Is it really all bad though? My only concern / negative point in this report is that Naughty Dog (arguably the most amazing studio) is spending its resources on a remake. But apart from that, what's negative?
- Days Gone 2 was canned, and Sony asked them to create a new IP. Aren't people always saying that we should have new IPs? Also, so many people are suddenly in love with Days Gone. How many actually purchased the game at full $60, and how many of these people waited for a $20 sale?
- Herman Hulst asked why was the TLOU remake under VASG costing more than other remakes? Shouldn't Sony be more financially responsible? Or should they just open their wallets to whatever project anyone wants to pursue in whichever way?
- ND working on a multiplayer game. Don't people want Sony to also dabble into more multiplayer games? Aren't Sony games "one and done experiences"?
- More focus on big AAA games. Isn't that what most people want and what has been working for Sony? Even in a State of Play/Future of Gaming event, people get pissed off when Sony shows smaller games. Remember the memes about Bugsnax and Goodbye Volcano High?
- Days Gone turning out to be a support studio. That was a baseless concern by Bend Studio executives. They thought that Sony would turn them into a support studio (Sony didn't). They thought that they will just be working on Naughty Dog's IPs (they didn't. Sony asked them to create a new IP).
What else is negative, really? I just see people projecting and hearing what they want to hear. Also, right from the headline, Jason presented this entire story in a controversial, negative light.
This article could easily have a headline like: "Sony not compromising on quality; funding more AAA blockbuster experiences by experienced teams". But such a positive headline does not create the required buzz on social media.
It's just drama to pretend there's some big scoop behind besides leaking some projects.
The same things, as you explained, could have been totally framed in a positive way depending on the point of view of the author ("Naughty Dog is now handling multiple projects! Sony is doubling down of the high quality AAA they've been known for!! Bend is developing a new IP!").
It has been evident that trying to create certain narratives has a lot of return in terms of hits and drama and some companies are also trying to profit from it.
Last year it was no different and it was in part Sony's fault.
When you refuse to properly communicate and address issues/questions as soon as they emerge you leave the door open to people wanting to creative bad narratives around you.
Last year it was how the console would be underpowered, how backwards compatibility would be limited to the top 100 games, that there was no hardware ray tracing support and so on, that upgrades to old PS4 games would need to be paid on PS5 while on other platforms would be free.
This bullshit sticked for months before it was shut down by reality.
Now that betting on the power narrative has been a failure and the launch phase is over (with the conclusions about who was successful and who was not), a new cycle is beginning and the attention has been shifted to other things like the management of the studios, which games they should develop, FUD about if they're going to be able to compete with Gamepass and so on.
It seems like this new dry PR style where they announce stuff only when they want to without hints about the future and without letting people know the whole picture and where they're headed is causing frustration among certain people and is leaving the door open to create bad narratives. It's basically a PR issue, they need some social figures.
Obviously they have the rights to handle announcements as they want and they probably think that given their dominant position they can afford to simply not give a fuck about certain things because it also gives them an advantage when they announce stuff that no one was expecting but it also has a few clear disadvantages as seen in these two years that they might try to address.