Threads
- The former head of PlayStation Studios states that he would have resisted the live-service approach.
- He explained that the market is one where the winner takes all, so it comes with an inherent risk.
- Following his departure from the role, the gaming giant has developed a dozen titles in the genre.
PlayStation’s live service push has not been too impressive so far. Except for Helldivers 2, the gaming giant has yet to find much success in the market, and failures like Concord and The Last of Us Multiplayer have only made things worse.
Fans are largely against this approach, and many industry veterans agree. Expressing his thoughts on the company’s plans, a former PlayStation executive has opposed the gaming giant’s live-service push.
Why it matters: The industry veteran’s unique insight into the situation highlights why the GAAS (games as a service) model is so risky.
Shuhei Yoshida led PlayStation’s first-party studios for 11 years, stepping away from his responsibilities in 2019. Up to that point, the executive helped bring all types of games to life on PlayStation, including shooters like Resistance and Killzone.
Reflecting on his experience, he commented that the live-service market is based on the ‘winner takes all’ mindset. This makes it incredibly tough for console exclusives to compete with giants like Call of Duty or Fortnite.
On the other hand, Shuhei Yoshida praised PlayStation for allocating additional resources to the live-service push instead of taking resources away from the development of single-player titles.
He noted that it was a risky move, but the risk was worth it for a game like Helldivers 2. However, the executive said he would have ultimately resisted this push had he been in the position of Hermen Hulst, his successor as the first-party studios head.
I would try to resist that direction. Maybe that’s one of the reasons they removed me.
-Shuhei Yoshida
This statement comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with Shuhei Yoshida. Considering his involvement in PlayStation’s indie hits and the last bit of support for the PS Vita, the executive was always known to prefer creativity and single-player titles rather than chase industry trends.
Perhaps his leadership could have saved PlayStation from a catastrophe like Concord last year.
What do you think about the live-service efforts in recent years? Do you think the gaming giant made the wrong decision? Let’s discuss this in the comments and on the Tech4Gamers Forums.
Thank you! Please share your positive feedback. 🔋
How could we improve this post? Please Help us. 😔
[Senior News Reporter]
Avinash is currently pursuing a Business degree in Australia. For more than 5 years, he has been working as a gaming journalist, utilizing his writing skills and love for gaming to report on the latest updates in the industry. Avinash loves to play action games like Devil May Cry and has also been mentioned on highly regarded websites, such as IGN, GamesRadar, GameRant, Dualshockers, CBR, and Gamespot.
Join Our Community
