• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fixing Sony's GaaS Strategy

Bernardougf

Member
I have an wild strategy for sony ... make great innovative single player games with their kickass studios aimed to the same audience that have been with them since the ps1-ps4 era and made them a billionaire successful business that even the might MS cant compete... stop chasing trends and definitely stop chasing "modern audiences".. is fucking crazy I know.. but might work
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
I have an wild strategy for sony ... make great innovative single player games with their kickass studios aimed to the same audience that have been with them since the ps1-ps4 era and made them a billionaire successful business that even the might MS cant compete... stop chasing trends and definitely stop chasing "modern audiences".. is fucking crazy I know.. but might work
"Stop chasing trends" is such a silly statement.

All business functions by following the correct trends and executing at a high level on those projects.

Do you really want PlayStation to focus on horse racing sims, brick breakers, and puzzle games? Ignoring trends would crash them into the ground.
 
"Stop chasing trends" is such a silly statement.

All business functions by following the correct trends and executing at a high level on those projects.

Do you really want PlayStation to focus on horse racing sims, brick breakers, and puzzle games? Ignoring trends would crash them into the ground.
You know what he means. Stop trying to make everything a GAAS. The GAAS market is crowded and the gamers that enjoy those types of games are already firmly invested in their games of choice.

As to the topic at hand, there is no fixing the GAAS strategy. Move on from Concord. There's no saving it. It's a meme now. Then close Firewalk. Cancel Fairgames now to avoid another embarrassment and close down that no-talent, hack Jade Raymond's studio (and for the love of god, to the entire industry, please stop employing her). Move the Sony HQ back to Japan and put the Japanese back in charge of the company. And if you MUST have one GAAS in production, get Bungie to clean up their shit and focus on Marathon. Let every other studio do what they want, because when Sony used to let their first party studios make games they were passionate about, those games actually resonated with Playstation owners.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
You know what he means. Stop trying to make everything a GAAS. The GAAS market is crowded and the gamers that enjoy those types of games are already firmly invested in their games of choice.
PlayStation explored this very idea.

They still pushed forward with their strategy.

What do you think they saw in the data that made them go towards GAAS?
 
PlayStation explored this very idea.

They still pushed forward with their strategy.

What do you think they saw in the data that made them go towards GAAS?
Dollar signs. They saw dollar signs.

They, like many other publishers, are blinded by the potential upside of having a Fortnite-like success, while clearly (1) ignoring the risks of entering a crowded market, (2) ignoring how long it would take to make games to compete in that market, and (3) ignoring the price tag of developing games to compete in that market.

Yes, Fortnite is huge, but the number of other live services that have bombed immediately out of the gate or shut down very early are far greater in number.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Dollar signs. They saw dollar signs.
This is how business works. This is just entrepreneurship 101.

People act like PlayStation and Sony only now started pursing money when it's all they've ever done since Sony made rice cookers in the late 1940's.
They, like many other publishers, are blinded by the potential upside of having a Fortnite-like success, while clearly (1) ignoring the risks of entering a crowded market, (2) ignoring how long it would take to make games to compete in that market, and (3) ignoring the price tag of developing games to compete in that market.
I don't think you realize how thoroughly PlayStation has explored these concepts. Fanboys on message boards like to act like they're unique ideas but it's all very basic problems that PlayStation has put tons of time, resources, and thought into.

I think it's more like that gamers are blind to the economics and trajectory of gaming. Gamers just want big companies to make games that cater to their own personal tastes rather than for big companies to make successful games.
Yes, Fortnite is huge, but the number of other live services that have bombed immediately out of the gate or shut down very early are far greater in number.
This has always been the case. It's not a new development. Everyone knows GAAS is higher risk, higher reward.

PlayStation had two paths to take...

1. Invest further into AAA SP which was the safe path considering they were experts in the field.

2. Invest in GAAS which was obviously riskier.

They chose the riskier path because the data pointed to that being the safer direction.
 

Msamy

Member
I've heard a lot of people push that Sony should bring their classic multiplayer games back if they want to establish GaaS.

Sony has a rich history of multiplayer games, but it's also a complex one.

I don't think these people are entirely wrong, the problem still remains that none of those original teams exists or they're entirely pre-occupied with bigger and better things. Here are the franchise that Sony should probably be looking at and how they could consider bringing them back. One recommendation I would have for Sony those is that all of the games they put out whether they be MP or GaaS should have a single player campaign element, giving the option of people who don't want to play online or or play forever games to still buy in. The more people who buy in the more likely that a GaaS game is successful anyways. This should follow the GTA and Red Dead model rather than the Helldivers model which is inherently risky if the games don't separate themselves from competition and if their competition is F2P.

#1 SOCOM US Navy Seals

This one is a really difficult one, as again the studio just doesn't exist and there isn't an immediately obvious choice for who should make this or would want to make it or if this game could exist to satisfy modern demands and classic fans.

My answer for this one is that they need to create an original studio and recruit for this. Model the game after Rainbow Six Siege and Modern Warfare. With the CoD deal counting down to expiration, this should be their biggest priority anyways and potentially the game with the largest possible ceiling for them.

But again, there is a big question they have to ask themselves. Do you make this a FPS in line with what is in demand now or do you stick with the classic 3rd person view? You're not going to make everyone happy, and being able to switch isn't really an answer. People in first person mode are going to have a huge advantage.

But this is the game I'd put 250+ million dollars on.

#2 Killzone

Killzone is I think the easiest franchise to bring back. You remake the first game's campaign (remake rather than remaster) with modern controls and Guerrilla's graphics. You put this on PS5 and PC and you call it a day. Rinse and repeat for Killzone 2 and 3 or put them altogether as a collection. Keeping the multiplayer going as a live service. Sell the single player games for like 40 or 50 dollars a pop or 70 dollars as a collection and have the multiplayer be F2P or 10 bucks + MTX.

This is a somewhat similar strategy to doing the master chief collection and then halo infinite, but at the end of the day it comes down to execution. The MCC was initially released in poor condition and halo infinite was a bomb out of the gates as well.

#3 Resistance

Complicated by Spider-Man and Wolverine and X-Men, but essentially the same strategy as Killzone. Remake the games' campaign modes and make the multiplayer F2P or 10 bucks plus MTX. I would reach out to WB about buying Rocksteady, make them Insomniac UK, lead by Insomniac's leadership team, and have them take over making single player Spider-Man and other Marvel games, while Insomniac proper makes Resistance, Ratchet and Clank, and other games, which we'll discuss more later.

#4 Warhawk/Starhawk

Either Firesrpite or find a 3rd party studio and have them do a budget remaster of Warhawk and Starhawk. This would be my exception to the campaign mode rule since these games were multiplayer only to begin with. Drop these for like 40 bucks each, doing Starhawk if Warhawk was successful or maybe you combine them as separate modes. There aren't many games like it so it isn't crowded like the hero shooter genre. This is something that can follow a more similar path like Helldivers.

#5 Sunset Overdrive

This is what I'd have Insomniac do instead of Spider-Man. Sunset Overdrive could have been Fortnite before Fortnite. Insomniac has some of the best gameplay in the business. I think you just let them cook and people will come. I'd at least test the market by remastering the game for PS5 and PC, but really building out the online multiplayer would have some potential success.


Notes: It's disappointing that Twisted Metal didn't get off the ground. It strikes me how whoever was working on this couldn't modernize it, yet Nintendo has been able to make Mario Kart fun and engaging for decades. This one doesn't feel like a difficult one to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Honorable mentions:
  • Destruction Derby (not Destruction All Stars) again as a low budget project.
  • Everybody's Golf/Everybody's Golf VR
  • Jet Moto (again low budget project, doesn't need to be a GaaS, but could be)
  • Wipeout (again low budget project, doesn't need to be a GaaS, but could be)
  • Coolboarders (massive opportunity here given the lack of Coolboarders and SSX on the market right now)
  • Extreme Games (massive opportunity here with the lack of Tony Hawk Pro Skater, maybe a combination with Coolboarders)

The key thing here is that most of these are low budget low risk high reward projects with the exception of SOCOM. None of these gets you in trouble if they fail. None of these are massively expensive projects and they'll all be successful even if no one buys MTX for them in the future.

General themes:
  • Relatively low cost
  • Aligned with PlayStation culture and history
  • Can survive without selling forever
  • If interest is low, it's not the end of the world
  • PC players haven't had an opportunity to play most of these franchises
  • Many of these franchises failed to get lift off because of the state of the PS3 or because their original developer wasn't keeping up with the industry

On a similar note. I'd further delay Marathon and build out a campaign mode and have Firewalk assist in building it, potentially saving *some* of that studio, but helping to get a campaign and the game out earlier. I understand why companies skip doing campaign modes but in this hyper-competitive environment, you have to get people to buy in and that has to include people who don't want to play online at all. Those people still recommend games to their friends and some of their friends might be into online.

I think there are a lot of people who are simply against GaaS but they don't realize that companies can't compete with just single player games or one shot multiplayer games.
The only right thing sony need to do is to completely terminate this shit gaas strategy and focus in singleplayer titles, and leave gaas to bungie
 
This is how business works. This is just entrepreneurship 101.

People act like PlayStation and Sony only now started pursing money when it's all they've ever done since Sony made rice cookers in the late 1940's.

I don't think you realize how thoroughly PlayStation has explored these concepts. Fanboys on message boards like to act like they're unique ideas but it's all very basic problems that PlayStation has put tons of time, resources, and thought into.

I think it's more like that gamers are blind to the economics and trajectory of gaming. Gamers just want big companies to make games that cater to their own personal tastes rather than for big companies to make successful games.

This has always been the case. It's not a new development. Everyone knows GAAS is higher risk, higher reward.

PlayStation had two paths to take...

1. Invest further into AAA SP which was the safe path considering they were experts in the field.

2. Invest in GAAS which was obviously riskier.

They chose the riskier path because the data pointed to that being the safer direction.
Bro, I'm not disagreeing with what Sony tried to do. I understand why they did what they did from a profit-seeking perspective.

But I think there's enough evidence at this point, not just from Sony's efforts to include Factions 2, Concord, the reaction to Fairgames, and the rumor of Marathon having problems, but also Sega, Arkane, Bioware, Square Enix, WB, and Amazon, that this strategy is actually even more risky then they realized. And it's NOT WORKING (Helldivers 2 being the one notable exception). They need to pivot back to what they are good at. They need to allow their first party studios to make games that they are passionate about. Because those games resonated with PS owners in the past.
 
Last edited:
I can fix their strategy really easily. They already own Destiny 2 and Helldivers 2. They work and have a fan base. Make them as good as possible and leave it that. Turn Marathon into a into traditional FPS like Halo. You don't need several GAAS games as unlike single player games, you can only invest in a couple of these at a time. At some point you will compete with yourself for customers.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
But I think there's enough evidence at this point, not just from Sony's efforts to include Factions 2, Concord, the reaction to Fairgames, and the rumor of Marathon having problems, but also Sega, Arkane, Square Enix, WB, and Amazon, that this strategy is actually even more risky then they realized. And it's NOT WORKING (Helldivers 2 being the one notable exception). They need to pivot back to what they are good at. They need to allow their first party studios to make games that they are passionate about. Because those games resonated with PS owners in the past.
Factions 2 - Nobody knows how much money was spent on this.
Concord - Legit flop.
Fairgames - Reactions to a CGI trailer mean nothing.
Marathon - Weak rumors mean nothing.

Also, why did you ignore Helldivers 2, Gran Turismo 7, MLB The Show? All successful PlayStation GAAS games.

You have to understand that over the last 12 months, PlayStation, Sega, Square Enix, WB, and Amazon all maintained their GAAS trajectory or increased it. If the most capable companies in the industry believe in GAAS it's because they have access to metrics that tell them so.

You and I don't.
 

DragonNCM

Member
There is place only for few GaaS games on this planet & that is Fortnite & Warzone all others are short term success & long term fail.
 
Factions 2 - Nobody knows how much money was spent on this.
Dude, it was in production for literal years. They must have spent millions on salaries.

Fairgames - Reactions to a CGI trailer mean nothing.
Tell that to the Firewalk because Fairgames' reveal has gotten the exact same reaction as Concord's reveal.

Marathon - Weak rumors mean nothing.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Also, didn't they just lose a major studio head due to misconduct? Bungie sounds like it's going to need some time to get it's shit together.

Also, why did you ignore Helldivers 2, Gran Turismo 7, MLB The Show? All successful PlayStation GAAS games.
I didn't ignore Helldivers 2. Re-read my post. Again, you like many gaming execs are focused entirely on the few successes, while seemingly ignoring the much more numerous failures.

You have to understand that over the last 12 months, PlayStation, Sega, Square Enix, WB, and Amazon all maintained their GAAS trajectory or increased it. If the most capable companies in the industry believe in GAAS it's because they have access to metrics that tell them so.

You and I don't.
Well, good for them and their metrics. I love that journey for them, but I'm not going to take part in it.
 
Top Bottom