Sony Admits PS5 Live Service Push Is Not Going Smoothly

They are trying to force feed their audience something they don't want. 🤷

She then points to how, in the last five years, Helldivers 2, MLB The Show, Gran Turismo 7, and Destiny 2 have all started to contribute "to sales and profit in a stable manner".

I think the Stable manner comment is very telling and something that a lot of commenters don’t really appreciate. In the days before live service games and subscription revenues the console business was very cyclical. At the start of a new gen Sony were actually posting significant losses and then working into profitability after a couple of years and then max profit in the mature console ecosystem, before repeating the cycle again.

I think "not entirely going smoothly" was general Custer's assessment of the Battle at Little Big Horn. 😂

"the cancellation of Concord after release and the delay-hit Marathon have generated 'somewhat negative news'"

That's one hell of an understatement.

One if not the biggest reason why Sony live service plan doesn't work smoothly is because Sony tried to make a "product with stable profits" first in their mind rather than make a fun and interesting video game where people feels it's worth their money and they want to play and support it for years.

Compare Concord and Marathon with Marvel Tokon for example, it's clear which one made with passion and the intention of fun game first-product later.

And from Lin Tao statement, i don't think she learn what's the real problems that made their live services didn't worked out. But eh, let's see i guess...

Instead of wasting money on concord, they should have pushed ahead with the scrapped spiderverse multiplayer game they were working on. That surely had a better chance of getting an audience

Its nuts to me that there's games like Astrobot and Demon's Souls on the PS5, and Sony would rather throw money at an extraction shooter based on a dead Mac fps...
They're so lost that when one of their services ARE doing well (Helldivers) they try to get in front of the game's success! They have no idea what currently works in the online space, and even less an idea of what the future holds. They just throw money out and pull the lever. It's maddening.

I mean, I gave them money for Concord but then they gave it me back.

It's not my fault!

Isnt everyones live service attempts pretty much failing these days? Yeh Sony are definitely at fault for persuing it (and failing miserably) but theres not a whole lot of success stories these days. Just stick to the tried and tested single player experience Sony and maybe stick a multipler mode on the side that you can butcher with different currencies and battle passes

@LikelySatan

Sony would rather throw money at an extraction shooter based on a dead Mac fps...

They have no idea what currently works in the online space, and even less an idea of what the future holds. They just throw money out and pull the lever. It's maddening.

To be fair, I’m pretty sure Marathon was in development at Bungie years before Sony even acquired them. It’s not necessarily Sony pursuing this title, but Bungie.

Not too mention Sony acquired Bungie under the condition that Bungie would stay in control, so Sony probably didn't have much say in it until recently.

I do agree however, that they seem pretty clueless as to what works in the live service space. But to be fair again, most titles seem to fail anyway nowadays. It’s hard to tell what might work or what wouldn’t

Their shift to live service and commitment to cross gen lasting forever this generation is the reason I'll ride my PS5 until it dies. If this gen has taught me anything is to stop buying hardware day one anymore. There is no big benefits to upgrading anymore. You might have two titles the whole generation on PS6 that you cant play on your PS5.

Personally, while i agree their live service strategy isn't going smoothly (because of it being a stupid strategy to begin with), i think having 4 relatively succesful live service titles is a pretty solid outcome, at least if you think about it reasonably. It’s very hard to be the next Fortnite in this space, that’s just not gonna happen. But having a few titles that do reasonably well is a pretty good outcome.

Most people understood that the 12 live service titles they had in development weren’t all going to succeed. The live service space is just too risky and competitive. Even Sony themselves likely understood that the majority of those titles would either fail or get cancelled. They were just hoping that a few were gonna stick.

Thats just the reality of game development today, having 6 or so games get cancelled this gen sounds like a lot, but is actually pretty normal and happens pretty much all the time with every publisher behind the scenes.

By my count they have 4 relatively succesful live service titles, namely GT7, MLB, Destiny 2 and Helldivers 2.

I think Fairgames will get cancelled.

But they will still release Marvel Tokon, Marathon, Horizon Online, that TeamLFG game and that FPS from Dark Outlaw studios.

Honestly, if even 1 or 2 of those game is succesful, i’d say their live service effort has been pretty solid overall. Again, if we were to be reasonable, we can’t expect them all the be winners, but having 4 or 5 succesful live service titles seems pretty solid, at least to me

@themightyant I'll grant you Helldivers, but are MLB the Show and Gran Turismo really considered to be live service games? In my head they are both single player games that have multi-player components. I consider live service to be really online only w/ maybe some tutorial single player. Or maybe my brain just sees sports games as their own thing.

Could you tell reading any of this if that 40% was actually from their own games? I assumed it was from games like Fortnite and the Gatcha games and all the other games they get a cut from like GTA online. You know, the money they would still be making from live service even if they never made one themselves. If 40% of their revenue is from their own games like Helldivers and the Show more power to them.

I still have to think they've lost more money on their live service push w/ all the money they've spent acquiring games and companies then they've made on Helldivers. I'm still not considering sports fame w/ micro transactions as live service, though maybe in the future I will. In the future where every game is a free trial to start before the floodgates open. Disney Speedstorm is insane. 🤑

Thanks, gave me something to think about.👍

This will always be the black mark against Sony until the end of time.

@Ken_Kaniff I'll stick w my PS5 pretty much because PS4 games run on it...

This generation has been a farce.

Their live service games have generated a large % of first party revenue because they're barely releasing first party games compared to previous generations.

This push to live service really killed the back half of the PS5 lifecycle.

Let's not kid ourselves GT7 would have sold a bucket load more if we were given a choice to play offline.

First of note that we are reading a translation from voice answer given during a Q&A section of a shareholder call.

"For Q1, the live-service ratio was about 40%."

Ratio of what? Sony's overall revenue, the gaming division revenue, reoccurring revenue?

Do they consider PS+ a "live service"?

Does this include whatever percentage they take from sales in other live-service games through PSN? Because that statement does not explicitly state that it's from just their live service games.

Really too many unanswered questions on an off-hand statement to take anything from it.

It's amazing that it's going as well as it is, for a company that's built up any good will and loyalty is has primarily from single player games with no live service elements.

Saying that PlayStation's live service plans aren't going smoothly has got to be the understatement of the century.

I don't like the volume of live service Sony have been trying to throw out the door to get a hit but ultimately with live service in general there can be so many failures but that one that is a hit can rake in the cash so you can see why they wanted to take a stab at it.

Helldivers 2 was one example of a hit the problem is the failures like Concord have been substantial in terms of budget invested.

"She then points to how, in the last five years, Helldivers 2, MLB The Show, Gran Turismo 7, and Destiny 2 have all started to contribute "to sales and profit in a stable manner"."

So actually, all they needed to do was make good games first, then build on them without intrusive forms of monetisation that aren't forced down the players' throats in every menu. That's some blue sky thinking right there.

@rjejr I also have a hard time reconciling GT7 and MLB The Show as live service games, and I think this is in part due to media now slapping "live service" on anything that has an always-online requirement.

GT7 is a predominantly single player game, only 12% of players have unlocked the "Sport Mode Debut" trophy for completing an online race. Online racing is not the main attraction for GT7, the single player events are.

Yes the game requires you to be online, but it doesn't have seasons with their associated "miss this season and you'll miss this content" FOMO, nor does it have tracks that are only available for X amount of time. It's a predominantly single player game that gets free updates.

Let the manipulative slop die.

Well, Sony’s recording record breaking numbers, so we’re clearly paying for them somehow.

Finally starting to read the room lol. Hopefully they will move away from their love affair with live service now

Hey Sony, have I ever told you the definition of insanity?

@rjejr I think you are right. The 40% figure includes (and is likely largely made up of) the 30% cut Sony receive as part of the MTX sales of the live service behemoths (Fortnite, Genshin, Overwatch. Etc).

Im not sure if Sony are trying to suggest all this revenue is from THEIR games or whether I am misunderstanding the quotes. Either way it isn't very clear.

Of course, if all your single-player games are safe sequels, unrequested remasters, and unnecessary remakes, you won't make much profit from them, unlike live-service games.

Who could've thought that this push for live service wasn't gonna be good? If only there were signs....

If only Sony Music could lend Fate/Grand Order to Sony Interactive Entertainment.

Or if SIE could make a deal with Pocketpair.

Like fans said million times: Their live service efforts should be different than the saturated genres. Helldivers II shows that and Marvel Tokon is a good attempt and it will probably will be very successful.

But please don't forget sp story driven games too, I need those.

Obligatory: This generation is the result of Jim Ryan's greedy push and stupid strategy. Who the f**k thought Blue Point making GoW live service was a good idea!? Also Concord is the biggest disaster of last 20 years probably.

@Jey887 After reading the comments and the article again, and yant's reply, looks like I was probably wrong, that's 1st party revenue. A lot of it maybe from Helldivers and MLB The Show. Somebody wondered if that includes PS+ subs but surely that has to be a separate category. But who knows, it's all corporate speak and statistics, 2 things that should never go together.😂

@ZeroSum Thanks, that my viewpoint as well. Sports games are really the antithesis of "live service" as they get a new full priced game every year where live service games run 3 or 5 or more. I feel like Minecraft is either or, no seasons but the dlc is constant. And despite several spinoff and new engines it's basically been just Minecraft. Even Destiny is on 2.

@themightyant If 40% of Sony's first party revenue "for the quarter" was microtransactiins maybe that's in part due to them not having any new1st party games that quarter? That's half joking, half serious. I'm sure they had some new game sales but I feel like digital transactions are the way to make money. But in established games, not new live service. Though I suppose eventually they'll get their Fortnite or Genshin Impact. But at what cost?

Well if Sony learned the market, looked at others, didn't have some delusion of a game and understood better management they wouldn't have this issue.

How Sony even made Warhawk, Socom Confrontation and MAG in the PS3 era let alone PlayStation Home and nowadays they seem to forget how multiplayer works or how appealing IPs are. Do they understand how Fate GO and others do well for their audiences/for a reason. Most of their others like WipEout Rush are a joke of competition, IP use and otherwise. Let alone console games.

I am not into Sony's singleplayer IPs these days but I understand what goes into them and what their goals are, how they can't understand current multiplayer goals is beyond me.

They need to pick their studios to fund better, understand the market and which is more viable. Not desperation.

If people can work this out of staff in a city builder/theme park tycoon, school tycoon, two point hospital/theme hospital, etc. then how is it people in reality can't pick their staff/studio deals better, are they stupid and easily convinced? It seems so.

Sure not all staff are meant for management but it kind of shows here.

Inspiration, reading the market and creating a trend versus copying it so blatantly is just hilarious.

I don't even understand multiplayer that much but I do enough from the outside to still tell.

But this is the same company that thought Lucid had it with Destruction Allstars, yet many vehicular combat games haven't been big sellers and it's audience was not matched with that genre or direction (it looks so bad yet it's mechanics seem fair for what type of game it is), some in the genre have come back around a fair amount though but not enough to appeal or have a fanbase target of younger generations either which is like obvious, older generations like those. I got Gas Guzzlers for PS4, Full Auto 2 for PS3. Also did Lucid staff forget about Blur if any of them worked on Blur back in the day, has a cult following for that audience, but that's it. I think the ex Bizarre Creations staff knew with Forza Horizon more then Lucid did their ok releases of Geometry Wars or any others to Destruction Allstars.

But I'm also someone that came up with mode ideas for Foamstars because I see things and have ideas for them if the core has potential. I don't care for that game at all, I just did when I saw foam and went hmm mode ideas. That's it.

But I also wish Under The Skin was reviewed, Capcom could make it a live service for multiplayer and have the fair singleplayer or any other interesting disguise/perk ideas to revive it besides just a PS2 PS+/emulation revival offering on PS4/5, but nope, why would they do that. Who has ideas like that at all.

Who the f**k thought Blue Point making GoW live service was a good idea!?

I’m pretty sure Blue Point proposed this to Sony themselves, rather than it being assigned to them. So Blue Point also must have thought it was a good idea

@themightyant whilst I think ‘live service’ is mostly garbage it also appears to include DLC/additional content for the likes of Gran Turismo, etc. I’m very happy with quality single player game add-on content. I guess it’s a large umbrella term.

Just sounds like a lot of mis-management. Cancelling a bunch of live service efforts that sounded more impactful, or original, in favour of bland products with greater 'mass appeal' (eg. Concord, fairgames, marathon), that seem more likely to flop because relatively unoriginal or uninspired.

Then the fact they paid so much for Bungie, who've been all but useless, so now they're 'reigning in' their freedom. Hmm.. a bit too late, maybe.

They need greater company oversight and to stop throwing cash at every idea. Concentrate on a smaller selection of titles, with a greater view of giving their fans good games, and not just chasing trends that they think will be easy money.

@ZeroSum @rjejr

but are MLB the Show and Gran Turismo really considered to be live service games?

"Live service games" are games which receive steady updates from an active development team after thei initial release over a certain long period of time, in order to increase player engagement and sales of the game, micro-transactions, DLCs, season passes, cosmetics, etc. Many live service games often launch with a "roadmap" of future updates.

There's a famous graph from Ubisoft depicting how live services work: https://gdkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image-1400x789.png

Some fairly popular single-player live service games are Assassin's Creed, Dead Cells, Dying Light 2, Minecraft, Stardew Valley to a certain extent.

Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

In the video game industry, a live service game represents providing video games or game content on a continuing revenue model, similar to software as a service. Live service games are ways to monetize video games either after their initial sale, or to support a free-to-play model.

@themightyant " once established "

And therein lies the rub. 😎 I think we agree on most things, probably even this. I'm always up for being proven wrong, being so negative all of the time is such a drag, and I'm just going to add a couple of more things.

First, and sort of on topic, the 5 year dev cycle you mentioned is killing me. Or at least my joy in gaming.😩 Had an hour long dinner conversation with my kids last night about the good old days of gaming, the PS2 years. I'm a graphics first guy so my glory days rarely go back earlier than that though my gaming goes back to Pong. We were talking mostly about Jak & Daxter and Ratchet and Clank. PS2 had like 3 each of those games. PS3 had several R&C. PS4 had a movie reboot. PS5 1 game. That's all we really get the past 2 gens, 1 game every gen coupled w/ some dual ports.

I'm very graphic focused, I don't like pixels or HD-2D, but Dreamcast, GameCube and PS2 were good enough. I'd settle for those if I could get a new game every 2-3 years. FF7,8,9 released 3yrs in a row.😝

Second and more on topic. Variety is good. But it should be natural growth. It really feels like Sony put some of these devs on the path to life service. Games are art, they shouldn't be dictated by management. Also management shouldn't have purchased so many live service games knowing their core audience is single player focused. Make those games, collect your 30% from the others. But no, they had to get greedy, and even including Helldivers I'm betting it cost them. I'd say they lost this generation but w/ MS doing MS things, well,they're still OK.

@TrollOfWar " over a certain long period of time"

New $70 sports games come out every year though, does less than a year of support qualify as a long period of time?

Not saying a game needs to be free to start, the $40 games are fine, but it's really about the timeline for me. Fortnite, PUBG, Overwatch, Destiny. These games launched and the devs said "you'll be playing these FOR YEARS". Games like AC, Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, to me they're built for day 1 base game, story fragments later.

Maybe I need to update my perspective but I'm not ready to call every game that has a 1 time $20 dlc live service or GaaS. Do people even say free-to-play or free-to-start anymore? I've been trying to get "$60-to-start" to be a thing for years just for CoD but sadly it hasn't caught on. 😂 DLC, microtransactions, season passes, it's fluid.

Mario Kart 8 DX on Switch started as the Deluxe complete edition of a Wii U game. Like 5 years after it released they added a 2 year long season pass. It released as a complete game, years later it became live service. Fluid.

@TrollOfWar thanks!

But that doesn't help.

By that definition live-service is a type of game that has a continuing revenue model built around a constant stream of content being added to the game, either in paid DLCs or paid cosmetics. Destiny 2 meets this criteria by having cosmetics only available for silver (which can only be purchased with real money) in the Eververse store, and the paid expansions and season passes.

Gran Turismo 7 has none of that. The only qualifier GT7 meets is that it has optional microtransactions, microtransactions that it also makes redundant by providing some high paying races. Everything in the game is accessible relatively easy without spending any money, all DLCs are free, nothing is tied to real world currency, so it's fair to say that Gran Turismo 7 isn't built around a continual revenue model supported by DLCs, cosmetics etc.

If GT7 is to be included in live-service, then so must any game that has optional microtransactions or DLC, regardless of cost and purpose.

@rjejr In case of yearly sports games sold at $70, most of them are live service games, especially if they have time-limited events where you get a certain bonus for participating. The practice of yearly games in general is questionable, as it's basically a live service where the yearly updates are sold at full price and your progress is reset to null.

@ZeroSum By definition a live service game is a game where a development team is actively working on adding content and updates after the release.

While additional monetization is the most common goal of the majority of live service games, it doesn't apply to all, especially if the base product is released at full price.

GT7 is still getting constant updates with new cars and tracks 3 years after it's launch. Stardew Valley launched in 2016, its most recent update was in December 2024 and with all the updates over the years it sold 41 million copies. In both cases the developers decided to support the games with new content updates rather than work on a new project. In both cases the updates keep the players engaged over a long period and the games "alive".

Of course the concept of a live service is easier to apply to online multiplayer games, where cosmetic items have a bigger social impact (you can show off your skins, cars, liveries, weapons, hats, football players, etc.) and the developers can steadily add new ones over several months.

@TrollOfWar "By definition a live service game is a game where a development team is actively working on adding content and updates after the release." but in today's world that is pretty much every game, as the majority get support in patches and expansion post-release. And this is why it's hard to reconcile some games as being live-service.

The definition changes depending on who you're talking to and what game.

Personally I'd lean in with the Wikipedia definition of it being games that rely heavily on monetization through microtransactions (and DLCs) for revenue to sustain them.

@TrollOfWar A car can be a thing you drive yourself around in as an adult, but it's also a thing your parents drive you around in as a kid.

I think sports games have live service attributes but I still think people can buy them and play them single player or maybe just with a friend. Live service still seems to be a thing unto itself. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares and such.

https://www.mashupmath.com/blog/is-a-square-a-rectangle

@themightyant If people just want to play Fortnite, CoD or sports games they can buy a PC or an Xbox. But it seems to me a lot of people choose PS over PC and Xbox b/c they want the exclusives available only on PS.

Now this doesn't mean you only play those games. I'm a PS and Nintendo gamer, no PC or Xbox, and I buy that hardware b/c of the single player exclusives, but like 90% of my time is spent playing Fortnite and other free games. Not b/c I like them more, but b/c I'm still waiting for Wolverine to release. I mean get a release date, I mean show a trailer.😝 Nintendo I only play 1st party games on b/c I'm pretty sure that's why that hardware exists. 😂

So yes, most hours and dollars (euros, pounds, etc) spent on PS gaming are on sports games, CoD and GTAV b/c that's what people do in between the 1 short game a year Sony releases - GoW, HZd/FW, Spiderman, Uncharted, Ghost. But if Sony didn't have that 1 game a year more people would probably play on Xbox or PC, and I'd just play whatever on Nintendo. Or Apple Arcade if need be.

I mean sure, some people are buying Sony hardware only for Destiny 2, or Minecraft, or FF14, but I still think the 1st party exclusives are a big draw. The problem is there aren't enough of those any more b/c of the 5 year dev cycle, so Sony went all in on live service, failed miserably, Helldivers as the big exception, and are now trying to figure it out.

How many big single player games has Sony canceled the past 5 years? Is there a big list like this chronicling it? Sony knows they can cancel all of these live service games b/c they know people are buying their hardware for the other games, not these. When they start canceling all their single player exclusives and fully commit to live service then yes, it's all about that. But they might as well give up their hardware then as well, PC, and Nintendo, win.

https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/sonys-live-service-game-status-report-canceled-released-shut-down/2900-6143/