This person must be a multimillionaire because they're a real psychic. Can't believe they'd actually write articles about video games when they don't need to do so

Couple things. I doubt all of them fail. Even though I don't like them. I thought all of then looked up well shty. Far as marathon you can't really compare. Spiderman is exclusive and marathon wont be. Plus you have so many people out there watching and re watching the trailer for marathon trying to figure something out. I just added in the last part as an opinion, but be on multiple devices brings in more people.

Do you really think Helldivers 2 or Marathon gonna succeed enough to be the next Fortnite, APEX Legends or Warzone?

fallback happens when they do only live service games. They still have single player games. I suspect Sony is looking for 1 hit game out of 10. They know all 10 games cannot be a hit. They just want one really great GAAS, possibly next Warzone/Fortnite/PUBG etc.

Game are becoming very expensive to make. If you look at their guidance for the future, they want to increase investments in traditional and live service gaming. So in other words they are looking to make money on live service that they can reinvest in single player. If they fail, it would be catastrophic for the entire business model. Wanting Sony to be cut off from the a positive revenue stream is like saying you want them to fail flat out. There is no lesson to be learned hear. There are just fanboys who want the industry to crash and burn if they aren't catered to 100%. If Sony can't get in on Live Services they will be left behind. Even Nintendo got with the program. Companies who can not adapt go extinct.

It's basically more nonsense written before even seeing the results.

I remember gamers were asking Sony again and again to make online games to compliment their high quality, single player games.

"I want War hawk. I want Socom. I want Killzone. I want Resistance. I want Mag. I want online games besides 3rd person, single player games. Etc etc etc. Sony needs to round out their catalog with multiplayer games."

Sony then purchases developers to help with that request while updating to today's seasonal online gaming.

"Sony's wasting time and resources making these games. Sony's going to go all in if they aren't careful and leave single player games behind. Who asked for online gaming anyway? We just want single player games. How come they aren't making RPGs?"

The very thing they asked for is now shunned by these very same people. Since we know Sony's all about trying new things and creating new IPs than ride on the same ones for years, it makes sense that they are giving developers a shot in these online games. Same individuals that seem to wonder why Sony is even taking a risk pushing VR and say why is Sony wasting their efforts on that.

We know the reality is that Sony is not going to leave single player games behind and have many in production. Spider-Man and Wolverine already come to mind. And it's funny that some of these gamers who are shunning Sony taking a crack at it, are asking why Spider-Man 2 isn't multiplayer where you can play as Peter and Miles.

And secondly, we know Sony is looking for other sources of revenue to fall back on just in case. Especially with Daddy Warbucks Microsoft proper buying out the industry. With the possibility of stripping Sony of one of their highest revenue generators in the COD profits they make. Profits used to actually help make a lot of the single player games we play today. That money doesn't come from Sony proper. It doesn't come from Sony Music or Movies or Television. SIE has to make their own money and look for sources of income to stay in the black. If the deal goes through, Sony would have no choice but to cut back on their risk taking and production of many games that are most likely, single player games. These gamers aren't seeing the entire picture. Especially when that bullshit 10 year deal gives Microsoft 100 percent of the profits from other platforms hosting COD.

Lastly, these same individuals seem to forget that Sony arrives at doing some things differently. Sony doesn't sell their big games day one on a service. They sell them over time traditionally. Then look for more added revenue from older games no longer selling. Sony arrived at paying for online differently than competitors as well. Microsoft went from OG Xbox through 360 giving nothing back for paying for online. Sony did theirs and gave back monthly games to play that cost more than what you paid monthly or yearly. PS Now was a stand alone streaming service. But Sony didn't require gamers to pay for Plus to play those games online. Their competitor not only required you pay for another service to play online or bundled together, but made gamers pay for years just to access free to play online games. Even got caught raising the price of one service to force gamers to go with the their other service currently being pushed.

But gamers somehow aren't giving Sony the benefit of the doubt to try their luck with service games that might turn out great for those that play online. Nope. Sony must be tore down before even trying.

You're talking about Fairgame$. For better or worse, that game looks to be exactly like what one should expect from former Ubisoft people. To me, that's a nonstarter. Never really got into Ubisoft titles besides Rayman and Splinter Cell.

So then...I don't think they're guaranteed failures, but there's something very psychological about service games. Some are allowed to succeed, most are not. Established series have some advantage (pretty much your pick of ABK service title).

I think if you really want this to work, you have three choices:

- new IP, free to play (e.g., Fortnite)
- established IP (e.g., Diablo)
- subscription (e.g., Final Fantasy XIV)

If they go the sub route, they'd need to scale back the number of projects massively or make them all cheap ($1-3/mo could probably win people over). Most important thing to give yourself a headstart on new content is making the launch experience very robust with a ton to do. That, and doing what you need to do to ensure that your seasonal content is on time. Fortnite was damn good at that.

Not really just looking at the type of game live service games are shows most are destined to fail. Live service games are designed to be a grind and milk the player for as long as possible so there is a more limited player base. If you take a break from a live service game you miss out on items and events and start to get left behind. They require much more time from a person than a single player or normal multiplayer game so at most someone can only really play a few of them a week if they have nothing else to do except gaming. There is also the issue of the genre the live service game is trying to enter. With a single player game you can always finish it or take a break and play a new one. But If there is already multiple successful live service games in a genre it makes it less likely for new ones to succeed unless they are noticeably better because you are directly competing for that person's time. The only way i see Sony being successful with this strategy is if all 12 of them somehow fall into different genres or are amazing enough to beat the best ones out now which i don't see happening.

I'm surprised it's still the old site. I thought he said starting today?

Insert the Ferris Bueller end scene... "You're still here? It's over.."

Never say die