• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

It's Time To Look At SIE As a Publisher First, Platform Holder Second. What Does That Really Mean?

What do you think SIE will do within next 4 years (choose your Top 3)?

  • Day 1 PC for non-GAAS/single player AAA games

    Votes: 30 40.0%
  • Day 1 PC for non-GAAS/single-player AA games

    Votes: 20 26.7%
  • Day 1 Switch 2 for non-GAAS/single-player AA games

    Votes: 13 17.3%
  • Day 1 Xbox for non-GAAS/single-player AAA games

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Day 1 Xbox for non-GAAS/single-player AA games

    Votes: 3 4.0%
  • Cancel PC ports

    Votes: 5 6.7%
  • Extend stagger window for non-GAAS PC ports (4-6 years vs 1-3 years)

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Shorten stagger window for non-GAAS PC ports (6 mo-1 year)

    Votes: 15 20.0%
  • Shorten stagger window for non-GAAS PC ports (3 mo-6 mo)

    Votes: 12 16.0%
  • Remember mobile exists outside of Sony Aniplex games

    Votes: 12 16.0%
  • Same as always; status quo remains, LEGO is an exception

    Votes: 10 13.3%

  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
LEGO Horizon getting a Switch announcement of all things is just the icing on the cake, the final proof of what I've been sensing is a shift for SIE going forward. However, their PC initiative was already strongly suggesting this to be the case. I have since come to terms with what this new direction for SIE means and, yes, it does mean Sony Tooโ„ข, in a sense.

I think the days of SIE prioritizing their own platform to the absolute limits, are over. We can speculate why, for any myriad of reasons, but what SIE of today is doing with games like LEGO Horizon, the SIE of even a generation ago would never have done, let alone prior. There are both positives and negatives to this, and I think those should be touched upon.

I'm beyond the point now of arguing in favor or opposition of any particular aspect of their strategy. Similar to Microsoft, I have simply just come to acknowledge this is the path SIE walks. That does not mean I necessarily approve the path they are choosing to go; just simply means I accept this is the reality and won't complain as if it isn't.

And, like Microsoft, I hope it works out for the best for them...I just also hope they know what the inherent risks are.

So let's take a brief look at the good and the bad...

[THE GOOD]

1: "MORE GAMES TO MORE PEOPLE"
-Gamers are not locked down to only PlayStation hardware to play PlayStation games​
-More choice in where to play provides more options for people to have games meet them where they already are​
-Customers who felt they were for some reason legally barred from buying a PlayStation to access its games, will no longer have to pretend to feel that way*​
*Speaking of gamers in territories where PlayStation hardware, PS+ and PS Store have been readily available for years if not decades
2: INCREASED REVENUE STREAMS & PROFITS
-Gives SIE increased profit margins across the subsidiary​
-Allows studios to float their worth among SIE, avoiding cutbacks, firings, and closures​
-Provides more room for larger investments for game and hardware budgets​
3: INCREASED USER METRICS (MAU)
-Shareholders/investors interested in growth can be easily pleased with increased MAU metrics​
-More user data allows SIE to better discern what games are performing, which aren't, and decide on funding & development opportunities in light of such data​
4: INCENTIVIZES FULLER DAY 1 ACROSS MULTIPLE PLATFORMS
-Growing sales of published games on other platforms will encourage shorter delay windows across platforms like PC (non-GAAS)​
-Encourages more Day 1 support across PC and even other platforms (i.e Nintendo Switch/Switch 2, Microsoft Xbox)​
5: MAXIMAL USE OF MARKETING BUDGET/FOCUS
-A more full multiplatform release strategy gets "more bang for the buck" when it comes to advertisement dollars​
-Reach the most platforms possible while spending the least amount of money to advertise to customers where they already are​

[THE BAD]

1: NO MORE 'LIMIT-PUSHING' 1P EXCLUSIVES
-Increased multiplatform strategy inherently works against focus on very specific PS hardware configurations​
-Multiplatform approach might incentivize creatively safer works, to better contend with both 1P and 3P offerings on non-PS platforms​
-Lack of needing to push a single platform in the market might decrease incentive to leverage 1P software to push it creatively & technically​
-Removal of single-console confines has real risk of removing impetus to make new industry-defining experiences that also showcase specific hardware​
2: POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DAY 1 BUGS/GLITCHES, LACK OF POLISH
-Optimization/QA budgets are not infinite. More simultaneous/near-simultaneous platforms = smaller slice of optimization/QA "budget pie" each​
-Stressed QA budgets could lead to oversight, more Day 1 bugs & glitches, and longer wait times for patches to fix problems​
-This in turn can affect overall product quality​
3: LONGER WAIT TIMES FOR PS CONSOLE OWNERS TO GET 1P GAMES
-Already evidence by games such as Insomniac's 'Wolverine' from the ransomware hack, due to simultaneous PS5/PC development schedules (likey asynchronous)​
-Console owners will likely end up with less 1P games over the course of a generation due to increased dev times required for multiplatform development &​
optimization efforts​
4: THERE WILL BE SOME IMPACT ON PS CONSOLE ADOPTION RATES
-Cadence of 1P ports (GAAS & non-GAAS) to platforms like PC, likely more frequently-accounted future platforms like Nintendo & Xbox, combined with potentially shorter​
stagger windows in some ports plus Day 1 for others, could affect future PS console sales​
-A segment of the high/mid/low high-ARPU hardcore/core gaming enthusiast market might option to buy other platforms and get SIE games there instead​
-Personal estimate of this slice of high-ARPU hardcore/core enthusiasts: ~ 2-3 million (of typical 100 million PS console gen install base)​
-This slice is very likely within the MOE (Margin of Error) for total install base size, but has a disproportionately high rate of spending in the ecosystem vs. their own segment size​
-Risk of this slice opting for other platforms like PC (Steam) could convince them to purchase both future 1P and 3P games on those platforms​
-Some portion of the slice may not renew PS+ subscriptions, or buy MTX for new games on PS hardware, or buy PS peripherals. However, calculating this is very difficult​
-Main impact of this slice changing buying habits would be in early adoption of new hardware (i.e PS5 Pro, PS6 etc.), which could be a bit slower and, in a worst-case, slow influence of future hardware sales to a portion of latter-day console buyers (i.e among a portion of casual & mainstream customers)​
-However, this could be offset by converting enough current lower-ARPU casuals and newcomers to PS hardware brand into higher-ARPU enthusiasts & early adopters.​
-Could also be offset in other ways i.e large enough growth of brand & IP to customers on other platforms to generate the desired profit targets​

[THE MESSY]

1: POOR TRANSPARENCY IN OVERALL MULTIPLATFORM STRATEGY
-No clarity in official brand marketing as to release strategy for game types across multiple platforms​
-Lack of official clarity could negatively impact customer purchasing decisions in deciding best place for them to access games​
2: MULTIPLATFORM PRICING DISCREPANCIES REAR UGLY HEAD
-GAAS multiplat console/PC strategy will eventually cause issues due to free online for PC vs. paywalled online for PS console users​
-Online MP pricing discrepancy must be resolved one way or another​
-Options are:​
1: Retain paywalled MP for console owners via PS+, but provide free perks (mainly cosmetic, nothing balance-breaking) to PS+ subscribers to compensate​
2: Get rid of paid online requirement for non-F2P games (find other value drivers to justify PS+ subscriptions instead)​
3: COMMUNITY IN-FIGHTING RUNNING RAMPANT
-Much online toxicity between PlayStation and Steam customers due to various aspects of SIE's current PC porting strategy​
-This online toxicity negatively affects genuine discourse around the games and the brand​
-No central corporate-level figures (community or not) to unite customers across the platforms and harmonize discourse allows toxicity to fester & grow​
-Any true multiplatform strategy will require SIE to engage more directly with community across platforms and harmonize players, turn dissent into more positive engagement​
4: 3P EXCLUSIVITY SHRINKS AS 1P MULTIPLATFORM GROWS
-Increasing multiplatform focus for 1P games will signal to 3P to engage in less exclusivity (timed deals, co-developed/co-funded games, etc.), with or without SIE IP involved​
-3P publishers should not be burdened with pushing console exclusives if SIE themselves are moving further away from that​
-3P exclusivity deals will likely become replaced with bigger focus on 3P marketing deals of otherwise multiplatform games​

So, that's my perspective on SIE's strategy in a nutshell. I do personally think they are now moving towards shorter stagger windows for tentpole ports to PC, and those games will probably be Day 1 by the end of the generation. Those of IP they own, but made by 3P, like Death Stranding 2, could even be Day 1 PC as soon as next year. I also personally think, that they'll be publishing more games on Nintendo & Microsoft systems, just not to the degree or speed they will on PC.

It feels much like SIE want to move PlayStation into being a brand where the console is just one of many access points to get their gaming content. Not really any different from Microsoft's shift, in all honesty. The main differences for SIE are in keeping tentpole single-player games from their internal studios timed exclusive to their console, and porting less games to other consoles than Microsoft are. However, over time, this could easily change, if SIE are influenced by the sales success of ports to other platforms and see increases in revenue & profit tied to releasing versions closer to each other timing-wise.

And ultimately, that's the main reason both SIE and Microsoft are doing what they're doing: they want to increase profits and revenue. However, Microsoft were (IMO) forced into their path because their console brand tanked in value; SIE feel PlayStation as a console is big enough to weather any negative impacts and still sustain itself even if they become more multiplatform. I guess, for the kind of games SIE produce/want to produce, they feel this is a justified approach. They may also feel that for the games they and most of the 3P industry make, the hardware isn't the big driver in game design innovation.

Personally, I wouldn't agree with that perspective. I don't agree with the idea that AAA games need to be multiplatform in order to justify themselves. I don't even agree with the idea that GAAS titles need to be, either. And, there are plenty of examples already out there which support my viewpoint. But ultimately, as I've come to find out, it isn't about what I think. For companies like SIE, it's about what their shareholders, investors, & board of directors want. And, giving them that while trying to satisfy as many customers as possible.

Again, I do not necessarily approve of this multiplatform strategy by SIE, or what it will very likely evolve into as time goes on. I feel that on the side of game creativity, pushing specific hardware to its limits, and fostering innovative strength through genuine competition, this strategy will have heavy negatives. But for SIE, I guess if it ultimately means record revenue and profits, especially if its more than enough to offset 'only' a couple million or so diehards phasing out of the ecosystem WRT PS hardware & services, then it'll be worth it. Much like how, I'm sure, Microsoft feel their multiplatform strategy is ultimately worth it for them (particularly since in their case, the console is practically dead commercially).

Well...what do you all think?
 

Dacvak

No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
dont care lol GIF


But I think most non-gaas games will have a staggered release between 6 months and a year for other platforms, especially PC/Switch 2. Xbox might take longer, or not happen at all for some of those games.
 
I think Lego Horizon is an exception to the rule and their strategy remains what it has been.

But their strategy up to this point never included Day 1 Nintendo releases for non-sports games tho :/

dont care lol GIF


But I think most non-gaas games will have a staggered release between 6 months and a year for other platforms, especially PC/Switch 2. Xbox might take longer, or not happen at all for some of those games.

That's realistic. Tho, I think Xbox won't be exempt in the future especially if the next hardware is going more PC-like (as in Xbox having more Windows-like functionality, not systems running Windows with an Xbox UI, that'd probably be sometime next decade) and therefore compete even less with PlayStation consoles.

Disappointed with myself due to not expecting this thread at all.

Glad to have subverted expectations ๐Ÿ˜ˆ
 

ProtoByte

Gold Member
Whatever the big idea is, it's stupid.

What must be understood is that exclusivity provides business value even when a given person has no intention of buying the game on the 1st party platform or otherwise. Xbox's problem was continuously undermining the image of their console. We can argue about the contractual/IP dealings between Lego and Sony all we like. Whether or not it's an exception to the current rule, it just looks bad.

Enthusiasm (see, not revenue, not yet) for gaming is at a pretty spot trough right now, and the last thing Sony can afford is to make their platform look like a third rate choice.

As the platform gets undermined revenue either decreases, or specific avenues of revenue begin to drive more/less of the platform holders decisions.

It's not a coincidence thag Xbox's game pipeline and average quality got worse when they started porting shit to PC. It's not a coincidence that their single player output is slower and less robust than ever, and they've had to buy out whole publishers who themselves were moving away from that entire sect of games to supplement to the pathetic level they're at now.

Sony proved to be smart enough to back of the live service bananza when it was clearly not working out, and as these titles continue to release and underperform where they're expected to work, I bet that will only increase. They need to back off this multiplatform stuff in similar fashion.
 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
Its really very simple. Multiple analysts have pointed it out, and gaming journalists. All you have to is look at it instead of trying to convince yourself they're all paid by MS.

Console sales arent growing as expected. Physical media is declining. Development costs are rising. All companies are adapting to this in slightly different but largely similar ways already. Just guess what 8 years in the future looks like.
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
Nothing is really going to change. The GaaS day one and AAA 2+ years later model works well for them. Console sales are still strong and they eek out the last bit of revenue from double dippers and those that refuse to buy a console. They will probably try getting more mobile games but that won't be the focus of any of the first party studios.

The Switch thing is almost certainly happening because the IP holder (Lego) requested it. Just like what is happening with MLB.
 

Mung

Member
This feels like forced projection of Microsoft problems onto Sony. A contrived narrative that really is the ultimate manifestation of 'Sony Too!', to somehow justify what MS are doing and to share their failure.

Just like most narratives over the last few years, it will prove incorrect in time.
 
Last edited:
Everything will be everywhere from everyone in five years IMO. The only thing left to determine is what everywhere actually is, and how to manage it without causing mass fanboy suicides on all sides...

The death of exclusives will be the savior of gaming with games reaching much wider audiences. Imagine if you could launch something like God of War (not that I think that is an example of a great game, it's not, but it would have a huge audience no doubt) and just about everyone could play it, not just the few million people invested enough to have bought one specific system.

It's happening for sure IMO, excited to see what comes next.
 
Last edited:

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
I lost interest in buying Sony consoles to complement my PC not because of them porting their own games, but because JP devs stopped giving them defacto exclusives like Fatlus games, Falcom, NIS, Namco, etc. Those games were the real differentiators between console and PC for me anyway, and thankfully we no longer have to buy consoles for them.
 
They will eventually go 3rd party just like MS. They might have a game here and there that you need a PS5/6 to play but AAA budgets are approaching half a billion dollars and you can't fund that off a single platform.
 
LEGO Horizon getting a Switch announcement of all things is just the icing on the cake, the final proof of what I've been sensing is a shift for SIE going forward. However, their PC initiative was already strongly suggesting this to be the case. I have since come to terms with what this new direction for SIE means and, yes, it does mean Sony Tooโ„ข, in a sense.

I think the days of SIE prioritizing their own platform to the absolute limits, are over. We can speculate why, for any myriad of reasons, but what SIE of today is doing with games like LEGO Horizon, the SIE of even a generation ago would never have done, let alone prior. There are both positives and negatives to this, and I think those should be touched upon.

I'm beyond the point now of arguing in favor or opposition of any particular aspect of their strategy. Similar to Microsoft, I have simply just come to acknowledge this is the path SIE walks. That does not mean I necessarily approve the path they are choosing to go; just simply means I accept this is the reality and won't complain as if it isn't.

And, like Microsoft, I hope it works out for the best for them...I just also hope they know what the inherent risks are.

So let's take a brief look at the good and the bad...

[THE GOOD]

1: "MORE GAMES TO MORE PEOPLE"
-Gamers are not locked down to only PlayStation hardware to play PlayStation games​
-More choice in where to play provides more options for people to have games meet them where they already are​
-Customers who felt they were for some reason legally barred from buying a PlayStation to access its games, will no longer have to pretend to feel that way*​
*Speaking of gamers in territories where PlayStation hardware, PS+ and PS Store have been readily available for years if not decades
2: INCREASED REVENUE STREAMS & PROFITS
-Gives SIE increased profit margins across the subsidiary​
-Allows studios to float their worth among SIE, avoiding cutbacks, firings, and closures​
-Provides more room for larger investments for game and hardware budgets​
3: INCREASED USER METRICS (MAU)
-Shareholders/investors interested in growth can be easily pleased with increased MAU metrics​
-More user data allows SIE to better discern what games are performing, which aren't, and decide on funding & development opportunities in light of such data​
4: INCENTIVIZES FULLER DAY 1 ACROSS MULTIPLE PLATFORMS
-Growing sales of published games on other platforms will encourage shorter delay windows across platforms like PC (non-GAAS)​
-Encourages more Day 1 support across PC and even other platforms (i.e Nintendo Switch/Switch 2, Microsoft Xbox)​
5: MAXIMAL USE OF MARKETING BUDGET/FOCUS
-A more full multiplatform release strategy gets "more bang for the buck" when it comes to advertisement dollars​
-Reach the most platforms possible while spending the least amount of money to advertise to customers where they already are​

[THE BAD]

1: NO MORE 'LIMIT-PUSHING' 1P EXCLUSIVES
-Increased multiplatform strategy inherently works against focus on very specific PS hardware configurations​
-Multiplatform approach might incentivize creatively safer works, to better contend with both 1P and 3P offerings on non-PS platforms​
-Lack of needing to push a single platform in the market might decrease incentive to leverage 1P software to push it creatively & technically​
-Removal of single-console confines has real risk of removing impetus to make new industry-defining experiences that also showcase specific hardware​
2: POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DAY 1 BUGS/GLITCHES, LACK OF POLISH
-Optimization/QA budgets are not infinite. More simultaneous/near-simultaneous platforms = smaller slice of optimization/QA "budget pie" each​
-Stressed QA budgets could lead to oversight, more Day 1 bugs & glitches, and longer wait times for patches to fix problems​
-This in turn can affect overall product quality​
3: LONGER WAIT TIMES FOR PS CONSOLE OWNERS TO GET 1P GAMES
-Already evidence by games such as Insomniac's 'Wolverine' from the ransomware hack, due to simultaneous PS5/PC development schedules (likey asynchronous)​
-Console owners will likely end up with less 1P games over the course of a generation due to increased dev times required for multiplatform development &​
optimization efforts​
4: THERE WILL BE SOME IMPACT ON PS CONSOLE ADOPTION RATES
-Cadence of 1P ports (GAAS & non-GAAS) to platforms like PC, likely more frequently-accounted future platforms like Nintendo & Xbox, combined with potentially shorter​
stagger windows in some ports plus Day 1 for others, could affect future PS console sales​
-A segment of the high/mid/low high-ARPU hardcore/core gaming enthusiast market might option to buy other platforms and get SIE games there instead​
-Personal estimate of this slice of high-ARPU hardcore/core enthusiasts: ~ 2-3 million (of typical 100 million PS console gen install base)​
-This slice is very likely within the MOE (Margin of Error) for total install base size, but has a disproportionately high rate of spending in the ecosystem vs. their own segment size​
-Risk of this slice opting for other platforms like PC (Steam) could convince them to purchase both future 1P and 3P games on those platforms​
-Some portion of the slice may not renew PS+ subscriptions, or buy MTX for new games on PS hardware, or buy PS peripherals. However, calculating this is very difficult​
-Main impact of this slice changing buying habits would be in early adoption of new hardware (i.e PS5 Pro, PS6 etc.), which could be a bit slower and, in a worst-case, slow influence of future hardware sales to a portion of latter-day console buyers (i.e among a portion of casual & mainstream customers)​
-However, this could be offset by converting enough current lower-ARPU casuals and newcomers to PS hardware brand into higher-ARPU enthusiasts & early adopters.​
-Could also be offset in other ways i.e large enough growth of brand & IP to customers on other platforms to generate the desired profit targets​

[THE MESSY]

1: POOR TRANSPARENCY IN OVERALL MULTIPLATFORM STRATEGY
-No clarity in official brand marketing as to release strategy for game types across multiple platforms​
-Lack of official clarity could negatively impact customer purchasing decisions in deciding best place for them to access games​
2: MULTIPLATFORM PRICING DISCREPANCIES REAR UGLY HEAD
-GAAS multiplat console/PC strategy will eventually cause issues due to free online for PC vs. paywalled online for PS console users​
-Online MP pricing discrepancy must be resolved one way or another​
-Options are:​
1: Retain paywalled MP for console owners via PS+, but provide free perks (mainly cosmetic, nothing balance-breaking) to PS+ subscribers to compensate​
2: Get rid of paid online requirement for non-F2P games (find other value drivers to justify PS+ subscriptions instead)​
3: COMMUNITY IN-FIGHTING RUNNING RAMPANT
-Much online toxicity between PlayStation and Steam customers due to various aspects of SIE's current PC porting strategy​
-This online toxicity negatively affects genuine discourse around the games and the brand​
-No central corporate-level figures (community or not) to unite customers across the platforms and harmonize discourse allows toxicity to fester & grow​
-Any true multiplatform strategy will require SIE to engage more directly with community across platforms and harmonize players, turn dissent into more positive engagement​
4: 3P EXCLUSIVITY SHRINKS AS 1P MULTIPLATFORM GROWS
-Increasing multiplatform focus for 1P games will signal to 3P to engage in less exclusivity (timed deals, co-developed/co-funded games, etc.), with or without SIE IP involved​
-3P publishers should not be burdened with pushing console exclusives if SIE themselves are moving further away from that​
-3P exclusivity deals will likely become replaced with bigger focus on 3P marketing deals of otherwise multiplatform games​

So, that's my perspective on SIE's strategy in a nutshell. I do personally think they are now moving towards shorter stagger windows for tentpole ports to PC, and those games will probably be Day 1 by the end of the generation. Those of IP they own, but made by 3P, like Death Stranding 2, could even be Day 1 PC as soon as next year. I also personally think, that they'll be publishing more games on Nintendo & Microsoft systems, just not to the degree or speed they will on PC.

It feels much like SIE want to move PlayStation into being a brand where the console is just one of many access points to get their gaming content. Not really any different from Microsoft's shift, in all honesty. The main differences for SIE are in keeping tentpole single-player games from their internal studios timed exclusive to their console, and porting less games to other consoles than Microsoft are. However, over time, this could easily change, if SIE are influenced by the sales success of ports to other platforms and see increases in revenue & profit tied to releasing versions closer to each other timing-wise.

And ultimately, that's the main reason both SIE and Microsoft are doing what they're doing: they want to increase profits and revenue. However, Microsoft were (IMO) forced into their path because their console brand tanked in value; SIE feel PlayStation as a console is big enough to weather any negative impacts and still sustain itself even if they become more multiplatform. I guess, for the kind of games SIE produce/want to produce, they feel this is a justified approach. They may also feel that for the games they and most of the 3P industry make, the hardware isn't the big driver in game design innovation.

Personally, I wouldn't agree with that perspective. I don't agree with the idea that AAA games need to be multiplatform in order to justify themselves. I don't even agree with the idea that GAAS titles need to be, either. And, there are plenty of examples already out there which support my viewpoint. But ultimately, as I've come to find out, it isn't about what I think. For companies like SIE, it's about what their shareholders, investors, & board of directors want. And, giving them that while trying to satisfy as many customers as possible.

Again, I do not necessarily approve of this multiplatform strategy by SIE, or what it will very likely evolve into as time goes on. I feel that on the side of game creativity, pushing specific hardware to its limits, and fostering innovative strength through genuine competition, this strategy will have heavy negatives. But for SIE, I guess if it ultimately means record revenue and profits, especially if its more than enough to offset 'only' a couple million or so diehards phasing out of the ecosystem WRT PS hardware & services, then it'll be worth it. Much like how, I'm sure, Microsoft feel their multiplatform strategy is ultimately worth it for them (particularly since in their case, the console is practically dead commercially).

Well...what do you all think?
Day One all the way.
 
Start being gamers again and not shareholders.
This thread only makes sense if OP is "being a gamer". These changes are being made with shareholders in mind.

thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best Good analysis of pros and cons. Though after thinking about it, I actually think this particular example might be less drastic then porting their major games to PC. In a way it's a bit like when they used to make those Sackboy and Wipeout spinoffs for mobile.
 
Last edited:

squarealex

Member



Interesting X threads :

๐—˜๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—Ÿ๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ผ ๐—›๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—”๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€ & ๐—”๐—ป๐˜€๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—–๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€:

In Sony/PlayStation's Games & Network Services Business Segment Meeting, they reiterated that "๐™๐™ง๐™–๐™ฃ๐™จ๐™›๐™ค๐™ง๐™ข๐™–๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™–๐™ก ๐™‚๐™–๐™ข๐™š๐™จ" (AKA Multiplayer Online Games) will go Day & Date to both PlayStation Console & PC. However, they made clear that they would be continuing the same strategy that they outlined over 5 Years Ago in that "๐™๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™ฅ๐™ค๐™ก๐™š ๐™ˆ๐™–๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™ก๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™š ๐™Ž๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ๐™ก๐™š ๐™‹๐™ก๐™–๐™ฎ๐™š๐™ง ๐™‚๐™–๐™ข๐™š๐™จ" will not go to other platforms such as PC for at least 1-2+ Years after Launch on the console and that everything they do is focused on putting their console First, Front, & Center.

Their console remains the most important aspect of their business and everything else is ancillary to it.Their intent is to convince a portion of new players from other platforms to buy their PlayStation Console either by building interest in new upcoming sequels to games by providing them older games 1-2+ years after they released on console OR by creating a few unique "๐™€๐™ญ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ง๐™ž๐™ข๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ก ๐™‚๐™–๐™ข๐™š๐™จ" that target different audiences on different platforms.

LEGO Horizon Adventures is an Experimental GameThe purpose of the 3rd Classification of PlayStation Games, which are Labeled "๐™€๐™ญ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ง๐™ž๐™ข๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ก ๐™‚๐™–๐™ข๐™š๐™จ," is to drive people to the PS5 Console by reaching out to individuals on other platforms and providing games that appeal to a wider/different audience. The goal of this strategy is to give them a taste of what they are missing in the hopes that some of them will come over and buy a PS5 Console, to experience PlayStation's Mainline Tentpole Games and join the PlayStation ecosystem.

๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐Ÿญ: ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—˜๐—š๐—ข ๐—›๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—”๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฆ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ต & ๐—ฃ๐—– ๐—ฏ๐˜‚๐˜ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜ ๐—ฃ๐—ฆ๐Ÿฐ? ๐—”๐—น๐˜€๐—ผ, ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ป'๐˜ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ซ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜…?

- Answer: Since PS4 players are already in the ecosystem, they already have access to a lot of PlayStation's Tentpole games. Therefore, the only way to convince them to get a PS5 is to not put it on the PS4. They are trying to move people up to the PS5 from the PS4.

As they reiterated in their business segment meeting, everything they do is in service to their goal of bringing more people over to the PlayStation 5 Console. This includes people already in their ecosystem on PS4 and people on other Platforms that are not in direct competition with the PS5 console.

It's important to note that while Experimental games will go to other platforms, they will not go to "Directly Competing Platforms" like Xbox. Sony/PlayStation does not consider Nintendo Switch to be a directly competing platform just like mobile phones are not considered a directly competing platform so putting some experimental games from Neon Koi on phones is not an issue. PlayStation is not putting Horizon Forbidden West on the Switch but they are putting Lego Horizon on the Switch. Similarly, Nintendo is not putting Mario Odyssey on mobile phones but they are putting Mario Run on mobile phones.

Note: More of this question is answered in Q&A #3 when discussing licensing

๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐Ÿฎ: ๐—œ๐˜€๐—ป'๐˜ ๐—›๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฎ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ท๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ง๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—™๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—œ๐—ฃ? ๐—œ๐—ณ ๐˜€๐—ผ ๐˜„๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜† ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—˜๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—š๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ?

-Answer: You're mixing up two different classification systems that PlayStation Uses

Game Type =\= IP Level

As you can see in the image below from Sony/PlayStation's Business Segment Meeting Horizon is a "๐™ˆ๐™–๐™Ÿ๐™ค๐™ง ๐™๐™ง๐™–๐™ฃ๐™˜๐™๐™ž๐™จ๐™š ๐™„๐™‹.

"However, if you look at the other graphic Lego Horizon Adventures is specifically an "๐™€๐™ญ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ง๐™ž๐™ข๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ก ๐™‚๐™–๐™ข๐™š ๐™๐™ฎ๐™ฅ๐™š" because it fits the description: "๐™๐™ฃ๐™ก๐™ค๐™˜๐™ ๐™จ ๐™ฃ๐™š๐™ฌ ๐˜ผ๐™ช๐™™๐™ž๐™š๐™ฃ๐™˜๐™š๐™จ, ๐™๐™–๐™ง๐™œ๐™š๐™ฉ๐™จ ๐™‰๐™š๐™ฌ ๐™‚๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ง๐™š๐™จ, ๐™Ž๐™ข๐™–๐™ก๐™ก๐™š๐™ง ๐™Ž๐™˜๐™ค๐™ฅ๐™š & ๐˜ฝ๐™ช๐™™๐™œ๐™š๐™ฉ"

A perfect example is like I described above: Mario is a Major Franchise IP for Nintendo BUT Super Mario Run released on Mobile Phones is not the type of game that they would consider a Tentpole game like Super Mario Odyssey.

๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐Ÿฏ: ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ?

- Answer: LEGO is a licensed IP to LEGO & Horizon is a licenced IP to Sony. Both IPs are co-licensed to the main developer of the game which is a 3rd Party developer named Studio Gobo, with a small amount of secondary aid from Guerilla Games.

This is similar to the arrangement that created Bloodborne. Horizon is a 1st Party Sony/PlayStation IP the game is being developed primarily by a 3rd Party Company (not owned by Sony) so this would be an example of a 2nd Party Game.

2nd Party Games are developed by a studio that is not owned by PlayStation/SIE but the game IP is owned by Sony OR the game published by Sony (See: Helldivers 2, Death Stranding, & Stellar Blade)

Note: There has been debate in the past from leaders in the gaming industry about whether or not 2nd Party exists but it has become a necessity to have this classification because the alternative is saying "A 1st Party Game Developed by a 3rd Party Studio." This is overly long & it's also seen as disingenuous to label these games 1st Party so the term 2nd Party works best.

Sony/PlayStation uses both terms (1st Party & 2nd Party) interchangeably since they have executives that only deal with outside studios that they are publishing games from. So, those executives label things 2nd Party because they don't deal with internal studios. However, in financial reports, Sony lists sales of games they publish from non owned studios in the same category as 1st Party games.

In continuing the answer of Q1 why is the game coming to Switch but not Xbox there are two different angles to look at it from:

1) From SIE's perspective they want a game that can have mass appeal to everyone but also target a younger audience. With this in mind there is no better IP they could be paired with than LEGO. Making a Horizon Game with LEGO that is a whole different genre game type & play style from the mainline games would surely bring Millions of new people especially younger people to their IP. For SIE it's a bonus if they are able to put this game on other platforms as long as the platform is not a direct competitor and there is no platform more suited for this type of game than Nintendo Switch

2) From LEGOs perspective they would be happy to pair up with a HQ IP that has sold over 35 Million Copies the only caveat is that they would definitely demand that a game made with them is multiplatform. PlayStation may have agreed to this either cautiously or excitedly when considering Nintnedo Switch, which is not technically a direct competitor to the PS5, but either way the deal would have to come with the condition that it does not go to any direct competitor like Xbox. LEGO would probably be disappointed to not go on Xbox but happy enough to go on Switch and thus we have a co-licensed game that's a win/win to both companies.
 
Last edited:

T0minator

Member
This year going forward PlayStation has so much more to release

2024
Helldivers 2
Concord
Stellar Blade
Rise of the Ronin
Astro Bot
Lego Horizon

2025
Ghost of Tsushima 2
New Espionage IP/MP - Bend Studios.
Death Stranding 2
Marathon
Fairgame$
Venom

2026
New IP - Naughty Dog
Wolverine
New IP - Santa Monica
Horror Adventure- Firesprite
Horizon Co-op MP game - Guerrilla

2027+
New IP - Bluepoint
New IP - Media Molecule
God of War Egypt - Santa Monica
TLOU Part 3 - Naughty Dog
Horizon 3 Nemesis
New IP - Housemarque

Hopefully the Showcase in Sept starts showing off these games. The future looks bright
 

BlackTron

Member

๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐Ÿญ: ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—˜๐—š๐—ข ๐—›๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—”๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฆ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ต & ๐—ฃ๐—– ๐—ฏ๐˜‚๐˜ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜ ๐—ฃ๐—ฆ๐Ÿฐ? ๐—”๐—น๐˜€๐—ผ, ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ป'๐˜ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ซ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜…? -Answer: Since PS4 players are already in the ecosystem, they already have access to a lot of PlayStation's Tentpole games. Therefore, the only way to convince them to get a PS5 is to not put it on the PS4. They are trying to move people up to the PS5 from the PS4.

Sony is taking harder drugs than MS I am dying over here
 
They also never did a Lego collaboration before.

We have no idea what the details of the deal are.

I don't think we need to know the details; fact is whatever was decided upon, for whatever reason the PS4 was skipped as a platform of choice despite it could run the game at least as well as the Switch. And it's not like there aren't kids and families with PS4s; there is still a market present for this type of game on that system.

That suggests SIE had enough driving leverage in negotiations to determine at least two of the platforms: PS5 and PC. And, they could've also determined PS4 as another platform, yet chose not to. Also if SIE really wanted, even if LEGO were insistent on PC & Switch, SIE could've just...nope'd out. They could've taken the concept in a different direction, or go with Mega Bloks instead.

I'm sure Mega Bloks would've had no problem letting SIE keep a Horizon spinoff exclusive to their own platform.
 
Top Bottom