Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

In March of 2018, Shawn Layden left his position at PlayStation. There were rumors that Layden did not leave on good terms. His departure was abrupt. David Jaffe said he heard he was fired from his contact at PlayStation and I believe Layden liked a controversial Tweet suggesting everything was not copacetic between him and PlayStation later that year. Fast forward a few months and PlayStation goes on a huge Live Service hiring spree.

Yesterday, Shawn Layden goes on a podcast and answers the following question. His response is time stamped...

Question: "Live Service games seem risky with most of them failing. Why is PlayStation going so heavy into the (Live Service) market? [Paraphrase]




The quote that jumps out is... "In practice, there's a very small handful of games that can do it. There's only so many of those games the market can tolerate...The idea you can have 10 or 20 of those games successful, in the market at the same time, is just unrealistic."

Guild Wars 2 is the 198th most played game on Steam right now. It's still getting updates in 2024. There's a number of highly successful Live Service games not available on Steam.

Was Shawn Layden pushed out because he didn't fundamentally understand the growing Live Service market?

 

[nial]

He left in October 2019, and much probably for very unrelated reasons.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

He left in September 2019, and much probably for very unrelated reasons.

You are correct.

In March 2018, his role shifted to focus on Worldwide Studios.

In Sept 2019 he leaves.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

How many GaaS games currently reside in the graveyard on Steam?

 

[ManaByte]

He’s the same guy who said Game Pass needs to make $5 billion a month to be viable.

 

[nial]

In April 2018, his role shifted to focus on Worldwide Studios.

He was already chairman of WWS Global since 2016, the only thing that changed was that he stopped being President of SIEA (sales and marketing subsidiary), as *I believe* SIE eliminated that position within the company, same with SIEE.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Based on the statement you quoted, I'd argue that he understood live services and Sony didn't.

 

[Guilty_AI]

There are n things that go on inside these companies, i find it very unlikely it was dues to this specific divergence.

 

[Meicyn]

How many GaaS games currently reside in the graveyard on Steam?

All the ones that took on way more risk than necessary.

Live service games have been going since the 90s. Ultima Online is still going to this day, and still profitable.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

How many GaaS games currently reside in the graveyard on Steam?

The wrong question considering 99.9% of games don't earn substantial income after 3 months on the market.

The better question would be "How many games had 100k monthly active users in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 etc..."

That number is almost certainly flying upwards. Shawn Layden doesn't seem to ask that very basic and important question.

 

[Quasicat]

Based on the statement you quoted, I'd argue that he understood live services and Sony didn't.

You’re correct. He seems like he knows what they are, all Sony, and a lot of other companies, see are dollar signs. No matter how much they fail, there’s always the chance that they will stumble onto another Fortnite. It’s like people playing the lottery, they play multiple times a week and hold the adage that someone has to win, and that’s exactly how Sony has sounded for the last few years.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Based on the statement you quoted, I'd argue that he understood live services and Sony didn't.

But his 10 - 20 number is already an order of magnitude off the actual number. Plus, Sony seems pretty happy with Live Service game Helldivers 2 at the moment so...

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I like Shawn. Doesn't mean his opinion is accurate.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Guild Wars 2 is the 198th most played game on Steam right now. It's still getting updates in 2024. There's a number of highly successful Live Service games not available on Steam.

Guild Wars 2 earned back its development costs pretty quickly. It has its recurrent revenue now, and it’s enough to pay the costs of ongoing development. It is “ow, to the extent that it pays the wages of the handful of people still working on it. Same with Ultimate Online. Shawn Layden, as former head of PlayStation (with whatever title you want to give him), isn’t defining “success” here s a bunch of developers earning a wage. For him, it means a game that earns millions of dollars in profit for a parent company, And profit alone isn’t enough - it needs to earn *more* per-consumer profit than the profit earned by the stand-alone releases that people aren’t buying because they’re playing Guild Wars 2 (or whatever) instead.

If Guild Wars 2 had been as successful at launch as it is now, obviously, it would not still be around today.

So while, yes, many larger games linger in the market with a dedicated consumer base for years, that is not the “success” that a company like Sony needs.

And while there are a great many smaller live service games that find a footing long enough to pay off their development costs or fund the next one, that’s not the kind of success he’s talking about either.

He explicitly talks about the kind of success that can replace the profit garnered by games that pull in 9-10 figure revenues that are heavily front-loaded and locked into a 5-8 year (or more!) dev cycle, with games that can bring in that same amount over time - equal to multiple tentpole releases combined - over that same timeframe. And yes, the market can absolutely only bear a relatively small number of those.

 

[FunkMiller]

You think he's wrong to suggest that the market can only sustain a few live service games... when we have ample evidence that the market can only sustain a few live service games.

I think he understood pretty damn well. And I don't think it had much to do with him leaving. That was Fat Jimbo and his Game Of Thrones like ascension to the top of the company.

 

[nowhat]

How many GaaS games currently reside in the graveyard on Steam?

Not as many as GaaS threads by Men_in_Boxes .

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You think he's wrong to suggest that the market can only sustain a few live service games... when we have ample evidence that the market can only sustain a few live service games.

Again, Guild Wars 2 is still being supported in 2024. It's currently #198 on Steam. Roughly 70% of the games more popular than GW2 are Live Service games on Steam. Then you have to add all the other successful Live Service games not on Steam like Fortnite, Valorant, League of Legends, Minecraft, Tarkov...

Yes, he's wrong about saying the market can only support 10 - 20. Grossly wrong. Ample evidence of that.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Guild Wars 2 earned back its development costs pretty quickly. It has its recurrent revenue now, and it’s enough to pay the costs of ongoing development. It is “ow, to the extent that it pays the wages of the handful of people still working on it. Same with Ultimate Online. Shawn Layden, as former head of PlayStation (with whatever title you want to give him), isn’t defining “success” here s a bunch of developers earning a wage. For him, it means a game that earns millions of dollars in profit for a parent company, And profit alone isn’t enough - it needs to earn *more* per-consumer profit than the profit earned by the stand-alone releases that people aren’t buying because they’re playing Guild Wars 2 (or whatever) instead.

If Guild Wars 2 had been as successful at launch as it is now, obviously, it would not still be around today.

So while, yes, many larger games linger in the market with a dedicated consumer base for years, that is not the “success” that a company like Sony needs.

And while there are a great many smaller live service games that find a footing long enough to pay off their development costs or fund the next one, that’s not the kind of success he’s talking about either.

He explicitly talks about the kind of success that can replace the profit garnered by games that pull in 9-10 figure revenues that are heavily front-loaded and locked into a 5-8 year (or more!) dev cycle, with games that can bring in that same amount over time - equal to multiple tentpole releases combined - over that same timeframe. And yes, the market can absolutely only bear a relatively small number of those.

What do you think generated more revenue/profit in 2022 and 2023? Guild Wars 2 or Returnal/Deathloop/Demons Souls/Ratchet & Clank?

 

[FunkMiller]

Again, Guild Wars 2 is still being supported in 2024. It's currently #198 on Steam. Roughly 70% of the games more popular than GW2 are Live Service games on Steam. Then you have to add all the other successful Live Service games not on Steam like Fortnite, Valorant, League of Legends, Minecraft, Tarkov...

Yes, he's wrong about saying the market can only support 10 - 20. Grossly wrong. Ample evidence of that.

Okay, so can you provide any evidence of the profitability of GaaS games as a whole? You quote GW2, which is fair enough, but that counts as one of the few. And it's only ever had a peak of 8000 Steam players. Sounds like a low budget game with low budget numbers and low budget support.

I'd need to see evidence that dozens of GaaS games being profitable and popular right now to change my view that only a few are sustainable. You quote six GaaS games in your post.

Where can you show me that more than 20 of them are achieving profitability and popularity? Where can you show me that it's right for so many publishers to making them, as opposed to single player games?

 

[bitbydeath]

Most people won’t have the time to be invested in more than one, so i’d say he is right.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Okay, so can you provide any evidence of the profitability of GaaS games as a whole? You quote GW2, which is fair enough, but that counts as one of the few. And it's only ever had a peak of 8000 Steam players. Sounds like a low budget game with low budget numbers and low budget support.

I'd need to see evidence that dozens of GaaS games being profitable and popular right now to change my view that only a few are sustainable. You quote six GaaS games in your post.

Where can you show me that more than 20 of them are achieving profitability and popularity? Where can you show me that it's right for so many publishers to making them, as opposed to single player games?

Your evidence is simple. If the lights are still on, it's still churning a profit.

We obviously don't have detailed financial numbers for any of these games. What we have is a list of significantly more than "10 or 20" that are still being worked on by studios thus disproving Shawn Laydens statement.

 

[FunkMiller]

Your evidence is simple. If the lights are still on, it's still churning a profit.

We obviously don't have detailed financial numbers for any of these games. What we have is a list of significantly more than "10 or 20" that are still being worked on by studios thus disproving Shawn Laydens statement.

Come on. That's nowhere near good enough. Having enough cash to stumble onwards - and being profitable - are two completely different things. Revenue is not profit. Companies will prop a failing or unprofitable project up for a long time to prevent a fall in in share price, and maintain public perception.

If you're going to so confidently state that multiple GaaS games from multiple developers are profitable, you're going to have to come up with some evidence - especially in an environment where we know multiple GaaS games have failed. Some of them before they've even been released.

 

[hemo memo]

“It wasn't a multi-million seller, but that wasn't the point”
Shawn Layden talking about Vib-Ribbon on stage.

The man is a legend.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Come on. That's nowhere near good enough. Having enough cash to stumble onwards - and being profitable - are two completely different things. Revenue is not profit. Companies will prop a failing or unprofitable project up for a long time to prevent a fall in in share price, and maintain public perception.

If you're going to so confidently state that multiple GaaS games from multiple developers are profitable, you're going to have to come up with some evidence - especially in an environment where we know multiple GaaS games have failed.

If these Live Service games weren't churning profit, they would be shut down.

PlayStation, WB and all the other big publishers wouldn't be going after Live Service if it was "sAtUrAteD" at 10 - 20 titles. The market clearly supports many more times that amount and is certainly growing larger by the year.

 

[mckmas8808]

The wrong question considering 99.9% of games don't earn substantial income after 3 months on the market.

The better question would be "How many games had 100k monthly active users in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 etc..."

That number is almost certainly flying upwards. Shawn Layden doesn't seem to ask that very basic and important question.

He does make a decent point with saying there's a limit can exist and make big money at once. Basically there's alot of risk in the GAAS field too.

 

[LectureMaster]

Saw Men in boxes made a thread.

Saw it was about GaaS.

Me:

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

He does make a decent point with saying there's a limit can exist and make big money at once. Basically there's alot of risk in the GAAS field too.

No question. But he doesn't give compelling evidence to show we're at a saturation point. That days is coming, but we're likely decades off.

 

[FunkMiller]

If these Live Service games weren't churning profit, they would be shut down.

PlayStation, WB and all the other big publishers wouldn't be going after Live Service if it was "sAtUrAteD" at 10 - 20 titles. The market clearly supports many more times that amount and is certainly growing larger by the year.

That, I think, is where your logic is fundamentally flawed. And again... can you make a list of them with their profits? Your confidence suggests you have hard evidence of what you believe? Because whether a GaaS is still available to purchase on Steam is not an indicator of profitability. It's an indicator that enough money is being made to carry on. Nothing more. GW2 has a concurrent player count of about 5000 max.

The only evidence I can go on for my position is that multiple GaaS games have failed in recent years. Dozens of them. Massive, high profile games. Even Naughty Dog couldn't get one out of the door! That suggests a limited audience, no? That suggests a genre that can only sustain a certain amount of games.

How do those facts correlate to your position that there's a lot more growth to be had?

 

[DonF]

Shawn must have had lots and lots of metrics...so he has the data, saw what the board/stakeholders wanted and thought it wasn't possible.

You guys are discussing guild wars 2 and I believe the higher ups were asking Shawn for Fortnite and Minecraft., not GW2.

And he is right, how many big...and I mean BIG GaaS are there?? More than 20?? You guys are missing the point with GW2.

Are you so delusional to think that a board of directors wants the next GW2 over the next Fortnite???

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

What do you think generated more revenue/profit in 2022 and 2023? Guild Wars 2 or Returnal/Deathloop/Demons Souls/Ratchet & Clank?

Returnal, Demon’s Souls and R&C were all developed to sell console early in a new gen - profit was not, imo, their primary purpose. They are not in any way comparable in that regard to Guild Wars 2.

That said, I would expect those games would have generated more profit than GW2. Do you have the numbers to suggest otherwise?

And again, if they are still generating profit, they are unquestionably in the minority. Where are the other 19 live service games that are making tens to hundreds of millions in profit year on year? Because that’s what you need to show in order to disprove Layden’s statement in context - constantly bringing up an obvious outlier is not a reasonable argument.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because whether a GaaS is still available to purchase on Steam is not an indicator of profitability.

That's not my position. My position is that games that continue to be updated are likely profitable, otherwise studios would stop wasting resources on them.

The only evidence I can go on for my position is that multiple GaaS games have failed in recent years. Dozens of them. Massive, high profile games. Even Naughty Dog couldn't get one out of the door! That suggests a limited audience, no? That suggests a genre that can only sustain a certain amount of games.

How do those facts correlate to your position that there's a lot more growth to be had?

I don't think cherry picking failures can be considered valid evidence.

How many failed NES games could you cherry pick in 1991 to say the videogame market was saturated back then? Obviously the market grew considerably since then. Growing markets always have multiple failures in their field at any one time.

The statement "The Live Service market is saturated" was birthed a few years ago when there were 3 or 4 higher profile GAAS flops in a relatively short time period. The statement was sold to an audience who wanted it to be true and therefore was quickly accepted without any critical analysis.

 

[mrabott]

Shawn must have had lots and lots of metrics...so he has the data, saw what the board/stakeholders wanted and thought it wasn't possible.

You guys are discussing guild wars 2 and I believe the higher ups were asking Shawn for Fortnite and Minecraft., not GW2.

And he is right, how many big...and I mean BIG GaaS are there?? More than 20?? You guys are missing the point with GW2.

Are you so delusional to think that a board of directors wants the next GW2 over the next Fortnite???

Don't even try to explain it to half a dozen idiots who decided to die in this hill of comparing Guild Wars 2 with Destiny 2, Fortnite and GTA V. What Sony wants is a game that generates billions of dollars annually, for at least 4 years.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Where are the other 19 live service games that are making tens to hundreds of millions in profit year on year? Because that’s what you need to show in order to disprove Layden’s statement in context - constantly bringing up an obvious outlier is not a reasonable argument.

I didn't bring up an outlier. I brought up an example of a less popular game on Steam (#198) to illustrate all the Live Service games more popular are likely profitable as well. Then you must add in the successful Live Service games not available on Steam.

And again, you don't need to make "hundreds of millions of profit every year" to be considered successful/profitable as a game studio.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You guys are discussing guild wars 2 and I believe the higher ups were asking Shawn for Fortnite and Minecraft., not GW2.

And he is right, how many big...and I mean BIG GaaS are there?? More than 20?? You guys are missing the point with GW2.

Are you so delusional to think that a board of directors wants the next GW2 over the next Fortnite???

This is illogical thinking. All PlayStation wants is healthy ROI on the games they invest in. Helldivers 2 is a huge success. The fact that it's not going to be as profitable as Fortnite or Minecraft is completely irrelevant.

 

[DonF]

This is illogical thinking. All PlayStation wants is healthy ROI on the games they invest in. Helldivers 2 is a huge success. The fact that it's not going to be as profitable as Fortnite or Minecraft is completely irrelevant.

Based on your comment, Helldivers 2 must have a healthy ROI, that's it.
Do you really believe that PS is happy with games that go just positive in sales??

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

you don't need to make "hundreds of millions of profit every year" to be considered successful/profitable as a game studio.

You do in the context of Shawn Layden’s statement, which is what you’re arguing against here.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Based on your comment, Helldivers 2 must have a healthy ROI, that's it.
Do you really believe that PS is happy with games that go just positive in sales??

Helldivers 2 will likely become one of, if not the highest performing RoI games for PlayStation in the last 10 years.

You do in the context of Shawn Layden’s statement, which is what you’re arguing against here.

There's probably around 200+ successful Live Service games on the market today. Shawn Layden said the market can only support "10 - 20", so no.

 

[Aces High]

This issue is much more nuanced in my eyes.

The success of live service games can significantly depend on their genre.

Currently, Battle Royale games like Fortnite have seen massive success, dominating the live service space.

This genre dominance will lead to new challenges:

1. New entrants into this genre must offer something unique or superior to capture a significant user base.

2. Other genres, although they may have successful titles, face challenges in competing with the dominance of Battle Royale games.

3. Many live service games are highly competitive. With better performance (higher frame rates, reduced input lag) and more precise input options (m + kb), PC gaming can offer a competitive edge to players. These advantages are particularly significant in fast-paced, precision-requiring games like Battle Royale titles.

4. The ability to anticipate genre trends, rather than merely react to them, is crucial for the success of live service games. PlayStation's approach to game development doesn't work in this highly competitive and innovative market. By the time SIE has finished their lenghty dev cycles, the market is already saturated, the player expectations have evolved, and the community is too small to compete with the evangelist early adopter community of the first innovator.

PlayStation has distinct advantages, though:

The most important is the power of IP.

Games based on well-known, established AAA IPs can leverage their existing fan base, lore, and brand recognition to drive engagement and retention. This factor can significantly influence a game's success, making it easier for these titles to secure a foothold in the crowded market.

Then we have budgetary considerations.

Sony's major studios have considerable resources and can afford high-quality development, extensive marketing campaigns, and more frequent updates, all of which contribute to a game's success and longevity. In contrast, smaller studios may struggle to compete on the same level, regardless of their game's potential.

Layden's point about market tolerance is crucial.

Even if PlayStation manages to stand out in terms of genre, leverages a strong IP, and has a significant budget, the market's capacity to sustain multiple time-intensive live service games is limited.

Players have finite time and resources, leading to a natural cap on the number of such games that can achieve high levels of success concurrently.

Here's why the PlayStation of today will fail in the highly competitive live service market:

Talent is a cornerstone in creating games that are not only technologically advanced and polished but also innovative enough to stand out in a crowded market. Skilled developers, designers, and creative minds are essential in crafting unique gameplay experiences, compelling narratives, and engaging mechanics that can captivate players.

PlayStation can't do that. They rely on cookie cutter experiences and remakes.

Understanding and anticipating player needs and preferences is crucial. This involves engaging with the community, collecting and analyzing feedback, and being agile enough to adapt development based on this input. A player-centric approach can lead to higher satisfaction and loyalty, which are vital in the lifecycle of a live service game.

PlayStation can't do that. They team up with political consultants that attack Playstation's core audience on social media and they gaslight their customers that voice criticiscm.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

There's probably around 200+ successful Live Service games on the market today. Shawn Layden said the market can only support "10 - 20", so no.

lol

So... the problem is not that Shawn Layden doesn't understand live service games, it's that you don't understand Shawn Layden.

Is there room for many live service games by your definition of "successful"? Yes. Obviously. The point doesn't even bear discussion. Everyone in this thread agrees with that, and so does Shawn Layden. You have made that definition of "success" so broad as to negate any possible need to debate it.

Is there room for that same number of successful live service games by the definition used by Shawn Layden in the video you linked to and upon which this whole discssion here is predicated? No. Absolutely not. You are playing a semantics game here and coming off looking like an idiot for it.

Layden makes a very clear distinction, in the video you linked, between teams that are driven by a "creative vision" and those that are driven by a desire for "recurring revenue" that can replace the "volatility" of revenue that the more traditional tentpole model is subject to. Thus, the revenue from the kinds of live service games that he is talking about needs to be on the order of the games that it is replacing.

Those games do not exist in the numbers you are talking about.

If you want to talk about the possibility that hundred of live-service games can co-exist, with each one keeping a handful of developers employed, by all means have that conversation. It could well be an interesting one. But if you want to talk about a very specific phenomenon that a particular person has commented on, like you do here, then talk about it in their terms, not yours.

 

[Hudo]

Why is it important whether the understands what he's talking about or not? He's just some dude.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Thus, the revenue from the kinds of live service games that he is talking about needs to be on the order of the games that it is replacing.

What are the Live Service games replacing?

 

[FunkMiller]

That's not my position. My position is that games that continue to be updated are likely profitable, otherwise studios would stop wasting resources on them.

Likely profitable? So you don't actually know, do you?

Your entire premise is built on a foundation of sand. You're supposing that a great many GaaS games that continue to exist are making big bank for their developers and publishers. You must think that, to disagree with what Layden is saying.

I - and others - are saying that yours is a faulty premise, based on your desire for loads of GaaS games to be successful, rather than the hard facts to back your opinion up.

And again... many, many, many GaaS games have failed either before release or not long after - supporting the opinion that the industry can only bear a few at a time. Which is what Layden is saying.

Nothing about the current industry is saying a large number of GaaS games are sustainable. In fact, it's shouting the exact opposite.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Nothing about the current industry is saying a large number of GaaS games are sustainable. In fact, it's shouting the exact opposite.

How many GAAS games do you think the industry can sustain? How has that number fluctuated over the last 20 years in your opinion?

 

[Kikorin]

The argument about Guild Wars 2 makes no sense at all. Yes, it for sure make enough money for the devs, but the decision here for Sony would be: it would make more money than a 70$/80$ ten or more millions seller every 5 years (GoW, Spiderman,etc...). Because if you choose to make a GAAS by one of your top studios, that's what you are risking in. We seen what happened with Naughty Dog, wasted millions of $ and years of development time on something that will never release, in the same time they could have released TLoU 3 that would have sold 15 millions copies in the worst case.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Based on the statement you quoted, I'd argue that he understood live services and Sony didn't.

They both understand it.

Shawn Layden was the one that implemented the current current strategy of PC releases, in particular GaaS on PC day 1.
Sony still continues the same strategy and doubles down on it.

 

[The_Observer]

Wut?
1. He understands it quite well
2. Sony’s downfall started after he and the ps4 dreamteam was gone

 

[FunkMiller]

How many GAAS games do you think the industry can sustain? How has that number fluctuated over the last 20 years in your opinion?

At the profitable level all the publishers are idiotically chasing? About a dozen. Maybe. At absolute most.

Sony on their own were trying to get 12 off the ground. Madness. Greed and sheer bloody madness.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

At the profitable level all the publishers are idiotically chasing? About a dozen. Maybe. At absolute most.

Sony on their own were trying to get 12 off the ground. Madness. Greed and sheer bloody madness.

What level are they chasing? Did Helldivers 2 reach that level?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

They both understand it.

Shawn Layden was the one that implemented the current current strategy of PC releases, in particular GaaS on PC day 1.
Sony still continues the same strategy and doubles down on it.

Errr... no, the point Layden was making was that there are a limited number of games that can succeed in the space, and Sony's trying to pump out like a dozen of them at a time. Completely different strategies.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

not as well as men in boxes