RolStoppable said:
That's like saying everything is an EA box, Square-Enix box, Capcom box etc. Sounds ridiculous because it is. As for the topic, Sony is definitely making decisions that follow in Microsoft's footsteps, although at a slower and more careful rate. It doesn't make sense though. For Microsoft it did because they suck as a console manufacturer and can't sell an adequate amount of hardware at an adequate price to make it all profitable. But Sony was and is in a position where they can clear the 100 million threshold for hardware sales which is a huge base for a closed ecosystem. Even when the hardware itself is rarely sold at a profit at any point in the lifecycle and even when the first party output has a dry spell, the large installed base generates sufficient profits with third party royalties from game sales and microtransactions as well as Sony's own subscription tiers. It's right there in the financial reports, after all. The move towards third party publishing is a very risky one for Sony because it threatens their console business and therefore the profits it generates from it. The gains from third party publishing may very well be offset by shrinking console sales and a diminished ecosystem, so Sony's management is acting shortsighted. But they already did when they issued their GaaS strategy, so it's not shocking that they would make another mistake. They are once again chasing a higher risk, higher reward scheme while giving up on a winning formula that has lower theoretical profits but is much safer to accomplish and sustain. |
Sony's first party has been a hit and miss. They need to make more money especially because of the rise in AAA game development cost. Death Stranding 2 cost over 200 million dollars to make and sold around 1.5 million so they didn't even break even yet. Concord lost over 400 million dollars which wipes all of the money Sony made off of Spiderman 2 basically. Not to mention the other canceled GAAS.
