-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jim Ryan on including first party games on PSNOW “It’s an area that is fast changing and fluid” wants to “ treat them with amazing care and respect”
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
Same here. Even with Microsoft's PC initiative I just have not been super impressed with their output. Enjoyed Gears 5 but just generally have been left underwhelmed with every purchase from them. Gamepass is a heck of a deal though. Even on PC.
I mean if they do it, sure. But that won't happen any time soon.
Because they add 5-10 games per month, and $19 million is probably at the extreme high end. Even if every single game cost that much they'd still be making a profit. And obviously not every game costs as much as DMC5.
Did you pay $60 for them? If not, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm not saying they're bad games either. What I'm saying is MS is training people to see Microsoft Studios Games as $10 to play rather than $60.
Like next year I'm gonna play Ori 2 for $10 and I'll be playing Halo Infinite for $10. Sony will have my $240 next year in 1st party titles. Those numbers do not work out for MS lol.
I didn't pay 60 for them, no, but I don't think that means they aren't "worth" that much.
Hell I recently thought to myself that if I knew I was going to like The Outer Worlds so much, I would have purchased it for sure. But if it wasn't on gamepass, I wouldn't have tried/played it. Even though I know now that it would have been worth it.
"We just want to treat them with amazing care and respect, and have those launches be clean and pure."
What a statement. Good to see them acknowledgeling that more than enough people value new video game releases in ways other than the "buffet" style of consumption, and that they plan to hold down that particular ideal.
What a statement. Good to see them acknowledgeling that more than enough people value new video game releases in ways other than the "buffet" style of consumption, and that they plan to hold down that particular ideal.
Exactly. Pushing in a direction that devalues your games via a pricing model that isn't even known to be sustainable in the long-term is not a move you make unless you've reached a point where nothing else will do for your brand. PlayStation is not in that position.
Last edited:
I don't think you know nearly enough about Xbox and their financial situation to claim this.
You know it's happening right? Sooner or later it's happening.
Jim says what he needs to say at the time he needs to say it.
Jim denigrated backwards conpatibility but it's in the PS5
Jim is famous for his"think of the children" stance on cross play but cross play is there.
He's saying this because that's what he needs to say right now.
Yeah, that would boost their subscriptions for sure. While they're at it, they should reduce the fee to $1 for a year, and toss in every PS4 and PS5 game ever made now and in the future by Rockstar, Bethesda, and Ubisoft on Day One. I bet subscriptions would really skyrocket.
Why stop there? Might as well go whole hog, and drop a massive multi-billion dollar sack of money on Nintendo's doorstep to license their games for release on Day One, too.
There's a reason why they're showing restraint. They don't need to give away the store just to inflate subscription numbers that they can spout off in a press release bullet-point. That would effectively kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
Duh, because they like the money. That's the only reason. Anything else is PR fluff.... "Pure" launches my ass. If their market position changes so will their attitude about PSNow.
I agree with both of the above comments. Sony should consider making streaming versions of new release games available for purchase.
I think you've oversimplified this scenario, to the point where it has become flawed.
1. None of the major video game subscription services appear to have anywhere near 20 million subscribers at full price.
2. A chunk of that revenue has to be invested back into the service for maintenance and growth. Such expenses also include paying developers and publishers for content that PS Now is hosting.
It's not merely a matter of whether Sony could scrape up $19 million to spend on a single game. I'm sure they do. They have to determine whether a $19 million game would bring in enough new customers to make it profitable.
If PS Now were at 2 million full-price subscribers today (highly unlikely, since they boasted about hitting 1 million just a few short days ago), then spending $19 million on a single game is a gamble that would wipe out nearly the entire month's revenue without accounting for any other expenses. If PS Now is still only hovering around 1 million, then laying out that kind of coin for a single game--any game--is practically a fool's errand.
User Warned: Console Warring
It's almost like diehard Microsoft fans want Sony to copy Game Pass for validation. The most vocal in here are never discussing Sony first party games in the OT. OP in particular seems extremely desperate.
You know....you would think some ppl would know this....
That usually is part of what dictates business plans, policies.
Like.....cross play.....
And when some of us just try to explain why it doesn't make sense..we get accused of clamoring for them not to do it, defending it, etc.
It's the cross play debates all over again.
It's pretty unbelievable that people in this thread read that and still think "first-party Sony games will be released on PSNow day one".
It's a confirmation of the opposite.
Of course. They'd love for Sony to give away their games for $10 on PS4/PC lol.
I don't expect them to dump huge games onto the service on Day One, but for them to only have titles that are like 18+ months old is not compelling at all. Stuff like Spider-Man and Days Gone should be there at this point, along with B-tier stuff like Concrete Genie and The Show 20.
It would also be a good place to showcase new-ish PlaystationVR titles and Dreams.
It would also be a good place to showcase new-ish PlaystationVR titles and Dreams.
Maybe when MS's reveals their subscriber numbers people will think otherwise. Until then, there's no reason to assume GamePass is working out for Microsoft. They practically gave away Gears of War 5 and that title already dropped out of the top 10 most played Xbox games.
No one is trying to turn a profit today. That's why I made up the 20 million subs number. I'm explaining the future state they intend to get to. If you can get tens of millions of subs, you can easily add new games each month and still make enough money to outweighs "lost" profits on a couple 1P games per year.
There's every reason to assume it's working out. You think Sony is cutting their service's price in half and adding big name titles out of the goodness of their heart?
They did it to stay competitive. We don't know if GP is a success for MS. Is it making money right now? I doubt it.
Of course it's not making money right now.
But that's not the measure of success right now, either.
Or are you saying Sony is spending money to stay competitive with an unsuccessful service? That would be pretty odd.
There's no need to be reductive to argue about your impulses on the future of PlayStation. Just because you were wrong about PS5 BC based on what Jim said doesn't mean that from now on everything he says the opposite will happen.
Not all points are made from the same baseline or in the same context. Whatever points Jim made in interviews in relation to what Sony isn't doing compared to the competition were off-the-cuff excuses and poorly thought out ones at that. Except this one is not poorly thought out, but makes sense given Sony's position. Nobody with any sense is criticizing Sony for this like they were with BC or cross-play. It's not being weaponised by other companies or by the media to get Sony to give in to pressure of sorts because, why would it?
It doesn't matter to me whether it's happening, but how it's happening. Until Sony's first-party games stop being huge events that drive massive amounts of mindshare, ending up with many of them selling 10+ million, and helping them sell millions of consoles, we're not going to see day one game releases on PS Now. I'll also stave off any decision that devalues games and especially direct or indirect support for the physical game market as long as possible.
Yup, makes no sense to argue that a Sony which is poised to have another successful generation with sequels to some of their biggest games ever will put these games on a service day one. PS Now will get what it gets after first-party games are done selling systems.
Oh, I thought you meant $$$.
And regarding Sony, well they are spending money to be ready IF this whole streaming/Netflix for Gaming thingy becomes a thing. To be future proof. Hope they keep doing what they did this gen (and what they did in the last gens). I couldn't care less about these GamePass/PSNow services.
That's true, and that would support your scenario much better. It's going to take time to get to that point, though, much like it did with PlayStation Plus. I'm sure Sony would like to get there sooner rather than later.
I believe (and hope) Sony is still fine-tuning PlayStation Now. Last month, they adjusted their prices, and altered their strategy with the announcement of four marquee games for a limited time. The initial reaction was mostly positive. This month, they've only added three games to the service. While I don't dispute that they are all high-quality games, I'm also concerned that Sony is starting to tilt too heavily in the direction of "fewer but bigger games", as I said in this post in another thread.
PS Now used to regularly add ten or more new games each month. Offering numerically few games means that they don't span as many diverse genres, therefore limiting their appeal. If they blow their entire budget allotment on one or two big games each month, with little to no room for anything else, then the service becomes self-defeating, as they cater to a very narrow audience.
Sony doesn't necessarily need to spend substantially more money at this stage. They just need to spend their money wisely. They need people that have an eye for quality games, large and small. It is important for them to attract a good assortment of games, that can appeal to a wide user base.
While I agree, I think that eventual move would probably bring my time with gaming to an end as I'm not sure the gamepass model is profitable enough for Sony to put their best IPs on the service day one and they'd have to probably change their monetisation model to make it work for them. I was more than happy for GoW to launch and then me enjoy it without having to worry about missing out on content because it was microtransactionable.
I mean Spider-man must have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars but I can't see a subscription service paying that back in the same time frame.
So the big games won't be included, but smaller titles (ala Knack or Gravity Rush) would be then?
Yeah, for all the millions of subs they had, Gears 5 probably had less of an impact on the most played lists than any Gears before it. Maybe a lower price of entry also means a lower retention rate and less money making potential on MTX.
Thing is, Microsoft can't unbottle this genie. They have to figure out some way of making it profitable. Either by facilitating more in-game spending, making the service more expensive or what have you.
Sony would be fools to blindly jump in when their exclusives are more popular and profitable than ever before.
Its neither. Disney+ is delivering the Mandalorian which is likely the most expensive tv show ever. Sony is not delivering things like that day one, but seemingly later down the line.
In any case the gaming landscape is very different from movies and thus needs its own approach. Microsoft's approach is smart for a company that has catching up to do.
Sony is taking the smart approach given their market position and usual first party sales figures.
Both companies are doing the right thing based on their unique market positions.
Some of the responses here are utterly baffling. It's simple math/business guys, the model makes zero sense for the likes of Sony and Nintendo. Unlike MS, people actually buys their 1P output so why would they choose to bleed millions of revenue in the short term (free sign up, discounts, etc) for a long term play that is unlikely to even come close to their current revenue level.
Troubles with selling their boxes this gen means MS has little choice but to push GP hard to stay relevant. Just a cursory glance at the current video streaming situation should show just how fast things can go south in the 'content bundling' business. And no, scale isn't always the answer. Just look at WeWork.
My exact sentiments.
Troubles with selling their boxes this gen means MS has little choice but to push GP hard to stay relevant. Just a cursory glance at the current video streaming situation should show just how fast things can go south in the 'content bundling' business. And no, scale isn't always the answer. Just look at WeWork.
My exact sentiments.
I speak about the movie of Disney they will not be Day one on Disney +, same for big tentpole Sony release. And it is the most expensive TV show but not more expensive than an MCU movie.
They can let games with cheaper budget on the service.
This.
Xbox are following a strategy that can get them back in the game after an awful generation(relative to last gen),Sony are on top and their games are selling gangbusters.Different strategies,not everything has to be a war.
Sony, frankly, don't need to do Game Pass style consumption.
You want to play The Last of Us Part 2 at launch? You pay to play it and it will sell.
You want to play The Last of Us Part 2 at launch? You pay to play it and it will sell.
This quote is actually kinda epic.
"The nature and scale of some of the first party games that we are making leads us to think that, right now, it's better to spend energy on making sure that the launch of those games is a massive entertainment event. I would cite God of War and Spider-Man, and The Last of Us [Part] 2 next year will fall into that category."
""But certainly right now, given how some of our first party IP is incredibly special and valuable, we just want to treat them with amazing care and respect, and have those launches be clean and pure."
My guess is that "clean and pure" means launch sales without any caveats. I mean, their first party output has earned them consumers, Day 1 purchase, confidence.
"The nature and scale of some of the first party games that we are making leads us to think that, right now, it's better to spend energy on making sure that the launch of those games is a massive entertainment event. I would cite God of War and Spider-Man, and The Last of Us [Part] 2 next year will fall into that category."
""But certainly right now, given how some of our first party IP is incredibly special and valuable, we just want to treat them with amazing care and respect, and have those launches be clean and pure."
My guess is that "clean and pure" means launch sales without any caveats. I mean, their first party output has earned them consumers, Day 1 purchase, confidence.
I received a survey from Sony some months ago. I live in The Netherlands. In the survey the questions where about PSnow, pricing and games on PSnow and how you would like to see them. I'm 30 so know what and how much I can spent on games and as someone who disslikes live service, lootboxes and or any other subscription services which are not worth it. Anyway the questions where like ''Would you like to see God of War on Day one on PSnow'' I voted No and they asked this a multiple times in different ways and for other Sony exclusives. I have my own reasons like I said, but I thought the mayority would have voted yes so they can save money or so depends how you look at it.
If I read these articles about inlcuding first party games on PSNow we will eventually see something, but not on the same level as Microsoft I think.
I completely agree with this as I started to think about that for the past months. Their Exclusive games aren't that great especially this generation we could argue if they do that on purpose.
If I read these articles about inlcuding first party games on PSNow we will eventually see something, but not on the same level as Microsoft I think.
I completely agree with this as I started to think about that for the past months. Their Exclusive games aren't that great especially this generation we could argue if they do that on purpose.
I fully understand why they don't do it but some of the language he uses here is weird as fuck. Wanting launches to be pure and clean, eh?
Basically they want regular physical launches so they can talk direct numbers. More ways to get it dilutes the information that Sony prefers to offer.
