Disagree with the article. It's naive. One big live service hit and single player production will take a hit. Single player will never disappear entirely, as some have said, but it will take a hit. Eventually. Common sense. No doom-mongering, just good old fashioned common sense.
Do you want Ghost of Tsushima to be a live service game? I don't. But then, these decisions aren't really meant to cater to us, are they? There's a sea of money to be made by drawing in new customers - we are no longer the priority. And that's smart business, ladies and gentlemen.
Kaz's "retirement" always struck me as fishy. He was awarded a board seat but only held it for two years. I can only imagine since he was the idea man behind the PS3's cell architecture, he was persona non grata.
Maybe he really did have other priorities and left voluntarily (he is getting up there in age), but that generally isn't how Japanese business culture works - their jobs are cradle to grave right?
We can only speculate, and we will never know for sure unfortunately. At least superficially, it looks like he was quietly promoted out of the position they felt he did poorly in, then he was ousted or quit not long after. All speculation, but it does appear that way based on the general timeline.
Jim Ryan is Sony Corps' yes man, that I do not see as mere speculation. He was almost certainly chosen for... certain qualities he possesses, and none of those have anything to do with passion for the actual product he is selling. And certainly not his ability to communicate with his audience. He is good at making money, point blank.
Also, I never heard about their last E3 showing being so rough - that's super interesting! May explain some things. You were in attendance?
I couldn't point to an exact moment which started the current downward spiral... I mean, the obvious answer is Jim Ryan taking over, but yeah that seems too simple. This titanic mega-corporation cannot spin on its heels on a dime, and one guy (even the CEO) can't enact such radical changes in just a few short years. The ship has been slowly turning for years, we just didn't realize it then because it was happening so slowly. This has been coming for awhile. My outside guess is to take a close look at the Board of Directors of Sony as a whole - it probably starts there. Jim Ryan is a convenient patsy for the current "troubles". But he's just one guy after all.
I'd cordially disagree Sony never found its groove after Sega's exit - the PS2 was solid, I think because they knew what they wanted it to be and executed. I guess you could consider PS2 'pre-Sega' depending on the year you are talking about though.
I'm with you - my wild guess is this is all a domino effect somehow leading back to the troubled PS3 launch. That caused a shakeup in management if I recall. I didn't really see the trouble brewing during the PS4 era and generally viewed it as a "return to form" at the time, but now I'm not sure. I viewed Sony tinkering with different ideas, like the VITA, as sort of a natural process of a company throwing its feelers out there to see what worked. Sort of an organic progression or a trial and error adaptation process that needs to happen. I saw promising signs, like the simpler architecture of the PS4 lowering the barrier of entry and development of relationships with indie developers.
Now though, the unceremonious cancelation of Vita support strikes me as a company that did not and does not have a vision, or is unwilling to execute the one it has. Prior to that, the half-hearted implementation of Playstation Home under Phil Spencer, or the ongoing lack of focus on the 'metagame' aspects of Playstation (still no trophy leaderboards? - c'mon already!) Or the abysmal lack of communication starting with the Wired PS5 launch announcement article back in 2019 (still scratching my head on that decision). Or the inconsistent messaging and execution with Playstation Directs/Showcases. Or the fundamentally botched PS1 Classic mini console. The list goes on and on and on. This is how I perceive it now with the benefit of hindsight.
Possibly all due to Sony being gun shy from the PS3? Hard to say...
Where are Kaz and Andrew House now? They should have progressed to board of director seats, and kept them. But that didn't happen. I think that is a clue. Kaz was getting old though 🤔
I'd also add another general theory: the Playstation division of Sony is a victim of its own success. They did so well for the company, Sony probably gives them free reign now for all their ventures. E-sports investment, games as a service, a surge in acquisitions never before seen. All of it seemingly occurring too quickly, with no overall guiding vision in any specific direction, just outward expansion in ALL directions simultaneously. No checks or balances to be seen anywhere. Blank checks, etc.
That's an optimistic take on it. If they have one big live service success, they will not take the massive proceeds from that success and re-invest it into single player games. They won't.
What they will do is reinvest the funds into what made them the money in the first place - growing live service games. That is the standard, only reasonable way to proceed from a business perspective. Identifying "growth areas" (i.e., what makes big money), then pumping more money into that. Investors love it, because it works (in making money, but not necessarily good games).
You are right though it's not all doom and gloom. That said, this company is about 5 to 10-ish years out from being toast for a lot of us. We just aren't the market anymore. After 20, 30 years of supporting this company wholeheartedly, we are whipping out "The End is Nigh" signs. It's not a done deal yet, but red flags abound everywhere you look. Call it pessimism, or call it recognizing historical market trends.
I consider myself an optimist and the future of gaming as exciting. But Sony in particular's future under these new philosphies... not so much. And not just referring to the live service emphasis, I could point to dozens of indicators. Hope I'm proved wrong though, truly.
Dang, I should have read your essay on Sony's live service trend and why it is bad for us before I wrote my essay. You wrote it more eloquently than I could have. The trends are alarmingly clear when it comes to this industry, as far as GaaS releases.
The whole, "But Sony said..." thing is, well... this is a corporation. They are going for the money, as a corporation does. That strategy leaves us behind eventually. Not tomorrow, not next year, but eventually. They will pare down single player if they get a live service mega success release. The two differing philosophies won't exist untouched in unison, one has to take a hit - that is utterly inevitable due to finite resources.
But as another commenter mentioned, we will always have single player games in abundance (just perhaps not from Sony). So no need for all the doom and gloom, but a healthy level of disappointment is warranted I think.
We complain, because that's what you are supposed to do on the internet, but there really isn't less choice these days. Games like Hades and Death's Door will always be there. Sony is losing its way slowly, but another dev or company will always step in to fill the gap when another drops the ball.
Good to remember gaming is thriving in all areas, including those that emphasize, ya know, actual gameplay.
The pessimism you see is the end result of hitching your wagon to a single company (Sony). When Sony is messing up, as I believe they are, and you derive your identity to some degree from that company's products or services, you start to think the whole sky is falling when they go a different direction. But not true! There are other companies that would die to get the money you spend on Playstation!
(If you were looking for an optimistic take in the comments haha.)
I hope Sony fails spectacularly in its live service efforts. It isn't the future I want for gaming - sterile, incomplete, and incoherent releases with superficial content updates ad nauseum in lieu of actual story or gameplay, with predatory FOMO concepts applied throughout. A neverending cheap slush of content for contents sake, with no over-riding direction or purpose besides maintaining engagement... Generally, that's how it goes. That's me though. If you like live service, this is great news.
I know they are not the EXACT same scenarios, but when a big publisher gets into live service, and they finally get that big money-making mega-hit, they ditch single player. Look at the past:
Valve: Celebrated single player dev; launched Steam, made a bunch of money, and now they release hardly anything (this is where all the Half Life 3 jokes come from - it was originally planned as a trilogy before Steam's success).
Epic: Had several big single player/competitive multiplayer franchises. After the release and success of Fortnight, the other IPs were silently killed or sold off. It's Fortnight only now, pretty much.
Rockstar: Known for the legendary GTA series. After the release and massive success of GTA V Online, they quietly renegged on releasing single player expansions and haven't released a new GTA game in many, many years (departing from their previous release cycle). We will see GTA 6 someday, but the message was pretty clear. The success of GTA Online is the sole reason you don't have a copy of GTA 6 in your hands right now.
So yeah. Sony says they will keep focusing on single player. And they probably will. Until they get their mega ultra hit release. Then, historically speaking, they will inevitably transfer resources from their SP games to their money-making live service efforts. It would be terrible business sense not to do so.
Sony can say whatever it wants. I think they will always have SP in their portfolio, just less of it in the live service future. That's based on common sense and historical trends in the industry. This is good news if you like live service games, or bad news if you aren't a fan (I find them repugnant outside of a few MMOs, but that's just me. I do understand many enjoy them).
Final Fantasy Tactics moving up in the ranks if I'm not mistaken. Good to see you godless heathens are developing some taste. I kid, but seriously this list started off pretty odd. Final Fantasy VII Remake rightly knocked down a peg after recency bias put it in at #3 initially. Good to see the list "normalizing".
Also, more people need to try FFXIV. Subscription cost scares some people off I reckon, but the base game is actually free and you get a free month to try it out. XI being so low is a result of people who didn't actually play it assigning a ranking to it. It wasn't as big on PS2 but is highly, highly respected in the PC community.
Thirdly, I've never seen so many people list XIII as their personal favorite as I have in these comments. I knew they existed, but I never actually saw them in the wild before. Like a mystical unicorn. Next they will be telling me Dirge of Cerberus is the best shooting/action game of all time. The Hope character from XIII makes my blood boil, and not in a good "this is a well written character" way. More like an "I'm not sure Japanese devs understand actual human emotions" way. Sasz was cool/relatable though.
Dissidia 012 snubbed here as well. I think this list could be re-named most popular FF games instead of "best".
Sad to see Tactics Advance (Game Boy Advance) and FF Tactics A2 (DS) omitted as they were really solid, standalone entries. Also a lot of other spinoffs that could be ranked such as FF XII Revenant Wings (awful), Crystal Defenders (awful), Mystic Quest (alright), and so many more like the FF Legends series on the original Gameboy. There's just a ton of these games!
I was putting on the black plates and my wife was helping me. She asked, "Whats the point of changing the color?" after I told her I spent 55 bucks on them.
I had to explain to her it's similar to how little girls change the clothes on their barbie dolls - it's a socially acceptable excuse for grown men/women to play dress up with their stuff. I told her, deep down, we are all little girls playing with barbie dolls.
THEN she understood and asked no more questions 😆
I agree totally. Going back, it's like watching that kids show you loved as a kid but now you are thinking, "I actually enjoyed this?!" Like you are trying to crack the code of your own psyche and the effects of time on your tastes.
But to be honest, the first game (considered on its own merits) has a special place for me and I still replay it. Its whimsical, ridiculous, crossover was done well, and it had good gameplay.
Not even the people that dig up and explain the lore in FromSoft games could crack this series' storyline. KH1 was pretty straightforward but KH2 and each entry after turned the plot into an indecipherable fever dream. Any attempt at cohesion or a sensible plot was thrown out the window, but that is a part of these games' charm. The scene where Mickey Mouse is wearing an emo black leather zipper jacket and is supposed to be presented as this anime-ified powerful force of justice makes me laugh out loud every time at the off the charts ridiculousness of it all. Some say cringe, others say charm. You decide.
I feel you but I say direct your blame towards SquareEnix for having arguably the worst development timeframes in the entire industry. I was 16 when FFXV was announced and 26 when it released. Nations have been created and collapsed in less time than it takes them to put out a game. Their development schedule is a joke I got tired of a long, long time ago.
29 comments and each bashing NFTs, calling Ubisoft a joke/greedy for even attempting it, rightly pointing out NFT's similarities to a traditional pyramid scheme (though it is more of a pump and dump scheme, slightly different thing), and questioning Ubisoft's ability to make great games anymore in general.
That's 29 or so different human beings from 29 walks of life that all more or less revile this stuff. (One comment was actually sorta neutral saying just don't buy their games and a few were replies).
Damn Ubisoft, read the room. Stop it. Just stop it.
I get what you are saying. It's all a little premature until we know what/how many of these PS1 and PS2 games they are offering.
In my magical ideal world, they would offer each game for sale individually outside the subscription, and give us access to the digital PS1/PS2 games we have already bought on PS3/PSP/Vita. Already purchased over 80 legacy titles, but all locked to previous systems.
But... this is Sony we are talking about here. Maybe that will be the Diamond Select Plus plan for 49.99 a month.
Yup. This is the same company that released whatever the Playstation Classic was supposed to be.
In fact, the entire PS1 library will probably just be a re-release of the 20 or so games on the Classic 😆
I hope I'm wrong. I need some of these old games to get re-released so the floor falls out on PS1 and PS2 game prices. You know what you gotta do for a copy of Klonoa on PS1 these days? It involves going to a public park restroom at 3am in the morning and meeting a homeless man in the stall. And trust me, you ain't playing checkers in there.
Probably mentioned by a few others, but a collector would pay the extra 10 to get the PS5 version on physical disc for... posterity? Future server shutdowns?
It feels like a reach. But yeah. We collectors are not reasonable people. I bought a copy of Psychonauts on PS2 for $50 today... and I already own the (better) digital version on PS4, which can be had for $5 during sales.
Yes. For both of these games - complete copies - you are looking at around 1200 dollars. That's USD. Among the most expensive games for the PS1/PS2.
No real idea why - just one of those games "collectors" have determined is some sort of holy grail for their systems. Low production + they were actually good games all things considered.
This is good. Klonoa on PS1 regularly goes for around $500 and Klonoa 2 even more at around $700 for complete copies. These two games are nearly the most expensive games in existence for their respective systems (nearly).
Hopefully this gets a physical release and pushes the prices down a bit so I can snag some original copies without selling my kidney.
You know Xbox did pretty well with the 360. I know you are talking about the Xbox One, but sheesh they did fall short of the mark last gen, which is actually a shame because I like to see the stiff competition we saw during the PS3-360-Wii era. PS4 dominated... maybe too much?
My only 5 cents is Sony has a pretty strong first party line-up as it is; my only hope for a potential merger/acquisition would be for Sony to buy IPs (not the whole company) from Konami. At least the game rights if not a wholesale purchase of the properties - they are clearly willing to sell at the moment based on recent outsourcing of development.
And that's not to save the IPs from Microsoft, it is to save them from, well... Konami itself. Truly an awful company and I hope their pachinko sector continues to tank. Google 'Konami Yakuza' if you fancy semi-plausible conspiracy theories. Firing Hideo is just the tip of the iceberg at Konami whether you actually believe they are run by an organized criminal syndicate or not.
Capcom is doing very well on its own and at this point, their games' quality often rivals Sony first party in my humble opinion. SquareEnix seems like a mess that would take awhile to sort out. If they hadn't made FF 14, I'd have wrote them off completely by this point (probably the most inefficient game publisher in history based on their track record).
Just leave it Sony! Go make some crummy live service games and don't touch Resident Evil!
Said in a previous comment Microsoft would never buy a Japanese publicly traded publisher due to differing business cultures and a few people wanted to argue the point.
Well... I said the same thing this 'consultant' said about a month ago. Of course, I wasn't the only one who pointed it out. So when can we expect our six-figure salaries?
1.) Persona 4 Golden
2.) Gravity Rush
3.) Tearaway
4.) Metal Gear Solid HD Collection
5.) Ratchet and Clank HD Collection
6.) Soul Sacrifice Delta
7.) Killzone: Mercenary
8.) Uncharted Golden Abyss
9.) Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time
10.) Wipeout 2048
11.) Shovel Knight
12.) Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Collection
13.) World of Final Fantasy
14.) Severed
Honorable mentions to all the indies: Hotline Miami, Steamworld Dig/Heist, Axiom Verge, Bastion, Plants v. Zombies, Salt and Sanctuary, Guacamelee, Darkest Dungeon, Rogue Legacy, Drago 's Crown, Fez, Child of Light, Spelunky, Velocity 2X
Early 30s here. I started in gaming in earnest with the Sega Genesis. There's been a lot of twists and turns since then. (Not old enough to remember the Atari days).
Just wanted to say you hit the nail right on the head as far as all my views. Hesitant to get embroiled in the petty squabbling, 'politics', and internal corporate issues, but I am a strong advocate of actually owning things I buy, across all industries and hobbies, and Microsoft is challenging that. Don't appreciate their business model one bit.
In my mind, younger people don't have a good sense of their own consumer rights and what they are entitled to for their dollar. They just don't know any better because (in their defense) digital distribution and streaming has been all they've known since day one.
Stereotypical "These darn kids..." response haha. But it's true.
"I've always played on Playstation" is a legit, completely valid reason to continue getting Playstation though. Doesn't need to go any deeper. It's a very practical consideration.
They cleverly lock you into their ecosystem. The games you bought on PS4, the trophy system, your friends list, etc. - those all carry over. I own 750+ games digitally across PS3/PSP/Vita/PS4/PS5 in addition to 250+ physical copies of PS4 games I can play on PS5 (remind me why I need Gamepass or PS Now lol). I own zero games on Xbox digitally. Don't think Xbox is any worse than Playstation, it's just I'm kind of stuck in that ecosystem.
A friend who has grown up playing Xbox was interested in the PS5 and asked me, the resident nerd, whether he should get a PS5 or Series X. Despite being a big Playstation fan, the answer was simple: I recommended the Series X, because his game purchases would carry over. A much better investment.
He ignored me and bought a PS5 anyways. The heart wants what the heart wants I guess.
Seems like it's been pretty respectful outside of a side conversation about Nintendo versus Sony IPs and a general disdain toward Phil Spencer PR speak. Just a lot of neutral, probably pointless, speculation to blow of steam in the comments.
And honestly, this is a game website. I'd be slightly disappointed if there wasn't a Sony vs Nintendo games fanboy debate somewhere in here. Let the kids (and the kids at heart) have their fun!
Could that realistically happen? The SEC is already frothing at the mouth at Google like a rabid dog. Would Sony even sell? Could Google pull off a (risky) hostile takeover with the regulatory spotlight it is in?
How DARE you challenge the glory of Sony's first party lineup here on PushSquare (I kid).
Look - you don't like Sony's IP's or you like Nintendo's better - thats completely cool. Nintendo is the OG and started an empire on the strength of its own games.
But don't get it twisted, Sony built its franchises (Ratchet and Clank, and a multitude of others) from the ground up. It didn't "buy" them in the sense you mean. And while I respect both Sony and Nintendo somewhat equally, Sony have done better in recent years at delivering truly new IPs. Nintendo has pimped Mario out so hard the last two decades he should probably get checked out at the clinic.
Both great companies, both with an insane legacy. Both with very, very different strategies. Nintendo is about "fun" over innovation, Sony is about groundbreaking characters and story. Neither is wrong or right.
Microsoft says they see big tech companies as the real competition in the gaming space. But didn't Amazon and Google's recent game initiatives crash and burn spectacularly?
Polling the room: what sense is there that Google or Amazon are any threat in the traditional game development space? And I'm emphasizing traditional gaming, not mobile garbage or wonky 'metaverse' plans. I mean the games we play, not Casual Boop Boop Online Shooter Battle Royale 7 designed by a marketing algorithm and a focus test of 10 eight-year olds.
For all their money, they can't make a game. Maybe the fear is they will buy an existing publisher? Launch a cloud gaming service that somehow challenges the traditional model? What's the hubbub about? They don't know how to make games, and they don't have the inclination to learn. If they did, they would have stuck to their projects and not canned them at the first sign of trouble last year.
Nope, sure don't. But it ain't all about the Benjamins man, was going for a little more nuanced discussion about wanting to see some more variety, not what sells well. How financially successful a game or genre is was never mentioned or brought up in my comment or the comment I was replying to.
We should all probably just play Fortnight forever because, well... it sells really well.
You can have God of War and the other niche titles as well, Sony have done that for a long time but have fallen off a bit since the PS2 days. God of War next to Silent Hill, Twisted Metal... Variety. It's the spice, so I've been told. Let Sony worry about the financials, I'm talking about what would be fun to play. Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, I take your point Japanese companies are not off the table from a regulatory or legal standpoint. But I still contend - historically - it doesn't happen for other reasons, due primarily to the differing business culture in Japan versus the West (at least in the world of electronic entertainment).
My back-up for this is mostly anecdotal, based on two factors:
1.) I can't think of any western company that has successfully bought a Japanese developer;
And
2.) Several stories have come to light of attempts made to buy Japanese devs by Western companies, only to be rejected. There's a famous story which comes to mind of Microsoft meeting with Nintendo in 1999 to discuss an aquisition; according to the story, Nintendo execs literally laughed them out of the room at the suggestion.
The business culture in the US and Japan are really different and game dev mergers have never crossed the Pacific as far as I know. Doesn't mean it couldn't or won't happen someday though, for sure.
Honest question: do you know of any example - ever - of a western dev/publisher buying a Japanese one? I'm actually not asking this rhetorically, I'm legitimately curious if it has ever happened.
I keep seeing people - repeatedly - worry or pontificate about Microsoft buying Capcom or SquareEnix.
As far as I understand, Microsoft purchasing a Japanese publisher is next to impossible, if not outright impossible. Reason being, Microsoft is an American company and those are Japanese companies. Historically, they will not sell to an American company under any circumstances. So don't worry too much about Capcom, Konami, Kojima Productions, or SquareEnix to name a few.
Second thing: Sony lost 20 billion dollars today. The SEC is a bit of a joke here in the US but they've been under a lot of political pressure recently to actually start doing their jobs and start regulating mergers (something they've failed to do properly for a long, long time). Sony lost a fair chunk of change, and I see a large possibility of an ugly, protracted legal battle over this if CoD goes exclusive. Not sure what the SEC would decide, but the deal is far from done right now.
Lastly: With the Zenimax Media and Activision-Blizzard purchases, any future acquisitions by Microsoft of a big publisher will become more difficult from a regulatory standpoint. With each purchase, the regulatory bar gets pushed higher and higher due to Microsoft owning an increasingly large market share - the case they are a monopoly grows with each purchase.
All this to say, don't worry too much just yet. The SEC does sometimes smack down mergers, believe it or not. The SEC is trying to look tough and flex its muscles right now, so it's possible the acquisition doesn't materialize (in which case MSFT still has to pay Activision 3bn for wasting their time). Even if the Activision deal goes through - it probably will - Microsoft kind of "blew their load" on this deal, so to speak, and future big acquisitions of this magnitude are most likely off the table.
Microsoft spent 68bn on CoD, WoW, Diablo, and Candy Crush - all pretty questionable IPs in my humble opinion. Personally, I'm glad they didn't spend that money sweeping up potentially dozens of smaller devs that actually make decent products.
All of man's accomplishments, technological advancements, and evolution were leading to this very day. We have finally achieved the pinnacle of human existence.
Yeah, got your point and was basically agreeing with you in a nutshell, and modified it with some of my own commentary/thoughts beyond just the money aspect.
He will be a very, very wealthy man however it pans out. His shares are substantial.
I don't know. Kotick is probably very keenly aware he is widely hated by the video game community. Even for a sociopath like him, that might wear on you. Not an ounce of sympathy from me, but he will be leaving (with his many millions) in a state of relative disgrace. And these guys are big on pride and appearances, not just money - probably stings a bit in some way. Or at least I hope it does.
Just give him his golden parachute and lock him out of our lives once and for all. Guy's been nothing but a problem for decades. A turd that wouldn't flush has hopefully finally been removed, and that's a win in my book.
Don't think PushSquare readers are the target demographic for Call of Duty. We are kind of a snooty bunch that look down on the filthy COD "casual gamers" as unwashed, uncultured peasants. That's the general sense I get.
Can't deny CoD moves units though. That game is a lifestyle for some people. I put CoD in the same garbage category as most Ubisoft games, Fortnight, Madden, FIFA, and all the rest of the usual suspects. Doesn't change the fact millions upon millions worship them.
Agreed with the comment about Sony lacking variety among their first party games. I love God of War and The Last of Us for sure, but there are so many different genres beyond Third Person semi-open world action adventure. Such a hyper-specific genre they've honed in on.
Wanna see flight sims, vehicle combat, psychological horror, SRPGs, JRPGs, rhythm games, etc. So much possibility.
I do think Sony has realized it has something of a problem on its hands with how similar its flagship titles are, hence the rumored Twisted Metal reboot and partnership with Square on Final Fantasy XVI, among others. Seems like they are actively attempting to diversify a bit beyond the odd experimental title here and there.
Yeah, not to gloat or nothing but genuinely don't believe the game was too bad. Average Joe gamer here.
I'm guessing what is moving the needle from "Challenging Game" to "Almost Impossible Game" for people is they are using the wrong weapons or playing in some way that is counterintuitive.
I died 8 times to get through it. (Again, Average Joe gamer here). The key I found is to move fast in combat then slow down after you clear rooms and really explore for those upgrades and health pick-ups. Fast in combat, then slow down and explore.
Resogun, Super Stardust, Nex Machina - those games never let you slow down and yes, they kick my butt.
Comments 685
Re: Reaction: Why You Shouldn't Worry About Sony's New Strategy
Disagree with the article. It's naive. One big live service hit and single player production will take a hit. Single player will never disappear entirely, as some have said, but it will take a hit. Eventually. Common sense. No doom-mongering, just good old fashioned common sense.
Do you want Ghost of Tsushima to be a live service game? I don't. But then, these decisions aren't really meant to cater to us, are they? There's a sea of money to be made by drawing in new customers - we are no longer the priority. And that's smart business, ladies and gentlemen.
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
@NEStalgia
Kaz's "retirement" always struck me as fishy. He was awarded a board seat but only held it for two years. I can only imagine since he was the idea man behind the PS3's cell architecture, he was persona non grata.
Maybe he really did have other priorities and left voluntarily (he is getting up there in age), but that generally isn't how Japanese business culture works - their jobs are cradle to grave right?
We can only speculate, and we will never know for sure unfortunately. At least superficially, it looks like he was quietly promoted out of the position they felt he did poorly in, then he was ousted or quit not long after. All speculation, but it does appear that way based on the general timeline.
Jim Ryan is Sony Corps' yes man, that I do not see as mere speculation. He was almost certainly chosen for... certain qualities he possesses, and none of those have anything to do with passion for the actual product he is selling. And certainly not his ability to communicate with his audience. He is good at making money, point blank.
Also, I never heard about their last E3 showing being so rough - that's super interesting! May explain some things. You were in attendance?
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
@NEStalgia
I couldn't point to an exact moment which started the current downward spiral... I mean, the obvious answer is Jim Ryan taking over, but yeah that seems too simple. This titanic mega-corporation cannot spin on its heels on a dime, and one guy (even the CEO) can't enact such radical changes in just a few short years. The ship has been slowly turning for years, we just didn't realize it then because it was happening so slowly. This has been coming for awhile. My outside guess is to take a close look at the Board of Directors of Sony as a whole - it probably starts there. Jim Ryan is a convenient patsy for the current "troubles". But he's just one guy after all.
I'd cordially disagree Sony never found its groove after Sega's exit - the PS2 was solid, I think because they knew what they wanted it to be and executed. I guess you could consider PS2 'pre-Sega' depending on the year you are talking about though.
I'm with you - my wild guess is this is all a domino effect somehow leading back to the troubled PS3 launch. That caused a shakeup in management if I recall. I didn't really see the trouble brewing during the PS4 era and generally viewed it as a "return to form" at the time, but now I'm not sure. I viewed Sony tinkering with different ideas, like the VITA, as sort of a natural process of a company throwing its feelers out there to see what worked. Sort of an organic progression or a trial and error adaptation process that needs to happen. I saw promising signs, like the simpler architecture of the PS4 lowering the barrier of entry and development of relationships with indie developers.
Now though, the unceremonious cancelation of Vita support strikes me as a company that did not and does not have a vision, or is unwilling to execute the one it has. Prior to that, the half-hearted implementation of Playstation Home under Phil Spencer, or the ongoing lack of focus on the 'metagame' aspects of Playstation (still no trophy leaderboards? - c'mon already!) Or the abysmal lack of communication starting with the Wired PS5 launch announcement article back in 2019 (still scratching my head on that decision). Or the inconsistent messaging and execution with Playstation Directs/Showcases. Or the fundamentally botched PS1 Classic mini console. The list goes on and on and on. This is how I perceive it now with the benefit of hindsight.
Possibly all due to Sony being gun shy from the PS3? Hard to say...
Where are Kaz and Andrew House now? They should have progressed to board of director seats, and kept them. But that didn't happen. I think that is a clue. Kaz was getting old though 🤔
I'd also add another general theory: the Playstation division of Sony is a victim of its own success. They did so well for the company, Sony probably gives them free reign now for all their ventures. E-sports investment, games as a service, a surge in acquisitions never before seen. All of it seemingly occurring too quickly, with no overall guiding vision in any specific direction, just outward expansion in ALL directions simultaneously. No checks or balances to be seen anywhere. Blank checks, etc.
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
@Jacko11
That's an optimistic take on it. If they have one big live service success, they will not take the massive proceeds from that success and re-invest it into single player games. They won't.
What they will do is reinvest the funds into what made them the money in the first place - growing live service games. That is the standard, only reasonable way to proceed from a business perspective. Identifying "growth areas" (i.e., what makes big money), then pumping more money into that. Investors love it, because it works (in making money, but not necessarily good games).
You are right though it's not all doom and gloom. That said, this company is about 5 to 10-ish years out from being toast for a lot of us. We just aren't the market anymore. After 20, 30 years of supporting this company wholeheartedly, we are whipping out "The End is Nigh" signs. It's not a done deal yet, but red flags abound everywhere you look. Call it pessimism, or call it recognizing historical market trends.
I consider myself an optimist and the future of gaming as exciting. But Sony in particular's future under these new philosphies... not so much. And not just referring to the live service emphasis, I could point to dozens of indicators. Hope I'm proved wrong though, truly.
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
@NEStalgia
Dang, I should have read your essay on Sony's live service trend and why it is bad for us before I wrote my essay. You wrote it more eloquently than I could have. The trends are alarmingly clear when it comes to this industry, as far as GaaS releases.
The whole, "But Sony said..." thing is, well... this is a corporation. They are going for the money, as a corporation does. That strategy leaves us behind eventually. Not tomorrow, not next year, but eventually. They will pare down single player if they get a live service mega success release. The two differing philosophies won't exist untouched in unison, one has to take a hit - that is utterly inevitable due to finite resources.
But as another commenter mentioned, we will always have single player games in abundance (just perhaps not from Sony). So no need for all the doom and gloom, but a healthy level of disappointment is warranted I think.
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
@F1at8mot0
We complain, because that's what you are supposed to do on the internet, but there really isn't less choice these days. Games like Hades and Death's Door will always be there. Sony is losing its way slowly, but another dev or company will always step in to fill the gap when another drops the ball.
Good to remember gaming is thriving in all areas, including those that emphasize, ya know, actual gameplay.
The pessimism you see is the end result of hitching your wagon to a single company (Sony). When Sony is messing up, as I believe they are, and you derive your identity to some degree from that company's products or services, you start to think the whole sky is falling when they go a different direction. But not true! There are other companies that would die to get the money you spend on Playstation!
(If you were looking for an optimistic take in the comments haha.)
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
I hope Sony fails spectacularly in its live service efforts. It isn't the future I want for gaming - sterile, incomplete, and incoherent releases with superficial content updates ad nauseum in lieu of actual story or gameplay, with predatory FOMO concepts applied throughout. A neverending cheap slush of content for contents sake, with no over-riding direction or purpose besides maintaining engagement... Generally, that's how it goes. That's me though. If you like live service, this is great news.
Re: More Than Half of PlayStation's Investment Could Be in Live Service Games by 2025
I know they are not the EXACT same scenarios, but when a big publisher gets into live service, and they finally get that big money-making mega-hit, they ditch single player. Look at the past:
So yeah. Sony says they will keep focusing on single player. And they probably will. Until they get their mega ultra hit release. Then, historically speaking, they will inevitably transfer resources from their SP games to their money-making live service efforts. It would be terrible business sense not to do so.
Sony can say whatever it wants. I think they will always have SP in their portfolio, just less of it in the live service future. That's based on common sense and historical trends in the industry. This is good news if you like live service games, or bad news if you aren't a fan (I find them repugnant outside of a few MMOs, but that's just me. I do understand many enjoy them).
Re: Best Final Fantasy Games
Final Fantasy Tactics moving up in the ranks if I'm not mistaken. Good to see you godless heathens are developing some taste. I kid, but seriously this list started off pretty odd. Final Fantasy VII Remake rightly knocked down a peg after recency bias put it in at #3 initially. Good to see the list "normalizing".
Also, more people need to try FFXIV. Subscription cost scares some people off I reckon, but the base game is actually free and you get a free month to try it out. XI being so low is a result of people who didn't actually play it assigning a ranking to it. It wasn't as big on PS2 but is highly, highly respected in the PC community.
Thirdly, I've never seen so many people list XIII as their personal favorite as I have in these comments. I knew they existed, but I never actually saw them in the wild before. Like a mystical unicorn. Next they will be telling me Dirge of Cerberus is the best shooting/action game of all time. The Hope character from XIII makes my blood boil, and not in a good "this is a well written character" way. More like an "I'm not sure Japanese devs understand actual human emotions" way. Sasz was cool/relatable though.
Dissidia 012 snubbed here as well. I think this list could be re-named most popular FF games instead of "best".
Sad to see Tactics Advance (Game Boy Advance) and FF Tactics A2 (DS) omitted as they were really solid, standalone entries. Also a lot of other spinoffs that could be ranked such as FF XII Revenant Wings (awful), Crystal Defenders (awful), Mystic Quest (alright), and so many more like the FF Legends series on the original Gameboy. There's just a ton of these games!
These rankings are bonkers, and I love it.
Re: Kojima Productions Not Being Bought by Sony, Says Hideo Kojima
We are "a fully independent self-funded studio".
Kojima has been known to tell a tall tale in the past in official statements. Oh no, it's Abandoned all over again haha.
Re: Kojima Productions Not Being Bought by Sony, Says Hideo Kojima
@rachetmarvel
There are two types of Kojima fans: the ones that know how bad he screwed over David Hayter (voice of Solid Snake), and those that don't know.
Re: Video: How to Change PS5 Cover Plates
I was putting on the black plates and my wife was helping me. She asked, "Whats the point of changing the color?" after I told her I spent 55 bucks on them.
I had to explain to her it's similar to how little girls change the clothes on their barbie dolls - it's a socially acceptable excuse for grown men/women to play dress up with their stuff. I told her, deep down, we are all little girls playing with barbie dolls.
THEN she understood and asked no more questions 😆
Re: Kingdom Hearts 4 Revealed, No Date or Platforms Given
@Constable_What
I agree totally. Going back, it's like watching that kids show you loved as a kid but now you are thinking, "I actually enjoyed this?!" Like you are trying to crack the code of your own psyche and the effects of time on your tastes.
But to be honest, the first game (considered on its own merits) has a special place for me and I still replay it. Its whimsical, ridiculous, crossover was done well, and it had good gameplay.
Re: Kingdom Hearts 4 Revealed, No Date or Platforms Given
Not even the people that dig up and explain the lore in FromSoft games could crack this series' storyline. KH1 was pretty straightforward but KH2 and each entry after turned the plot into an indecipherable fever dream. Any attempt at cohesion or a sensible plot was thrown out the window, but that is a part of these games' charm. The scene where Mickey Mouse is wearing an emo black leather zipper jacket and is supposed to be presented as this anime-ified powerful force of justice makes me laugh out loud every time at the off the charts ridiculousness of it all. Some say cringe, others say charm. You decide.
Re: Kingdom Hearts 4 Revealed, No Date or Platforms Given
@sajoey
I feel you but I say direct your blame towards SquareEnix for having arguably the worst development timeframes in the entire industry. I was 16 when FFXV was announced and 26 when it released. Nations have been created and collapsed in less time than it takes them to put out a game. Their development schedule is a joke I got tired of a long, long time ago.
Re: Unfortunately, Ubisoft Isn't Also Abandoning NFTs
29 comments and each bashing NFTs, calling Ubisoft a joke/greedy for even attempting it, rightly pointing out NFT's similarities to a traditional pyramid scheme (though it is more of a pump and dump scheme, slightly different thing), and questioning Ubisoft's ability to make great games anymore in general.
That's 29 or so different human beings from 29 walks of life that all more or less revile this stuff. (One comment was actually sorta neutral saying just don't buy their games and a few were replies).
Damn Ubisoft, read the room. Stop it. Just stop it.
Awful company.
Re: Talking Point: What PS1, PS2, and PSP Games Do You Want on PS Plus Premium?
@Arkantos2990
I get what you are saying. It's all a little premature until we know what/how many of these PS1 and PS2 games they are offering.
In my magical ideal world, they would offer each game for sale individually outside the subscription, and give us access to the digital PS1/PS2 games we have already bought on PS3/PSP/Vita. Already purchased over 80 legacy titles, but all locked to previous systems.
But... this is Sony we are talking about here. Maybe that will be the Diamond Select Plus plan for 49.99 a month.
Re: Talking Point: What PS1, PS2, and PSP Games Do You Want on PS Plus Premium?
@RevGaming
I'm gonna wait for the sale and pay half price. Momma didn't raise no fool, Jim.
Re: Talking Point: What PS1, PS2, and PSP Games Do You Want on PS Plus Premium?
@RevGaming
Jim Ryan, is that you bud?
Re: Talking Point: What PS1, PS2, and PSP Games Do You Want on PS Plus Premium?
@get2sammyb
Yup. This is the same company that released whatever the Playstation Classic was supposed to be.
In fact, the entire PS1 library will probably just be a re-release of the 20 or so games on the Classic 😆
I hope I'm wrong. I need some of these old games to get re-released so the floor falls out on PS1 and PS2 game prices. You know what you gotta do for a copy of Klonoa on PS1 these days? It involves going to a public park restroom at 3am in the morning and meeting a homeless man in the stall. And trust me, you ain't playing checkers in there.
Re: Chrono Cross Remaster Doesn't Have the Original Soundtrack After All
SquareEnix: Re-releases a game widely know for having one of the best, if not THE best, gaming soundtracks in the medium.
Also SquareEnix: "Yup, we better change it."
Meanwhile they add the slightest of slight graphical upgrades and no physical release. I thought drugs were illegal in Japan...
Re: Poll: Did You Buy Elden Ring?
Currently sitting at the number 12 spot of best reviewed games of all time, on any system. Dang.
Re: In the UK, 70% of Boxed Horizon Forbidden West Buyers Paid More Than They Needed To
Probably mentioned by a few others, but a collector would pay the extra 10 to get the PS5 version on physical disc for... posterity? Future server shutdowns?
It feels like a reach. But yeah. We collectors are not reasonable people. I bought a copy of Psychonauts on PS2 for $50 today... and I already own the (better) digital version on PS4, which can be had for $5 during sales.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
Re: Horizon Forbidden West Is Getting Review Bombed on PS5, PS4 for No Reason
0/10 - No robot monkeys. Fail!
Metacritic User Reviews - the Twitter of video game reviews.
Re: Klonoa Phantasy Reverie Series Remasters the PlayStation Platformers for PS5, PS4
@Rob_230
Yes. For both of these games - complete copies - you are looking at around 1200 dollars. That's USD. Among the most expensive games for the PS1/PS2.
No real idea why - just one of those games "collectors" have determined is some sort of holy grail for their systems. Low production + they were actually good games all things considered.
Hope this drives down prices a bit.
Re: Klonoa Phantasy Reverie Series Remasters the PlayStation Platformers for PS5, PS4
This is good. Klonoa on PS1 regularly goes for around $500 and Klonoa 2 even more at around $700 for complete copies. These two games are nearly the most expensive games in existence for their respective systems (nearly).
Hopefully this gets a physical release and pushes the prices down a bit so I can snag some original copies without selling my kidney.
Re: Chrono Cross: The Radical Dreamers Edition Remaster Is Real, Adventures to PS4 in April
Yes!!! Favorite JRPG of all time and the best one of the SquareSoft "golden era" of games outside of FF Tactics to me.
Jealous of anyone that could experience it for the first time. Story and music still hold up.
Coincidentally, I just bought a PS1 copy a few days ago.
Re: Sony More Likely Than Microsoft to Acquire a Japanese Game Company, Analyst Explains
@RevGaming
You know Xbox did pretty well with the 360. I know you are talking about the Xbox One, but sheesh they did fall short of the mark last gen, which is actually a shame because I like to see the stiff competition we saw during the PS3-360-Wii era. PS4 dominated... maybe too much?
Re: Sony More Likely Than Microsoft to Acquire a Japanese Game Company, Analyst Explains
My only 5 cents is Sony has a pretty strong first party line-up as it is; my only hope for a potential merger/acquisition would be for Sony to buy IPs (not the whole company) from Konami. At least the game rights if not a wholesale purchase of the properties - they are clearly willing to sell at the moment based on recent outsourcing of development.
And that's not to save the IPs from Microsoft, it is to save them from, well... Konami itself. Truly an awful company and I hope their pachinko sector continues to tank. Google 'Konami Yakuza' if you fancy semi-plausible conspiracy theories. Firing Hideo is just the tip of the iceberg at Konami whether you actually believe they are run by an organized criminal syndicate or not.
Capcom is doing very well on its own and at this point, their games' quality often rivals Sony first party in my humble opinion. SquareEnix seems like a mess that would take awhile to sort out. If they hadn't made FF 14, I'd have wrote them off completely by this point (probably the most inefficient game publisher in history based on their track record).
Just leave it Sony! Go make some crummy live service games and don't touch Resident Evil!
Re: Sony More Likely Than Microsoft to Acquire a Japanese Game Company, Analyst Explains
@Tielo
Is that true? If so, super interesting.
Re: Sony More Likely Than Microsoft to Acquire a Japanese Game Company, Analyst Explains
@vapidwolf1
No kidding. I think I'm liking this consulting thing haha. If anyone needs any consulting work done, let me know!
Re: Sony More Likely Than Microsoft to Acquire a Japanese Game Company, Analyst Explains
Said in a previous comment Microsoft would never buy a Japanese publicly traded publisher due to differing business cultures and a few people wanted to argue the point.
Well... I said the same thing this 'consultant' said about a month ago. Of course, I wasn't the only one who pointed it out. So when can we expect our six-figure salaries?
What does a consultant do again?
Re: Poll: We Want You to Rate Your Favourite PS Vita Games
1.) Persona 4 Golden
2.) Gravity Rush
3.) Tearaway
4.) Metal Gear Solid HD Collection
5.) Ratchet and Clank HD Collection
6.) Soul Sacrifice Delta
7.) Killzone: Mercenary
8.) Uncharted Golden Abyss
9.) Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time
10.) Wipeout 2048
11.) Shovel Knight
12.) Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Collection
13.) World of Final Fantasy
14.) Severed
Honorable mentions to all the indies: Hotline Miami, Steamworld Dig/Heist, Axiom Verge, Bastion, Plants v. Zombies, Salt and Sanctuary, Guacamelee, Darkest Dungeon, Rogue Legacy, Drago 's Crown, Fez, Child of Light, Spelunky, Velocity 2X
Re: Analyst Expects PS5 to Seriously Outperform Xbox This Year
@Integrity
Early 30s here. I started in gaming in earnest with the Sega Genesis. There's been a lot of twists and turns since then. (Not old enough to remember the Atari days).
Just wanted to say you hit the nail right on the head as far as all my views. Hesitant to get embroiled in the petty squabbling, 'politics', and internal corporate issues, but I am a strong advocate of actually owning things I buy, across all industries and hobbies, and Microsoft is challenging that. Don't appreciate their business model one bit.
In my mind, younger people don't have a good sense of their own consumer rights and what they are entitled to for their dollar. They just don't know any better because (in their defense) digital distribution and streaming has been all they've known since day one.
Stereotypical "These darn kids..." response haha. But it's true.
Re: Analyst Expects PS5 to Seriously Outperform Xbox This Year
@GamingFan4Lyf
"I've always played on Playstation" is a legit, completely valid reason to continue getting Playstation though. Doesn't need to go any deeper. It's a very practical consideration.
They cleverly lock you into their ecosystem. The games you bought on PS4, the trophy system, your friends list, etc. - those all carry over. I own 750+ games digitally across PS3/PSP/Vita/PS4/PS5 in addition to 250+ physical copies of PS4 games I can play on PS5 (remind me why I need Gamepass or PS Now lol). I own zero games on Xbox digitally. Don't think Xbox is any worse than Playstation, it's just I'm kind of stuck in that ecosystem.
A friend who has grown up playing Xbox was interested in the PS5 and asked me, the resident nerd, whether he should get a PS5 or Series X. Despite being a big Playstation fan, the answer was simple: I recommended the Series X, because his game purchases would carry over. A much better investment.
He ignored me and bought a PS5 anyways. The heart wants what the heart wants I guess.
Re: Xbox Boss Expresses Desire to 'Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation' After Activision Buyout Is Complete
@TeapotBuddha
Seems like it's been pretty respectful outside of a side conversation about Nintendo versus Sony IPs and a general disdain toward Phil Spencer PR speak. Just a lot of neutral, probably pointless, speculation to blow of steam in the comments.
And honestly, this is a game website. I'd be slightly disappointed if there wasn't a Sony vs Nintendo games fanboy debate somewhere in here. Let the kids (and the kids at heart) have their fun!
Re: Xbox Boss Expresses Desire to 'Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation' After Activision Buyout Is Complete
@sanderson72
Amen to that brother. They seem to get a pass on a lot.
Re: Xbox Boss Expresses Desire to 'Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation' After Activision Buyout Is Complete
@sanderson72
Could that realistically happen? The SEC is already frothing at the mouth at Google like a rabid dog. Would Sony even sell? Could Google pull off a (risky) hostile takeover with the regulatory spotlight it is in?
All questions for the philosophers I suppose.
Re: Xbox Boss Expresses Desire to 'Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation' After Activision Buyout Is Complete
@anoyonmus
How DARE you challenge the glory of Sony's first party lineup here on PushSquare (I kid).
Look - you don't like Sony's IP's or you like Nintendo's better - thats completely cool. Nintendo is the OG and started an empire on the strength of its own games.
But don't get it twisted, Sony built its franchises (Ratchet and Clank, and a multitude of others) from the ground up. It didn't "buy" them in the sense you mean. And while I respect both Sony and Nintendo somewhat equally, Sony have done better in recent years at delivering truly new IPs. Nintendo has pimped Mario out so hard the last two decades he should probably get checked out at the clinic.
Both great companies, both with an insane legacy. Both with very, very different strategies. Nintendo is about "fun" over innovation, Sony is about groundbreaking characters and story. Neither is wrong or right.
Re: Xbox Boss Expresses Desire to 'Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation' After Activision Buyout Is Complete
Microsoft says they see big tech companies as the real competition in the gaming space. But didn't Amazon and Google's recent game initiatives crash and burn spectacularly?
Polling the room: what sense is there that Google or Amazon are any threat in the traditional game development space? And I'm emphasizing traditional gaming, not mobile garbage or wonky 'metaverse' plans. I mean the games we play, not Casual Boop Boop Online Shooter Battle Royale 7 designed by a marketing algorithm and a focus test of 10 eight-year olds.
For all their money, they can't make a game. Maybe the fear is they will buy an existing publisher? Launch a cloud gaming service that somehow challenges the traditional model? What's the hubbub about? They don't know how to make games, and they don't have the inclination to learn. If they did, they would have stuck to their projects and not canned them at the first sign of trouble last year.
How are they the existential threat here?
Re: Poll: Would You Still Buy PlayStation Consoles Without Activision Blizzard Games?
Nope, sure don't. But it ain't all about the Benjamins man, was going for a little more nuanced discussion about wanting to see some more variety, not what sells well. How financially successful a game or genre is was never mentioned or brought up in my comment or the comment I was replying to.
We should all probably just play Fortnight forever because, well... it sells really well.
You can have God of War and the other niche titles as well, Sony have done that for a long time but have fallen off a bit since the PS2 days. God of War next to Silent Hill, Twisted Metal... Variety. It's the spice, so I've been told. Let Sony worry about the financials, I'm talking about what would be fun to play. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: Sony Responds to Activision Blizzard Buyout, Expects Games to Still Come to PS5, PS4
@ImGumbyDammit
Okay, I take your point Japanese companies are not off the table from a regulatory or legal standpoint. But I still contend - historically - it doesn't happen for other reasons, due primarily to the differing business culture in Japan versus the West (at least in the world of electronic entertainment).
My back-up for this is mostly anecdotal, based on two factors:
1.) I can't think of any western company that has successfully bought a Japanese developer;
And
2.) Several stories have come to light of attempts made to buy Japanese devs by Western companies, only to be rejected. There's a famous story which comes to mind of Microsoft meeting with Nintendo in 1999 to discuss an aquisition; according to the story, Nintendo execs literally laughed them out of the room at the suggestion.
The business culture in the US and Japan are really different and game dev mergers have never crossed the Pacific as far as I know. Doesn't mean it couldn't or won't happen someday though, for sure.
Honest question: do you know of any example - ever - of a western dev/publisher buying a Japanese one? I'm actually not asking this rhetorically, I'm legitimately curious if it has ever happened.
Re: Sony Responds to Activision Blizzard Buyout, Expects Games to Still Come to PS5, PS4
@UltimateOtaku91
I keep seeing people - repeatedly - worry or pontificate about Microsoft buying Capcom or SquareEnix.
As far as I understand, Microsoft purchasing a Japanese publisher is next to impossible, if not outright impossible. Reason being, Microsoft is an American company and those are Japanese companies. Historically, they will not sell to an American company under any circumstances. So don't worry too much about Capcom, Konami, Kojima Productions, or SquareEnix to name a few.
Second thing: Sony lost 20 billion dollars today. The SEC is a bit of a joke here in the US but they've been under a lot of political pressure recently to actually start doing their jobs and start regulating mergers (something they've failed to do properly for a long, long time). Sony lost a fair chunk of change, and I see a large possibility of an ugly, protracted legal battle over this if CoD goes exclusive. Not sure what the SEC would decide, but the deal is far from done right now.
Lastly: With the Zenimax Media and Activision-Blizzard purchases, any future acquisitions by Microsoft of a big publisher will become more difficult from a regulatory standpoint. With each purchase, the regulatory bar gets pushed higher and higher due to Microsoft owning an increasingly large market share - the case they are a monopoly grows with each purchase.
All this to say, don't worry too much just yet. The SEC does sometimes smack down mergers, believe it or not. The SEC is trying to look tough and flex its muscles right now, so it's possible the acquisition doesn't materialize (in which case MSFT still has to pay Activision 3bn for wasting their time). Even if the Activision deal goes through - it probably will - Microsoft kind of "blew their load" on this deal, so to speak, and future big acquisitions of this magnitude are most likely off the table.
Microsoft spent 68bn on CoD, WoW, Diablo, and Candy Crush - all pretty questionable IPs in my humble opinion. Personally, I'm glad they didn't spend that money sweeping up potentially dozens of smaller devs that actually make decent products.
Re: A Big Eyes and Mouth God of War PC Mod Has Gone Viral
All of man's accomplishments, technological advancements, and evolution were leading to this very day. We have finally achieved the pinnacle of human existence.
Re: These Are the Franchises PS5, PS4 May Lose to Activision Blizzard Buyout
Great, now I have to buy a Series X for the majesty that is Pitfall. This series alone is worth 68 billion dollars.
Re: Activision CEO Bobby Kotick Leaving Role Once Microsoft Buyout Is Done, Says Report
@pumpkin_head
Yeah, got your point and was basically agreeing with you in a nutshell, and modified it with some of my own commentary/thoughts beyond just the money aspect.
He will be a very, very wealthy man however it pans out. His shares are substantial.
Re: Activision CEO Bobby Kotick Leaving Role Once Microsoft Buyout Is Done, Says Report
@pumpkin_head
I don't know. Kotick is probably very keenly aware he is widely hated by the video game community. Even for a sociopath like him, that might wear on you. Not an ounce of sympathy from me, but he will be leaving (with his many millions) in a state of relative disgrace. And these guys are big on pride and appearances, not just money - probably stings a bit in some way. Or at least I hope it does.
Just give him his golden parachute and lock him out of our lives once and for all. Guy's been nothing but a problem for decades. A turd that wouldn't flush has hopefully finally been removed, and that's a win in my book.
Re: Poll: Would You Still Buy PlayStation Consoles Without Activision Blizzard Games?
Don't think PushSquare readers are the target demographic for Call of Duty. We are kind of a snooty bunch that look down on the filthy COD "casual gamers" as unwashed, uncultured peasants. That's the general sense I get.
Can't deny CoD moves units though. That game is a lifestyle for some people. I put CoD in the same garbage category as most Ubisoft games, Fortnight, Madden, FIFA, and all the rest of the usual suspects. Doesn't change the fact millions upon millions worship them.
Re: Poll: Would You Still Buy PlayStation Consoles Without Activision Blizzard Games?
@AtlanteanMan
Agreed with the comment about Sony lacking variety among their first party games. I love God of War and The Last of Us for sure, but there are so many different genres beyond Third Person semi-open world action adventure. Such a hyper-specific genre they've honed in on.
Wanna see flight sims, vehicle combat, psychological horror, SRPGs, JRPGs, rhythm games, etc. So much possibility.
I do think Sony has realized it has something of a problem on its hands with how similar its flagship titles are, hence the rumored Twisted Metal reboot and partnership with Square on Final Fantasy XVI, among others. Seems like they are actively attempting to diversify a bit beyond the odd experimental title here and there.
Re: Not Everyone Had the Fortitude to Finish Returnal on PS5
@themcnoisy
Yeah, not to gloat or nothing but genuinely don't believe the game was too bad. Average Joe gamer here.
I'm guessing what is moving the needle from "Challenging Game" to "Almost Impossible Game" for people is they are using the wrong weapons or playing in some way that is counterintuitive.
I died 8 times to get through it. (Again, Average Joe gamer here). The key I found is to move fast in combat then slow down after you clear rooms and really explore for those upgrades and health pick-ups. Fast in combat, then slow down and explore.
Resogun, Super Stardust, Nex Machina - those games never let you slow down and yes, they kick my butt.