PlayStation Boss Wants Change He's Not Willing To Make

The head of PlayStation wants to expand its reach with expensive games on hard-to-get hardware

The story is too old to be commented.
sammarshall10253d ago (Edited 53d ago )

The way I see it there's more gamers today than there ever was. Keep creating amazing Playstation games and the gamers will come

What you don't want to do is dilute your brand

I'll always be a console gamer but not everyone is like me

Sony knows this and that's why they're going to make PS5 an awesome console to own

KillBill52d ago

I think you are missing the point of his message maybe? He believes he has the games he wants to share with as many gamers as he can. And he also believes that he can't do so with the limitations the console brings.

Does this mean more games coming to PC... I don't know? But it does appear to show his want to reach out beyond only the console.

Though that could really anger a portion of the PlayStation fanbase that feels moving games to PC is some how disloyal to the console base. I myself don't imagine Sony ever having games on PC day 1 release along side console. But I do see more games going to PC and within a quicker time frame.

Adrian_v0152d ago

Maybe a move away from consoles with fixed hardware to servers and streaming devices instead.

dbcoops52d ago

Im not angered at all about Playstation games coming to PC two or three years after launch. To me that's a win win for Sony, it keeps their console relevant and at the same time creates more revenue from the PC gamers which in turn means Sony can invest in more games for PS5.

52d ago
_Decadent_Descent52d ago

The disdain for games coming to PC that were previously console exclusives is really childish. There really isn't any justification for the hate. If they want to game on console, they can continue to do so unhindered. What are these people scared of?

dbcoops52d ago


What part of where I said, "creates more revenue from the PC gamers which in turn means Sony can invest in more games for PS5." did you not understand? That revenue stream that allows for new games is whats good for gamers, not sure why I need to explain that.

dbcoops52d ago


People could also just buy the console to play the games, what are those people scared of? FYI its not a "disdain" its a concern, having exclusives is what keeps a console relevant and adds value to your console purchase. Its why PS4 was so dominate, why PS5 is looking to be and why people say MS doesn't really care if you buy their console or not, i.e.its not relevant.

ShadowWolf71252d ago

Or maybe you are?

He said that they're only reaching 20-30 million right now and he'd 'love' to get to where hundreds of millions can enjoy them. That doesn't mean gambling with your entire brand, however, and one thing he also made clear is what that brand represents to people, the strength of it.

I do think though that this is WHY we're seeing PlayStation games branching out into alternate media again. Comic books. Novelizations. Movies and TV series now via PlayStation Productions. Those are all things that can help draw people into their world here.

Will they expand their streaming service? Maybe. WIll they go day-and-date on other platforms? VERY unlikely.

Extermin8or3_52d ago

I don't see the time frame increasing. It makes no sense to speed things up and costs money. I suspect he is alluding to the reach of services like ps now anyway when he dreams of games being available more readily. Ofc streaming had some serious limitations that mean in practice its not replacing physical hardware anytime soon

Army_of_Darkness52d ago

I saw the entire interview and at the end of it all, I actually have more respect for this dude. Well done ol' chap!

Mr_Writer8552d ago


But they're already doing that, so no I don't think he means PC.

You're right he is talking about the limitations of consoles in terms of how there is a huge world wide audience out there who would probably love 2/3 games, but won't pay (or even wouldn't think to) a console for just 2/3 games.

In a nutshell I think he is thinking of the none console future, streaming.

How many more games do you think you would sell if you could sell a controller. And then people can just buy a game from an app on their TV and stream it?

That model has potentially 10's of millions potential customers, maybe even 100's of millions.

But I don't think the tech is quite there yet, and the core gamers aren't ready for that future yet either.

TheRealTedCruz52d ago

They wouldn't have acquired a company who works specifically on PC ports if they weren't planning to highly ramp up PC game development.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 52d ago
abstractel52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

What frustrates me is that MS has more or less hamstrung this generation by releasing the Series S. In a couple of years time, when Sony's inhouse devs are releasing PS5 exclusives (no cross-gen), they'll be the ones showing what can be accomplished with a fixed targeted high-end hardware and just like they stunned us on the PS4 (released 2013!) with titles like Uncharted 4, Horizon and TLOU2 they'll be stunning us like no other company on the PS5.

Personally I wish Nintendo and MS did the same thing but yes, they are businesses and they dedicate to the $ (as does Sony, but thankfully they are not diluting the generations just yet, they are staying strong in pushing games forward). So as a gamer, I really do appreciate Sony.

chronoforce51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

I really doubt the Series S has hamstrung this generation. Ballooning budgets and a huge free to play market to capitalise on has already somewhat hamstrung it. Companies just have less incentive to build the types of games Sony does. Even Jim Ryan wants to expand the audience but the only way to do that without ensuring your game runs on as many platforms as possible is make a platform that is easy to access.

The switch and the portability it has is appealing for many modern gamers and MS has knocked down all the walls surrounding their platform.

I doubt Sony will change their ethos toward making games but it sounds like they will towards their platform.

neutralgamer199252d ago

The way I see it this man gets so much hate for whatever he says. He is responsible for the best selling console on the market and console has gotten amazing support in year 1 but people want him fired

Longtime PlayStation fans know what Sony's messaging is: they will make amazing games and some of those games would end up on PC down the road. Could we see a PlayStation exclusive launch day one on PC yes but the higher possiblity is Sony will launch some of it's exclusives on PC a year or so after initial release(I am being generous with a year prediction, I think most games would be 2-3 years and some games will never come to PC)

13sentinel53d ago (Edited 53d ago )

Ok then if you say so. Seeing as you know better, why don't you approach the board of directors and tell Jim Ryan he doesn't know what he is doing, easy hey? It's so easy running a multi million international corporation right Kotaku? You clearly have a finger on all the workings at board level.

Seraphim52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

kotaku and their so called journalism is everything that's wrong with todays world. GTFO!!!!!

though, I do have a problem with $70 games. There was nothing wrong with the old model which saw a $60 version, $70/$80 version then you're $100-200+ versions with filled with cheap products and pure profits. Let the consumer decide if a game is worth $60 or if it's worth the extra $20 w/ it's digital bs.....

Darkborn52d ago

From what I heard the $70 standard is their way of not making pointless super expensive versions though. At some point prices of everything increases and its been the $60 standard for over 15 years with like 10x the cost or more to produce. It needed to happen and all these deluxe editions that have in game items locked behind them is also a bad practice, but it was a necessary one.

DarXyde52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

In my view, I don't exactly mind increases in game prices. Honestly (unpopular opinion, but that's fine) I would pay $80 for a game if it was solid and helps to recoup the costs of projects better. The increased price in itself isn't bad, but it depends on what the cost entails. If a price hike means developers can continue to do awesome experimental stuff that won't break the bank, I'm all for that.

Of course, there are certainly nuanced exceptions. If the companies have absurd executive compensation packages while the actual talent isn't being aptly rewarded, that doesn't fly with me. But I do believe working people's salaries should be significantly higher and executive compensation need to be cut down substantially.

We all love gaming, and I am a staunch advocate of industry sustainability.

Imalwaysright52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

This bullshit about the development costs again... last year alone Sony made more money with the Playstation brand than they did with the PS2 and by that I mean every single year of the PS2 combined so go on and tell us exactly why "It needed to happen" and how the development costs are oh so hurting their bottom line when in 2020 alone their profit, not revenue, was $3.23 billion.

-Hermit-52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

You fanboys jumping to their defence conveniently forget that Sony have their own store that they take a percentage of every sale from. Every company has to pay Sony 30% of every sale, Sony themselves are in a much better position because they take 100% of the sale from their own store. So no, Sony don't need to put the price of their games up, if anything, they are one of the last companies that need to consider it.

Other games companies selling their games at $60 are making $42 per sale on Sony's store, Sony on the other hand are almost making double that amount since the price hike. Just think about all of the microtransactions being bought through Sony's store, Sony take 30% of every single one. They are making an absolute killing, and I haven't even mentioned PS+ either.

Darkborn52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

And you guys are angry. Ask yourself this, in 15 years has anything in the world not gone up in price except for games?

Edit* and I'll add this. MO-cap wasn't a thing then, now it's a standard. Full voice acting wasn't around, now hundreds of thousands of lines are required. The dev sizes have quadrupled. Assets are hand crafted. Marketing is insane compared to before. Inflation isn't a myth, why do you think minimum wage is rapidly doubling? Should I go on? It's always the fools that doordash a meal everyday or get a $9 coffee and croissant every morning that complain about paying $10 more for quality. If the game is amazing, why complain? Is 10-25 hours of pure enjoyment not worth $10 more? Oh I forgot, that $10 could be used for gamepass instead.

Knushwood Butt52d ago

Nintendo didn't get the memo about mocap being a standard.

Petebloodyonion52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

The cost argument is pointless and completely false because there are more consumers to share that cost compared to PS2, also digital sales profit goes directly to Sony compared to the physical and secondhand market.
Also factored are the numerous online possibility regarding DLC and MTS.

Just to shut this argument down Computer price went down from Buying a Computer in 1998 to now
The cost of tv was more expensive in the past, the cost of a DVD was more expensive in the past, etc
and all of them are way better now compared to the past.
Also the cost of making a movies is way more expensive compared to the past.

dbcoops52d ago

People talk about the $70 price point all the time but honestly I have yet to pay that for a game and I own a slew of PS5 games including R&C Rift Apart, Returnal. Miles Morales, etc. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, lol.

Seraphim52d ago

@Darkborn that's sarcasm right? MLB The Show had 3 copies ranging from $70-$110. Gran Turismo 7, $70 & $90. The icing on the cake however is Horizon West. $60-$300!! Even the cheapest of the CE editions is $200 compared to the same version being $140 just 4 years ago when Zero Dawn dropped. The only difference is the figure. Make no mistake, those "super expensive version" are still here. It's only a matter of time before we see some 3rd party games offering some as well....

As for the cost of development going up. That was the guise they used w/ $60 games. However since the PS3 era software sales have continued to climb. Top games and especially Sonys' own titles are generally raking in 5-9+ million in sales. 8 million sales at an extra $10 equates to an additional 80 million brought in. It's not the like PS-PS2 era where most games were lucky to hit 1 million and many only sold around 400-800k. You simply can not convince me that the cost of games has anything to do with it. This is pure greed, nothing more. Especially when talking about PS titles. PS no longer takes the risks they once did either.

I'm a huge PS fan, have been since the PS1 but this just doesn't fly with me. And I don't want to hear about the cost of living going up or prices of everything going up. That's another topic but is bs too. Remember when groceries went up due to high gas prices? Did those prices drop once the price of gas was cut in half or more. It may be fact that everything else is going up but it's also fact wages have remained stagnant while executive and CEO pay has grown grotesquely over the past 4 or so decades. We shouldn't blindly accept these changes just because...

Extermin8or3_52d ago

Just factoring in inflation over the past decade or so accounts for that extra 10 dollars for current gen games. Nevermind increased development costs.

Mr_Writer8552d ago


Sony as a whole made £3b profit or PlayStation?

There is a huge difference.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 52d ago
SoulWarrior52d ago

Imagine how we feel in the UK and Europe, gone from 50-55 price range up to £70/€80! That's closer to $100, the next gen game price hikes are something that's always annoyed me with every console launch.

DarthMarvin52d ago

Them making their games $70 doesn't change any extra stuff they add, the DLC bullshyte will still be the same price.

Nakiro52d ago

Has Sony done any of those recently? Their flagship titles have been mostly DLC free and when there is DLC it has been substantial. If you want to complain about a skin pack in COD being $30 then go for it but let's give credit where it's due.

sawoosevens52d ago

Yep. Havent paid for a single one of those games since the price hike

Nakiro52d ago

Wait, you don't have to buy games at $70 and can just wait for a sale? You can wait a few months until a bunch of bugs and glitches are ironed out to get an even better experience for cheaper? That's not a thing, otherwise more people would do it.

esherwood52d ago

$70 is nothing for a AAA game if it’s all included. Can’t believe people are fighting that so hard. The alternative is micro transactions and games being designed around getting money out of you where even if you do some $70 you wont have everything.

sawoosevens51d ago

Lol im willing to easily bet my soul they will still have microtransactions and dlc this is easily a cash grab I won't condon it.

giveyerheadawobble52d ago (Edited 52d ago )


Spot on.

They'd jump to Sony's defence on here if Sony were at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and they were at the top...without a parachute. Sony can do no wrong. Apparently.

Darkborn being a prime example of the price hiking corporations apologist. 20 or 30 years ago, most games had that price attached to them because of the physical mediums they had to be stored on. If it were cartridge, then the manufacturing costs of chips was huge and it offset the actual production value of the games. Let me remind you here: most games back in the day were developed by teams of 1 to 10 people. Some of them in their bedrooms. I'm talking purely western developed ones here, and not the Japanese ones, when the Japanese development dominated the market. Again, dev costs were offset by importation taxes and porting the games for the western market. You also have far more people playing games now, with more convenient means of getting the game, chiefly via your internet connection. Stop talking out your arse and making excuses for games not going up in price. If anything they should have come down in price, but they haven't.

Nakiro52d ago

You said it yourself, games were made with teams of 10 people and way less time then now. I just don't understand how you got from 10 people teams that built games in about a year or less to 250 people teams building games for about 5 years and think to yourself that games should actually be cheaper to make with your only counterpoint being that they are more readily available right now which may be true for mobile but console sales aren't all that different than before.

PS1 - 104 million
PS2 - 158 million
PS3 - 87 million
PS4 - ~116 million

Shawn Layden mentioned that the PS5 development might surpass 200 million, imagine having to sell over 3 million copies just to break even. Now obviously this doesn't apply to all their games but we can say with certainty that the costs of development are going up and not down.

Darkborn52d ago

Not really. I'm defending a company that has provided quality for years. I'm not defending ubisoft or square Enix or anything. Those companies put tons of microtransactions in every game. The games Sony makes have 0 to little of that. They just sell a game thats more or less complete. Maybe a DLC later on for a lump sum. Shawn layden said years ago that every game their making is costing them 200 million plus and that's without marketing. That's over 3 million copies at full price to break even and without marketing costs too. Or just under 3 million with marketing costs at $70. Look, I'm not white knighting, just stating the obvious. If the games prices went up in 50 years from now instead of now, you guys would still complain. Do you want bleeding egde and crackdown 3 quality games or full on bangers? New IP is a huge risk even at $70, and at $60 it's a much larger risk.

Imalwaysright52d ago (Edited 52d ago )


In 2018 alone Sony had more profit with the PS4 than the PS2 did during its entire lifetime. Same is true for 2019 and 2020 and this tells us that whatever difference there is in development costs between PS2 games and PS4 games, it had little to no impact in their ability to be extremely profitable. Do you understand now or do you want to pretend to be dumb so that you can defend Sony's greed?

Nakiro52d ago

Imalwaysright - Well, where do you think that majority of that profit comes from? The 15 studios that they own that makes games exclusively for Playstation or the 100s of studios that pay 30% cut on the Playstation Network? Here, I'll give you a hint.

"The total amount of revenue Fortnite made in 2020 was a staggering $2.504 Billion USD. The majority of this revenue came from PlayStation 4 users"

Your conclusion from the the profits alone is based on a false premise. I don't think Sony can justify spending money on studios just to run them at a loss, which is what people here seem to want.

Imalwaysright51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

So pretending to be dumb it is. The only false premise in this discussion is you saying that they are running their studios at a loss. There is no loss in their business, on the contrary. There are operating costs and they are more than offset by their profits.

They're making more money than they ever did despite the excuse that is development costs and there was no reason for them to increase price of games other than greed and what in the hell does Fortnite have to do with this discussion and why are you giving me its revenue numbers when I'm talking about profit? In 2020 Playstation brand generated $3.23 billion in PROFIT despite launching a new console and all the costs associated with it while the PS2 generated $2.22 billion in its entire lifetime so go on and do explaing how development costs are hurting their bottom line.

Nakiro51d ago

I already explained it to you in my previous post and won't bother to do it again.

Reading comprehension is at an all time low.

Imalwaysright51d ago

You didn't explain anything other than your complete lack of understanding of how businesses are run. You're confusing operating costs with loss. There is absolutely no loss in the Playstation division, quite the contrary. Playstation division was generating more revenue and profits than ever prior to Sony raising the price of their games so there was no need to increase price of games to offset any loss. It's nothing more than an exercise in greed and ignorant fanboys are just being manipulated by playstation executives with dumbass excuses like development costs so that they go to online forums and social media to defend their greedy actions. It would be hilarious if the dumbass fanboys weren't ruining it for everyone else.

Mr_Writer8551d ago (Edited 51d ago )


Link to those numbers please?

Because sorry to tell you this, but those numbers are wrong, PlayStation made a profit of £757m in 2020.

Sony as in the ENTIRE Sony corporation made £3b profit.

Guess you're not always right......

Here is a full breakdown, scroll down to the pie charts and you can see you are indeed wrong.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 51d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 51d ago
Darkborn52d ago

I don't think Jim Ryan is going to put playstation games on pc day and date still. I just think this means a few more might sneak over but at least 18 or so months after release and most likely not every game.

KillBill52d ago

I don't believe the exclusivity for console will be that long. I am guessing they are going to be 1yr and then eventually 6 months possibly. But I see it across the board. I think they might have seen the increase in sales outside of just their console as a positive. Hard to deny profits even when it is counter to their business practice. though I imagine they will not push to include profit pattern with Xbox and focus only on PC.

TheRealTedCruz52d ago

This is how I'm feeling. You'll grab much of the Playatation market who would be willing to pay full price for the title, though still new enough that the release will still feel fresh for PC players.

I have a feeling those who are adamant that Sony is only going to mostly port games that are a generation old, or at least many years old, are in for a ride.

IRetrouk52d ago

This is all they got out of that whole interview?

Lightning7752d ago

The only thing that was relevant. Jim even said it himself it frustrates him that he's gating the audience to 20 or 30 million people with his games and service. When music and movies are able to reach 100 of millions at any given time. The most important word he used was "gating" it's clear he wants to expand his games. Launching games day and date on PC could be a very, very real thing. That's just a start Phones, tablets PSNOW or whatever game service they use on various devices including TV's. This is this only way to achieve this goal.

Knushwood Butt52d ago

How this even got approved when it is a dupe of the one below is a mystery.

SullysCigar51d ago

Look who approved it. Look who also contested the report that this is in fact a duplicate article.

That guy gets carte blanche around here and is backed up EVERY TIME, by the same moderator, for months now. They just use 'discretion' to spin, twist and completely circumvent the rules to the detriment of Sony - and benefit of Microsoft.

It's definitely not conducive to a non-bias and informative platform for gamers, but that's just my opinion I guess, or something would have changed before now.