By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Jason Schreier: Sony's Obsession with Blockbusters is Stirring Unrest Within PS Empire

DonFerrari said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

I'm sure they know what they are doing. I agree they aren't dumb, they are damn intelligent and with more knowledge than anyone here could possibly have

I still don't think they are doing that for profits or to meet some kind of market demand, at least not directly

Not sure I understood your point.

Have you read my last comment? I explained why I think companies are boosting their games budget regardless if it will increase their sales and even if it makes their business far more risky, as a millionaire budget will need millionaire sales to break even 



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

I didn`t draw the conclusion that less software means greater sales, what I said is that even with less software released they achieved more sales, because they have sold much more SW even if less released. Sure we don`t know if they had released double the SW if they would have sold double the number, it is possible they wouldn`t but sure sales would likely grow. We do know that SW sales don`t scale linear or even near it. The higher the HW numbers the lower the attach ratios usually are. Although for the famous IPs someone posted earlier that the attach ratio increased.

Myself I wouldn`t mind if each of my favorite IPs would have year release if they were all of the quality they have done for the few releases (but that wouldn`t happen probably). My biggest point to Ludicrous was that Sony have been taking almost the same risk with new IPs as they were before (half their releases are new IPs), and that releasing less games but with higher cost can actually mean more risk.

We have received lower production type titles as well, and when I say as much as they can that is obviously with caveats like reason. They could open 10 studios tomorrow to make more games, but that isn`t within reason to demand. Sony have collaborations and deals. And not to forget that Sony plan from what they say is to compliment their platform with what is missing, so if they already receive a healthy number of Indies, A, AA and Japanese titles with several genres they don`t really need to make those titles as they don`t need to lose money on those titles as they are covered.

Bold 1: But you're defending less games because of higher software sales. So, if less games didn't cause higher software sales, why wouldn't you want more games?   

Bold 2: Even if half of their releases are new IP's their are still more IP's that Sony took a risk on during the PS3 generation. You can't just ignore a substantial number of new properties because it conveniently works out similarly proportionally. The fact of the matter is, more is more. They aren't making as much as they were in the PS3 era because they are focusing on higher budget AAA games which take longer to develop. 

Bold 3: By this logic they are covered in the AAA front too. It's not like there is a lack of AAA games out there. In addition, stating that they "don't need to lose money" suggests that they would lose money, but this isn't necessarily the case. 



LudicrousSpeed said:
kazuyamishima said:

First party, only a few, like Insomniac Games

But In the first 6-7 months they will have release the following:

- Destruction All Stars

- Demons Souls

- Astro’s Playroom

- Miles Morales

- Returnal

- Ratchet and Clank: Drift Apart

- Sackboy: A big Adventure 

And Kena coming in August.

I see some balance in less than a year. 

Out of those, they actually developed the Astro demo, Ratchet (not out yet), and the Spider-Man cross gen add on. The rest are outside studios, which is exactly my point. Also Kena is just a money hat exclusive, that would be like someone giving Microsoft credit for developing Ascent or CrossFire from Remedy. It used to be Sony providing you the big games but also the more niche or smaller scale titles. Now it's going to be Sony focusing on AAA and just paying others for deals on the other stuff. Again, if the rumors are correct.

Sony is using the same strategy as previous generations since most of the PlayStation Studios were like Housemarque, Lucid Games Limited and Sumo are now: developing exclusive games for PlayStation consoles and Sony publishing them, after a while they were acquired by Sony.

Time will tell if those studios mentioned above will have the same fate as the existing studios owned by Sony. 



IcaroRibeiro said:
DonFerrari said:

Not sure I understood your point.

Have you read my last comment? I explained why I think companies are boosting their games budget regardless if it will increase their sales and even if it makes their business far more risky, as a millionaire budget will need millionaire sales to break even 

Ow ok.

Doctor_MG said:
DonFerrari said:

I didn`t draw the conclusion that less software means greater sales, what I said is that even with less software released they achieved more sales, because they have sold much more SW even if less released. Sure we don`t know if they had released double the SW if they would have sold double the number, it is possible they wouldn`t but sure sales would likely grow. We do know that SW sales don`t scale linear or even near it. The higher the HW numbers the lower the attach ratios usually are. Although for the famous IPs someone posted earlier that the attach ratio increased.

Myself I wouldn`t mind if each of my favorite IPs would have year release if they were all of the quality they have done for the few releases (but that wouldn`t happen probably). My biggest point to Ludicrous was that Sony have been taking almost the same risk with new IPs as they were before (half their releases are new IPs), and that releasing less games but with higher cost can actually mean more risk.

We have received lower production type titles as well, and when I say as much as they can that is obviously with caveats like reason. They could open 10 studios tomorrow to make more games, but that isn`t within reason to demand. Sony have collaborations and deals. And not to forget that Sony plan from what they say is to compliment their platform with what is missing, so if they already receive a healthy number of Indies, A, AA and Japanese titles with several genres they don`t really need to make those titles as they don`t need to lose money on those titles as they are covered.

Bold 1: But you're defending less games because of higher software sales. So, if less games didn't cause higher software sales, why wouldn't you want more games?   

Bold 2: Even if half of their releases are new IP's their are still more IP's that Sony took a risk on during the PS3 generation. You can't just ignore a substantial number of new properties because it conveniently works out similarly proportionally. The fact of the matter is, more is more. They aren't making as much as they were in the PS3 era because they are focusing on higher budget AAA games which take longer to develop. 

Bold 3: By this logic they are covered in the AAA front too. It's not like there is a lack of AAA games out there. In addition, stating that they "don't need to lose money" suggests that they would lose money, but this isn't necessarily the case. 

1: Nope, I`m not defending less games, myself I would prefer more games. I was just explaining that even though Sony made less games it wasn`t a real issue to them.

2: Again, the amount of risk wouldn`t really change considerably with more or less games total since they are still proportionally making the same amount of new titles. And making less releases but with bigger budgets would likely increase the risk whenever some of those failed. Eggs and baskets know. Sony could even take less risk and still make more games, let`s say for each AAA game with a budget of 50M+ they make 10 new IPs with budget of 1M, so from every 60M invested 50M would be with certain profit made (83% of their money safely invested). The way I see right now is like 70M for certain hits and 30M for new IPs (so 70% safe investment, which would mean increase in risk). Just look at the IPs in PS3 versus PS4 and I would say that the new IPs there were with less budget than now.

3: Sure they are covered in AAA to, same as MS, their system would sell well even without they making AAA. But not all genres are equally covered. That is the reason you don`t see Sony going to much after FPS games but go for 3rd party action games, because on the first they weren`t able to really have success (they needed to have those in PS3, Resistance, Killzone, etc), but on PS4 that wasn`t needed anymore. Sure that isn`t necessarily the case, but it is potentially, when you aren`t the best on those but release anyway the potential to lose money is higher. So the only aspect that I see Sony taking less risk is because they are releasing games were they can be among the best.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Wonder if xbox head paid him to stir shit up.



Around the Network
Doctor_MG said:

While I agree this is probably a better tactic overall, but the amount of IP's they've developed is practically the same while entries are cut in half. Last generation we saw entries for Uncharted (3), Infamous (2), The Last of Us (1), Resistance (3), Killzone (2), Ratchet and Clank (6), Twisted Metal (1), LittleBigPlanet (4), Socom (2), Motorstorm (3), Playstation Battle Royal (1), God of War (2), Sly Cooper (1), Hawk (2), White Knight Chronicles (2), Gran Turismo (2), Siren (1), Modnation Racers (1), Demon Souls (1)

Total games = 40
New IP's = 10

PS4 however received LittleBigPlanet (2), Uncharted (2), The Last of Us (1), Infamous (1), Ghost of Tsushima (1), Spiderman (2), Horizon Zero Dawn (2), The Order (1), Knack (2), God of War (1), Killzone (1), Driveclub (1), Gran Turismo (1), Ratchet and Clank (1), Gravity Rush (1), Last Guardian (1), Days Gone (1), Dreams (1). 

Total games = 23
New IP's = 10


Anyway, though I don't need three or four entries in every franchise, bringing back older franchises for an entry or two (Resistance, Twisted Metal, Jak and Daxter, etc) would be a great way to fill out the total number of games. They are already established IP's, so less risk, and it increases the amount of output. 

*List only includes owned IP's that are new entries, not remasters. 

***There is a much better consolidated list of all IP's that were created and published by Sony. My list is pretty much defunct at this point and isn't substantial enough to show the difference. 

Where is that much better consolidated list? Just curious. 

and I don't know how your point contradicts mine, we seem to agree? I always argued that Playstation exclusives weren't system sellers, and the Playstation brand had no identity besides "great third party support", and to me, SONY had no legacy whatsoever after 20 years of continued success with the PS1/PS2, this lack of legacy was exposed with the PS3, in fact, PlayStation battle royal embodied the PS brand perfectly well.

I believe SONY's started to change that in the second half of the ps3 lifespan and during the PS4 era, which is a great business decision that they seem to be getting to get the hang of as of late. The PS5 will benefit from it, and if SONY continues to make up for the 20 years head start they wasted on AA games, they might just be able to save PS brand from being completely obliterated by the future of gaming (cloud services), like Nintendo surely will. 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 14 April 2021

LurkerJ said:
Doctor_MG said:

While I agree this is probably a better tactic overall, but the amount of IP's they've developed is practically the same while entries are cut in half. Last generation we saw entries for Uncharted (3), Infamous (2), The Last of Us (1), Resistance (3), Killzone (2), Ratchet and Clank (6), Twisted Metal (1), LittleBigPlanet (4), Socom (2), Motorstorm (3), Playstation Battle Royal (1), God of War (2), Sly Cooper (1), Hawk (2), White Knight Chronicles (2), Gran Turismo (2), Siren (1), Modnation Racers (1), Demon Souls (1)

Total games = 40
New IP's = 10

PS4 however received LittleBigPlanet (2), Uncharted (2), The Last of Us (1), Infamous (1), Ghost of Tsushima (1), Spiderman (2), Horizon Zero Dawn (2), The Order (1), Knack (2), God of War (1), Killzone (1), Driveclub (1), Gran Turismo (1), Ratchet and Clank (1), Gravity Rush (1), Last Guardian (1), Days Gone (1), Dreams (1). 

Total games = 23
New IP's = 10


Anyway, though I don't need three or four entries in every franchise, bringing back older franchises for an entry or two (Resistance, Twisted Metal, Jak and Daxter, etc) would be a great way to fill out the total number of games. They are already established IP's, so less risk, and it increases the amount of output. 

*List only includes owned IP's that are new entries, not remasters. 

***There is a much better consolidated list of all IP's that were created and published by Sony. My list is pretty much defunct at this point and isn't substantial enough to show the difference. 

Where is that much better consolidated list? Just curious. 

and I don't know how your point contradicts mine, we seem to agree? I always argued that Playstation exclusives weren't system sellers, and the Playstation brand had no identity besides "great third party support", and to me, SONY had no legacy whatsoever after 20 years of continued success with the PS1/PS2, this lack of legacy was exposed with the PS3, in fact, PlayStation battle royal embodied the PS brand perfectly well.

I believe SONY's started to change that in the second half of the ps3 lifespan and during the PS4 era, which is a great business decision that they seem to be getting to get the hang of as of late. The PS5 will benefit from it, and if SONY continues to make up for the 20 years head start they wasted on AA games, they might just be able to save PS brand from being completely obliterated by the future of gaming (cloud services), like Nintendo surely will. 

That is quite true, less titles, more sales per title and each IP becoming more recognizeable. And yes although I liked All Stars it was a weak title.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

LurkerJ said:

Where is that much better consolidated list? Just curious. 

and I don't know how your point contradicts mine, we seem to agree? I always argued that Playstation exclusives weren't system sellers, and the Playstation brand had no identity besides "great third party support", and to me, SONY had no legacy whatsoever after 20 years of continued success with the PS1/PS2, this lack of legacy was exposed with the PS3, in fact, PlayStation battle royal embodied the PS brand perfectly well.

I believe SONY's started to change that in the second half of the ps3 lifespan and during the PS4 era, which is a great business decision that they seem to be getting to get the hang of as of late. The PS5 will benefit from it, and if SONY continues to make up for the 20 years head start they wasted on AA games, they might just be able to save PS brand from being completely obliterated by the future of gaming (cloud services), like Nintendo surely will. 

Ludicrous speed posted a much larger and more expansive list. 

We agree that IP fatigue can be a thing, but I don't agree that what they are doing is better overall game wise. I think that funding can still be put into AA experiences that are not surrounding the larger IP's to prevent IP fatigue. They can even use older IP's if they don't want too much of a risk (e.g. a Jak and Daxter game for the PS5 could take less resources and money to develop overall than a new Uncharted game). 

You can argue about the business decision, but, as I mentioned before, there are other factors besides the focus on AAA that increased their profits (namely their two competitors dropping the ball in significant ways). The PS4 was sold at only a very slight loss that was made up by buying just one game. Meanwhile, the PS3 was sold at a significant loss (some estimates as high as $200 during the launch period). They just aren't like for like scenarios. Clearly the software is a success and clearly they've made a lot of money with the PS4. Is that a result of their tactics? IDK, if the situations were a bit more similar it'd be easier to analyze. 

I'm not sure what you meant when you said "no legacy whatsoever". What do you regard as legacy? They had the two best selling home consoles ever and created numerous new IP's which they still own and some are being made today (Ratchet and Clank, God of War). 

I don't think Nintendo will be obliterated by the "future of gaming" as you put it. If having a legacy of iconic games prevents obliteration...Nintendo is at the top of the list of being saved. Their games are the most iconic of all time. 



Doctor_MG said:

Ludicrous speed posted a much larger and more expansive list. 

We agree that IP fatigue can be a thing, but I don't agree that what they are doing is better overall game wise. I think that funding can still be put into AA experiences that are not surrounding the larger IP's to prevent IP fatigue. They can even use older IP's if they don't want too much of a risk (e.g. a Jak and Daxter game for the PS5 could take less resources and money to develop overall than a new Uncharted game). 

You can argue about the business decision, but, as I mentioned before, there are other factors besides the focus on AAA that increased their profits (namely their two competitors dropping the ball in significant ways). The PS4 was sold at only a very slight loss that was made up by buying just one game. Meanwhile, the PS3 was sold at a significant loss (some estimates as high as $200 during the launch period). They just aren't like for like scenarios. Clearly the software is a success and clearly they've made a lot of money with the PS4. Is that a result of their tactics? IDK, if the situations were a bit more similar it'd be easier to analyze. 

I'm not sure what you meant when you said "no legacy whatsoever". What do you regard as legacy? They had the two best selling home consoles ever and created numerous new IP's which they still own and some are being made today (Ratchet and Clank, God of War). 

I don't think Nintendo will be obliterated by the "future of gaming" as you put it. If having a legacy of iconic games prevents obliteration...Nintendo is at the top of the list of being saved. Their games are the most iconic of all time. 

I tend to ignore ludicrous's posts so I missed it. 

Fine, I'll spare you the lists, because if you threw in 10 more games like Jack & Daxter at the Vita and it still wouldn't have been saved. If SONY made no games for the Vita, of which they made many, and secured Mon Hun as an exclusive in Japan instead, the Vita story would've been different, and that's my point really, before flooding the market with AA games, you ought have pillars and icons through which you can sell those AA games. 

And I think you know what I meant by the PS had no software legacy after decades of selling hardware, the fact that you could only think of Ratchet and Kratos as examples says it all (I'll help out and throw in Gran Turismo). SONY's only just starting correcting this problem, Bloodborne as in IP in SONY's arsenal is worth a lot more than 10 more games like Gravity Rush, so definitely close SONY'S JAPAN and similar studios, it shows a hint of mature leadership that wants to correct course, a long way to go still. 

Finally, my phrasing probably confused you, I obviously meant that Nintendo should adapt nicely to whichever twist and turns the future takes because they got their bases covered, something SONY doesn't, but might do if Jim Rayan pays no attention to dumb opinion pieces. 



LurkerJ said:

I tend to ignore ludicrous's posts so I missed it. 

Fine, I'll spare you the lists, because if you threw in 10 more games like Jack & Daxter at the Vita and it still wouldn't have been saved. If SONY made no games for the Vita, of which they made many, and secured Mon Hun as an exclusive in Japan instead, the Vita story would've been different, and that's my point really, before flooding the market with AA games, you ought have pillars and icons through which you can sell those AA games. 

And I think you know what I meant by the PS had no software legacy after decades of selling hardware, the fact that you could only think of Ratchet and Kratos as examples says it all (I'll help out and throw in Gran Turismo). SONY's only just starting correcting this problem, Bloodborne as in IP in SONY's arsenal is worth a lot more than 10 more games like Gravity Rush, so definitely close SONY'S JAPAN and similar studios, it shows a hint of mature leadership that wants to correct course, a long way to go still. 

Finally, my phrasing probably confused you, I obviously meant that Nintendo should adapt nicely to whichever twist and turns the future takes because they got their bases covered, something SONY doesn't, but might do if Jim Rayan pays no attention to dumb opinion pieces. 

I'm not suggesting they would have "saved the Vita". I'm saying Sony's output was considerably higher last generation as it spanned two different consoles (three if you include the PS2, but most of those were PSP ports) and they still made more total games for the PS3. 

I only PROVIDED two examples, that isn't all that I could think of. Suggesting I couldn't come up with anymore because I didn't come up with a comprehensive list is a poor attempt at derailing my argument, no offense. Playstation started a legacy with the PS1. They carried over games like Wipeout, Syphon Filter, Medievil, Ape Escape, Gran Turismo and Twisted Metal to other generations. The PS2 brought God of War, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, MLB The Show, and Killzone to other generations. The PS3 established IP's like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and Infamous. All of these franchises carried through to multiple generations. Some of them Sony dropped, some of them they haven't. Some of them are at an unknown status. All of them are part of Playstations legacy and were a part of the brand. You are acting as if the brand or its games were not recognizable before this generation, which I don't think is true. 

I think most companies don't pay attention to opinion pieces like these (otherwise Nintendo would reduce their port prices). They pay attention to sales. Clearly what Sony is doing is working for them, and that is fantastic. The issue is that it isn't working for me. I miss the AA games they used to invest in. They have a large catalog of IP's (some listed above) that they can still utilize. But they aren't going to according to these new sources. For me, that's sad and frustrating. The AAA blockbuster games are not the only reason why I enjoy Playstation products. 

Also, Bloodborne was partially developed BY Sony Japan...so I don't see how closing that studio was good for that IP.