PlayStation will make more live service games, but won’t abandon roots, studio chief says

From Axios: "Sony PlayStation is diversifying the types of games it makes, but will not neglect its core strength of single-player narrative adventures, PlayStation Studios chief Hermen Hulst tells Axios.

Why it matters: Winning gaming hardware generations by selling the most consoles is no longer enough for PlayStation."

[RaidenBlack]

- live-service games will come from newly acquired teams & Sony's internal teams too (will launch on PC & PlayStation on day 1)
- not all of them will use original IPs
- SP titles still the most profitable ones
- more cross-gen titles could come (case by case)

[SoulWarrior]

- SP titles still the most profitable ones

But a certain subset of people were saying otherwise :(

[Tacoboto]

Sony's SP titles are generally the best in the industry, and they don't have extended server costs. Gameplay, audio, visuals, more recently accessibility are top notch and gamers vote with their wallet there.

But - Sony doesn't have many GaaS titles, so of course for them SP will be the profit drivers when their GaaS offerings include just a handful of examples at most.

[thesoftware730]

Of course, their SP games are the most profitable ones, as they haven't created any compelling multiplayer games yet. Sony is also charging $70 a pop for them, they even charged $70 for a "Remake", and still tried to feed people PR talk about the profits going back into making sequels or whatever, Last of us was already a finished game and I'm sure they didn't need the $70 a pop for they made from the "Remake" to fund the sequel or spin-off.

[TiredGamer]

The "$70 a pop" profits will go back into making more games, plain and simple. What's wonderful about it all is that YOU don't have to buy anything at a price level that is not palatable to you. Some people will buy it at $70, some will wait for a sale and buy at $20, and others might wait until it's part of monthly game offering on PS Plus. Eventually, everyone will have the opportunity to enjoy those games at a price point that works for them. And in the case of Last of Us, Sony now has one of their flagship titles (pushing 10 years old right now and standing on PS3 foundations) and has brought it up to modern visual standards for veterans and newcomers alike. I didn't buy it, but years from now, I'll be glad that a modernized take on the classic is available for a future playthrough.

[thesoftware730]

@TiredGamer

What a terrible post.

Nothing you said made any real logical sense. You just thumbed up bad company practices because it's Sony. When we talk about it as a competitive nature none of your Sony sympathizing makes sense. You literally can apply that to anything...MTX are bad but you don't have to buy them...is that ok? MS tried to raise the price of Xbox live Gold people could have just paid for it or not, was that cool? Scalpers sell systems for double or triple MSRP, but hey, nobody is forcing people to buy them, so it's cool right?

See how nonsensical your argument sounds.Sony is the only gaming company raising prices for systems and games, and somehow you are ok with that, even tho Sony makes more gaming revenue than both Nintendo and MS as people on here are quick to point out..smh you really are wearing blinders.

[Chevalier]

"Sony is the only gaming company raising prices"

No they aren't get your FACTS straight. 2K, Gearbox, EA, Activision all have $70 games. In fact Gearbox, 2K and EA all had $70 games before Sony.

https://www.amazon.com/Call...

https://www.amazon.com/NBA-...

https://www.amazon.com/Tiny...

https://www.amazon.com/FIFA...

"What a terrible post."

Yeah your posts are terrible. Can't even get facts straight claiming Sony is the only one raising prices when they released there games AFTER 2K, Gearbox and EA already had $70 games

[thesoftware730]

@Chev

Nope, you just have a hard time reading and comprehending.

I clearly said out of Nintendo, MS, and Sony...the big 3, so all that you wrote was irrelevant to that point.

2nd, I mentioned they raised the Console price as well, did MS or Nin do that?

3rd, Next time read closely and don't defend Sony blindly, they don't really care about you, just your $70.

[Chevalier]

Nah my comprehension is fine.

"Sony is the only gaming company raising prices for systems and games"

You said ONLY Sony were raising prices and you were and still wrong. 4 other major publishers raised prices 3 before Sony did. So maybe stop being an idiot trying to blindly defend your own stupidity.

Also you're suggesting Xbox doesn't do $70 games? Really?! Didn't you say Sony does Remakes for $70?! Yeah then kindly explain how Xbox charge $70 for a PORT of 11 year old Skyrim to the Switch?!!

https://www.google.com/amp/...

So yeah you are WRONG. Get your FACTS straight. Take off your blinders! That $70 port on the Switch was only 2 weeks ago? So maybe don't go on a tirade when you're wrong cause now you're wrong and an idiot who can't fact check. Last I checked Bethesda was part of Xbox and Xbox studios?!!

"I clearly said out of Nintendo, MS, and Sony...the big 3, so all that you wrote was irrelevant to that point."

Clear as mud. Also Bethesda/Xbox $70 port of Skyrim suggests say hello?! So try again. But again you FAIL. Plus if Activision Blizzard become Xbox studios then COD is already $70 and you bet Diablo, Starcraft etc all follow suit. So like you said why are you defending Xbox/Microsoft? You okay with an 11 year old PORT for $70?!!

[Chevalier]

"I mentioned they raised the Console price as well, did MS or Nin do that"

Also you said Xbox hasn't raised prices?! So to answer you YES Xbox increased price.

https://www.google.com/amp/...

https://www.google.com/amp/...

They did in India TWICE. The most recent increase was just this literally 1 1/2 - 2 month ago?!

"....an increase that makes the Xbox Series S 8.5 percent more expensive while the Series X is 6 percent more expensive than what they were at launch..."

So again why are you defending Xbox/Microsoft?!!

Oh wait so looks like you're wrong AGAIN! Get your FACTS straight! Blindly defending and so very wrong.

As for the Switch. Really?! The system with the cheapest and oldest components aren't going to increase price?! Shocker.

[thesoftware730]

@Chev
Dude, you are dense! All MS-produced games are $60, All Sony-produced games are $70. My comment was in direct correlation to Nintendo and MS compared to Sony. If you read the complete thought you would see that...You are arguing a Fact! what is wrong with you?

MS has nothing to do with what A/B charges for games or any other company charging $70, you are reaching by saying because the games are on the system, it's MS...lol, you are well aware you are reaching. NO MS game cost $70 unless it is a special edition of something...and they do not own A/B so Skyrim port has nothing to do with them, again are you ok? because this is simply Facts that you are attempting to argue.

The links you provided for your claimed SX and SS price increase links to a pic of the SX and the other one to a google site marketing platform with not one bit of Xbox info I could see....again, are you ok?

To summarize the Facts, All MS owned and produced games are $60, unless it is a SE, All Sony PS5 games are $70...this is a fact, and known John snow. MS DOES NOT OWN A/B, and cannot dictate what a company charges for their games so 1/2 of your whole comment makes no sense because you rambled on about Skyrim...This is a Fact! I do not see a price increase for MS systems, your links are nonsense.

[Chevalier]

You literally said Xbox doesn't increases prices of the systems yet they did in India literally only 2 months ago.

And yes Skyrim does 100% count. Bethesda is Xbox studios and that release at $70 was literally 3 weeks ago. So yeah Xbox studios decided to release a $70 PORT.

"Skyrim port has nothing to do with them"

Wtf? Bethesda/Xbox studios released this $70 port how does it have NOTHING to do with them?! The IP is under Xbox so yeah it does have EVERYTHING to do with them. It's absolutely idiotic you even think otherwise. Seriously explain how Xbox studios own game release is not related to them?! Lol. Xbox studios owns Bethesda and the IP, so your suggesting some random company can just release a $70 port for them? Nope again XBOX owned and $70. FACT.

[thesoftware730]

My qoute
"NO MS game cost $70 unless it is a special edition of something."

Chev, It is the Special edition...Special editions are the exception, everyone knows that man. I made that clear as well. The game is even called Skyrim: Special Edition.

With that said, I wouldn't pay $70 for it...Ms also made it clear that Bethesda retains its independence to a great degree. The MS showcases even shows you that...It's called the Xbox/ Bethesda showcase.

Since you want to be technical and not see the whole picture, this is what I said.
"Dude, you are dense! All MS-produced games are $60"
"To summarize the Facts, All MS owned and produced games are $60, unless it is a SE"

Ms did not produce or develop Skyrim. I did Miss-type tho, Skyrim is Bethesda, not A/B lol.. my mistake with that.

But I see this is going nowhere, you be happy with the terrible path Sony is taking this gen, everyone sees it, but the loyalist like you will pretend that it's all good.

And yes, I googled it they did raise the price in India...yup...India. So you are technically correct, but we both know the difference with Sony's widespread major territory price hike...but I'll leave you to see that as a victory for yourdself.

[darthv72]

Excited for the new games but also excited for the new tv shows like god of war, horizon and possibly bloodborn.

[gangsta_red]

Not really excited if it's live action, would love to see them animated like for what they did with Castlevania or Cyberpunk. But I always feel whenever they try and do a live adaptation it comes off cheap, cringe or cheesy, maybe Sony will do it a lot better than others have as they delve into the TV (TV, TV) space

[darthv72]

TV TV TV... oh how things have changed... lol

[Chevalier]

"maybe Sony will do it a lot better than others have as they delve into the TV (TV, TV) space
Delve into the TV space?"

Sorry what?! Sounds like you're absolutely clueless about what kind of great shows Sony actually works on. They range from drama, comedy, sci-fi, fantasy all of which guess what cover games like like TLOU, GoW etc. Plus their shows span decades, they're not new to television at all.

So you haven't heard of say Breaking Bad? Better Call Saul? Seinfeld? The Boys? Cobra Kai? Community? Outlander? The Wheel of Time? Stargate SG1? The Crown? The Blacklist? Preacher? Ozark?

If they can do shows like The Wheel of Time, The Boys and Stargate SG1 I have a difficult time believing they can't also adapt TLOU, GoW or any other SP game they have.

https://www.sonypictures.co...

https://www.sonypictures.co...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

So gangsta_Red maybe stop pretending like you know anything about Sony's work on television shows.

[gangsta_red]

@Chevalier

All those shows were video game adaptations? Could have fooled me.

That Uncharted movie was definitely a work of art, can't wait to see what they can do with their games turned into shows.

[-Foxtrot]

Yeah yeah we’ll see

Everytime a company says that, 9 times out of 10 they end up doing to opposite

Sony is no different, any company can be corrupted over time by money

It’s better to be cautious now than later

If nothing bad happens in 3-5 years great, no loss, if ot does at least people have a head start to call them out and hopefully stop them from getting worse

[ABizzel1]

You can complain and avoid it all you want, the reality is these companies are in the industry to make money, and now money is more important than ever with the current acquisition wars between MS, Sony, Tencent, and more.

The ain't broke don't fix it mentality is the same reason Blockbuster and so many other companies have gone out of business. Sony has to invest in areas outside of the PS community, as the PS community is around 100 million global gamers give or take. Meanwhile, Tencent is reaching hundreds of millions of gamers via mobile and has in less than 10 years grown to be one of the largest video game publishers in the industry (something that took Sony, Nintendo, and MS consoles plus decades of software, and the other 6 publishers took decades of software to do so as well).

So the single-player only focus is an ignorant one for Sony to follow, while they let Tencent dominate mobile and buy up AAA developers and publishers with mobile money, and let Microsoft buy up EA, Ubisoft, etc... after Activision. The only publisher that can safely get away with that structure is Nintendo and even then they have pushed harder with online-multiplayer.

[Hofstaderman]

What a waste. Sony needs to learn that’s not what we want. Rather use those studios and make us single player games. They don’t all have to be AAA quality but take some risks like the ps1 days.

[crazyCoconuts]

I feel it's harder than ever to create the diamond in the rough that will win the attention of a fickle multi player gaming community. How many winners like Fortnite or Minecraft are there compared to losers. So many neat multi player games have failed to get enough attention to stay alive. I don't know if even Sony is guaranteed success in this space

[SonyStyled]

The own Bungie now. If Destiny’s success is anything to go by for what they can create after, well…

[CrimsonWing69]

I hate that this is where they're pushing games. I understand as a business you want to make the most money that you can, but as a game consumer these are one step above the appeal of mobile games, in my opinion.

I am not a fan of delivering an anemic gaming experience at launch with the promise of filling out content over-time and blocking content through reoccurring expansions or micro-transcations.

It's a wonder how the game industry strived before GaaS games and monetization. Call me old fashion, but I prefer a finished game that delivers a fulfilling and satisfying experience without having to stick with the game over several years and dumping more money into it.

[porkChop]

I would be fine with live service if the games were full of content and I just had to pay for cosmetics, weapons, vehicles, etc., released after launch. But currently live service means broken on release, barebones experience, drip feed content, and it takes years before the game feels like a finished product. Live service is essentially the opposite of early access. They're giving you the unfinished game for free and you're paying them to finish it.

[CrimsonWing69]

I do agree.

Inherently, GaaS is a pretty good concept. Essentially, just adding more and more content to a game throughout its life. However, publishers abuse it by making a game at low cost and selling it at high cost and then expecting consumers to dump more and more money into it over time.

[gangsta_red]

Good to see Sony expanding into more live service and a GaaS type model for gaming. Will be interesting to see what they add to the market

[Aloymetal]

Good to hear, as long as they continue their 27 yr long tradition of doing what they do best which is blockbuster, goty contender SP games all will be good.

[SonyStyled]

They made a lot of popular multiplayer titles on the PS3 Aloy. It’s not a 27yr long tradition. Warhawk, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance, Killzone, and MAG were really popular PS3 exclusives with a heavy MP component. It wasn’t until 2010/11 that single player experiences became the primary focus, even though a lot of those SP games still had multiplayer modes.

[GoodGuy09]

Which is good. PS can't depend on third party always. Look at nintendo raking in on the money with MK8, Splatoon, Smash etc. Ofc I really hope they still want to make high quality SPs though.

[anast]

Live service games are mobile games in disguise. The shame of this is that the potential for a live service game with deep mechanics is there but everyone is looking for cheap entry with max profits, which means the gamers will get shallow and sh$%& games.

[BlackDoomAx]

And if it happens you like those shitty games, they will be discontinued after a year...

[isarai]

Well this doesnt sound good, guess we'll just have to wait and see how this turns out cause that already sounds contradictory imo

[UltimateRacer]

For me Corporate greed has blinded Sony. Why can’t they be like Nintendo where consoles sales and first party titles matter. Sony are the best in the business at 1st party single player titles, ok they want to give live service a go and this makes sense because if you get it right you could have a cash cow on your hands but hopefully not at the cost of first party quality. Also it’s disappointing to hear that console players are no longer enough which for me is a kick in the teeth. I really wish the Sony of 2014-2019 existed but sadly those days are gone now, I hope I’m wrong and Sony can prove that I am.

[Saaleh]

Not an issue but only If their decisions are not greedy. Look at fortnite and apex, their initial success was not around greedy decisions. When it comes to cross gen single player games, that is a greedy decision. Cross gen online is fine for a while but not at mid of the gen.

Sadly I no longer trust sony, change is fine but they crossed one line, hype of next gen games is minimum, no excuse for that. Their studios and games are still quality and a must, but they lost loyal fans. Now I'm just a normal consumer until they move on to this gen.

Ratchet and clank
Ps5 hardware
2/100 satisfaction %

I expect longer gen too