Sony released games on PC to try to make a few extra bucks... Valve (and possibly MS, if the new Xbox ever sees the light of day) attempted to use this to allow you to play PlayStation games on other consoles, so instead of making Sony a few extra bucks, it's now costing them good money... so this only makes sense.

Of course they will...lol. It looks like they'll never get to play PS exclusive games or they'll give in & buy a PS.

Sure, keep coping obscure, suddenly Jason Schrier is super unreliable too I guess? lmao.

"What relief does this give you for people getting an old game a year or so later?"

There's legitimate reason to find relief in the idea that PS is refocusing on its ecosystem and not jeopardizing it by doubling down on a strategy that could put it in a similar position as the current state of Xbox.

If true, it also relieves us of another "Sony too" deflection people have been arguing as a form of cope for years after years of people arguing that Xbox would surpass PS and Nintendo because those two weren't emulating the strategy of the only one of the big three that has never won a single console generation.

That's the cycle. Xbox has reinvented the wheel and done something the soon to be obsolete PS can't replicate, until it blows up in their faces. Then, it's "Sony too."

Because that stupid decision kills consoles.
Everything is an Xbox, and now nothing is an Xbox.

People downloading torrents to play spiderman on their steam deck, and we all knew it.

I'm definitely not buying a Steam Machine for $2k over in scalper land just to play a settings game every time I turn it on.

Agreed. This has been an absolute lame-duck Sony console generation. Very few worthwhile titles for overpriced hardware. I'll continue to enjoy the plethora of endless game titles available through Steam and other platforms while Sony-only fans remain stuck in their ecosystem waiting for the next big title to drop once every 2 years. Have fun with that.

You think Sony made losses with God of War, The Last of Us, Ghost of, Horizon or Spiderman?

Huh.

@dveio, I hope those games made money they were good games. Horizon Forbidden West cost $212 million, while The Last of Us Part II cost $220 million, excluding marketing. Much rather see more platforms instead of them raising prices to cover the game since its lmited to one specific console.

Lol.. that makes no sense. That logic puts all publishers and developers out of business. The majority of people buy games on the system they prefer. Exclusives are only a tiny fraction of games sold. Selling 15 million games beats selling 2 million consoles.Consoles stagnate but games dont. How is sony trying to sell their console by putting God of War on PC? The overall goal is to make money and the games keep the money coming. The majority of the time consoles are sold for a loss. And If it is making money its not that much. Especially in the first few years after release. All the enjoyment is coming from experiencing the game.

Consoles do not make money until late in their lives games make the money.

Actually its closer to 4%. Playstation has grossed over 1.5 billion on steam to date. So its not BS. At the end of the day, its not about what you want. They are going to do what they need to in order to increase profits. Did they ask you for permission before they shut down Bluepoint studios? No.

What do you expect releasing a game 2 years late??

Thats ignorant. First of all nothing has been confirmed. I really dont care where sony put their games because I own a ps5 and a pc. So theres no hate. And for the record, I dont have a favorite platform but I do have a preference. There is a difference.

***Misleading information for clicks may not offend you, and that's fine***

You really need to stop with the logical fallacies. There's nothing there that says my opinion on the original matter other than calling out your hypocrisy of doing the same thing you complain they're doing. Not even a part of the conversation.

Also, he didn't do it for clicks, journalists turned it into clicks.

@Christopher: his opinion is not the problem, besides the fact that it's nonsensical and based on nothing.
The problem is that it has been presented as a take from someone with authority by professionally bankrupt media that fills up the fact that they have nothing relevant to say with fluff for clicks, regardless of the fact that such a presentation ends up misinforming people.

Regardless of everyone’s opinion, one thing that’s never good is to be in the comments arguing with people on their opinion, about your opinion, especially in a place where you have no monetization.

He's not in *any* loop, and he has not been for 2 decades.
How do we know? His responses tell us that. Unless you're unable to read between the lines, you can easily see that he's spitballing without any direct knowledge. The fact that he completely ignores the presence of Matt Booty tells us that he didn't even really read the news, let alone have any real knowledge about it.

Who in the world told you that an opinion can't be misleading information? Of course it can be, when it's wrongly presented as the view of someone with authority on a topic, without being contextualized, which is exactly what happened here.

If you don't know a thing about a situation and someone asks to interview you on it, you can say no.

His response doesn't tell us who he does/ doesn't know regardless of how long he was away from Microsoft. Again, we don't know this man's personal life or professional contacts to speak on such.

And who in the world told me an opinion can't be misleading info, living my life all these years tells me that. If you're presenting an opinion that should tell you it's not fact. No rational thinking person will sit here and misconstrue the two.

And again, he was asked a question. He never presented himself as an authority, he openly admits he hasn't been there in forever. What more context does he need when he already told us he hasn't been there in so long? Nor has he acted like is opinion is fact.

Now can he say "no" or "no comment" when asked a question? Sure he can, but he doesn't HAVE to. He can offer up his opinion the same way we all do here.

And how can you say he's doing this for clicks? He's the interviewee, not the interviewer or site owner. You have to realize with the video you made you can be accused of the same thing you wrongly pointed the finger at him for.

And for the record, since I know how this site is, I'll say this now. No, this isn't an attack on you. I actually like having convos like this that aren't troll based.

His response is incredibly vague and drifts into the factually incorrect, for example, when he says "It would have been shocking if they had somebody in there in a meaningful role who was passionate about games, passionate about the creator-driven business of games."
Matt Booty is the second-in-command, which is definitely a "meaningful role," and he's very obviously passionate about games and the creator-driver business of games. As a matter of fact, much more (and with much more relevance) than Blackley himself, who dropped the industry and went to do something else 25 years ago.

No one said HE did it for clicks, although all these "former X" usually do this kind of stuff to appear somewhat relevant when they have not been relevant for a long, long time.

The site that interviewed him and the sites/influencers who presented his opinion with no context as authoritative did it for clicks, because they had no access to any the people even remotely involved, and scraped the bottom of the barrel for something to fill the quota and generate some clicks, and they absolutely misled a ton of people into believing that what he says has some merit.

The "massive problem" isn't that he has an opinion. Opinions like his are a dime a dozen. Is that today's gaming press will fill the air with white noise with zero merit, disingenuously painting it as relevant, regardless of whether their readers are misled into believing something that does not exist.

It’s actually the opposite. If they weren’t planning to completely bulldoze the place, then Sharma would be completely alone with an entirely new leadership team, at their mission would be to turn that ship into something else, but keeping the unit itself. The fact that she got Booty as a second hand, instead of a completely new second hand, tells me that they need someone with "experience" to smooth things over while she bulldozes everything.

And honestly, people would be surprised by how often companies choose to “lose” revenue when they realize they can save the same amount or more by simply exiting or reshaping a business line. And that is before AI, that just promise to do anything and it's currently Microsoft focus.

But time will tell. Let’s revisit this in a couple of years and we will see what actually happened. Unfortunately, and I truly mean that, because I don’t want to be right about this, I’ve seen this pattern play out too many times not to believe I’ll end up being right in the end.

Absolutely, let's reconvene in a couple of years. I have absolutely zero doubt about being right. Xbox will still be there, likely bigger than it is now.

"Bulldozing" doesn't fit today's Microsoft's MO at all, nor that of 99% of companies. Companies may choose to lose revenue, but that happens on dead weight businesses, which gaming is not.

And even when they do, they don't park a very successful young executive with a spotless career like Asha Sharma on a business they want to drop. Not only is it massively counterproductive for the company, but she'd likely quit, because she has the resume to get a job anywhere that would give her a business she can lead to success, as she has done with literally everything she has touched in the past decade.

Would I rather see a gamer at the top? Sure, but there's zero doubt that Asha Sharma is an extremely capable exec. Her resume proves it, and you don't waste extremely capable executives doing the palliative care doctor thing.

Question - it's obvious the way the Xbox division hasn't performed well for Microsoft for a long time. The hardware sales has been abysmal compared to their only 2 competitors Sony PlayStation and Nintendo Switch.

I agree with you. You don't put someone like her into a position to babysit a business you want to spin down.

But is sunsetting Xbox hardware really spinning down the business? What if she transforms Microsoft Gaming into the number one game developers/publisher's? Bigger than EA and Ubisoft. Microsoft gaming make plenty games each year for every available console, PC, Handheld PC as well as mobile users via cloud.