How much money is Sony losing over these GaaS failures?

[pokoko]

Mummelmann said:

A select few huge titles are being played by a lot of players, that's true. And for every monster-hit, there are several utter failures, the type that closes studios. The model simply isn't viable long-term, it will only exasperate the issue with huge publishers and developers owning the market, consumers also have a finite amount of money, just like developers. If a growing tally of releases cost players constantly, they are less likely, and less capable of, spending their funds on other titles. One 60$ title a few times a year, or one title that costs the equal amount during the course of the year. Yes, single-player games and the few giant GaaS titles that make it do coexist now, but this is about to change as more studios rev up to release GaaS titles. Like I said; GaaS as a concept, should it take over the entire industry, is the shortcut to a more intermittent and risky developers landscape and industry. Higher cost for the gamer, less breadth, less creativity, this is not the direction I want the industry to take. Giants will remain giants, and even more mid-sized or smaller studios will perish.

And not to mention the creative issues, ownership issues, gambling aspects directed at children, early-access conundrums, and a host of other problems with the rising model. I would direct your attention to the above-posted link, where a recent poll suggests that about 70% of the involved developers saw issues with the GaaS model. Studio heads and publishers are seeing the rare mega-hits and want some of that sweet pie, but developers aren't really feeling it. About 25% of the polled developers were positive towards GaaS, as it stands.

To me, it all seems to boil down to "this is the future, accept it".

PS: Concord is just the latest in a long string of GaaS failures, it's not unique in any way. And it won't be the last.

Most of what you're saying is completely backwards.  If you want to see SMALLER STUDIOS that go toe-to-toe with the giant publishers then GaaS is actually where it happens and why so many indie developers are going that route.  Once again, you only need to look at the most played lists.  It's filled with studios who came out of nowhere with a new idea and because the model allows for a smaller initial investment, they're able to go viral.  Seriously, it's all right there on Steam for everyone to see.

Where small studios are unable to compete is actually with SINGLE PLAYER games because of the differences in budget and the hefty requirements (which is also why even the giants are making fewer of them).  A tiny developer can't touch a Zelda, or an Uncharted, or an Assassin's Creed release but GaaS just needs a fun concept and periodic improvements, plus the dedication that large studios rarely offer.  Rust, 7 Days to Die, Raft, most of the games I mentioned before, even PUBG didn't come from one of the big publishers.

One of the most amusing issues seems to be that the big boys are trying to replicate what the indie developers are doing except with more money and less creativity.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but that's because they're skipping the "really good idea for a game" step and just copying someone else.

And of course Concord won't be the last GaaS failure.  Do you think Forespoken will be the last single player failure?  

Regardless, my original point was that "gamers hate GaaS titles" was a huge exaggeration and I've still seen nothing to change my opinion.