I'm a developer and low-level manager, and wouldn't expect to have much input in this kind of decision. Especially in a behemoth like Sony. This is C-level-executive decision making territory.
I might have something to say about the idea from a technical perspective, if asked, and if that aspect of the platform were my purview, and I suspect they discussed it with plenty of knowledgeable people at some level.
I'm sure some people who were developing their in-house cloud solution feel like they've been blindsided, but if they'd succeeded, they wouldn't be in this position. The article says they've been struggling with it. They likely had a chance and missed benchmarks one time too many.
They're likely better off using a major cloud provider anyway. They've already solved the big problems.
There’s also the fact that if you release this kind of consideration to rank and file employees, you take the risk of someone leaking it to the media or insider trading on it
The problem seems to be people are unlikely to pay large subscription fees, but they also generally play at the same time of day so you can’t get a large multiple between hardware and subscriptions. Worse, people still need hardware at home to connect to these services.
~130x as many people bought PlayStation 4 than subscribe to PlayStation now at just 20$ per month. While they might be extremely profitable for Sony, AAA games require huge customer bases.
That's a general problem with all-you-can-eat subscriptions whether games, Adobe products, or O'Reilly books. If you're a fairly heavy and regular user, subscriptions are usually not a bad deal. You get access to try new things out and you have a known predictable cost.
However, most people are relatively light and irregular users. For a $5 a month service, that may be OK. But as the price goes up it gets less and less attractive for anyone who isn't a heavy user.
Any good executive consults with their subordinates to create realistic objectives. This is so fundamental that it's implied. That's the CTO's job. They will in turn rely on their subordinates all the way down to the lowly developers.
Are you suggesting that developers deserve some kind of vote? They're a cog in the machine. Sony isn't a democracy or a worker's collective. As a developer myself, I'm not trying to diminish the role. I like to think I can provide a valuable perspective and that I'd be consulted about my small part. I'm certain that's exactly what Sony did, because they are a successful, well-run company that's been doing this longer than I've been alive.
Beyond that, no, the developers shouldn't have much say. Their role is to help determine what's required to achieve the objectives set by management. Good management will consult with them, set goals, and change tack if the objectives aren't met. If they still can't achieve the objectives in a timely and cost-effective way, management will replace them and go with a vendor. This is all right and good.
Are you suggesting that developers deserve some kind of vote?
Of course not.
Their role is to help determine what's required to achieve the objectives set by management. Good management will consult with them, set goals...
This. Consider yourself lucky that you've never worked someplace that starts off with "These goals are aggressive, but in my mind achievable" and then proceeds to give you objectives that are a wildly optimistic extrapolation of a of a previously achieved timetable.
This isn't just developers, either, but that's the context here.
Any good executive consults with their subordinates to create realistic objectives. This is so fundamental that it's implied.
...
I'm certain that's exactly what Sony did, because they are a successful, well-run company that's been doing this longer than I've been alive.
I might have something to say about the idea from a technical perspective, if asked, and if that aspect of the platform were my purview, and I suspect they discussed it with plenty of knowledgeable people at some level.
I'm sure some people who were developing their in-house cloud solution feel like they've been blindsided, but if they'd succeeded, they wouldn't be in this position. The article says they've been struggling with it. They likely had a chance and missed benchmarks one time too many.
They're likely better off using a major cloud provider anyway. They've already solved the big problems.