Sony Confirms It's Delayed Half of Its 12 Planned Live Service Games (videogameschronicle.com) 11
Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) has halved the number of live service games it plans to release over the next few years, it's confirmed. From a report: SIE had previously said it planned to have 12 live service titles in the market by its fiscal year ending in March 2026 -- up from three during its last business year ended this March. However, earlier this year PlayStation's management team confirmed that it had partnered with Destiny studio Bungie for a "rigorous portfolio review" process. According to press reports, this has led to some projects being scaled back.
During an earnings call on Thursday, Sony president, COO and CFO Hiroki Totoki seemingly confirmed that this review had resulted in some games being pushed back due to quality concerns. "We are reviewing this... we are trying as much as possible to ensure [these games] are enjoyed and liked by gamers for a long time," he said. "[Of] the 12 titles, six titles will be released by FY25 -- that's our current plan. [As for] the remaining six titles, we are still working on that. That's the total number of live service and multiplayers titles [and] mid-to-long-term we want to [push] this kind of service and that's the unchanged policy of the company. It's not like we stick to certain titles, but game quality should be the most important [thing]."
During an earnings call on Thursday, Sony president, COO and CFO Hiroki Totoki seemingly confirmed that this review had resulted in some games being pushed back due to quality concerns. "We are reviewing this... we are trying as much as possible to ensure [these games] are enjoyed and liked by gamers for a long time," he said. "[Of] the 12 titles, six titles will be released by FY25 -- that's our current plan. [As for] the remaining six titles, we are still working on that. That's the total number of live service and multiplayers titles [and] mid-to-long-term we want to [push] this kind of service and that's the unchanged policy of the company. It's not like we stick to certain titles, but game quality should be the most important [thing]."
Unforeseen Obstacles (Score:2)
1. lack of universal FTTH (i.e. 4gb/s DVI-like bandwidth),
2. ISP data caps, and
3. the speed of light.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not stadia shit those, its activision shit
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't "the game actually runs on our machine, you just see the display" it's "the game runs on your machine, but must be in constant contact with us". This used to be because your were interacting with all the other people playing the game (i.e., an MMO). Now it's because they want you to keep you paying a constant stream of micropayments.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and this don't require high internet bandwidth and low latency, just that the server is there (which won't be the case forever)
I Was Wrong (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more of a case where their Bungie acquisition didn't pan out. Sony bought Bungie because of live service games.
Overwatch 2 was supposed to be the big hit in the live service games, but it's uptake has been questionable and it missed its revenue targets.
As a result, Sony laid off a bunch of Bungie developers, artists, and other people from Bungie, and pushed out and delayed many other projects.
Sony was counting on Overwatch 2 to be the flagship live service game but now as part of a whole restructuring
Re: (Score:2)
"Live Service" / Destiny (Score:3)
They got me with Destiny back when it came out. I actually enjoyed playing that game. Then the "expansion pack's" came out... you couldn't really play with others unless you got that as well, cause the whole shebang moved on. Four of those damn updates, every one had to be purchased (or get a season pass). Then Destiny 2, where they fully embraced this whole live service thingy. These all came with AAA level price tags!
If a game is free-to-play, like Fortnite, and they want to do an evolving game, go for it. It's actually a great way to keep it fresh.
If it's a subscription thing I could also see it, but the base game should then be free. Pay to play.
This bastard mix of paying full AAA title price, and season passes, and expansions, while the game keeps evolving and requiring you to keep buying more, and you have to be online and pay for their online service... count me out.
Not Surprising (Score:2)
Destiny 1 and 2 weren't *bad* games but they were setup and executed poorly. They became dull quickly and the grindfests weren't worth it. Having 12 live service games? Who the fuck thought that was going to be a good idea? It's unlikely they could even conceive 3 halfway decent ideas for live service games let alone the 6 they claim will be ready. Hiroki Totoki, and Sony in general, has absolutely no clue what is doing in gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
The executives see how much money a company is appearing to make with something and they want it. But they never seem to realise these things tend to be like trying to trap lightning in a bottle. It happens, no one really understands why it happens, copycats try to replicate it and fail meanwhile the company that did the original success struggles to keep it going as they don't know wtf happened either.
People who play one game as good as every night as a minority. Mass market appeal needs shorter, more tigh
Good for them (Score:2)
The way these "live services" work is that they get you to spend all or most of your gaming time where they upsell you useless stuff (like virtual clothing) or in game progression (like weapons, new maps).
That is why it is called the attention economy.
Problem? Many people will play one, or at most a few of them at the same time. If you are plating Call of Duty: Warzone with friends you won't have time to play Battlefield or Apex Legends at the same time.
Sony's past success was with "one and done" games, whi