like at worst 2:1 return on investments ration on those big games and sometimes they even reach 5:1 with multi million sellers, there is no NEED for being conservative unless you only care about making investors happy. The company it's not bleeding money with those "riskier games", it's just not making as much as they want to.

 

[Radical_3d]

Gamers that want more financially rich companies instead of more creative games made with no founds restrictions...

 

[vaibhavpisal]

PS Now? What is it?

If they are ready to invest in AA, am sure a number of third party studios would be lining up to work, even on Sony's conditions.

 

[megreotsugua]

The sad thing is Sony puts so much effort, years and money into AAA games and they only make a fraction of the profit service games and mobile games do. Compare what God of War made to what Fortnite made the last years...

That's not a sad thing. Sony has a mobile game (Fate Grand Order) that make money more than Fortnite. But that didn't deter Sony from continuing the playstation business and just make mobile games.

Sony's AAA games also serve as the attraction for console gamers to buy into the ecosystem. Then Sony profits from every other game sold and also PS+.

 

[megreotsugua]

Maybe a crazy idea...
...but how about making studios decide what kind of project they want to work on?

It's maybe revolutionary, but it is also worth trying...

Sony is the most liberal in letting developers make their game. We've been hearing that again and again from developers who worked with Sony, Jeff Ross being the latest.

Sony as the one putting the money and carrying the risk could, of course, impose their conditions. They could say that they only want AAA games from now on. AA games will be shopped around instead. The creatives who left Japan Studio built their own studios now. They could always release games to Sony platform and they now have the luxury of releasing to all platform - risk mitigated.

 

[megreotsugua]

Gamers that want more financially rich companies instead of more creative games made with no founds restrictions...

Creative games has to be on all platforms. What you want is that these creative minds, who are working for creative AA games, create games on for Sony.

The creatives from Japan Studio have now created their own studio. Everyone can have a taste of their creativity. Are you telling me that's a bad thing?

 

[megreotsugua]

If they are ready to invest in AA, am sure a number of third party studios would be lining up to work, even on Sony's conditions.

Exactly. It boggles my mind how can some of here think that I was suggesting I want less creative games to be made. This will actually balloon the number of AA games.

 

[Matt_Fox]

Sony AA Returnal has gamers like...

 

[Radical_3d]

Creative games has to be on all platforms. What you want is that these creative minds, who are working for creative AA games, create games on for Sony.

The creatives from Japan Studio have now created their own studio. Everyone can have a taste of their creativity. Are you telling me that's a bad thing?

Yes. Once you go freelance you need to make the game profitable no matter what. First party is the only space where having an unique title is more important than being profitable. This was even more so in Sony, where their first party were less formulating than the ones from Nintendo and Microsoft. davidjaffe said that the pressure to make a profitable product was zero in a recent video. But Jim Ryan has put an end to all that and those are awful news.

 

[Mmnow]

They shouldn't have to. Selling to a platform dying for new content should be easy.

As long as it reviews half decent and Sony let's people know it's out it should do way higher numbers than it would have if it released in year 5.

They literally just have to slap an ad on the homepage if it reviews higher than 70 and a disproptiobate amount of PS5 players should buy it.

If Demon's Souls didnt hit big numbers when it was literally a carrot for the hardcore to upgrade, deservedly got top scores and a bunch of hype, Returnal probably isn't even going to match it.

In a couple of years there'll be some post-mortem piece on Returnal where someone says "turns out $70 wasn't the price point we should've tried to hit" and then they'll act shocked.

I've got every confidence in Housemarque, but I suspect this is going to be a very hard sell that doesn't really see results until we get some deep discounts.

 

[megreotsugua]

Yes. Once you go freelance you need to make the game profitable no matter what.

I guess you have a point. But it is counter-balanced by the fact that their games will now have wider reach by releasing on all platforms.

 

[NahaNago]

Honestly just sounds like you want AA games to not be exclusive to Sony.

It is the variety of games or exclusives that made Sony popular at least during the ps3 days versus the big budget games we predominantly get from Sony these days. You need beloved indies, to AA , to AAA games when pushing your console so having Sony make these games in house with a slightly larger budget than these games would normally get is great.

I don't want Sony to focus only on AAA games. I want them to make more AA or even smaller games. If they make them they are more likely to be quality and polished games.

 

[megreotsugua]

Honestly just sounds like you want AA games to not be exclusive to Sony.

It is the variety of games or exclusives that made Sony popular at least during the ps3 days versus the big budget games we predominantly get from Sony these days. You need beloved indies, to AA , to AAA games when pushing your console so having Sony make these games in house with a slightly larger budget than these games would normally get is great.

I don't want Sony to focus only on AAA games. I want them to make more AA or even smaller games. If they make them they are more likely to be quality and polished games.

What I want is actually more complicated. I want Sony to invest in AA games but not through their first party studios. I want Sony to expand or create new studios even, but only for AAA games. I don't believe that people view Sony's AA games of recent times as Sony's strength that brought them the brand recognition they have now. It was the AAA games that brought the glory.

With that said, I don't want Sony to abandon AA creative games. They can fund them with 3rd party studios. I want them to put those games in a $60/year PSNow or a PS+ Premium higher tier DAY ZERO. PSNow (or PS+ Premium, depending on how they will approach it) will be beaming with creative games month after month. And Sony won't have to be distracted by the process of making and marketing these games.

From the point of view of 3rd party developers, this will make them more avenue for profit. They could get a guaranteed sale from PSNow(or PS+ Premium), or gamepass, or Switch, or Steam, or Epic Store. This strategy is more sustainable in the long run.

 

[megreotsugua]

In a couple of years there'll be some post-mortem piece on Returnal where someone says "turns out $70 wasn't the price point we should've tried to hit" and then they'll act shocked.

I've got every confidence in Housemarque, but I suspect this is going to be a very hard sell that doesn't really see results until we get some deep discounts.

Sony has PS+ subscription and also PSNow. I don't believe they're looking at their games only from the potential first day sales and months after that. They also account for the fact that these games will release on their subscription services one day and add value to the over-all ecosystem.

 

[Chessmate]

Lots of AA games were the foundation of great things to come, think of Demon's Souls. AAA games usually are streamlined towards mass appeal, story and characters are often generic and the gameplay doesn't try to reinvent anything, because this would be too much of an experiment.

 

[Mmnow]

Sony has PS+ subscription and also PSNow. I don't believe they're looking at their games only from the potential first day sales and months after that. They also account for the fact that these games will release on their subscription services one day and add value to the over-all ecosystem.

Which is as it should be. Games potentially have very long tails and they need to be catered for. But that doesn't mean every game needs to release at $70 and, actually, it can hurt a title to do that.

If Returnal gets middling to decent reviews and few sales, the initial excitement is DOA.

 

[megreotsugua]

Lot's of AA games were the foundation of great things to come, think of Demon's Souls. AAA games usually are streamlined towards mass appeal, story and characters are often generic and the gameplay doesn't try to reinvent anything, because this would be too much of an experiment.

This is where subscription services would be good for. It will level the playing field for the risk of these creative games.

 

[bad guy]

Sony needs AAs in their controller, not in PSNow.

 

[NahaNago]

What I want is actually more complicated. I want Sony to invest in AA games but not through their first party studios. I want Sony to expand or create new studios even, but only for AAA games. I don't believe that people view Sony's AA games of recent times as Sony's strength that brought them the brand recognition they have now. It was the AAA games that brought the glory.

With that said, I don't want Sony to abandon AA creative games. They can fund them with 3rd party studios. I want them to put those games in a $60/year PSNow or a PS+ Premium higher tier DAY ZERO. PSNow (or PS+ Premium, depending on how they will approach it) will be beaming with creative games month after month. And Sony won't have to be distracted by the process of making and marketing these games.

From the point of view of 3rd party developers, this will make them more avenue for profit. They could get a guaranteed sale from PSNow(or PS+ Premium), or gamepass, or Switch, or Steam, or Epic Store. This strategy is more sustainable in the long run.

In recent times Sony's greatest strength in first party mainly happened during the ps4. They were great during the ps3 but they became legendary during the ps4 for some reason.

I actually agree that they should fund smaller games for a subscription service. My thought had always been that they should have created or bought a dozen or more smaller studios to enhance psnow or whatever they plan to do in the future. If they are funding the game they are going to be marketing the game anyways since they would probably be partially exclusive.

My opinion on the state of Sony's first party has been for awhile is that they do not have enough studios and the studios they do have are not large enough to make more than 2 AAA games a gen(excluding port remasters). They simply need more of everything.

 

[Chessmate]

This is where subscription services would be good for. It will level the playing field for the risk of these creative games.

It's just a different experience. Don't get me wrong, I like to play big blockbuster games that release once or twice a year. It's like watching the newest Star Wars movie oder Avatar, a benchmark of what's possible in the industry and often these games also provide quality gameplay and story.

Then again, these aren't the games (or movies) I really remember and make me come back to gaming. Ori, Hellblade, Persona, Outer Worlds, Greedfall - these are just a few of the games I recently fell in love with, just like I prefer Hongkong cinema or a lot of the independent cinema from the southern states in the US to Hollywood movies.

I really don't understand how somebody who played games for decades can support Sony in erasing this crucial part of the gaming experience. To me, Uncharted was never much more than a (very mediocre) take on Indiana Jones with solid but underwhelming gameplay. TLOU was more original, also bolder, but in the end it's far from being "my" GOTY.

 

[Danjin44]

If Sony only interested high budget AAA western games then PS5 is going to have boring ass game selections.

 

[megreotsugua]

If Sony only interested high budget AAA western games then PS5 is going to have boring ass game selections.

3rd party AA games.