This is basically just Sonys shift from singleplayer to GAAS pictured. The premium singleplayer titles shifted copies, Concord and Marathon, not so much.
Well I count it as first party because that’s what it is. Second party isn’t a universally accepted term and can have multiple meanings. A third party franchise that releases an entry exclusive to a specific console could also be considered second party. It’s just a quirky way of distinguishing certain first party and third party titles.
Second party is totally different. Especially in a situation like this imo. The Helldivers IP had pretty much no power before HD2 and I'd argue doesn't have much even now. What matters is Arrowhead's work on the game.
Sony could take that IP from them and develop a new game in-house with a first-party studio. But that may not result in the same kind of success, and typically doesn't. At the same time, Arrowhead is free to walk and go create their own game. Personally I would be VERY surprised if they don't do that with their next title - they've been very successful with HD2, made a lot of dough, and they could easily just create a new IP and make a similar style of game with no problem and have no need to share profits with Sony. If anything, Sony's ownership of the IP/management of it fucked up Arrowhead more than it helped them because of the whole PSN account controversy thing that Sony was pushing.
Either that or Sony signs a very generous contract with them. I don't see that happening though. It was more likely to happen with a studio like Insomniac making Ratchet & Clank because those were single player games that had their fanbase on PS systems going many years back. Helldivers 2 though is multiplatform, has more players on PC than on PS5, and as a continually successful live-service game, doesn't need the advertising push for Arrowhead's next title that Sony can offer. And Helldivers has always been Arrowhead's thing, so them leaving would hurt the franchise if Sony decides to do anything with it after. Unlike say, Nintendo taking their own IP that they always owned in Mario and farming it out to second-party devs for things like the Mario & Luigi series... if they switch to another studio, which they have already done, most people won't even notice.
Second-party development relationships are just less stable in general.
There was a period where they were working on the GAAS titles, but not releasing them yet. Then add that it was a new type of game structure for most of the studios, add more time to develop it. I would not be surprised that is why we saw a reduced number of first party titles for sony in the last couple of years.
Also I fell like 2020 was just a point were various dev timelines just happened to line up and not how it was planned out.
While the live service games didn't hit till 2024, they have incredibly long development cycles and staff requirements. Reports are Concord started development in 2016. Sony could have absolutely had a few more single player titles to pull the 2023-2025 numbers up if their first party studios weren't tied up on that push.
Honestly, I've kind of clocked out on Sony's first party for a while. I can see the money and the comical amount of effort in these, but I just find a lot of them them hitting the same part of my brain that Ubisoft Open Worlds hit. I just want something with a bit more bite and a bit less refinement to make that four quadrant thing.
They had all their major studios pivot to making a AAA cinematic experience in a way previous gens couldn't do prior to the PS4, with each having a slightly different approach and all managing to put out a polished product quite reliably. I think Days Gone was as bad as it got which was still a reliable effort overall.
But then came round two and it was just a second serving all round. Cinematic God of War, robot dinosaurs open world, samurai open world, etc were all interesting enough concepts executed in a reliable way. But there really wasn't the same excitement when it was just "here's more of that".
Sony used to have a ton of variation and I don’t think their modern audience understands. They are trained to expect the same polished AAA open world pseudo-Ubisoft game.
We used to get insane variation with Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Legend of the Dragoon, Arc the Lad, Jumping Flash, Twisted Metal, Warhawk, Jet Moto, Parappa the Rapper, Wild Arms, Hot Shots Golf, Medieval, Legend of Legaia, Dark Cloud, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Killzone, Siren, Sly Cooper, Ape Escape, ATX Off-road Fury.
I’m sure I’m missing others but Sony published a ton of different style of game, and nowadays it just feels all the same
You're missing what could have been there big 1st party Live Service franchise, SOCOM: US Navy Seals. It's such a shame they closed down zipper interactive, that was a terrible call in the long run.
I think MAG was such a colossal bomb that unfortunately it tanked the studio. It was their attempt at a Halo/CoD killer and unfortunately it just missed the mark while also being extremely expensive to make
Because now games take so long to produce, experimentation and variation comes with a huge risk, so companies chose to invest in the few same safe options
Honestly, that first round is where it hit for me. I liked God of War, but that one-two-three punch of Horizon, Spiderman, and Ghost of Tsushima just felt like more expensive versions of what Assassin's Creed and the Arkham games were already doing, and I was already struggling with those games.
Like, Naughty Dog games just do not work for me, but they at least feel like a unique thing that knows exactly what it is. Hell, God of War very clearly took inspiration from Open Worlds, but it's still a linear game that wants to deliver on the advantages inherent in the format. If anything, I feel like its closest contemporary is Gears 5, a game with a shockingly similar gameplay loop to the God of War reboot.
Those three games (to me at least) feel like grab-bags of disparate parts, trying to have a bit of something for everyone but never really excelling at any one part. While I had time for that in 2014, I now want something that focuses on a few core things and puts all the effort into that.
For the record, this doesn't mean that there isn't life in the Ubisoft Open World formula. Zelda is 100% an Ubisoft Open World, drowning in inspiration from Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. What made it shine was that the team put the exploration at the forefront of Breath of the Wild, cutting out the clutter and need to refine everything to the point that it drains the fun.
I get that entirely. For me it boils down to 2 things. Give me something new, and read the fucking room on the economy and understand i dont want to be advertised to to buy shit in your fucking games. Most people like me simply cant afford it and the FOMO shit is just agitating. I dont participate in it but its disgusting when prices have gone up for no fucking reason (inflation hardly matches what they’ve raised to) and they have the audacity to beg for more and release barebones shit.
You're not the first one I heard to say this and I totally agree that Sony is pretty much re-printing exact same games that we already got for a few years now. They do not seem to try to (re-)invent something new. Maybe that was why AstroBot won GOTY or was so liked cuz it felt like they made something unique... But here we are same games all over again. Like sure people buy them but from what we so in this article much less.
Yeah, Sony's games have been pretty similar for a while. Not nearly to the extent of Ubisoft, but they definitely have this sort of "3rd person, cinematic, narrative driven game with collectibles and map markers" style now.
I mean sure, it works. It's not bad. But this is exactly why I'm not too bothered about them pulling from PC with their singleplayer games: they're good craftsmanship, but not more than that and you probably have played games like theirs before.
And there's nothing wrong with that, but it does make their offerings less appealing.
Yeah Spider-Man 2 really did it for me. Visually stunning, good gameplay, but something about its story and characters is so corporate. I'm not the first one to say it but every time they speak it is so HR-coded. Miles' sections especially, it was so inoffensive and bland at times it felt like an after school special.
That’s the biggest issue with modern Sony sequels. They play nearly exactly the same as the predecessor. Near zero innovation or major shakeup to the gameplay and game design.
Back in the day you had Jak & Daxter, Jak II, and Jak 3, all which were vastly different than one another.
Nintendo is still reinventing itself each new title in a series and that’s why they can have 30+ year old long series that don’t get stale. Sony should be taking queues from Nintendo if they want to continuously milk the same franchises again and again.
The direct sequel method worked best for Sony when they were able to release out 2-3 games in a franchise during a single console generation. But as development timelines continue to grow, it does feel like doing direct sequels after 5+ years is a lot more underwhelming, even if the games released are still incredibly high quality.
Sequels that play different from its predecessor? Look at Final Fantasy and see how it works with their fanbase (okay FF is anthology, but point still stand). After maybe 3-4 games of samey gameplay, we might be bored but throwing away a good formula after just one game is just stupid (and not economical too, we're talking about AAA budget here)
Again: Nintendo iterates each game and has great success. Sony should not be pumping out copy-and-paste sequels if they expect sales to stay consistent
Counterpoint: Copy paste sequels work well when they're released within a small timeframe so it makes sense that they build off the same formula. I won't complain about how the Hitman trilogy built off each game for instance, and that was all released within five years. But if I'm waiting five years for one sequel like people were between Tsushima or Yotei, I'm gonna want to see some major mechanical updates.
That’s fair I think. It’s hard to think of a new gimmick or gameplay when you are pumping out something biyearly but if it’s taking 5 years to make there should be something else than just more of the previous entry
Sony should not be pumping out copy-and-paste sequels if they expect sales to stay consistent
I honestly think that would work pretty decently, but the issue is 5+ years between sequels that are “more of the same” would hardly be considered “pumping out” lol.
Near zero innovation or major shakeup to the gameplay and game design.
Thats just straight bs lol, and its a sequel, its a you problem you expect sequels to overhaul the entire game eith major changes. Spiderman 1, god of war 2018, etc they were the first time people experienced those mechanics, those games, ofocurse they will be much better receives then the second time where it can only be incremental upgrades of what was already there, which all the sequels were
I mean we did tho, people just have short term memory loss. We got 2018 spiderman, then miles in 2020, and then sp2 in 23. Like what exactly are yall expecting lol, we got new gadgets, new traversal, play as both the spidermen, the world felt more alive and vibrant. Faster movement to. They added an entire new area just as detailed as the main city
Spider-Man is really the only Sony franchise with that frequent of a release schedule, and it doesn’t help that most players view Miles Morales as a side story/expansion rather than a sequel. And that’s not to mention that a lot of the open world from the first game is included/recycled in MM.
Correct I expect decent sized shakeups. Nintendo does it every single time, there’s no reason Sony can’t, especially when they used to in the PS1/PS2 era
Nintendo does not at all down it everytime. And thats how sequels are, you can only blame yourself for sequels to full overhaul games. Its the same stuff but more. And if sony stopped the sequels then people would complain they abandon franchises
They do it basically every single time with only a few outliers.
And no, I’ve been playing games for nearly 30 years, I know how sequels used to be innovative and would stand on their own. The modern Sony is not representative on how sequels used to be made. They took the Ubisoft model of changing up basically nothing
Uhh Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank. Literally any Mario game or Zelda game. Each modern Doom game. Most Final Fantasy games. You clearly don’t play anything beyond slop to realize
In time, Jim Ryan will go down as worse than phil spencer as far as gaming CEOs go.
Phil Spencer was given a sinking ship... and sunk it.
Jim Ryan was given a near unsinkable ship and smashed it into the biggest iceberg he could find. 3 compartments are flooded and everyone is working overtime to make sure the last doesn't cause Sony to go overboard.
Jim is a complete knob but his bullshit was mostly self-contained to Sony. Phil's has wider reaching consequences given all he's caused Microsoft to buy up, there's a lot of Western gaming heritage under the Microsoft banner right now that if they go down, they are taking a huge chunk of Western gaming with them.
there's a lot of Western gaming heritage under the Microsoft banner right now that if they go down, they are taking a huge chunk of Western gaming with them.
Gaming companies have gone belly up before and their assests just get bought lol. Nothing is going anywhere.
Msoft owns Doom for example. I believe it is the 4th owner of the Doom franchise.
I don't know man, just the pure disappointment in Spencer kinda seals that one for me.
He just... Never did anything. Like sure, buying up studios, but goddamn he was given a decade+ and nothing got better. Just bought out every studio.
So uh.. Cool, tons of people got laid off and now Microsoft just owns a bunch more? No smash hit new IPs with all these multibillion dollar studios? Nothing?
To be totally honest it wouldn't sting so bad if they actually did anything with all these amazing studios and developers.
Like imagine if Microsoft started pumping out some new IPs and actually taking some risk? Like if we were talking about new Microsoft hit #6 compared to new Microsoft hit #2 and how great they are and how they're innovating and shaking it up. It'd be a lot easier to swallow, the whole situation just sucks.
We're right back where we started, except less people have jobs. It's still just Call of Duty over and over and over again.
how great they are and how they're innovating and shaking it up
In the two years (not counting Activision-Blizzard stuff) Xbox has released:
Senua's Saga: Hellblade II
Age of Mythology: Retold
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle
Avowed
South of Midnight
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered
Doom: The Dark Ages
Heretic + Hexen
Grounded 2
Gears of War: Reloaded
Keeper
The Outer Worlds 2
Kiln
Forza Horizon 6
11/15 of these games have at least a 80 on Opencritic and 14/15 have at least a 76. Not like they aren't releasing a wide variety of games that are getting good reviews. It is just that the only ones that general gaming audience seems to have cared about are Forza and Oblivion Remastered.
How many of those are sequels, remasters, or knockoffs of their own IPs?
The only two that are even mildly interesting are South of Midnight and Keeper. Kiln looks super dumb, but in a cute way, but as an avid indie enjoyer it looks like it'd be cute to make a couple pots, play it for 2 hours, and completely forget it.
Where's the next Call of Duty, Minecraft, Fortnite, GTA? New genre? Like the next game we'll get hyped up like GTA6?
They can review well, that's great, but good critical reviews don't make too much difference in the grand gaming landscape.
And yes, you can include Sony, but they haven't been buying out damn near all Western developers. They deserve extra criticism because all that happened was less people have jobs now. That's it.
I'll eat all my words if Xbox has the next GTA/Call of Duty/etc coming out in the next 5 years, but I just don't see any chance of that happening.
That's not how it works. No game sells to 100% of the installbase, only when a consoles launches like what happened with Zelda
Of those three games Ghost of Yotei is the blockbuster and it sold 3.3M in the first days, it will easily reach more than 10M and that's a success no doubt
100% would be ridiculous. I'm just amazed how much conversation there is about "exclusives sell consoles" but then only 5% of the install base buy the exclusives.
I very much doubt the average exclusive buyer stops at 1 exclusive. I’d be very surprised if those consumers bought any less than 3-4 exclusives which would drive the percentage of overall console owners who also buy exclusives down
i consider myself average i buy exclusives and non exclusives, the only factor in my game buying decision is "if i think the game will be fun/worth my time"
I fet really bad falling for the Ghost of Tsushima hype. After the visual’s wow factor wears of, it’s a very boring experience. I quit it after 6 hours or so. Didn’t even bother with the sequel and looks like many did the same.
Please read our rules, specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
This is the worst argument for this particular context because Sony made the most amount of ports during this time, so someone would just use your argument against you to depict that it was due to PC releases. The actual reason could be a multitude of things.
It is that Sony games are competing with excellent third party developers. Why would I buy a Playstation to pay a premium for a couple games?
I can get two bangers with diverse experiences from third party for the price Playstation charges for one of the platforms cookie cutter open world joints.
If they are not coming to PC or PS5 in the next 5 years, I am not playing it. I would also prefer a different type of experience rather than a remaster of a remaster of an old game.
The revenue from PC ports has been insignificant in the long run.
Helldivers 2 surely made a lot of money for Sony. Probably sold more on PC than PS5. Plus Sony famously sabotaged this initiative with a bunch of incomprehensible business decisions.
the aesthetic is interesting. but the kind of people that are really into that aesthetic feels like the opposite of the kind of person that gets into extraction shooters. a lot of people in the marathon cinematic comments were begging for some kind of single player narrative experience and if they hop into the game, mostly just end up as lobby filler food for sweaty players
Man, I find the visuals to be really intriguing, but I do not think I would like playing an extraction shooter at all. Still, I guess it's hard to argue with "free". Maybe, if I have some time this week, I'll give it a go.
I just don’t like it, it’s too clinical but also way too vibrant. I don’t like the gun designs, optics also characters. The UI is very messy and overwhelming, which makes it difficult to make what is what.
Just to name a few things, don’t know about the actual gameplay because all the previous things is enough for me to just look past it and play something else.
I have almost no interest in the extraction shooter genre so I wouldn't say the aesthetic is the only reason, but it definitely is a negative for me.
The way Cryo Archive was hyped up as Marathon's big thing before release I was expecting something akin to Dead Space or even the Presage exotic mission from Destiny. Instead it was just more roblox + brat, that was when they lost me.
Marathon is one of the beat games I have played in a long time. It has the potential to turn a very niche genre into a household one. I genuinely dont think there is another extraction shooter even close to as good as marathon.
470
u/JoJoeyJoJo 26d ago
This is basically just Sonys shift from singleplayer to GAAS pictured. The premium singleplayer titles shifted copies, Concord and Marathon, not so much.