How much money is Sony losing over these GaaS failures?

[Mummelmann]

pokoko said:

What world are people living in where "gamers don't want GaaS"?

I keep seeing this repeated over and over and then I go to Steam see games killing it and making tons of money long, long after they're already paid for. Goodness, Sea of Thieves sure crashed hard on Playstation, huh? And that bomb, Helldivers 2. And Palword, and Ark, and The First Descendant doing well despite "the crowded marketplace". Deep Rock Galactic has sold over 8 million copies plus being on Game Pass.

Many, MANY gamers CLEARLY play GaaS titles.

Sony should have cut their losses with this game YEARS ago, even if it had been a single player title. The lesson here isn't to stop investing in GaaS, it's to stop investing in bad games.

Bolded: Absolutely, but as mentioned above; this isn't an argument for why GaaS in general is a positive trend. FIFA, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed are also massive sellers, can you tell me what positive influence they have on current gaming? Some gamers want GaaS, and even some developers. But most don't. Some GaaS titles selling and making money is not a good argument, it's not an argument at all. It's overall not a positive for the industry, or for gamers. I understand that a lot of people enjoy some of these titles, that still doesn't change the argument. Again, I feel like throwing in the lootbox argument; plenty of people liked that too, especially in FUT, and it made EA billions on top, but it was widely regarded as a shit idea for the industry as a whole.

As for Concord; I agree, Sony should have axed it long ago. Even without the GaaS aspect, it's riding a dying trend where only a select few behemoths reign.