During a press event, the big shaker of the PlayStation powerball, Hermen Hulst, branched out in conversation about live-service games. And honestly? The whole thing is a vibe after the whole Concord Big Flop incident. Remember that one? The game so flimsy that TikTok trends might feel intimidated? Yep, that one.
Hulst went on: “The number of live-service titles doesn’t really matter that much. Building varied player experiences and communities is what really counts.” That looks great in a book if you read it there, but then the rants come down from below, and the gamers are NOT having it. One player had called that man a “miserable failure,” and the situation after Concord tells you everything. O-U-C-H.
There needs to be more about the context given here: Hulst went on to say that there are more rigorous and frequent tests in place now. What was every failure’s advantage is that people now understand the oversight required. Which like… maybe should have been the obvious before spending millions on games that flop? Just a thought.
This is the quote: “I don’t want teams to always play it safe, but I would like for us, when we fail, to fail early and cheaply.” Actually, pretty good from a business standpoint? But then you begin scrolling through the comment section as players are dragging Sony for being TOO safe with sequels and remasters instead of actually dropping new IP.
But discourse about IP had Hulst talking a ton about creating IPs deliberately. They want to build ideas that could grow into iconic PlayStation franchises which in turn could become franchises for anybody outside of gaming. So basically, more of The Last of Us TV series? But like… what about the games?
Community reaction… has been… let’s say… mixed. ReckinBall went on to say that he/she sold his/her PS5 because legendary games like Wipeout, Bloodborne, and Killzone are dead just as is the PlayStation brand. Damn, that’s rough, but you could feel the frustration.
Others argued that 80 percent of Sony’s games are single-player blockbusters, some with handholding for casuals, while Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima, Spider-Man, Horizon, and God of War arguably feel like the same game. Which, okay, they’re not wrong? Third-person action vibe is what connects everything.
Then the live-service pivot is another wrench out of confusion in everybody’s plans. After Concord sank and burned, gamers are wondering what the real strategy of Sony is. Hulst says that they want to not play it safe; then they cancel and stick to what works? Mixed signals here.
The Arrowhead Studios quote that came up was: A game for everyone is a game for no one. And that might honestly be the truth here. Sony may be trying to please so many people at once that they end up with games that essentially don’t basically satisfy anyone.
There are also some discussions about the multimedia approach. One user stated that making games that can translate into other mediums is actually playing it safe because there’s a limit to creativity there. You can’t get too weird if you need it to work as a TV show later.
Now, what really gets me is the timing of all this. Hulst has been President and CEO of PlayStation Studios since November 2019. So like… he’s been in charge through this entire transition era: the good, the bad, and the ugly Concord moments.
Next to this are players defending him by saying he’s not responsible for everything, and we need the full context. However, some others are bringing it back to Jeff Ross from Bend Studio saying Hulst is the reason Days Gone 2 wasn’t greenlit, because he hated the game. The drama never ends.
At the end of the day, though, Sony is going through one heck of a situation. They’re going to diversify but also play it safe? They’re going to want to go on risk, while they’re going to want to fail cheaply? They’re going to want new IPs, while at the same time wanting recognized franchises? They want the whole shebang all at once, and players are beginning to notice this contradiction.
The live-service-game-changer was supposed to be their big move; after Concord though… yeah. Maybe time for a little look back at what made PlayStation great: innovative single-player experiences who aren’t afraid of being a little weird. But what do I know? I’m just writing about it.
For now, there is sure to be a lot of watching on PlayStation community and the matter of speaking their minds can’t be doubted. Whether they listen, well, that’s the real question isn’t it? Strategy now seems to be testing more, oversight more, and hopefully less expensive failures.
But like… can we get some new IP that isn’t trying to be a multimedia franchise? Just a thought. Maybe something weird and experimental that doesn’t have to appeal to everyone. Because like the Arrowhead quote said… a game for everyone is a game for no one. And honestly? Facts.
