Support NeoGAF

[splattered]

Not even gonna bother to vote but been saying for a while it's only a matter of time...

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

On one hand, I think this is getting into semantics territory. On the other hand, them specifying that tentpole mainline single-player games will remain exclusive (for a while) is a very narrow range to define. Just how many of those games are going to be coming from their internal studios on a regular basis? 3 per year? 1 per year? One every two years? One every three years?

You can already start to see the issues that pop up on that front, especially considering over the past two years SIE have announced way more new GAAS titles than non-GAAS titles of any type from their internal studios. And there's also the thing that, so should the GAAS and "experimental" games prove successful, why would SIE simply not prioritize more of those games over time? Why would shareholders not stress SIE to prioritize them over the single-player mainline tentpole AAA games that would otherwise be timed exclusive for PS consoles for some period of time?

It's easy to promise something, if you aren't gonna provide a lot of what is promised.

Everything will be everywhere from everyone in five years IMO. The only thing left to determine is what everywhere actually is, and how to manage it without causing mass fanboy suicides on all sides...

The death of exclusives will be the savior of gaming with games reaching much wider audiences. Imagine if you could launch something like God of War (not that I think that is an example of a great game, it's not, but it would have a huge audience no doubt) and just about everyone could play it, not just the few million people invested enough to have bought one specific system.

It's happening for sure IMO, excited to see what comes next.

Nintendo and Valve aren't following that path, at least certainly not the way you're suggesting. They don't need to, either: Nintendo's most important shares are owned by family and Japanese banks who aren't greedy for growth just for the sake of growth, and their own games more than incentivize sales of their hardware and they have very good profit margins.

Valve is a privately owned company that doesn't have to answer to shareholders at all, they have an Apple-like model where most of their money comes through the sale of games on their storefront. Stuff like Steam Deck is just a nice bonus on top.

"Exclusives are bad" became a talking point from Microsoft because that's what most benefited them after the reality of Xbox sales decline and costs for buying Zenimax & ABK set in. People in the media parroted the talking point, and diehards repeat it regularly. This whole thing of demonizing exclusives, even if by trying to tie it to economic realities (when various things BTS could be reigned in to increase margins while still retaining exclusivity), isn't by accident.

Lego Horizon isn't being made my a Sony first party studio though, right? So it's more just a weird spin off of the IP, I don't think this necessarily means any of the (frankly insane) things you listed are going to happen over the next four years.

We'll see. But when MS announced Minecraft Legends for PS4 & Switch at that one E3, did anyone truly expect them to be porting as many games as possible to PS5 & Switch a few years later?

Going forward I'm gonna err on the side of caution regarding 1P games remaining exclusive (timed or otherwise) from SIE.

Interesting X threads :

So this thing about Xbox still being viewed as a direct competitor by SIE...

If that's the case, why are SIE allowing Microsoft to publish so many games on PS5? Isn't that just them allowing a direct competitor to both profit off their platform AND potentially rope in some PS gamers into the Xbox ecosystem, potentially at the cost of them staying in the PlayStation one? We already know that it wasn't a situation where Microsoft forced Sony to take on a bunch of other games just to keep getting stuff like COD. For starters, those aren't terms in the multi-year agreement for COD on all platforms. Secondly, if MS did that it would be considered a form of cataloging which gets into murky territory of being an anticompetitive practice.

As for not appealing to a large kid demographic on Xbox...well it's true that demographic is smaller there than on PlayStation and Nintendo systems. But it's not like it's nonexistent. I don't think games like Sea of Thieves would have much purpose on Xbox if there wasn't a decently sized-enough demographic of kids on Xbox, even the current gen with its glacial numbers. So couldn't it be argued that SIE are cutting off a decently-sized kid audience on Xbox by not bringing LEGO Horizon over there?

I think as you can see, simply through SIE's allowing Microsoft to bring a lot of games to PS5, even reaching out to help certain studios in the process (like with RARE for Sea of Thieves), it's arguable how much of a direct competitor they still view Xbox as. Even if they see them as a direct competitor, it's a very weak one. If anything, them bringing games like this to Switch (and going forward, Switch 2) as well as PC (therefore to devices like Steam Deck) reduces the addressable need for a future PlayStation portable. Maybe not by a lot, but it does chip some of that case away.

Like what's the point of a PS5 or PS6 owner getting a PS handheld to play games like LEGO Horizon on the go, when that person probably already has a Switch or Steam Deck system, and can simply choose to play the same game on one of those instead? I guess one good reason would remain, such as picking it up on a PS5 or PS6 gives you a "free" version to play on a PS handheld for a seamless experience.

But in that case, SIE have to make very certain that the user experience and features are so damn good, they sell the system on their own merits, without even needing to factor in the software. And well as an example, when it comes to viewing that from a perspective of PS5 vs. PC, there are quite a few things the PS user experience is lacking on or missing altogether that platforms like Steam provide handily. To where if it were just deciding on one of the two for the features and user experience, I think PS5 as-is would have a significantly harder time justifying itself vs. Steam.

 

[graywolf323]

I think Lego Horizon is an exception to the rule and their strategy remains what it has been.

pretty much, which there doesn’t seem to be a poll option for

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

No option for maintaining the status quo?

 

[midnightAI]

I won't answer your whole post but a couple of things stood out to me.....

You can already start to see the issues that pop up on that front, especially considering over the past two years SIE have announced way more new GAAS titles than non-GAAS titles of any type from their internal studios. And there's also the thing that, so should the GAAS and "experimental" games prove successful, why would SIE simply not prioritize more of those games over time? Why would shareholders not stress SIE to prioritize them over the single-player mainline tentpole AAA games that would otherwise be timed exclusive for PS consoles for some period of time?

It's easy to promise something, if you aren't gonna provide a lot of what is promised.

In my opinion I think they mean internally developed non-GaaS games will all remain exclusive for a period of time, other first party games developed by a third party will mostly remain exclusive , but there could be exceptions if it's beneficial to do so. Having all games PC day and date is not beneficial, it's detrimental to hardware sales. Lego is beneficial because its a massive global franchise they can be partnered with.

Like what's the point of a PS5 or PS6 owner getting a PS handheld to play games like LEGO Horizon on the go, when that person probably already has a Switch or Steam Deck system, and can simply choose to play the same game on one of those instead? I guess one good reason would remain, such as picking it up on a PS5 or PS6 gives you a "free" version to play on a PS handheld for a seamless experience.

Well for one we have no idea if Sony is making a standalone handheld if that is what you mean, and Portal is mainly designed for in local in house use, it isn't meant as a direct Switch competitor. But anyway, what Sony are trying to do here is not just allow players play Lego Horizon on other platforms, they are introducing them to the Horizon world/IP in the hope that people (mainly kids) will want to play the other games.

Will it work? I have no idea, but the one worry for all platforms at the moment is growth, and to increase that growth they need to introduce their IP's to more potential players, whether that's through direct marketing, TV/films, merchandise, games and other means. Lego Horizon (and mainline Horizon) just about covers all bases. Just look on here, multiple threads about a 'Lego' game and people still talking about it days after the announcement, that doesn't happen very often.

 

[AyraSutoraifu]

Jeez, it's 'just' a Lego game

 

[Neofire]

On one hand, I think this is getting into semantics territory. On the other hand, them specifying that tentpole mainline single-player games will remain exclusive (for a while) is a very narrow range to define. Just how many of those games are going to be coming from their internal studios on a regular basis? 3 per year? 1 per year? One every two years? One every three years?

You can already start to see the issues that pop up on that front, especially considering over the past two years SIE have announced way more new GAAS titles than non-GAAS titles of any type from their internal studios. And there's also the thing that, so should the GAAS and "experimental" games prove successful, why would SIE simply not prioritize more of those games over time? Why would shareholders not stress SIE to prioritize them over the single-player mainline tentpole AAA games that would otherwise be timed exclusive for PS consoles for some period of time?

It's easy to promise something, if you aren't gonna provide a lot of what is promised.



Nintendo and Valve aren't following that path, at least certainly not the way you're suggesting. They don't need to, either: Nintendo's most important shares are owned by family and Japanese banks who aren't greedy for growth just for the sake of growth, and their own games more than incentivize sales of their hardware and they have very good profit margins.

Valve is a privately owned company that doesn't have to answer to shareholders at all, they have an Apple-like model where most of their money comes through the sale of games on their storefront. Stuff like Steam Deck is just a nice bonus on top.

"Exclusives are bad" became a talking point from Microsoft because that's what most benefited them after the reality of Xbox sales decline and costs for buying Zenimax & ABK set in. People in the media parroted the talking point, and diehards repeat it regularly. This whole thing of demonizing exclusives, even if by trying to tie it to economic realities (when various things BTS could be reigned in to increase margins while still retaining exclusivity), isn't by accident.



We'll see. But when MS announced Minecraft Legends for PS4 & Switch at that one E3, did anyone truly expect them to be porting as many games as possible to PS5 & Switch a few years later?

Going forward I'm gonna err on the side of caution regarding 1P games remaining exclusive (timed or otherwise) from SIE.



So this thing about Xbox still being viewed as a direct competitor by SIE...

If that's the case, why are SIE allowing Microsoft to publish so many games on PS5? Isn't that just them allowing a direct competitor to both profit off their platform AND potentially rope in some PS gamers into the Xbox ecosystem, potentially at the cost of them staying in the PlayStation one? We already know that it wasn't a situation where Microsoft forced Sony to take on a bunch of other games just to keep getting stuff like COD. For starters, those aren't terms in the multi-year agreement for COD on all platforms. Secondly, if MS did that it would be considered a form of cataloging which gets into murky territory of being an anticompetitive practice.

As for not appealing to a large kid demographic on Xbox...well it's true that demographic is smaller there than on PlayStation and Nintendo systems. But it's not like it's nonexistent. I don't think games like Sea of Thieves would have much purpose on Xbox if there wasn't a decently sized-enough demographic of kids on Xbox, even the current gen with its glacial numbers. So couldn't it be argued that SIE are cutting off a decently-sized kid audience on Xbox by not bringing LEGO Horizon over there?

I think as you can see, simply through SIE's allowing Microsoft to bring a lot of games to PS5, even reaching out to help certain studios in the process (like with RARE for Sea of Thieves), it's arguable how much of a direct competitor they still view Xbox as. Even if they see them as a direct competitor, it's a very weak one. If anything, them bringing games like this to Switch (and going forward, Switch 2) as well as PC (therefore to devices like Steam Deck) reduces the addressable need for a future PlayStation portable. Maybe not by a lot, but it does chip some of that case away.

Like what's the point of a PS5 or PS6 owner getting a PS handheld to play games like LEGO Horizon on the go, when that person probably already has a Switch or Steam Deck system, and can simply choose to play the same game on one of those instead? I guess one good reason would remain, such as picking it up on a PS5 or PS6 gives you a "free" version to play on a PS handheld for a seamless experience.

But in that case, SIE have to make very certain that the user experience and features are so damn good, they sell the system on their own merits, without even needing to factor in the software. And well as an example, when it comes to viewing that from a perspective of PS5 vs. PC, there are quite a few things the PS user experience is lacking on or missing altogether that platforms like Steam provide handily. To where if it were just deciding on one of the two for the features and user experience, I think PS5 as-is would have a significantly harder time justifying itself vs. Steam.

I agree with almost all your points. I think Sony has made a grave mistake, especially with releasing a signature IP on a competitors platform and hell not even on the PS4 which is must more powerful and just as popular as the switch. This strategy makes no sense and has never worked for any hardware maker.

I figured the new leadership would fuck up the brand but damn I didn't think it would be this fast. Like you said in your post, people are like "why buy a PlayStation" hell the games are even coming to the switch.

 

[midnightAI]

I agree with almost all your points. I think Sony has made a grave mistake, especially with releasing a signature IP on a competitors platform and hell not even on the PS4 which is must more powerful and just as popular as the switch. This strategy makes no sense and has never worked for any hardware maker.

I figured the new leadership would fuck up the brand but damn I didn't think it would be this fast. Like you said in your post, people are like "why buy a PlayStation" hell the games are even coming to the switch.

Chill out it's a single game, also, who else has even done this (partnered with Lego to bring a signature IP to other platforms) to prove it never works?

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I agree with almost all your points. I think Sony has made a grave mistake, especially with releasing a signature IP on a competitors platform and hell not even on the PS4 which is must more powerful and just as popular as the switch. This strategy makes no sense and has never worked for any hardware maker.

I figured the new leadership would fuck up the brand but damn I didn't think it would be this fast. Like you said in your post, people are like "why buy a PlayStation" hell the games are even coming to the switch.

You know what?

You make perfect sense. Lego Horizon killed Playstation.

 

[ShaiKhulud1989]

Ah, Sony x MLB deal vibes again. The age of exclusive games based on popular brands are over. Part of the reason why Microsoft signed Blade (still no platforms revealed), company was already pivoting to 3rd party.

Horizon is an exception because it's LEGO and Switch version is even handled by an external team. Nobody will change anything and #SonyToo narrative is getting tiresome. It's hard to even align them with MS, because at this point even MS is barely knows what they're doing.

Plus some Sony-owned IPs are not even handled by PlayStation, recent Starship Troopers game is PC-exclusive, while Helldivers 2 is a specific PlayStation IP.

 

[Gaiff]

All this over a Lego game. At this point I want Sony to port PlayStation games to PC Day 1 just to see people lose their minds and storm Sony’s HQ to kidnap the top brass and threaten to destroy everything if Sony doesn’t reverse its decision.

 

[Embearded]

People are trying so hard to push this "Sony Too" agenda.
They are leading the market at the moment, with great sales both in HW and SW. They don't need to do whatever MS is doing and one Lego game doesn't mean anything.

I don't understand if it's MS fans trying to cope with whatever MS is doing or disappointed Sony fans.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

I see what the SonyToo is trying to do and they are implying is wrong as things stand right now or in the near future. However, Sony feeds this narrative with contradicting business decisions. And I can feel this as a kind of "testing the waters" from PS heads. It's their call to "lend" a flagship IP to a third party. I doubt that the financial survival of the division depended on it.

They have been moving the non-exclusivity Overton window for quite some time already, this cannot be denied. Just remember where we were 4 years ago when they revealed PS5.

 

[balls of snow]

Kinda obvious with that force psn sign in on steam and the playstation ui overlay. They leaning into bringing ALL their fp to pc with a staggered release. Still does not solve the problem the games take more time to make than actual next gen hardware engineering.

 

[jufonuk]

More games coming to Nintendo. I still don’t believe Nintendo will publish their big titles on other systems. Tbh I think they will have the most exclusives. But I’m not a wizard like Pachter. So what do I know.

If I were trolling I would say

If Nintendo keep Nintendoing they gonna have a lot of games and their own exclusives they must be thinking this about everything

Also iwata’a ghost must be

The Prophecy has been foretold


Maybe Sony are just realising all those YouTube videos about iwata being right were actually right, and now they are paying Nintendo back for breaking off their hook up with Nintendo and creating the PlayStation,

Ok thank
Bye.

 

[Fredrik]

For comparison, Microsoft started doing PC ports in 2016. That’s 8 years ago.

Here is some talk about it. Interesting thread. Some like it, some don’t like it.

Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners

With this mornings rumor that Quantum Break will also be releasing on the PC alongside the Xbox One version I, like usual, saw folk online lamenting the loss of an exclusive game for their console or saying that MS was now down another exclusive. Same goes for when ReCore was announced for...

www.neogaf.com

Then came Ori for Switch in 2019 iirc.

So 4 years seem like a short time for any truly disruptive things to happen on Playstation.

That said, I think they’ll go day 1 everywhere, but with their own launcher and storefront, and they’ll have exclusives there.
Can’t vote on that so no voting here.

 

[ShaiKhulud1989]

For comparison, Microsoft started doing PC ports in 2016. That’s 8 years ago.

Here is some talk about it. Interesting thread. Some like it, some don’t like it.

Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners

With this mornings rumor that Quantum Break will also be releasing on the PC alongside the Xbox One version I, like usual, saw folk online lamenting the loss of an exclusive game for their console or saying that MS was now down another exclusive. Same goes for when ReCore was announced for...

www.neogaf.com

Then came Ori for Switch in 2019 iirc.

So 4 years seem like a short time for any truly disruptive things to happen on Playstation.

That said, I think they’ll go day 1 everywhere, but with their own launcher and storefront, and they’ll have exclusives there.
Can’t vote on that so no voting here.

Now attach hw sales dynamics to your semantics and it will paint a very different picture.

 

[jufonuk]

Who knows what’s over the horizon,
It’s uncharted territory?

I know nothing I’m probably the last of us to know anything

 

[Guilty_AI]

Now attach hw sales dynamics to your semantics and it will paint a very different picture.

MS was already trailing behind by then

This idea that PC ports killed the Xone is a complete myth.

 

[Neofire]

MS was already trailing behind by then

This idea that PC ports killed the Xone is a complete myth.

MS was "trailing behind" ever since they entered the console space. You saying what has always been, means nothing. Them releasing their 1st party games day one on PC made things much worse and stack on that GP pass. You have an Xbox division on life support as a brand.

 

[NahaNago]

I think it is more of an issue of who is making the game and what type of game it is. They also probably thought they would get a lot more sales on switch since it is legos. I honestly could see some day one smaller game getting put on pc someday but they don't really have studios that make those smaller games, I think.

 

[Guilty_AI]

MS was "trailing behind" ever since they entered the console space.

Except in that one generation full of Halos, Gears and dorito smelling controllers.

 

[Topher]

MS was "trailing behind" ever since they entered the console space. You saying what has always been, means nothing. Them releasing their 1st party games day one on PC made things much worse and stack on that GP pass. You have an Xbox division on life support as a brand.

Not true. Prior to Xbox One, the Xbox 360 was virtually tied with PS3 worldwide by the end of generation and dominated PS3 in the US. I'd love to see proof that PC ports made things worse, but fact of the matter is that before PC ports happened, Microsoft stopped revealing console sales numbers so no idea how folks are coming to that conclusion.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

 

[Fredrik]

Now attach hw sales dynamics to your semantics and it will paint a very different picture.

You do it, and paint that picture. I don’t have any data.

I’m on PC now because of ports, so ports aren’t risk free. But I doubt that anything really destructive will happen with the Playstation platform as we know it within 4 years. Which is what the thread is about.


Long term though. Well then I think lots of things will change. But my prediction is in short that console exclusives will change to launcher and subscription exclusives. And does it then matter if games are made to run on different boxes? People will still be forced to use their ”platform”.

The dangerous transition is the one Microsoft are trying to do. Remove the hardware requirement without a launcher that people actually want to use and without any type of exclusivity.
It’s never going to work.
Add Steam into the mix and Valve will get the entry point into the living room they’ve wanted for a decade.
But what will Microsoft get?

 

[ProtoByte]

People are trying so hard to push this "Sony Too" agenda.
They are leading the market at the moment, with great sales both in HW and SW. They don't need to do whatever MS is doing and one Lego game doesn't mean anything.

I don't understand if it's MS fans trying to cope with whatever MS is doing or disappointed Sony fans.

Thicc_girls isn't a coping MS fan, I can tell you that. You could say that he's critical of PS because he is that much a fan. Lol

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

pretty much, which there doesn’t seem to be a poll option for

I'll add one

No option for maintaining the status quo?

Added

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Its really very simple. Multiple analysts have pointed it out, and gaming journalists. All you have to is look at it instead of trying to convince yourself they're all paid by MS.

Console sales arent growing as expected.

Slight correction: Xbox sales aren't growing as expected. And what Microsoft expected, was based on data they probably didn't understand. I.e they probably didn't account for how big the pandemic lockdowns and chip shortages played a role in driving Series S sales during 2021 and the first half of 2022, or Series X sales in early 2022 for similar reasons. Particularly when PS5 supply was barren and PS4 had basically ceased manufacturing.

So during that period, if you really wanted a new gen console, your only real option was a Series S and then maybe a Series X. PS5s were very hard to find by comparison, the PS4 is a last-gen console (and also ceased production), and the Switch wouldn't be viewed as a "next gen" platform by those looking to upgrade.

Physical media is declining.

Well, true. But at different rates in different markets.

Development costs are rising.

I think a lot of this is due to budget bloat, hiring for overpaid Hollywood actors, actresses & writers, certain redundant consultancy groups (not gonna name names), cost of living in areas where AAA development takes place, and expensive film & media IP licensing.

Western (specifically, American) AAA devs have seen their budgets increase at much higher rates than Japanese or most Asian AAA devs, and even most European AAA devs.

All of those are thing that could be cleaned up and budgets would fall dramatically.

All companies are adapting to this in slightly different but largely similar ways already. Just guess what 8 years in the future looks like.

Not all companies. Nintendo and Valve are taking notably different approaches, because they aren't burdened by the same financial and operational overheads Microsoft Gaming and SIE seem to be. Or other big publishers like Take Two.

Nintendo's answer has been to focus on mobile with spinoffs licensing their IP developed by 3P mobile devs. The closest to that SIE are doing is with LEGO Horizon. However, Nintendo still provides equivalent new entries for those same IP on their own hardware, developed by internal 1P & traditional console-orientated 3P devs (in 2P arrangements), often as co-development deals.

Valve's answer has been to offer gaming hardware to access their storefront (as the primary purpose) on, and further proliferate their storefront among people already there, and console & mobile gamers who might be interested in cheaper & friendlier access points to PC gaming. Devices like Steam Deck also help push Steam OS, something Valve would like to become the dominant OS for PC gaming in the future.

Nothing is really going to change. The GaaS day one and AAA 2+ years later model works well for them. Console sales are still strong and they eek out the last bit of revenue from double dippers and those that refuse to buy a console. They will probably try getting more mobile games but that won't be the focus of any of the first party studios.

The Switch thing is almost certainly happening because the IP holder (Lego) requested it. Just like what is happening with MLB.

I don't think LEGO and MLB are in the same situation here regarding platform leverage. At the very least, SIE would've had 50% of say with this LEGO game because the Horizon license is there.

The fact there is no PS4 version still makes me think that platform choice was largely down to SIE.

I won't answer your whole post but a couple of things stood out to me.....

In my opinion I think they mean internally developed non-GaaS games will all remain exclusive for a period of time, other first party games developed by a third party will mostly remain exclusive , but there could be exceptions if it's beneficial to do so. Having all games PC day and date is not beneficial, it's detrimental to hardware sales. Lego is beneficial because its a massive global franchise they can be partnered with.

Well like I said to squarealex 's post....is there much a difference in practice for keeping the tentpole SP narrative-driven AAA games timed exclusive to console for a couple years before PC, if those type of games make up only an increasingly smaller portion of total output? If those games are down to one per year, is that going to be enough?

Also FWIW, in that investor's call SIE didn't specify that 3P-developed SP AAA games were a part of that 'tentpole' stuff they were talking about. So even those have wiggle room to be Day 1 on PC and we kinda see that with Until Dawn, although that's a remake of a near 10-year old game and isn't considered a 1P tentpole. But if say, Death Stranding 2, is PC Day 1, then that gives some clarification.

I do get what you mean regarding having the right IP and right game type could incentivize case-by-case with select games that aren't heavy GAAS, going another way with release pattern. IMO anything where exclusivity isn't involved, has some detriment to potential console sales. It just works on a scale, depending on the game, depending on the frequency. So I can see the argument that something like LEGO Horizon not being exclusive is a minimal impact.

My thing is, if the sales and revenue work out exceptionally well for the game, what's going to stop SIE higher-ups, the BoD, and shareholders from wanting to push that strategy further? Find ways to add online MP features to all games so they can "technically" be considered a live-service and technically get Day 1 releases on PC without outright contradicting earlier messaging? What would people think at that point?

Well for one we have no idea if Sony is making a standalone handheld if that is what you mean, and Portal is mainly designed for in local in house use, it isn't meant as a direct Switch competitor. But anyway, what Sony are trying to do here is not just allow players play Lego Horizon on other platforms, they are introducing them to the Horizon world/IP in the hope that people (mainly kids) will want to play the other games.

There's rumors they're working on a companion handheld that could natively play PS5 (maybe PS6) games, but wouldn't release until next generation. But, there's another rumor they're working on a PS4 Portable type of handheld that could release within the next two years. I don't know if any of those rumors are true; I think the former would make more sense to do in the long run, but that's aside the point.

I guess even if SIE go ahead with those plans, since those handhelds would not have their own unique libraries, they would be considered extensions of the home consoles rather than directly compete against something like a Switch 2. Though, I think it'd be a bit hypocritical to also then think PC isn't a competitor by that point, considering you can (right now) use a Steam Deck as an extension of your desktop gaming experience.

Well, if that type of strategy were to remain, then I guess by that point it'd make sense if SIE don't see Nintendo as any more a competitor than they see a platform like PC.

Will it work? I have no idea, but the one worry for all platforms at the moment is growth, and to increase that growth they need to introduce their IP's to more potential players, whether that's through direct marketing, TV/films, merchandise, games and other means. Lego Horizon (and mainline Horizon) just about covers all bases. Just look on here, multiple threads about a 'Lego' game and people still talking about it days after the announcement, that doesn't happen very often.

People are talking about the LEGO game mainly because of its multiplatform status while using a big SIE tentpole IP. It's less about the game itself and more about that.

Whether that's fair to the game or not, I can't say. It just is what it is ATM.

I agree with almost all your points. I think Sony has made a grave mistake, especially with releasing a signature IP on a competitors platform and hell not even on the PS4 which is must more powerful and just as popular as the switch. This strategy makes no sense and has never worked for any hardware maker.

I figured the new leadership would fuck up the brand but damn I didn't think it would be this fast. Like you said in your post, people are like "why buy a PlayStation" hell the games are even coming to the switch.

Yeah and that's the thing; even if LEGO Horizon is an exception, it's gonna open floodgates with lots of people (especially the disingenuous media types) to push clickbait and drama headlines about SIE bringing more games to Switch. Not just that, but other stuff like "Why is LEGO Horizon & Helldivers 2 not on Xbox?", then they'll probably cite Xbox console sales as a reason it's not a competitor anymore (but only to serve their narrative). Or ask stuff like "Will Sony put Horizon 3 Day 1 on Steam?" because, again, now there's precedent to ask those questions.

I think the only way SIE could cut that crap out is to be upfront about their multiplatform strategy at a big Showcase. These investor calls, the blog posts....most people aren't checking for that stuff. You don't see MSNBC or others talking about this stuff either, because it's just not something that's been made clearly known yet. That's what an outline of the strategy at an event like a Showcase would address.

 

[BattleScar]

This forum is full of people who have no idea what's going on, overthinking things they have no control over.

 

[tmlDan]

i think you're overreacting.

 

[Fbh]

Man that Lego Horizon game really broke some people

 

[64bitmodels]

Personally, I wouldn't agree with that perspective. I don't agree with the idea that AAA games need to be multiplatform in order to justify themselves. I don't even agree with the idea that GAAS titles need to be, either.

Maybe you don't. But the economic system does and so long as Sony is at the whim of shareholders and the dollar, exclusivity is a concept as fragile as glass.


Also GaaS literally needs multiplatform support to justify itself. Every successful one has been multiplat. You can't make a GaaS, a model hellbent on getting as many players possible to increase engagement and microtransaction money, successful on one platform unless that platform has like half a billion (or more) people. Even GaaS that starts off successful on PC need console money to keep going.

 

[simpatico]

It's going to be a harder argument for the console group to keep games away from PC on day 1. Now that they have accounting records for several PC releases across several genres and release windows, it's going to be a tough sell. Especially in these belt tightening times. Do they give up hundreds of millions in sales for an unmeasurable "system selling effect"? Does the profit per console sold make up for the lost sales?

 

[Three]

I think the Lego thing is a play for attracting a younger audience to PS franchises and growing the audience via new younger users, a Switch release for that demographic and skipping xbox made sense to them.

 

[64bitmodels]

The only way exclusivity can be truly justified in 2024 is simply bringing back the 90s way of exclusivity- our game literally can't work on your console. That's why you got Sonic on Genesis and F-Zero on Super Nintendo.

Consider making unique hardware again

 

[Kataploom]

It means the pride and honor once held is being diminished to simply business, they are insulting their people, reducing then to simple customers, they are insulting their legacy and what made greatness mean something, who can protect us from the shame and disrespect in this eternal war? We are being disposed, abandoned, and they will pay for it.

Well no, that's how I actually imagine these fanboys on internet crying about fearing PS not being able to define their personality or whatever, I think it's great, hell of Nintendo released their games on PC, if within their own storefront and even if it requires console controller or whatever to even be played, I'd be glad to get proper IQ and frame rate.

Sony realized they can't no longer trust market growth within their limits, they acted as a responsible company should, if they find a way to magically make the market grow, good for them, but as of now, their best approach is to get a many people buying their games a they can.

 

[tmlDan]

The only way exclusivity can be truly justified in 2024 is simply bringing back the 90s way of exclusivity- our game literally can't work on your console. That's why you got Sonic on Genesis and F-Zero on Super Nintendo.

Consider making unique hardware again

this is basically "how to risk going bankrupt 101"

not that i disagree, but people are so risk averse because the general public hates anything "new".

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

MS was already trailing behind by then

This idea that PC ports killed the Xone is a complete myth.

It's not that PC ports "killed" Xbox sales; it's that they contributed a sizable part towards that and, over time, consequences from other bad decisions at Microsoft compounded unto things like the PC ports and exacerbated them to factor worst than they would have on their own.

IIRC Day 1 to Steam for all games didn't happen until around 2020.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It's not that PC ports "killed" Xbox sales; it's that they contributed a sizable part towards that and, over time, consequences from other bad decisions at Microsoft compounded unto things like the PC ports and exacerbated them to factor worst than they would have on their own.

Contributed how much exactly? All indicated they were on a downwards trends regardless, and there is absolutely 0 evidence of pc ports making it worse.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Nah fam.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Not true. Prior to Xbox One, the Xbox 360 was virtually tied with PS3 worldwide by the end of generation and dominated PS3 in the US. I'd love to see proof that PC ports made things worse, but fact of the matter is that before PC ports happened, Microsoft stopped revealing console sales numbers so no idea how folks are coming to that conclusion.

Well like I always say, Day 1 PC wasn't the only or maybe even the biggest factor towards declining Xbox sales. But, it was a notable contributor, and probably compounded on top of previous issues with Xbox so the effect was exacerbated.

Plus, on some level, I can respect MS's initial PC push because they tied it exclusively to their own store for a few years before going to Steam in 2020. For whatever reason people think Sony are gonna yank all future games from Steam and put them exclusively in their own storefront and somehow expect that to succeed with no drawbacks or controversy.

Yeah, that'll go well

You do it, and paint that picture. I don’t have any data.

I’m on PC now because of ports, so ports aren’t risk free. But I doubt that anything really destructive will happen with the Playstation platform as we know it within 4 years. Which is what the thread is about.


Long term though. Well then I think lots of things will change. But my prediction is in short that console exclusives will change to launcher and subscription exclusives. And does it then matter if games are made to run on different boxes? People will still be forced to use their ”platform”.

That's probably how companies like Sony are expecting people to view it longer-term. But how people get there is as important as them getting there. Can Sony prevent them from feeling jaded or disregarded in coming to accept that type of future?

If they can't, that transition can backfire.

The dangerous transition is the one Microsoft are trying to do. Remove the hardware requirement without a launcher that people actually want to use and without any type of exclusivity.
It’s never going to work.
Add Steam into the mix and Valve will get the entry point into the living room they’ve wanted for a decade.
But what will Microsoft get?

The way I see it, the next Xbox is basically going to be more like a PC. So MS at least get the ability to charge a higher price for the base hardware. The $599 Series X 2 TB they just revealed might be a precursor towards that pricing strategy on their hardware next go-around.

But I also think, MS are going to tie stuff like Steam to a recurring Game Pass subscription. It could actually work, and it'd let them keep the hardware cheaper vs. if it were a Windows-based gaming PC. Maybe that'd be enough for them to get rid of the paid online requirement too, but I doubt that.

Contributed how much exactly? All indicated they were on a downwards trends regardless, and there is absolutely 0 evidence of pc ports making it worse.

So you're really going to tell me that MS bringing all their games Day 1 to Steam has had zero negative impact on perceived value of their own consoles? That's a sentiment I refuse to believe.

Like, do we have hard data from Microsoft themselves drawing the link explicitly? No, but we're not going to get that type of data for years, if not decades, if ever. They would NEVER admit that type of data publicly, as it'd show a massive failure in their strategy. You'd have to wait for them to get out of gaming hardware altogether before they'd even consider that type of thing.

So we can only go with circumstantial evidence where reasonable correlations can be drawn. Just spitballing, but if I had to put a percentage out of 100 where Day 1 PC (Steam) has contributed to decline of the Xbox hardware brand, I'd say it's probably ~ 20% - 25%.

 

[Guilty_AI]

So you're really going to tell me that MS bringing all their games Day 1 to Steam has had zero negative impact on perceived value of their own consoles? That's a sentiment I refuse to believe.

Like, do we have hard data from Microsoft themselves drawing the link explicitly? No, but we're not going to get that type of data for years, if not decades, if ever. They would NEVER admit that type of data publicly, as it'd show a massive failure in their strategy. You'd have to wait for them to get out of gaming hardware altogether before they'd even consider that type of thing.

So we can only go with circumstantial evidence where reasonable correlations can be drawn. Just spitballing, but if I had to put a percentage out of 100 where Day 1 PC (Steam) has contributed to decline of the Xbox hardware brand, I'd say it's probably ~ 20% - 25%.

In other words, you've got nothing besides your own "convictions" and made up numbers.

 

[Topher]

Well like I always say, Day 1 PC wasn't the only or maybe even the biggest factor towards declining Xbox sales. But, it was a notable contributor, and probably compounded on top of previous issues with Xbox so the effect was exacerbated.

Plus, on some level, I can respect MS's initial PC push because they tied it exclusively to their own store for a few years before going to Steam in 2020. For whatever reason people think Sony are gonna yank all future games from Steam and put them exclusively in their own storefront and somehow expect that to succeed with no drawbacks or controversy.

Yeah, that'll go well

Well....it is speculation either way, but I think the contribution was minimal at best. I don't think Sony is going to go down the same road. PlayStation is much more important to Sony than Xbox is to Microsoft.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Contributed how much exactly? All indicated they were on a downwards trends regardless, and there is absolutely 0 evidence of pc ports making it worse.

The XBOX brand started to become irrelevant the moment they went full-PC, this is hardly controversial. Not only sales but game quality fell off a cliff as a result of that policy. If Sony goes the same route, expect a drop in quality in their first-party production.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

So basically they are going the same way as Microsoft

 

[Sanepar]

I think they are fucked with their 1 game per year strategy against this new Microsoft. In 3-4 years market will be a lot diff than now. Look how many games MS has for the next 2 years now look to Sony, they don't even are capable to communicate.

 

[Guilty_AI]

The XBOX brand started to become irrelevant the moment they went full-PC, this is hardly controversial. Not only sales but game quality fell off a cliff as a result of that policy

i'm sure you have something to back up this hardly controversial take then.

 

[midnightAI]

It's going to be a harder argument for the console group to keep games away from PC on day 1. Now that they have accounting records for several PC releases across several genres and release windows, it's going to be a tough sell. Especially in these belt tightening times. Do they give up hundreds of millions in sales for an unmeasurable "system selling effect"? Does the profit per console sold make up for the lost sales?

It isn't just the profit per console as such though (pure system only sales that is, in the first couple of years they actually lose money on console sales but make through game sales + PS+ subs).

There are many ways Sony makes from PlayStation money but most involve the ownership of a console, such as PS+, games sold through the PlayStation Store (no need to pay 30% or whatever to another storefront), additional hardware such as controllers (not restricted to PS5 ownership but certainly the most sales go there), Portal, PSVR2 etc.

So the answer is yes, they need to sell systems.

 

[Topher]

The XBOX brand started to become irrelevant the moment they went full-PC, this is hardly controversial. Not only sales but game quality fell off a cliff as a result of that policy. If Sony goes the same route, expect a drop in quality in their first-party production.

Xbox's problems started with Xbox One being complete shit. Microsoft had to completely undo everything Xbox One was at launch and even from a conceptual level prior to launch. So I don't get how we are somehow looking right past the fact that Xbox One was overpriced, underpowered and having its ass handed to it by PS4, look past the ridiculous "TV TV TV" reveal, look past the DRM controversies and the nonsense surrounding used games. We are saying the problems didn't really begin until Recore was ported to PC in September 2016, nearly three years after all that mess? Even then, If I'm going to point to Xbox's biggest problem in the second half of last gen then it would be the pisspoor output of games due to lack of studios more than anything else. Meanwhile, PS4 was knocking massive hit after massive hit out of the park. The contrast was incredible. So years later, saying the demise of Xbox was due to PC ports? Come on.

 

[64bitmodels]

Xbox's problems started with Xbox One being complete shit. Microsoft had to completely undo everything Xbox One was at launch and even from a conceptual level prior to launch. So I don't get how we are somehow looking right past the fact that Xbox One was overpriced, underpowered and having its ass handed to it by PS4, look past the ridiculous "TV TV TV" reveal, look past the DRM controversies and the nonsense surrounding used games. We are saying the problems didn't really begin until Recore was ported to PC in September 2016, nearly three years after all that mess? Even then, If I'm going to point to Xbox's biggest problem in the second half of last gen then it would be the pisspoor output of games due to lack of studios more than anything else. Meanwhile, PS4 was knocking massive hit after massive hit out of the park. The contrast was incredible. So years later, saying the demise of Xbox was due to PC ports? Come on.

I mean I feel like Playstation's dominance even despite all of this is proof of the "Xbox died with PC not Xbox One" theory being pretty dumb.

They've been porting to PC for 5 damn years now and despite all of that the PS5's still selling.