I know that the running joke used to be that all Xbox had was Gears, Halo, and Forza but those games arguably had more invested in multiplayer that laid the groundwork for GAAS service down the line. With Factions, being cancelled is this a failure on Sony to fully develop their multiplayer pedigree. They had SOCOM, Resistance, MAG, and Kill Zone but they never were able to stick with something that worked and instead rode the coattails of COD. Is it too late or do they need to simply honker down and make it work some how?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A Question about Factions being cancelled and Sony's pedigree
- Thread starter FMX
- Start date
- Status
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
They bought Bungie for the purpose of a multiplayer GAAS game but they stupidly agreed to let them continue to make multiplat trash.
They should have bought them, and have them make a PlayStation exclusive multiplayer banger.
Now look at Bungie. Talent leaving left and right, overworked, spreading themselves too thin, bad management, making games for 4 platforms.
Should have narrowed focus to making the next Halo on 1 platform, with a PC port 2 years later.
They should have bought them, and have them make a PlayStation exclusive multiplayer banger.
Now look at Bungie. Talent leaving left and right, overworked, spreading themselves too thin, bad management, making games for 4 platforms.
Should have narrowed focus to making the next Halo on 1 platform, with a PC port 2 years later.
Last edited:
Daneel Elijah
Gold Member
Nobody can be perfect in all areas. We got games like Fall Guys, Rocket League, Genshin inpact and Honkai star rail as a result of Sony making good deals with third party studios so I don't really mind them failling at this. I don't really like multiplayer games so my opinion may be not a common one. Just in case:
cormack12
Gold Member
It would be unlikely that Sony or Microsoft displace any of the big third party multiplayer games so why try to compete with them. Even the initial multiplayer centric games like Gears and Halo struggle to reach the heights they once had.
Part of the move to GaaS would, I think, have made the game available on more platforms for the cross play revenue. Most of the games you've posted didn't have bad multiplayer but I don't think any broke out of the ceiling of dedicated/loyal fans.
In my opinion, despite all the statements, I think they realised Factions didn't have enough of a draw to make it huge compared to the support it would need. On the balance of things, the chances of it being a miss were probably higher than being a hit. Add to that you're going to tie up a signficant portion of your tier 1 studio with this and it makes even less sense.
I do think Horizon has a chance though.
Part of the move to GaaS would, I think, have made the game available on more platforms for the cross play revenue. Most of the games you've posted didn't have bad multiplayer but I don't think any broke out of the ceiling of dedicated/loyal fans.
In my opinion, despite all the statements, I think they realised Factions didn't have enough of a draw to make it huge compared to the support it would need. On the balance of things, the chances of it being a miss were probably higher than being a hit. Add to that you're going to tie up a signficant portion of your tier 1 studio with this and it makes even less sense.
I do think Horizon has a chance though.
diffusionx
Gold Member
They decided in the PS4 era to use their market dominance and make deals with third party companies for the most popular games instead of spending tons of money to make their own, less popular ones. Good idea at the time, but not a good idea when their primary competitor is this rapacious monster that is eating everything in sight. So, they need to go back and try to build something home-grown, to have and keep an audience that isn't dependent on third party.
They're in a really unique position in that they know what is coming. They have this 10 year window to fix it which is an eternity in business terms. They can't be dependent on COD no matter where it ends up (and based on this year, who even knows where it will be in a decade). So they need to try.
They're in a really unique position in that they know what is coming. They have this 10 year window to fix it which is an eternity in business terms. They can't be dependent on COD no matter where it ends up (and based on this year, who even knows where it will be in a decade). So they need to try.
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
StealthGoblin
Banned
I think Sony will have some success from other games. They'll have different games, different genres, different monetisation, different expectations.
I'm very curious about Concord.
I'm very curious about Concord.
If Sony wants it’s AAA GaaS, they should make a AAA version of their Fate Gran Order game which has earned over $7 billion dollars now. It will compete with Genshin Impact.
If they want a first person GaaS game, let Bungie do it and let all their other studios do single player games as usual.
If they want a first person GaaS game, let Bungie do it and let all their other studios do single player games as usual.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
Ultimately comes down to the fact that Sony's MP games came at a time where their online network hadn't really matured to the level of Xbox, so it was never a priority to keep the funding going to those games.
Sony made a great bet on SP experiences that revitalized the PS3 and brought the PS4 to historic heights, but those teams that had focused on MP never really made the transition.
It might have been shortsighted to close down Zipper, but the quality of their games was seriously lacking and I'm sure the studio wasn't profitable.
I think similar to Xbox, Sony has probably realized that they need to build that pedigree over time and earn it. 12 Live Services games with no clear strategy seemed a bit far-fetched to everyone when we first heard it. My hope was that there was enough variety in that to deliver on some of these, but I've said it to a lot of people I have zero interest in online games let alone live service games.
I still think we need to look at the breakdown of the 12 Sony was probably referring to, which seemingly never included GT7.
There is probably also an element of Sony trying to release games that are in line with their standards that is also causing issues. Sometimes these live service games evolve over time, and there should be live betas to get community feedback, that can help with the direction of the game.
My guess is TLOU Online has has closed betas within the studio, but limited feedback from gamers.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
SIE doesn't own Fate/Grand order. It is owned by Sony Music. Even if a deal could be made, what studio would make it and on what platforms?
kyussman
Member
Sony have built their success with PlayStation on the back of iconic single player games/characters.....I'm of the opinion you should always stick to your strengths......there are an infinite number of future iconic single player games/characters to be created if they so wish.......them chasing GAAS money is going to end up in a lot of failed projects I think.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
What's the point though ?
The goal is to make something very profitable. Xbox is already dead.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Didn’t Sony already have a well regarded online multiplayer component with The Last of Us?
Why not just update that?
The real problem is this mentality that everything has to be Live Service now, to sell microtransactions.
Why not just update that?
The real problem is this mentality that everything has to be Live Service now, to sell microtransactions.
Chukhopops
Member
I don’t really buy the official reason for the cancellation but it’s true that a studio eventually needs to choose between SP games and live service games.
I love Gears 5 and I played it for literal years but it « takes away » one of the most competent UE studios (perhaps the most competent UE studio aside from Epic itself) to maintain that game running for several years, during which time they don’t produce new games. I think doing the same with ND would be a bad idea and nobody wants that on the blue side.
I love Gears 5 and I played it for literal years but it « takes away » one of the most competent UE studios (perhaps the most competent UE studio aside from Epic itself) to maintain that game running for several years, during which time they don’t produce new games. I think doing the same with ND would be a bad idea and nobody wants that on the blue side.
Fox Mulder
Member
Sony shines with their AAA single player games. Naughty Dog is the biggest gem in their crown and should have never been wasting years of their time on a fucking GaaS title.
Factions was a fun mode that people would have enjoyed in TLOU2 years ago, but Sony got greedy and wanted to force a full $70 game of it.
Factions was a fun mode that people would have enjoyed in TLOU2 years ago, but Sony got greedy and wanted to force a full $70 game of it.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Because if they put Factions 2 bundled in with LOU2, it'll be getting backseat treatment as everyone and their marketing trailers will focus on SP. The MP will be treated as a tacked on mode where the mtx revenue they get from it will never be huge.
Sony has a big focus on GAAS, so they wanted to make Factions 2 (or whatever it's called LOU Online) as its own giant separate identity with monthly updates and so forth and it can go after COD and Fortnite money perpetually. LOU mainline games come out every 7 years. A popular GAAS game can generate big money every year until the studio makes a sequel. Or they just keep adding content going on for a decade like Minecraft.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
Rockstar was able to do this with both Red Dead Online and GTA 5 Online without "becoming" a live service company.
- Status