Anyone that remembers the 90’s or 2000’s will remember the explosion in popularity of video gaming. As technology progressed and GPU’s grew more sophisticated it became possible to have access to an entire arcade worth of games at home. One of the companies spearheading this revolution was Sony. The PlayStation was not the first console to use CD’s as a format – but it was the first console to popularise their use.
Many other consoles were still utilising cartridges – a more expensive and memory-restricted approach – when Sony decided to buck this trend. Allowing them to deliver high quality audio and full motion video (FMV) cutscenes to their fans, as well as generally bigger games.
This approach cemented Sony as a titan in the gaming industry – their name long being synonymous with premium single-player experiences. From the richly detailed worlds of The Last of Us to the heart-pounding action of God of War, the company has built its brand on delivering top-tier, story-driven games.
Yet, in recent years, Sony has been making a costly pivot toward live service games. This move was NOT driven by popular demand. It was driven purely by the lure of recurring revenue. The result? A string of underperforming titles that could cost the company billions.
The root of this issue isn’t just a failed business strategy; it’s bad UX on a monumental scale.
Misunderstanding UX: It’s More Than Just Interfaces
Many view UX (user experience) as merely designing attractive and functional interfaces. While interface design is a component, true UX encompasses far more: it’s about understanding users, anticipating their needs, and ensuring every touchpoint in a product feels intuitive, enjoyable, and satisfying. It’s about adopting a customer-centred approach to product development.
Sony’s misstep with live service games is a prime example of what happens when companies neglect the core principles of UX. Blinded by the revenue these games could potentially generate – through microtransactions, in-game purchases, and long-term engagement – they lost sight of their customers. They didn’t stop to ask: “What do our players actually want from us?“
One of the more troubling things about this series of poor investments is that it wouldn’t have required particularly comprehensive research to learn that players DON’T enjoy live service games. One simple YouTube search for “Live Service Gaming” will net you a series of results: almost all of them scathing critiques of the “Games As A Service” model.
The Problem with Live Service Games
Live service games promise continuous updates, new content drops, and social, multiplayer experiences. For companies (and corporate investors), this model is appealing – it extends the lifespan of a game and offers opportunities for steady, ongoing revenue.
Here’s the problem: Remember when we touched on the PlayStation 1’s use of CD’s instead of cartridges? This significantly contributed to the type of customers Sony would attract over the decades.
Sony historically built almost their entire audience on immersive, single-player experiences. The hardware in their very first console was curated with this in mind .
Sony’s shift to live service games, despite the data and feedback available, feels like a betrayal to this core audience.
It’s an unfortunately prevalent UX mishap. Designing for revenue models, not for users. And this has manifested in several ways:
- Content Overload & Grind: Live service games often turn into repetitive grindfests, designed to keep players engaged through sheer persistence rather than enjoyment. Users feel trapped in an endless loop of tasks and paywalls, diminishing the joy and escapism that gaming is meant to provide.
- Disconnect from Sony’s Brand Identity: Sony’s brand has been built on delivering premium, story-driven experiences. Live service games, with their often-fragmented narratives and reliance on multiplayer elements, are a stark departure from what Sony’s audience has come to expect. This disconnect between brand identity and product offering erodes trust.
- Failure to Innovate: The live service model has been around for years, and gamers are increasingly fatigued by the formulaic approach. Sony’s live service games have failed to offer compelling innovations, often recycling tired mechanics in hopes of keeping players invested. Players are quick to recognize when they’re being sold more of the same.
Ignoring the Customer: Breaking Rule 1
At its core, UX is about empathy. It’s about understanding your users, their pain points, and their desires. Then crafting experiences that align with those needs. Sony, in its rush to cash in on live service models, forgot to ask some of the most basic UX questions:
- Who is our player base, and what do they want from us?
- How do we design experiences that will bring joy and satisfaction to our users, not just temporary engagement?
- How can we innovate while still staying true to our brand?
Instead, the focus seemed to be on numbers: how many users can we retain daily? How many purchases can we squeeze out of each player? How much additional content can we monetize?
By putting revenue before experience, Sony has alienated the very players they should have been designing for. And now, with several failed live service games already under their belt, the financial toll is starting to mount.
The Billions at Stake
Sony’s push into live service games has been marked by high-profile failures, including games like Destruction AllStars and Babylon’s Fall, which underperformed both commercially and critically. Destruction AllStars was intended to be a flagship PlayStation 5 exclusive but struggled to maintain player engagement, leading to rapid player drop-off and a shift from a paid model to free-to-play in an attempt to salvage the game’s future. Babylon’s Fall, developed by PlatinumGames and published by Square Enix, was another major flop, with servers scheduled for shutdown less than a year after launch due to abysmal player numbers.
The financial hit from these failed titles is substantial. Live service games require massive upfront investments in development, server maintenance, marketing, and post-launch support. In addition to the millions sunk into production, Sony likely faces further losses from unsold content and ongoing costs from keeping these games online. Estimates suggest these failures could have already cost Sony upwards of $100 million in lost revenue, not counting potential future losses as more live service projects falter. If the trend continues, Sony’s overall losses could balloon into the billions.
But the real cost goes beyond just the money lost on failed titles. Sony is risking its reputation, one of its most valuable assets. As players lose trust in the brand and grow tired of the monetization tactics inherent to live service models, they may begin to look elsewhere for their gaming experiences—possibly to competitors who have stayed true to delivering player-centred experiences. The independent gaming market is thriving now more than ever, largely because these games are built with fun in mind – not quarterly profits.
The Path Forward: A Return to Good UX
If Sony wishes to avoid further losses, they’re going to have to seriously revise their business strategy – putting UX first, not last. This means listening to their customers, investing in user research and generating an understanding of the evolving desires of gamers. They also need to find new ways to innovate without alienating their core audience.
Instead of chasing loots boxes, paid cosmetics and battle pass subscriptions – Sony should focus on creating genuinely engaging, enjoyable experiences that bring long-term value to players. When companies focus on delivering great experiences, revenue follows naturally.
In the end, good UX isn’t just a philosophy; it’s a business strategy. And Sony’s failure to prioritize it could end up costing them billions.
