• CopernicusQwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    While a successful live service can be a money printer for a developer, a failed one is a stone around the neck while they’re obligated to support it, and only decrease trust when they inevitably get shut down after a year or so.

    Honestly, everyone scrambling for a piece of the GaaS pie has caused saturation and fatigue. People don’t have enough time and/or money to engage with all these games.

    IMO, Sony would be better served by dialling back the budgets of their single player games if that’s the biggest factor, rather than chasing the GaaS white whale.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      IMO, Sony would be better served by dialling back the budgets of their single player games

      Exactly, there’s no way the ballooning development costs and development times are sustainable. Both the studios and most players would be better served by tighter better planned games.

      • Gamoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah. Naughty Dog literally abandoned a multiplayer The Last of Us because making it would require their entire Dev studio to abandon making single player games to support it.