Currently Online 
So Grubb put out a video, and I think it's one of his better speculation pieces. Speculation doesn't quite feel like the right word, but this isn't inside stuff necessarily. But he's talking about the state of Sony's game development, and why they're pushing on live services.
I want to rant about the things that he talks about in the video, so here we go.
1.) It's really hard to start up a game studio, build a large team, develop a big budget game, and have it be successful in the market. If it was easy for Sony or any other company to start up like 10 studios with a $200 million budget to make big profitable AAA games, they would all be doing that. It's hard and more importantly it's risky to do any one of those steps. Even talented teams run into stumbling blocks. Even if they make it into the market, plenty of games fail or don't make enough to be profitable. It's not easy to just build a studio, hire 300 people to work on it, and successfully develop a great game in 5 or so years, and have it be successful in the market. A lot of these studios have decades in the works, and they still sometimes struggle.
1A.) Paraphrasing here, Grubb basically says that Sony was trying to get Bend Studio to be a Santa Monica/Naughty Dog or even Sucker Punch tier studio (that makes a great game that sells 10 million copies). They're currently trying to do that with Housemarque. But it's hard.
2.) Sony is making lots of smaller bets, in the hopes that one or two of them will be incredibly successful. Budget wise a lot of these games are smaller than The Last of Us. Firewalk has 150 devs, Haven has something similar. Compare that to 300+ developers at Santa Monica or Naughty Dog.
3.) Sony has the data that shows that game sales are making a smaller chunk of revenue. People are more and more interested in live service titles.
4.) The thing that I would throw out there, is that nearly every big publisher has some kind of live service game. Activision has CoD. EA has tons of sports games and Apex Legends. (71% of EA's revenue comes from live service titles. - I saw someone giving credit to EA for making more single player games like Star Wars and Dead Space, but I think it's important to keep that revenue statistic in mind. They absolutely make gold from live service titles. ) Take Two has GTA Online. Microsoft has a few like Sea of Thieves, Elder Scrolls Online. Epic Games is practically built on Fortnite. Square Enix has Final Fantasy XIV. HoYoverse has Genshin Impact. Sony is far and away the largest publisher that *didn't* have any major live service titles, it's not even funny. So many of these other publishers are practically thriving due to their live service titles. In a lot of cases, it seems to actually make it easier for them to make more risks in the single player space. I think to some extent we are seeing that with EA. Epic Games has gone in a different direction. They're taking more risks with their store and their game engine.
There are no guarantees of anything, but it's possible there's a best case scenario, that Sony is able to take more risks with single player games in the future.
5.) It's important to put this out there, Sony is not dropping their traditional games. They're keeping their Naughty Dog single player and Santa Monica single player games, and Sony would like more of those. But it's hard to make, and it's hard to be successful. As Grubb says "if you're happy with Sony's output", basically that's not going to change.
