Sony Is Increasing R&D Costs to Fuel Live Service Games, Report Claims

Oh yeah, this will go over well.

More of that money should go to single player games.word up son

I’m ticked off at this! Even though I won’t touch live service games and still will get my God Of War, Uncharted, Ghosts Of Tsushima, etc. this upsets me. Clearly Sony doesn’t have the consumer in mind when they’re making games for only “certain” consumers.

@playstation1995 I mean, they already put tons of cash into single player games. They can, and will, do both. In fact, maybe they should start advertising how much they’re putting into single-player games so people who don’t like live service games don’t get upset.

@get2sammyb I believe if you did an A/B article test one day about some new title where on version A you use live-service wording and in version B you do not, I guarantee people will only hate ver. A.

Imagine describing whole title from a perspective of upcoming DLCs &/or other content and people will love it. 😄🤷🏼‍♂️

It is about “labels” these days…

@get2sammyb absolutely correct! I’m a mostly single-player gamer, but many others are live service gamers. Why should it upset me that they’re making games that others will enjoy when they’re still making the games I enjoy?

Lets imagine any of their service games becomes a big deal... we have seen how money-obsessed Sony can be under Jim Ryan... does anyone here really think they would not do their best to tune their entire operation around their successful service games the same way ABK revolves around CoD, Overwatch, WoW and now always-online-Diablo-4?

Yea, they will keep cranking up some single player games, for now.

#notmyplaystation

@Dragonsbane pure speculation! Under Ryan Sony has been more successful than its ever been! The company now has award-winning video games that are turned into award-winning cinema. You really think if they get a single GaaS game that’s super successful they’ll turn their backs on the likes of God Of War and TLOU? Games that sell 20 million and win accolades? Honestly?!

I hope Killzone and or Resistance is one of those. Those are the kind of games that could be played for a long time and still have a great single player experience

May not be a popular choice but I think Ratchet and Clank could do something with Rift Apart after the story has been completed. Open portals to enter other Sony games world or bring them in for fun event stories and missions.

@AhmadSumadi All we know about their future output (2024 and beyond,) outside of Wolverine are GaaS. I would say thats more than speculation.

Right now, their biggest money makers are CoD and Genshin Impact. If they can get in-house games to have that level of success, yes I honestly expect his management to cling to that.

It takes more money than ever to make games, and they are throwing a huge amount of money at 12 GaaS titles, there is no way we are going to see an increase on first party output, if anything, we will see fewer first party triple A titles every year. We already are only getting Spider-Man 2 this year, and we have no clue what will come next year.

@Shepherd_Tallon They they already say that they wouldn't be taking resources away from first party single player output?

I stopped listening after too many things they said turned out to be just hot air. Remember the whole "we believe in generations"?

I see what is in front of us.
2023, 1 single player game.
2024 .. wolverine? maybe?

Is that the future of PS? One single player triple-a game a year?

Edit:
For clarification: if they got more games, fantastic. Show them to us. Any time someone says such things without reveals, I just expect things to arrive in 3 years or more.

Edit 2:
I see your hype list includes Fiargames, Concord, Marathon and Destiny. Cool if that's your coup of tea, but also worth noting why you don't actually mind the GaaS direction is because you actually love that kind of game instead of trying to convince others to keep hopes high for unannounced single player games.

@get2sammyb The problem is that the market is saturated with live service games and MMOs. And that is a significant problem when a game is completely reliant on keeping its player base above a certain level.

I agree in theory the concept is good. In practice, most of these games fail in their first year. And that's a fact, not opinion.

@get2sammyb I'll ask you simple question. Do people like to buy a book and enjoy it "as it is" and happily buy another sequel OR do people like to buy a book with half chapters than must pay for other chapters, some of the old ones are rewriten or scratched, so the story changes everytime they read it again?

The answer is also explanation of backfire Live Service games have.

@playstation1995 All the money that bankrolls the big tent pole titles comes what Sony takes in on IAP from other service titles.

@djlard If I can enjoy the book on a weekly basis with some friends on the other side of the country/globe with a plot that reacts to our own input as much as changes every few months, why not?

I ain't touching any of that. But these sell well so it will work

The only reason there doing this of course is to make up for all the money they will lose if Microsoft get ABK and COD. There just trying to find anyway they can to get that money back.

I get it. Sony wants and probably needs a mp that does well, but so many studios and so much money is waisted on a ton of content with probably 80% failing.
On the other hand, if it is hugely successful I'm afraid (despite what Sony is saying) we will see the GTA effect where we see significantly less single player games and more monetization crap.
Both scenarios are a waist and I'm a bit afraid about my hobby.

Which Singleplayer games has PlayStation in development beyond Spider-man 2 and Wolverine? The good times are over.

@get2sammyb
There are obviously different types of live service design but, for me, the type I despise (and do not respect) are those that seek to keep you in a time gated loop of content, drip feeding new stuff as they make older stuff obsolete. These also tend to be extremely repetitive, and certainly more so than spending the same amount of time on multiple different games. It is a type of low imagination, low effort, low cost development, that traps creative devs in a soulless spiral of mediocrity, and that adds very little of worth to the base experience on most occasions.

@Shepherd_Tallon tbf, the line about generations happened before the pandemic and the supply shortages.

You dont just make a prev-gen version of the game overnight, especially during the pandemic when development slowed down, not accelerated. They knew those games were going to run on PS4s.

but if they don't have a single other single player game in development though I'll eat my socks.

I am not saying they are not developing SP games, but where are they? how far away are they?

My contentment does not rely on others agreeing with me first of all. I'm just here for the conversations.

My point is that I only care about Sony 1st party sp games. Sorry but after third party exclusivity (timed or permanent) flukes like Ghostwire and Forespoken, I am not going to hold my breath or hopes on any such initiatives.

I like [most] Sony single player 1st party games, and my current negativity is that we are seeing a slowdown on that front. One game this year, and only Wolverine teased for who-knows-when. Only one thing will reassure me, and its them actually announcing [single player] games.

I’m honestly way more concerned about Sony’s current obsession with live-service games than Microsoft acquiring Activision, they are putting aside the type of games that gave Sony the prestige they currently have in favor of seeking their Fortnite and we just know for a fact than 95% of the games that tried this fail spectacularly and close their servers within months of being launched.

And honestly having seen what Sony is bringing to the table from the showcase I’m not hopeful at all.

It's simple I hate gaas. And yeah, I prefer my games being one and done; then start the work on sequel or new IP. I don't need constant updates to the games I love. And online gaas is even worse considering how much resource it already takes. I don't trust Herman or Jim about single player titles' future. Hope I'm wrong.

@AdamNovice Honestly that’s not plenty, and Firesprite is actually making a live-service game too, the fact that we currently know more about live-service projects than single-player ones is very concerning and the recent showcase only validated my concerns (showing 3 PS Studios live services and only one single-player game).

You know Halo and Gears are great single-player games that also work as well, if not better, as incredibly fun co-op experiences. They are still cinematic and story-driven. If Sony starts doing that then awesome.

But I doubt they will.

I hate it but I get that Sony don't really have a choice. The FTC vs. Microsoft trial showcased to us that those AAA single player epics that PS fans love are only sustainable because Sony were getting lots of microtransaction money from 3rd party multiplatform live service games like CoD, Fortnite, FIFA, GTA Online, etc.

With some of these being either gone or reduced in some way for example FIFA is dead and who knows whether EA Sports FC does well meanwhile Microsoft acquiring Activision means people will choose to play CoD on Game Pass instead of PS, this means the single player epics are less likely to be sustainable.

But the chances of live service success is low as shown by the gigantic live service graveyard formed recently so this will likely dig an even bigger hole for Sony.

So in short, Microsoft are forcing Sony to go down this route.

@get2sammyb I agree in Principal but how many are actually Single Player games that expand and evolve over time? The vast majority are Online games because people are much more likely to buy all the 'extra' content, Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc where the 'money' is.

Looking at Sony specifically, how many Single Player games have we got to look forward to - whether as a GaaS or not? As far as I know, its just Spider-Man 2 and Wolverine. No doubt they have 'others' in development, but Marathon, FairGame$, HellDivers2, LoU: Factions (if its still in development) and even Guerilla are supposed to be making an 'online' Horizon game.

Now I'm not saying Sony shouldn't be making GaaS and do think that Sony should be making more 'diverse' games, making more Online games/modes. The games they have announced though are launching into a 'very' competitive market where many can 'fail' and you need to 'commit' to a LONG post release support with LOTS of Content coming regularly to keep people engaged...

I'd rather go back to the 'Old' days where games came with an online and Single Player part - where the Online was 'Complete' and if Successful maybe could add content post release - especially as we are now 'expected' to pay £70 for a game at release.

Why make so many!? Gamers only have so much time each. Seems they making a ton on the hopes something sticks

@get2sammyb Because it’s becoming unsustainable. The shutdown of numerous live service games just this year has proven that. People have become wary of this and are less inclined to invest in an always online game asking you both for your time and money, only to shutdown months later. The competition in the space is fierce, and Sony will be competing with top dogs, like Call of Duty, Apex Legends, Fortnite, Overwatch 2 along with dozens of other live service games. Let’s not mention the fact that they will be competing with themselves, since they seem to have more than a few Live service shooters from their own studios.

What happens when most of these first party Live Service games fail as this part of the industry continues to collapse under its own weight? Will Sony just shutdown those developers? We’ve seen it happen to many other developers and continue to. Even if one game becomes a hit, what happens to the other 11 that people have sunk both time and money into? Do you just shut those games down and issue an apology on social media? There is much more to it than just “Oh hey, it’s a new game that’s being updated constantly. Great.”

I’m calling that within ten years, PlayStation’s output of singleplayer games will be reduced by a 1/3.

I completely understand chasing the Fortnite bag, even though that market is totally cornered and it will take a near perfect case scenario to break through.
I just have a feeling that this whole "live service" push is going to end so poorly for Sony, they're hoping to convert God of War & Horizon single player gamers into skin buyers, it just ain't gonna happen on the grand scale that they need to justify these investments.
Without Square Enix stepping up massively with FF XVI & FF7 Rebirth, we've lowkey already seen their first party output get cut down to one big AAA single player exclusive per year.
Just feels like they're way too late to this market and they're gonna make their core audience, who's carried them via single player exclusives since PS1, suffer as they desperately chase it.

Oh I wonder how many uneducated people will comment here…

checks comment section

Yes.

Live service games suck. Give me a good single player experience any day.

Why cant you commenters figure this simple strategy out. It's explained below

1. Create live service games for dependable revenue (E1)
2. Use income from dependable live service games to create 1st party single player games (E2)

E1 — live service games are created to create guaranteed RECURRENT revenue. the income is dependent on in house 1st party games and not on 3rd parties who can be acquired thus it avoids the risk of shutting off revenue i.e redfall, starfield, COD

E2 — since the income stream from live service games is recurrent and is from 1st party and NOT 3rd party i.e Call of Duty it can be used to continue to make content (single player 1st party games) and is guaranteed to NOT BE TAKEN AWAY thus ensuring there is income to CONTINUE making single player games for that smaller player base!

The only companies I see impacted In a negative way from this acquisition the most is 3rd party gaming companies EA, Rockstar etc.

The reason they are the most exposed is because with Sony now focusing to be more dependent on revenue from in house studios and with Microsoft now getting gamers use to no longer want to buy games (GAAS) The 3rd party companies wont be approached as much for exclusive bids and marketing rights, so they'll either be forced to put the game on GAAS ( PS Plus, GamePass) with a ***** offer, continue the traditional direct to sales, or just be acquired.

That's the gaming industry model. Simple

@get2sammyb Most liveservice games are very predatory. And there's only an audience for a few good live service games, so many games that have been built upon in years will fail to hit the mark. Wasted money that could have gone to different developments (e.g. suicide squad).

I absolutely detest the way Sony is moving with this. They used to have a lot of creative development studios, but that creativity is lost when they turned into big budget games only. Nintendo has taken over that crown nowadays. We can see the 1st party drought already sadly.

@Grumblevolcano I don't see Microsoft is forcing Sony to go this route when Sony can also create multiple smaller games to fill the gaps between big games, just like Nintendo does. Nintendo releases what, 10 games a year or so, with one big hitter and 9 smaller to cater the Nintendo fanboys that buy every Nintendo published game. And most become evergreen title because they have much variety in experiences too. Guaranteed income. Xbox is going that route with games like Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush. Sony could also go that route because they have so much IP left untouched.

Give us a new gravity rush, new rpg from the old box (tons of rpg to create a series of), new astroboy, Siphon filter, Jak and daxter, Sly cooper, wipeout, twisted metal, or remasters of older Sony published games (that according to Jim nobody has interest in, but which is selling like hot cakes on Nintendo's system).

Hopefully their research is heavily focused on the low survival rate of live service games. It's not uncommon for these games to be delisted within a year of release.

If they really do have about a dozen in development, it wouldn't be shocking if 8 or less actaully make it to release. Once they do release it is an even tougher battle in convincing the live service crowd that this one is worth continuously spending time in instead of the other service games competing for their time. Those established service games have the benefit of history on their side. The players have a built up profile already, they likely have friends and feel like part of a community. It seems like a tough sell to get them to start over with that level of commitment.

Sonys investment in live service is the equivalent of someone putting £100 on an acca on a football betting site. Most of them wont pay off but if one pays off it will pay -big-

Completely agree with all of those really turned off by Sony's commitment to the predatory gaming sector.
Its not only just a huge departure from what garnered the platform its success, but also a big FU to the fans that made it so. Beyond that, they are far too late to the party. If the MANY recent failures and the reception to announced live service titles like Suicide Squad are not clear enough that the market is starting to reject this predation, I don't know how many more failures are needed to make that message clear.

To those that suggest that the loss of COD or that the supposed bags of money that will come from this gacha push will somehow allow for and are needed to continue to create quality single player titles,.... it's just not true. The entire push is merely to chase a trend in order to continue the path made mandatory by the infinite growth model and its stakeholders. If you think they are going to reinvest a substantial amount of that money to make a bunch of single player titles that compete for your time and could potentially pull you away from the bottlenecked trajectory they are planning with this live servicepush.... .. come on now... We are only at the beginning of Sony's late push into these schemes, and already that showcase sent a clear message on what to expect and not expect from Sony under its current leadership in the near future.

Quality single player games have occurred and been profitable far before live service predation was the latest trend. Multiplayer games with long lasting player bases also existed without including paywalls and greed driven predatory tactics. This is merely greed in the form of wanting a recurring revenue stream without having to invest as much into that which creates it. Thus increasing overall profit and reducing cost. Oh and the COD nonsense, ...COD will not be gone from PlayStation, that would literally cut the profitability of that franchise by hundreds of millions of dollars. If it somehow does so in the ten years stated in the dealing thus far, that will be far after the supposed 12 lives service games (10 after two have already been shelved), release by 2026.

It is entirely self-defeating to try and find a bright side to a live service focus. As others have stated, the overall majority of these games and the model itself is designed to prey on the user to extract additional revenue. To pretend that the mission or potential of this model is to offer long term support and meaningful content to the gaming community is just willful ignorance.

My biggest wish from all of this is to watch each and everyone of Sonys live service games fail miserably one by one.

These trend chasing shenanigans almost never end well in the gaming business. Games take too long to develop. By the time the game is out, the trend is over.

I worry that Sony seems to be making a very disproportional bet on the live service thing. They claim that the traditional single player experiences will not be negatively impacted, but the latest showcase tells a very different story.

It reeks of "TV, TV, TV" Xbox, or motion controls, or Sony's own recent mobile initiative.

@playstation1995 in the leaks it proved sony is putting more money into single player games then ever with 200 million dollar budgets.

@get2sammyb I beg to differ.

The monetization model has a direct influence on the dynamics of a game. It's not about being single or multiplayer. It's about telling a compelling story with a beginning and an end. That is the traditional model we all know and love.

Live service implies continuity by definition, and that brings along all sorts of really bad inherent characteristics: games become jobs, because they now require max engagement to generate the need or desire to spend the extra money.

@Friendly not sure how there can be a drought when they have many studios working on games they haven't announced yet. people need to be way more patient.

Sigh... is the only reaction to these news.

@Shepherd_Tallon Sony was literally one of the first GaaS companies - with Everquest and Star Wars Galaxies. Then because of how they treated those properties - became one of the most hated in the MMO space. Some people still hold a grudge to this day.

So trust Sony in this space? No.

@twitchtvpat statistically speaking, based on Sony's comments surrounding live service games in dev and their financial investment focus; its very possible that at the very least a third, and likely more of those studios are working on yet to be revealed live service schemes whether that be via exploiting existing ips or new ones altogether.

I think that's where the concerns come from. It's not matter of patience. It's a matter of making predictions based on the given information and behavior of Sony leadership.

@KundaliniRising333 i just feel like you assume the worst , and while you do that you forget about all the studios working on single player games. obviously they are still going to make single player games.

@twitchtvpat when Spiderman 2 releases it has been 11,5 months between two 1st party releases. That has never been the case for playstation studios before.

We’ve seen in latest showcase what the Playstation studios are working on at rhe moment and from what we’ve seen it’s mainly live service fps games. To me that ain’t pretty.

@Friendly i'll fully admit it sucks the wait between games and of course i want them to show what they are working on , but people just have to be patient till then , i'm talking about the studios working on games that haven't been announced yet.

@Friendly They literally released horizon : call of the mountain this feb lol. ( and are on track to release 3 more first party games by the end of this year)

I really hope this will not affect why I'm with Playstation since its beginning, which is the stellar breathtaking Single Player games and stories...

@Friendly That would be the best option (approaching things more like Nintendo) but Nintendo has the big advantage of underpowered hardware. Switch is like a hybrid PS3/360 and a lot of strategies are similar to that era.

I do fear that when Nintendo hardware ends up being PS4/XB1 power, they will adopt the combo of AAA single player epics + live service games with microtransactions funding the single player games rather than the approach Nintendo are currently using for Switch.

The main things which cause this concern for me are the recent interviews about Zelda's future, Splatoon 3's catalog is pretty much a free battle pass, Nintendo Systems (the Nintendo/DeNA thing which was formed in April 2023) and that Nintendo cares enough about CoD that they signed up for the 10 year deal Microsoft offered extremely quickly.

If the Switch's successor comes out and Nintendo doesn't fall into the microtransactions trap that Sony and Microsoft did then it would showcase the current Nintendo strategy would be an option that Sony could use if they wanted to.

@jimbouk sure, a 500+ dollar vr game. A vr system that Sony didn’t follow up upon yet and is catching dust now in many houses. And Sony also released mlb the show.

But afaik only spider-man 2 has a release date and published by playstation studios slated this year. And that’s it. Other than that maybe Stellar Blade and Helldivers II?

To me the future of sony is feeling a bit bleak compared to last gen. That’s it, and that’s not a problem. There are a lot of great games anyway, on playstation and other systems. I’m very much enjoying the creative indie scene last year on Switch. And I play the big budget games in between.

@Grumblevolcano we’ll see, they are having massive success with their current strategy though, they earn more revenue than sony and xbox combined from their first party releases. Most of their games have dlc though, which is new this generation for them and which is something i also do not like all that much. So I hope they won’t bring that too far, indeed, nor that they adopt the live service business model.

@Friendly There's also Firewall ultra which is another first party VR game slated for release this year.
Stellar Blade, Rise of the Ronin, Lost Soul Aside are all single player games published by Sony, in addition to Wolverine and DS2 which are ps studios games all which are probably due for release next year.
It's well documented too that there are single player games in development at studios like Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Insomniac, Guerrilla,Firesprite, Sucker Punch, Bend, Bluepoint, Team Asobi. There may be further games in development too at XDEV.

Hilarious how in despite of all this stuff some of you still keep crying about " Single player games are not a focus anymore" everytime some news like this comes up.

@jimbouk we were talking about this year, right?

All the games you mentioned have a release window of 2024 or later, apart from stellar blade. (And yeah, VR firewall Ultra).

And most other games are not developed by sony. But you’re right, they are published by Sony, and therefore you could fit it in what Sony is releasing.

I just miss the time of sony also developing and publishing smaller creative games to fill in the gaps, that’s all. You can clearly see their focus shifting away from that over the years.

@Friendly Literally every game I mentioned are first party/ second party releases. Sony's own internal publishing arm XDEV assists in these projects.
As for the smaller games, the current management kickstarted the PlayStation Indies initiative. Games like Kena, Tchia, Stray, Sifu, Humanity have been extensively marketed and supported by the platform holder. Only difference is they are not first party games anymore.

@jimbouk but what about the 2024 release window argument?

And do you consider final fantasy xvi to be first/second party too because the technical team of sony helped out?

@Friendly FF16 is not first party as it is not funded/published by Sony. Rise of the Ronin and Lost Soul Aside however are both being published and developed under SIE and both are slated for 2024. Stellar Blade doesn't have a release date yet, so it could get pushed to next year .
As for the first party games , both Wolverine and DS2 were leaked sometime ago with a release window of 2024. Plus Concord just had a 2024 window given just recently.That's not to even mention heavy hitter third party exclusives like FF7 Rebirth and Silent Hill 2 which are slated to arrive next year.

@jimbouk yeh, so this year it’s spider-man 2 and mlb the show of sony releases and that’s it. Maybe stellar blade as it has a release window of 2023 still, but we haven’t seen any gameplay apart from the trailer so far.

Lost soul aside is developed by Ultizerogames. I don’t know anything about this one, but has Sony bought that studio? Rise of the Ronin is developed by Koei Tecmo games, not a 1st or 2nd party studio I’m afraid. And Stellar Blade is being made by Shift Up, also not bought by Sony afaik, so also not 1st or 2nd party.

But yes, they receive help from sony, as sony has helped SE with FF XVI. You could count all those games therefore as sony releases if you want to.

Anyway, the 1st party studios of Sony are working on not a lot of single player games from what has been revealed based on your list.

@Friendly It sounds like you are deliberately being obtuse just to fit your own stupid narrative. I mentioned horizon:cotm just released earlier this year . Helldivers 2 and firewall ultra will release later these year as well. All these are literally Playstation studios games ( first party titles). Have you even seen the trailers for any of these games lmao??.

2nd party titles literally mean that the studio is never owned by the publisher, but rather the publisher is actively funding,developing and marketing the game. This ain't the same as 3rd party exclusives where there's usually a contractual deal signed to have the game be exclusive to only one platform.

Sounds like you should first actually do some basic research into these topics before indulging in an argument with others.

@jimbouk “ Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios that take development contracts from platform holders and develop games exclusive to that platform”

Since when is Koei Tecmo a 2nd party developer? They constantly release games on other platforms. And since when are the others considered 2nd party since neither of them have released any game so far ever.

Sony has published 1 game for PS5 this year, 1 for PSVR. And will publish 1 game for PS5 and 1 for PSVR and maybe 1 more but we don’t have a release date for helldivers II yet (just a release window) so it might slip into 2024. It’s very very meagre for the market leader, especially if you take away psvr which is a 500 dollar addon that only a handful of people own. And next year Sony’s release schedule still looks very weak, only wolverine, live service games, no psvr support and a few 3d party developed exclusive games like the ones you mentioned.

You’re getting agressieve for no reason at all. I’m saying that Sony has changed their original way for the worse (imo). Just a few big budget games, live service stuff and 3d party marketing deals. But if you enjoy all that, well, all the best for you of course.

@Friendly I love how you repeatedly discount psvr2 games " as it is expensive" but then complain about no vr support for next year .

I just mentioned a bunch of studios who are making single player games and all your takeaway was that the majority of upcoming games are live service when it's in fact a mixture of the two.

Goes on to prove my point how you are close minded and see only your viewpoint as being correct 👍

@jimbouk whatever mate. You enjoy your gaming time. Call me closed minded any time you want.

To me Sony has lost a fan when they closed down Japan Studio as they lost their original way imo.

@jimbouk small response btw. The reasoning you’re giving is off. I discount psvr2 since it has a very small fanbase. And afterwards it’s not that I complain about no psvr2 support, it’s just to show that in that space we have nothing to look forward to playstation-wise after the 100th vr shooter. Feels as if Sony is dropping the psvr2 support even faster than they did the Vita.

And yeah, you mentioned a bunch of studios, but not Sony 1st party studios which our discussion began with. We only know of wolverine which might be a single player game or could turn into a live service game too for all we know. And next to that, 1st party wise, from what we have seen, only live service games are coming from Sony.

Maybe this great list made by pushsquare can help you follow my reasoning. If you go by all Sony Studios and have their latest showcase in mind we have absolutely no idea what they’re working on other than Wolverine and some live service games.
https://www.pushsquare.com/guides/playstation-studios-all-sony-first-party-developers-and-what-theyre-working-on#polyphony-digital

@Friendly i'd rather they take their time and make the best games possible instead of rush games for the sake of " omg we need this many games out in 2023/2024". and ms and sony has stated in the leaks that it takes longer then ever to develop games to the level people expect.

@twitchtvpat the quality is not something I’m having concerns about.

@get2sammyb It doesn't matter indeed and i know I won't be playing any of them. As long as they wont become a new Ubisoft.

It's still is strange going for 12 liveservicegames when a few succeed. They have so many dorment IP's that could be made with a double AA funding and make a more diverse library of games.

Sony was the go to developer for me because they had a diverse and interesting library of games. Where is a Dark Cloud, ICO, Bloodborne, Shadow of the Collosus, Wild Arms and of course Legend of Dragoon.

Also how could they have not remastered Twisted Metal 2 World Tour not to expensive and you only need to implement online.

@Friendly Quality of quantity also a little diverse games would be nice. They killed Killzone when went the COD copy route and remove all the identity of the IP.