Ouch, can't blame them for firing him but damn that's hard to hear, I suppose we have to accept that it may not be the same Bungie that gave us Destiny in 2014. As for Fairgames, it doesn't need to struggle, they already imprinted this attempt at "Hey fellow kids" onto it and that does not go well these days, they could be onto a really good game and I reckon it'll still fail just based on how it looks and it's style choice. Same as Forrspoken, Concord, New Dawn, Young blood etc. 

Let's hope they've lost enough to stop this stupidity with GaaS, they're not the only ones with problems making this space profitable. GaaS is the crown of the regalia that is shitty business practices in the industry these past few years, and the market is signaling pretty clearly that these games aren't wanted, with the exception of a few hits. I understand that developers and publishers are looking for long-term sustainability; but they have to find an approach that the gamers will actually embrace. Every failure like this benefits us in the long run, if it means that the publishers reconsider their stance on GaaS.

Hopefully they keep flopping and bleeding money so Sony and the rest of the AAA industry can move on from this garbage trend.
This whole notion of making games designed to go on and on endlessly, monopolize your time and siphon your money away on an ongoing basis is cancer.

Helldivers 2 will make more money than whatever amount their live service games have lost. Not to mention MLB The Show prints money as a yearly release. Some of you need to get over the live service boogeyman.

You are not losing single player games because Sony decided to buy Haven and Bungie. The Last of Us Online getting cancelled doesn't impact the new IP coming out of Santa Monica Studios or Sony Bend. The type of single player games that people want from Sony is certainly not coming from Pixel Opus, London Studio or Firewalk.

Astro Bot and Lego Horizon were green lit under Jim Ryan's tenure. 

True we haven't seen anything being greenlit by Hermen and with dev time taking around 5 to 8 years we won't see anything for a long while. The next big upcoming game might be Wolverine (for all we know) and that was Greenlig by Jim Ryan as well as to buy Insomniac.

Lots of games made a killing off of loot-box mechanics as well, that doesn't make it a strategy to be lauded. It only takes a few hits to spark a trend, which invariably leads to funds getting funneled into projects of the same ilk, taking it away from other possible venues. Anthem is a prime example - Bioware were still capable of making something great back then, but the EA ghost hovered above them and wanted that sweet GaaS nectar. You mentioning that some profit is made off of what is generally considered a poor trend, doesn't make it a good trend. Heck, even the industry at large disagrees with you, and also subscribe to the "boogeyman" theories.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/70-of-developers-worry-about-the-live-service-models-sustainability-survey-shows/

https://twistedvoxel.com/first-party-studios-upset-playstation-gaas-direction/

Gamers and developers, overall, are not fond of GaaS, it's mostly on the publisher side that the enthusiasm lies. Any publisher and developer has a finite amount of money, it's absurd to claim that GaaS focus won't steer funding away from other projects, such as single-player (and multiplayer) games that people actually want. I also play one franchise that is probably a net negative to the industry (FIFA). I don't play online, and certainly don't purchase card packs for UT, but I would never in a million years suggest that what EA are doing with FIFA is a good thing.

I surely hope that we won't see a future where you not only pay for the connection and the privilege of playing online, but also have to pay subscriptions or regular fees for individual titles on top. It's a very bad development for us as consumers - it will create a market of intermittency and instability, with uneven sales curves and more closures as a result.

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.

I just find typically the reason some gaas games do well is because the cringe streamer culture. Some blue-haired screamer streamer over every little thing sitting in their cheaply made bad-for-back but cost-a-fortune race car chairs on twitch. A bunch of fools follow them and do what they do.