With the amount of AA games from the indie scene just posted today, there’s a reason they aren’t. The indie devs are holding down those experiences and I think it’s easier for Sony to just approach them with exclusive marketing or timed exclusivity agreements. The indie scene today didn’t exist at the time of Journey or Ico. I agree though. It would be nice.
For weeks on end now, Sony has been dropping indie game trailers so fast that I can’t even post them all here because they drown out the community. For every experimental risk-taking game like Journey or Ico there are a bunch that fail. Sony would rather bet on tried and true safe bets.
This is what makes their live service game investment so interesting as it seems to run counter to their MO. People are worried that because Sony has like 11 live service games in development, that we are going to see them launch all 11 of them. My bet is that we only ever see 1 or 2. Hell, even something as banger as Last of Us Factions 2 is now being held back because Sony is worried it is not good enough. The potential reward of even just 1 successful live service game outweighs the lost R&D of 10 more failed attempts. Also, in the context of the FTC Microsoft Activision Merger we can think of COD as the most successful live service game of all time. Sure it’s not technically a single live service, but it is a yearly content update (in the form of a new game) with a $70 per year “subscription” for each new game (plus dlc $ on top). Sony is now in a position where they are no longer guaranteed this income long term (sure, 10 years Microsoft says, they pinky promised). This IMHO as made the success of whatever live service(s) they have planned even more paramount to get right the first time. They need something to replace that COD revenue.
I don’t necessarily disagree. The Indie scene is definitely filling that role. Journey was maybe not the best example, as that’s really a true Indie in scope whereas Ico was really in that AA area or even AAA for 2001 when it came to a lot of the graphical and animation tech being developed.
I guess I’m just looking for something to fill the Team Ico / GenDesign hole. Games that are a little more artistically minded but have the financial backing to still push boundaries in environmental design, fidelity, animation, score, etc. Whereas most Indies are much more limited in budget, scope, graphics, etc.
I understand their push for live service and how important multiplayer is for these companies, despite those games not appealing to me personally. But what brought me to PlayStation was their library and ecosystem, and while I enjoy most of the modern titles, I’m seeing more homogenization nowadays compared to earlier eras IMO.
Their “tentpole” franchises are still very successful. My hope is that if they do find success in Live Services, that they can use that success combined with the success of their “blockbuster” games to feel comfortable taking more risks on projects that maybe don’t need to be $200 million efforts like The Last of Us Part 2.
I agree that Sony first party portfolio needs more diversity. Personally I want a western RPG from them, but smaller experimental titles are also good.
While I agree that indie space is taking care of those smaller games, that doesn’t mean Sony can’t experiment in that too, maybe nurture some new talent.
Even ignoring smaller games, what about a fighting game? An arcade racer (like Need for Speed, not GT)? A puzzle game? An FPS? There are so many genres other than third person, cinematic, action games. Sony doesn’t have to make a game in every genre, but some diversity would be appreciated.
I understand their desire for live services, but I would hope they would also look into smaller scale, experimental AA quality games.
I’m not sure the PlayStation of today would publish something like Ico or Journey.
I like the third person, cinematic, action games for the most part, but variety is the spice of life and all that.
With the amount of AA games from the indie scene just posted today, there’s a reason they aren’t. The indie devs are holding down those experiences and I think it’s easier for Sony to just approach them with exclusive marketing or timed exclusivity agreements. The indie scene today didn’t exist at the time of Journey or Ico. I agree though. It would be nice.
For weeks on end now, Sony has been dropping indie game trailers so fast that I can’t even post them all here because they drown out the community. For every experimental risk-taking game like Journey or Ico there are a bunch that fail. Sony would rather bet on tried and true safe bets.
This is what makes their live service game investment so interesting as it seems to run counter to their MO. People are worried that because Sony has like 11 live service games in development, that we are going to see them launch all 11 of them. My bet is that we only ever see 1 or 2. Hell, even something as banger as Last of Us Factions 2 is now being held back because Sony is worried it is not good enough. The potential reward of even just 1 successful live service game outweighs the lost R&D of 10 more failed attempts. Also, in the context of the FTC Microsoft Activision Merger we can think of COD as the most successful live service game of all time. Sure it’s not technically a single live service, but it is a yearly content update (in the form of a new game) with a $70 per year “subscription” for each new game (plus dlc $ on top). Sony is now in a position where they are no longer guaranteed this income long term (sure, 10 years Microsoft says, they pinky promised). This IMHO as made the success of whatever live service(s) they have planned even more paramount to get right the first time. They need something to replace that COD revenue.
I don’t necessarily disagree. The Indie scene is definitely filling that role. Journey was maybe not the best example, as that’s really a true Indie in scope whereas Ico was really in that AA area or even AAA for 2001 when it came to a lot of the graphical and animation tech being developed.
I guess I’m just looking for something to fill the Team Ico / GenDesign hole. Games that are a little more artistically minded but have the financial backing to still push boundaries in environmental design, fidelity, animation, score, etc. Whereas most Indies are much more limited in budget, scope, graphics, etc.
I understand their push for live service and how important multiplayer is for these companies, despite those games not appealing to me personally. But what brought me to PlayStation was their library and ecosystem, and while I enjoy most of the modern titles, I’m seeing more homogenization nowadays compared to earlier eras IMO.
Their “tentpole” franchises are still very successful. My hope is that if they do find success in Live Services, that they can use that success combined with the success of their “blockbuster” games to feel comfortable taking more risks on projects that maybe don’t need to be $200 million efforts like The Last of Us Part 2.
I agree that Sony first party portfolio needs more diversity. Personally I want a western RPG from them, but smaller experimental titles are also good.
While I agree that indie space is taking care of those smaller games, that doesn’t mean Sony can’t experiment in that too, maybe nurture some new talent.
Even ignoring smaller games, what about a fighting game? An arcade racer (like Need for Speed, not GT)? A puzzle game? An FPS? There are so many genres other than third person, cinematic, action games. Sony doesn’t have to make a game in every genre, but some diversity would be appreciated.