
Former Sony Gaming Head Decries Impact of Game Subscription Services As "Risky" for Developers
Shuhei Yoshida, the former head of Sony Entertainment, has decried the outsized impact of game subscription services, essentially saying that they had the potential to stifle innovation and put too much emphasis on AAA and first-party games and make it even more difficult for indie developers to break into the scene. In an interview with Game Developer, Yoshida shared his concerns about the rise of subscription services, adding that Sony's approach was less harmful than Xbox Game Pass, specifically because Sony wasn't trying to launch AAA titles straight to the subscription model like Xbox is.
Yoshida's implication is that Sony's model of allowing games to have a traditional release before going to PlayStation Plus is likely a healthier approach than the day-one AAA launches that became popular on Xbox Game Pass. His concerns boil down to the aforementioned issues with innovation, saying that "what [type] of games can be created will be dictated by the owner of the subscription services," and adding that "the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry," however he also takes issue with the financial side of things, implying that, if gamers have day-one access to games on subscription services, they won't want to pay up-front for games. This last point has implications for innovation as much as his former thought, because if game developers depend on subscription services for launches, it might make them more averse to trying new things. These comments seem all the more relevant in a modern gaming landscape, where indie developers seem to be largely responsible for pushing the envelope. You simply need to look at the popularity of games like Hades, Terraria, or the roguelike and survival-craft genre in general for evidence of such.
Yoshida's implication is that Sony's model of allowing games to have a traditional release before going to PlayStation Plus is likely a healthier approach than the day-one AAA launches that became popular on Xbox Game Pass. His concerns boil down to the aforementioned issues with innovation, saying that "what [type] of games can be created will be dictated by the owner of the subscription services," and adding that "the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry," however he also takes issue with the financial side of things, implying that, if gamers have day-one access to games on subscription services, they won't want to pay up-front for games. This last point has implications for innovation as much as his former thought, because if game developers depend on subscription services for launches, it might make them more averse to trying new things. These comments seem all the more relevant in a modern gaming landscape, where indie developers seem to be largely responsible for pushing the envelope. You simply need to look at the popularity of games like Hades, Terraria, or the roguelike and survival-craft genre in general for evidence of such.