Jim Ryan: PlayStation about big blockbuster games that cost a lot to make, Game Pass model would not make financial sense

[Mecha]

All evidence points to the opposite so far.

InXile, Obsidian, Double Fine and Compulsion Games had to crowd fund their latest games.

Obsidian, InXile and Compulsion Games are now all making AAA games.

Double Fine has been given more funding to add bosses, and levels they had to cut from Psychonauts 2 due to budget constraints.

InXile and Ninja Theory just got all new offices to further expand their team sizes.

Playground Games has gone from a one team studio to a 2 team studio with each making AAA games.

There is now more incentive than ever to make bigger budget games. Look at the streaming wars going on in Television right now. Game of Thrones was the king because of the show's spectacle.

Big games are going to draw people to the service and big games will keep people subscribed.

Click to shrink...

That's the beauty of it, you have your opinion and I have mine. I can't say you are wrong but it's unrealistic to think every studio will have unlimited budgets to make their games. I'll just say that teams working under a budget doesn't mean they will put out bad games. Most games I love were made with very tight budgets.

Fortnite BR started as a budget secondary mode. More companies have realized not every game needs to have a mind-boggling budget. This lower budget games will do wonders in GP (either from third party or first party).

In the end I don't think Jim is wrong since they are targeting a different strategy than MS.

Which one will work better? We will know when either company shift their strategy again.

 

[Rocco]

At the most basic level, here is what we know: Microsoft's original montezation model, Gold, netted them $5 a month or $60 a year per subscriber, and was only available to people who purchased an Xbox.

Microsoft's new strategy, Game Pass, nets them $15 a month or $180 a year per subscriber and is available to anyone who has an Xbox, PC or Android (for now). That's 3x the revenue.

Im just saying, whatever the cost involved to spearhead a service like Game Pass, Microsoft certainly seems to have accounted for it.

 

[Serpens007]

PS+ Collection is aimed at those who never bought a PS4 and may want to purchase a PS5, whether it is because this is going to be their first console or maybe they skipped the PS4 or they were playing on another system through this gen. Buying the PS5 and subscribing gives you immediate access to pretty much the best of what the past gen had to offer.
Basically the PS+ Collection exists only to add value to the Playstation 5. It is not supposed to be an enticing service in itself like Gamepass is. If Sony wanted a Gamepass wannabe they would have put the PS+ Collection on PS4 and PC, but they are not because that's not what it is about.

Click to shrink...

But it's also the point, or one of the points, of Gamepass. It gives you instant access to all of the Xbox classics and hooks you with their brand. Remember that GamePass on PC doesn't have all or the same games than the console one. PC one is an added bonus to their ecosystem with Ultimate.

I doubt PlayStation is really aiming at new players when they come off of a 100 million console sales across the globe, I mean I guess they aren't alienating them either, but I don't think PS+ Collection is just a way of bring new people.

 

[nib95]

All this talk about whether what Sony is saying is true or not, but ultimately we know the revenue (no profit figures for Xbox else we could compare profit too) both platforms make, and right now PlayStation is making roughly double the revenue Xbox is, with its 110m PS4 install base vs Microsoft's ~50m Xbox One install base plus whatever install base of PC gamers it has.

Ultimately Microsoft's costs are also going to be higher, because it has 23 studios (vs PlayStations 13) and more projects to pay for now, not to mention having to cover licensing costs for all the games on Game Pass (similar to PS with PS Now, only for a much larger number of subscribers).

Honestly, I'm glad they're going different directions. I get super high value proposition with Xbox, and I get those big constant tentpole SP exclusives with PlayStation. I'm quite content with the proposition provided by both at this point, and with Xbox it is a waiting game to see what all their new and recently acquired studios come up with (which most likely will consistent of multiple big tentpole SP exclusives of their own, hopefully).

 

[Nebuzel]

Honestly, I'm glad they're going different directions. I get super high value proposition with Xbox, and I get those big constant tentpole SP exclusives with PlayStation. I'm quite content with the proposition provided by both at this point, and with Xbox it is a waiting game to see what all their new and recently acquired studios come up with (which is most likely going to consistent of multiple big tentpole SP exclusives of their own, hopefully).

Click to shrink...

Your argument is is flawed. You are referencing PS4 and XBox One. You are looking back instead of looking forward. XBox Series consoles that launch without the stigma that the One had and actually have momentum, plus people interacting in the ecosystem on PC and mobile means that 50 million number will be quickly surpassed next generation. The XBox One had a totally different direction pre-launch. Remember, Microsoft's goal is to reach gamers outside that 170 million combined bubble that both PS3-360 and PS4-One hit. Microsoft isn't doing what they are doing so they can just sell 100 million consoles (even though that would be very good for them). They are trying to reach hundreds of millions of more gamers.

Look at Microsoft's announced exclusives already with The Initiative's third-person action adventure game, Avowed, Fable, Halo and more. This is ignoring the Bethesda titles. I'm not counting Hellblade 2 because the investment probably doesn't fit your criteria (but then again Days Gone shouldn't either). I'm not really seeing much of a difference when it comes to "tentpole" exclusives or the investments in them. Your reasoning is behind the curve.

 

[christocolus]

Your argument is is flawed. You are referencing PS4 and XBox One. You are looking back instead of looking forward. XBox Series consoles that launch without the stigma that the One had and actually have momentum, plus people interacting in the ecosystem on PC and mobile means that 50 million number will be quickly surpassed next generation. The XBox One had a totally different direction pre-launch.

Look at Microsoft's announced exclusives already with The Initiative's third-person action adventure game, Avowed, Fable, Halo and more. This is ignoring the Bethesda titles. I'm not counting Hellblade 2 because the investment probably doesn't fit your criteria (but then again Days Gone shouldn't either). I'm not really seeing much of a difference when it comes to "tentpole" exclusives or the investments in them. Your reasoning is behind the curve.

Click to shrink...

Well said.

 

[rokkerkory]

With 15m+ GP subscribers could mean 1.5B a year?

Ratchet that up to 40-50m subs and it is more than sustainable.

 

[nib95]

Your argument is is flawed. You are referencing PS4 and XBox One. You are looking back instead of looking forward. XBox Series consoles that launch without the stigma that the One had and actually have momentum, plus people interacting in the ecosystem on PC and mobile means that 50 million number will be quickly surpassed next generation. The XBox One had a totally different direction pre-launch. Remember, Microsoft's goal is to reach gamers outside that 170 million combined bubble that both PS3-360 and PS4-One hit. Microsoft isn't doing what they are doing so they can just sell 100 million consoles (even though that would be very good for them). They are trying to reach hundreds of millions of more gamers.

Look at Microsoft's announced exclusives already with The Initiative's third-person action adventure game, Avowed, Fable, Halo and more. This is ignoring the Bethesda titles. I'm not counting Hellblade 2 because the investment probably doesn't fit your criteria (but then again Days Gone shouldn't either). I'm not really seeing much of a difference when it comes to "tentpole" exclusives or the investments in them. Your reasoning is behind the curve.

Click to shrink...

It's not flawed, it's literally one of the few metrics of comparison we presently have, besides recent polls, social media metrics, pre-order rankings etc, which all ironically follow a similar trend.

It isn't like Game Pass hasn't been around for several years already either, during which it hasn't really made any real dent or turn around to Xbox's current-gen install base growth.

Ultimately I do believe that Xbox will eat into PlayStation's marketshare next-gen in a much bigger way, but I think that'll have more to do with Xbox's game content than it will purely Game Pass, though Game Pass will of course also be a key differentiating option and draw to countless consumers.

Also, total available or prospective install base and active consumers/install base are two entirely different things. There are over a billion PC gamers, but Microsoft's new push into PC gaming hasn't suddenly seen their revenue correlate to that extent, because ultimately only a tiny portion of that install base is going to be active consumers. It's the same reason console versions of big multi-platform releases from EA, Ubisoft etc still sell the lion's share of copies on consoles, not PC, despite PC gaming having orders of magnitude larger install base.

In the end, just because Xbox games are available on Mobile or PC, it doesn't mean active consumers in terms of install base, is suddenly going to dramatically change.

I'd imagine it'll be a similar thing with Cloud gaming on mobile, only further exasperated in terms of potential install base vs number of consumers that actually invest in the service.

 

[Arthands]

Well, that sucks for Playstation-only players. I'll be playing those 3rd party and MS 1st party on game pass, and reserves the PS5 only for their 1st party games when they are on discount then.

If he choose to sacrificing long term profit for short term benefit, then so be it.

 

[gremlinz1982]

It's not flawed, it's literally one of the few metrics of comparison we presently have, besides recent polls, social media metrics, pre-order rankings etc, which all ironically follow a similar trend.

It isn't like Game Pass hasn't been around for several years already either, during which it hasn't really made any real dent or turn around to Xbox's current-gen install base growth.

Ultimately I do believe that Xbox will eat into PlayStation's marketshare next-gen in a much bigger way, but I think that'll have more to do with Xbox's game content than it will purely Game Pass, though Game Pass will of course also be a key differentiating option and draw to countless consumers.

Also, total available or prospective install base and active consumers/install base are two entirely different things. There are over a billion PC gamers, but Microsoft's new push into PC gaming hasn't suddenly seen their revenue correlate to that extent, because ultimately only a tiny portion of that install base is going to be active consumers. It's the same reason console versions of big multi-platform releases from EA, Ubisoft etc still sell the lion's share of copies on consoles, not PC, despite PC gaming having orders of magnitude larger install base.

In the end, just because Xbox games are available on Mobile or PC, it doesn't mean active consumers in terms of install base, is suddenly going to dramatically change.

I'd imagine it'll be a similar thing with Cloud gaming on mobile, only further exasperated in terms of potential install base vs number of consumers that actually invest in the service.

Click to shrink...

Microsoft will have a number where they break even on Game Pass. However, Game Pass does not exist in isolation; you still have individual game sales and data from analysts, meaaaging from developers states that there are increased sales. Eventually, Microsoft will want to reduce what they pay to third parties for content by having the service dominated by their own content.

When the service hits critical mass, you will see Sony trying to make similar moves. Problem, like Disney is finding out is that Netflix already has huge content, consumer base and its own production. Microsoft's Game Pass play is a mid to long term play, Sony's strategy is simply more of the same until they are forced to pivot.

There was a time when you had to have VCR, or DVD system. A time when you had to have a cassette player or disc player in the house. Gaming is the last entertainment form still relies on hardware to move units, more so console. Whether people like it or not, services will be the platform and not hardware. Sony saw that when they invested in OnLive and Gaikai; Ubisoft, EA and even Bethesda were doing their own things when it came to launchers.

Microsoft's pivot to even put their games on Steam is to canvas as much of the market as possible. 5G only accelerates that, as does increasing game prices.

 

[Bruceleeroy]

Microsoft will have a number where they break even on Game Pass. However, Game Pass does not exist in isolation; you still have individual game sales and data from analysts, meaaaging from developers states that there are increased sales. Eventually, Microsoft will want to reduce what they pay to third parties for content by having the service dominated by their own content.

When the service hits critical mass, you will see Sony trying to make similar moves. Problem, like Disney is finding out is that Netflix already has huge content, consumer base and its own production. Microsoft's Game Pass play is a mid to long term play, Sony's strategy is simply more of the same until they are forced to pivot.

There was a time when you had to have VCR, or DVD system. A time when you had to have a cassette player or disc player in the house. Gaming is the last entertainment form still relies on hardware to move units, more so console. Whether people like it or not, services will be the platform and not hardware. Sony saw that when they invested in OnLive and Gaikai; Ubisoft, EA and even Bethesda were doing their own things when it came to launchers.

Microsoft's pivot to even put their games on Steam is to canvas as much of the market as possible. 5G only accelerates that, as does increasing game prices.

Click to shrink...

I agree with a lot of what you're saying except the Disney + comparison isn't applicable at all since Sony commands enough studios that if they decided to implement a game pass model it would be quite successful from the start

 

[gremlinz1982]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying except the Disney + comparison isn't applicable at all since Sony commands enough studios that if they decided to implement a game pass model it would be quite successful from the start

Click to shrink...

Sony is getting 2, sometimes three games out each year. A good subscription system relies on constant flow of content. Only Microsoft is set up for that as a publisher.

 

[mentok15]

Sony is getting 2, sometimes three games out each year. A good subscription system relies on constant flow of content. Only Microsoft is set up for that as a publisher.

Click to shrink...

Didn't they say they wanted something big every 3 months? To keep subs they will need more output than what Sony has traditionally done as not all big releases appeal to everyone. This is why they acquired Zenimax, they need a lot of exclusive ips.

 

[Bruceleeroy]

Sony is getting 2, sometimes three games out each year. A good subscription system relies on constant flow of content. Only Microsoft is set up for that as a publisher.

Click to shrink...

Wait are you pretending that Sony wouldn't be pushing 3rd party content as well? The biggest draw to game pass right now is the 3rd party titles not the 1st party. That will change for sure with XSX but don't act like GP is a huge success because Gears 5 launched with it

 

[TheCrackedJack]

Sony is getting 2, sometimes three games out each year. A good subscription system relies on constant flow of content. Only Microsoft is set up for that as a publisher.

Click to shrink...

Sony published games in 2020 (released + upcoming):
1. Dreams
2. Ghosts of Tsushima
3. MLB
4. Nioh 2 (Published by Sony outside of Asia)
5. Predator
6. TLOU Part II
7.Patapon 2 Remastered
8.Iron Man VR
9. Sackboy
10. Miles Morales
11. Demon Souls
12. Destruction All Stars
13. Spider-man Remastered

+ console exclusives like Final Fantasy 7 Remake as well. That's not 2, sometimes 3 games to me.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Sony is getting 2, sometimes three games out each year. A good subscription system relies on constant flow of content. Only Microsoft is set up for that as a publisher.

Click to shrink...

Sony has far more than 3 games releasing this year, what are you talking about? And they would still make 3rd party exclusive deals.

Edit: yeah lol per above. Wtf?

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

I'm not saying that a shift in policy isn't possible or even necessary as businesses evolve, but what does this say about how PlayStation views indies going forward?

Part of their 2013 communication was really embracing that indie wave with Adam Boyes — I felt like it stood in as a big part of how I perceived their "4 The Players" marketing movement, which feels like they've clearly moved beyond at this point.

Feels a lot to me like Microsoft has that covered with Game Pass in terms of actual user experience now, and I do notice that Microsoft will even feature more indie-style projects that don't quite match the AAA spectacle more frequently than Sony does nowadays. Even if it draws a decent amount of ire (that was a communication problem on Microsoft's behalf), like the most recent third-party presentation around proper E3 time.

 

[KeRaSh]

I've found myself playing and enjoying games on GamePass that i would never even have considered buying. There is an element of discoverability to it as well.

Click to shrink...

As a new dad, I barely have enough time to play the games I know I want to play. If I had more time to play it might be a different story, though.

 

[12Danny123]

I'm not saying that a shift in policy isn't possible or even necessary as businesses evolve, but what does this say about how PlayStation views indies going forward?

Part of their 2013 communication was really embracing that indie wave with Adam Boyes — I felt like it stood in as a big part of how I perceived their "4 The Players" marketing movement, which feels like they've clearly moved beyond at this point.

Feels a lot to me like Microsoft has that covered with Game Pass in terms of actual user experience now, and I do notice that Microsoft will even feature more indie-style projects that don't quite match the AAA spectacle more frequently than Sony does nowadays. Even if it draws a decent amount of ire (that was a communication problem on Microsoft's behalf), like the most recent third-party presentation around proper E3 time.

Click to shrink...

To me it seems like indies are flocking towards Xbox over PS nowadays. There hasn't been much indie marketing over at PS or much indie releases. If you want indies, you're better off with Switch and Xbox.

 

[LilScooby77]

If gamepass ends up successful enough there's not doubt they'll start charging $70 for first parties... and then down the line you'll get them on gamepass 3-6 months later. Kinda obvious that's where this is all headed to.

Click to shrink...

Nope.

 

[aspiring]

To me it seems like indies are flocking towards Xbox over PS nowadays. There hasn't been much indie marketing over at PS or much indie releases. If you want indies, you're better off with Switch and Xbox.

Click to shrink...

they literally just had one of the biggest indies in years release exclusive on the system in fall guys. Also they showcased plenty of indies coming to PS4/5 during their recent showcases.

 

[cmdrshepard]

All the people in the thread earlier screaming that PS Now is basically Game Pass minus the Day 1 first party content are just wrong. Firstly, PS Now still has not launched in the majority of markets (including some big ones), already significantly stifling it's potential and while they still have games locked to streaming (i know they now offer downloads but not for all titles), i don't see them expanding their territory signifacntly by launching into markets where internet speeds are just not there yet. Secondly, their first party content seems to be MIA on that service and one of the values of GP is that there is permanece in their first party titles on the service (unless due to delisting due to licencing etc like Forza) and that new players coming into the ecosystem can already sample most of MS's first party output from this generation and some select titles from the 360/OG era. Sony are at least introducing the PS+ Collection to allievate this somewhat but we don't know whether that collection of titles is permanent or rotating.

 

[gremlinz1982]

Didn't they say they wanted something big every 3 months? To keep subs they will need more output than what Sony has traditionally done as not all big releases appeal to everyone. This is why they acquired Zenimax, they need a lot of exclusive ips.

Click to shrink...

Something big ebery three months. But Matt Booty also stated that the big franchises, much like Stranger Things keep people subscribed while smaller content much like AA titles would keep subscribers occupied until something big came around.

To this end, Microsoft is not done with acquisitions, or studio expansions.

Wait are you pretending that Sony wouldn't be pushing 3rd party content as well? The biggest draw to game pass right now is the 3rd party titles not the 1st party. That will change for sure with XSX but don't act like GP is a huge success because Gears 5 launched with it

Click to shrink...

What differentiates the services is what is exclusive. Why subscribe to CBS (might be Star Trek), Disney+ (might be Star Wars stuff), Netflix (Stranger Thing, Umbrella Academy et al).

Everyone willing to pay would have access to 3rd party stuff. So what sets you apart? How often is that content coming out?

Also, what makes Game Pass appealing is content coming in day and date more than anything else.

Sony published games in 2020 (released + upcoming):
1. Dreams
2. Ghosts of Tsushima
3. MLB
4. Nioh 2 (Published by Sony outside of Asia)
5. Predator
6. TLOU Part II
7.Patapon 2 Remastered
8.Iron Man VR
9. Sackboy
10. Miles Morales
11. Demon Souls
12. Destruction All Stars
13. Spider-man Remastered

+ console exclusives like Final Fantasy 7 Remake as well. That's not 2, sometimes 3 games to me.

Click to shrink...

And once 2021 is done, Guerilla, Insomniac, SSM, Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog and Media Molecule would have all released games within a 2 year period.

This is Sony's top tier. What comes after that? A quality subscription service is about constant releases, varied releases.

You still counting? And Sony always finished a generation strong to maximize revenue, last time it meant remasters early into the next generation few exclusives. Same will happen.

 

[Eeyore]

To me it seems like indies are flocking towards Xbox over PS nowadays. There hasn't been much indie marketing over at PS or much indie releases. If you want indies, you're better off with Switch and Xbox.

Click to shrink...

Switch I think clearly is ahead of the other two. Hades is one of the best games of the year.

I can't evaluate indies in this way because I'm hopeful that being advertised by any of these companies means they get more exposure and are more successful. Shouldn't be used solely as a means of a zero sum argument since each manufacturer has had indie successes over the years.

 

[behOemoth]

Switch I think clearly is ahead of the other two. Hades is one of the best games of the year.

Click to shrink...

So is Spelunky 2? And big indie names like superbrothers & giant squid are also go for the PlayStation first.

 

[nib95]

Something big ebery three months. But Matt Booty also stated that the big franchises, much like Stranger Things keep people subscribed while smaller content much like AA titles would keep subscribers occupied until something big came around.

To this end, Microsoft is not done with acquisitions, or studio expansions.


What differentiates the services is what is exclusive. Why subscribe to CBS (might be Star Trek), Disney+ (might be Star Wars stuff), Netflix (Stranger Thing, Umbrella Academy et al).

Everyone willing to pay would have access to 3rd party stuff. So what sets you apart? How often is that content coming out?

Also, what makes Game Pass appealing is content coming in day and date more than anything else.
And once 2021 is done, Guerilla, Insomniac, SSM, Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog and Media Molecule would have all released games within a 2 year period.

This is Sony's top tier. What comes after that? A quality subscription service is about constant releases, varied releases.

You still counting? And Sony always finished a generation strong to maximize revenue, last time it meant remasters early into the next generation few exclusives. Same will happen.

Click to shrink...

Are you waiting to subscribe to Game Pass till Microsoft has a similar volume of first party releases? Which is looking like it'll probably take till 2022 and beyond. Or are you already subscribed?

That is your answer.

Were Sony to offer such a service, similar to Microsoft they would have third party games amongst all the first party stuff, not a world removed from what they already do with PS Now and PS+, only presumably with some newer titles.

I do think a PlayStation version of Game Pass (inc day and date 1st party content) would ultimately have much faster growth than Game Pass has seen, because ultimately Sony has those tentpole first party exclusives that have greater demand from consumers, enough that tens of millions are already actually buying them.

That staple of exclusives is a large part of why they're so dominant this gen even without Game Pass, now imagine they offered all those highly sought after games but for cheaper under a subscription service....

Alas, it's not something they're going to do any time soon, not when they're as successful as they are in the current strategy.

 

[Liliana]

I hope u are right must because of Bethesda, Arkhane, Tango and ID. Let's see how many of these studios will still be making only sp games with no gaas elements, coop or any other online element, besides obvious online franchises. Let's see how many game stays pure sp experiences.

Click to shrink...

I can't believe this FUD is still posted. I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to you since you usually drive-by troll and never respond to the dozens of people calling you out, but I'm really curious and maybe you'll actually respond this one time.

• Do you realize that the overwhelmingly vast majority of XGP titles are non-GaaS?
• Are you aware that Phil Spencer stated they will not interfere with how Bethesda makes their games and are letting them continue to do what made them so successful in the first place?
• How do you think GaaS fits in with mainline The Elder Scrolls titles? The Evil Within? Dishonered? Prey? Wolfenstein?

I mean, now you're combining GaaS with "online elements." So, Doom had multiplayer since 2016. I could swear I remember leaderboards in the original Dishonered last gen (could be wrong here). Etc., etc.

• Would comparing stats to your friends diminish a SP game, to you?

You would think this inherently false narrative about GaaS and XGP (not only talking about you with this sentence, but in general around Era) would've dissipated by now, but that's asking too much for certain people.

 

[More Butter]

Are you waiting to subscribe to Game Pass till Microsoft has a similar volume of first party releases? Which is looking like it'll probably take till 2022 and beyond. Or are you already subscribed?

That is your answer.

Were Sony to offer such a service, similar to Microsoft they would have third party games amongst all the first party stuff, not a world removed from what they already do with PS Now and PS+, only presumably with some newer titles.

I do think a PlayStation version of Game Pass (inc day and date 1st party content) would ultimately have much faster growth than Game Pass has seen, because ultimately Sony has those tentpole first party exclusives that have greater demand from consumers, enough that tens of millions are already actually buying them.

That staple of exclusives is a large part of why they're so dominant this gen even without Game Pass, now imagine they offered all those highly sought after games but for cheaper under a subscription service....

Alas, it's not something they're going to do any time soon, not when they're as successful as they are in the current strategy.

Click to shrink...

Yes and Sony is the market leader. I think Sony should offer a similar service now because it's going to get harder to compete over time. I'm not saying Sony is doomed, that's not what I mean. MS are throwing around their weight right now and the service will be a snowball for content and will blow up with subscribers. 5 to 10 years and this looks very different. Also, there is the question of whether Sony can responsibly make an in investment in a service like Gamepass. It seems like it's a pretty big commitment up front.

 

[Jegriva]

I'm glad that 80 euro for Europe does make financial sense for you, Jim.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Jegriva]

Aside from Forza , what else is there? Hellblade 2 is the first 1st party output of Ninja Theory so that is still unproven. Fable reboot is a long ways off. I'm talking about expensive AAA games. They have cool AA ones liek state of decay and ori

Click to shrink...

Gears 5, Flight Simulator 2020.

 

[Iwao]

And once 2021 is done, Guerilla, Insomniac, SSM, Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog and Media Molecule would have all released games within a 2 year period.

This is Sony's top tier. What comes after that? A quality subscription service is about constant releases, varied releases.

You still counting? And Sony always finished a generation strong to maximize revenue, last time it meant remasters early into the next generation few exclusives. Same will happen.

Click to shrink...

"God of War sequel won't be here til 2023", they said.

You can't know what they have planned, just like most people didn't expect the PS5's first year to be singing like it is, so this is all excuses.

 

[Bold One]

Microsoft can afford to have far lower profit margins or even operate at a loss because gaming isn't their main source of profits.

So yes, they can probably create AAA blockbusters and safely make far less money and not have it affect them one tiny iota.

Hell the whole Xbox brand could crater non stop financially and they'll still be top of the pack in terms of overall business revenue from things like windows.

Sony couldn't take those kind of losses though, their gaming division is too valuable.

Click to shrink...

This.

Sony, as a parent company can not eat the costs Microsoft can.

 

[Bosch]

I can't believe this FUD is still posted. I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to you since you usually drive-by troll and never respond to the dozens of people calling you out, but I'm really curious and maybe you'll actually respond this one time.

• Do you realize that the overwhelmingly vast majority of XGP titles are non-GaaS?
• Are you aware that Phil Spencer stated they will not interfere with how Bethesda makes their games and are letting them continue to do what made them so successful in the first place?
• How do you think GaaS fits in with mainline The Elder Scrolls titles? The Evil Within? Dishonered? Prey? Wolfenstein?

I mean, now you're combining GaaS with "online elements." So, Doom had multiplayer since 2016. I could swear I remember leaderboards in the original Dishonered last gen (could be wrong here). Etc., etc.

• Would comparing stats to your friends diminish a SP game, to you?

You would think this inherently false narrative about GaaS and XGP (not only talking about you with this sentence, but in general around Era) would've dissipated by now, but that's asking too much for certain people.

Click to shrink...

First I will not be debating with brand fans. It is not a troll it is a opinion. Since I'm aware the only game from MS only sp is Ori. I didn't say they will be gaas, I said any online unnecessary online. Like a coop on Dishonered. Or on a Evil within game.

I know xbox fans prefer games with online elements. But since they are buying sp only studios I hope they preserve this state for these games.

It is just opinion. I'm not trolling. I'm 90% a single player guy. I don't like coop on story driven games so I would prefer if these games stay like that. In general gaas games I don't enjoy.

 

[idioteque]

If GamePass was just an Xbox thing then I'm not sure it would be profitable (I have no proof of this, pure speculation). However, the fact that it's also available to PC gamers is huge. When Bethesda's content starts hitting Game Pass then the PC userbase will increase dramatically.

 

[Indy_Rex]

All evidence points to the opposite so far.

InXile, Obsidian, Double Fine and Compulsion Games had to crowd fund their latest games.

Obsidian, InXile and Compulsion Games are now all making AAA games.

Double Fine has been given more funding to add bosses, and levels they had to cut from Psychonauts 2 due to budget constraints.

InXile and Ninja Theory just got all new offices to further expand their team sizes.

Playground Games has gone from a one team studio to a 2 team studio with each making AAA games.

There is now more incentive than ever to make bigger budget games. Look at the streaming wars going on in Television right now. Game of Thrones was the king because of the show's spectacle.

Big games are going to draw people to the service and big games will keep people subscribed.

Click to shrink...

This isn't necessarily a reply to you Shellshock, but just an observation.

Are Xbox fans really expecting Compulsion games to be putting out AAA games when they've literally put out 2 games in the last 10 years and both have been, let's just say, "sub-par" to be generous.

Compulsion being bought out to me looked more like MS throwing them a bone so they could become Microsoft's equivalent to a contract-work studio that serves as back-up to the major ones.

 

[NoWayOut]

Well, that sucks for Playstation-only players. I'll be playing those 3rd party and MS 1st party on game pass, and reserves the PS5 only for their 1st party games when they are on discount then.

If he choose to sacrificing long term profit for short term benefit, then so be it.

Click to shrink...

That's exactly my plan as well. I will be very selective with my day one purchases for PS5, more so than I was in the past. Between my backlog (which will probably get a nice performance boost with BC) and Game Pass on the XSX, I will be more than happy to wait for a sale for most of PS5 exclusives. Demon's Souls will be the first exception.

 

[Cyclonesweep]

First I will not be debating with brand fans. It is not a troll it is a opinion. Since I'm aware the only game from MS only sp is Ori. I didn't say they will be gaas, I said any online unnecessary online. Like a coop on Dishonered. Or on a Evil within game.

I know xbox fans prefer games with online elements. But since they are buying sp only studios I hope they preserve this state for these games.

It is just opinion. I'm not trolling. I'm 90% a single player guy. I don't like coop on story driven games so I would prefer if these games stay like that. In general gaas games I don't enjoy.

Click to shrink...

Games have had "unnecessary" multiplayer for ever. Often it's just tacked on.

Ori is single player, Wasteland 3 is single player game. Microsoft has yet to force any studio to add online play. It's there in games that make sense but I've yet to see them force it on any game or studio they have

 

[Scottoest]

This isn't necessarily a reply to you Shellshock, but just an observation.

Are Xbox fans really expecting Compulsion games to be putting out AAA games when they've literally put out 2 games in the last 10 years and both have been, let's just say, "sub-par" to be generous.

Compulsion being bought out to me looked more like MS throwing them a bone so they could become Microsoft's equivalent to a contract-work studio that serves as back-up to the major ones.

Click to shrink...

I don't expect Compulsion to be making "triple-A" budgeted games (not sure where Shellshock got that), but their acquisition was more than MS throwing them a bone. Compulsion have been increasing their studio size for their new project.

We Happy Few, while an underwhelming actual game (IMHO), had a terrific artistic vision and world, which was what interested people about it in the first place. It was vaguely Bioshock-esque in tone and setting.

If they can manage to craft a game with a satisfying gameplay experience, I think they'll be seen as a dark horse gem of a pickup for Microsoft in the future, because they have an eye for striking design.

 

[Mr_F_Snowman]

Games have had "unnecessary" multiplayer for ever. Often it's just tacked on.

Ori is single player, Wasteland 3 is single player game. Microsoft has yet to force any studio to add online play. It's there in games that make sense but I've yet to see them force it on any game or studio they have

Click to shrink...

If anything Sony already did this. Uncharted added multiplayer. Last of us added multiplayer. Ghosts is adding multiplayer..... These are all story driven narrative games so seems weird to worry about MS doing this lol

 

[Tankard]

At least this one one thing that came out of his mouth that i can agree with.

 

[EdgeXL]

I feel that Jim Ryan is not being completely honest here. It is not like Sony would be forced into an either/or situation here. They can still sell their games AND have a subscription service at the same time with all of their new releases. Microsoft does it exactly this way.

We have also seen Microsoft executives state multiple times that Game Pass subscribers tend to buy more game - meaning Microsoft gets their cut of those sales. We have also seen instances of games like Sea of Thieves which actually exceeded sales expectations despite launching on Game Pass. I believe this is due to Game Pass increasing visibility for titles on the service.

I believe Jim Ryan is smart enough to at least consider these points therefore I assume this is another case of Sony pretending not to be interested in something only to do it themselves later

 

[KingParappa]

If Microsoft end up with 100M Game Pass subscribers, they'll be raking in far more cash than Sony's model and will have significantly more to spend on bringing AAA blockbusters to the service.

Click to shrink...

This is true but in the mean time, they bleed money. MS can afford to wait and gather slowly, I don't think Sony can.

 

[Drelkag]

His statement comes off as both dismissive/defensive. There's a lot of big budget games that come to subscription services (factoring in Game Pass/EA Access, Uplay +, etc).

IMO comes down to Sony not being in a great financial position to take a bit of a hit until the growth of these services are enough to make up the cost. If they had a fraction of the money to throw around like Microsoft they'd jump on it.

 

[EdgeXL]

Ironically, Sony would actually get more revenue out of me if they went with a subscription model. I will buy a PS5 mid-gen refresh (Slim or Pro model) on a Black Friday sale with a game or two thrown in. I will then buy a few Sony exclusives on sale for $10 or less. I am not a very profitable customer for Sony under their business model.

But if I subscribe and keep that active then Sony will see more consistent revenue out of me

 

[Hasi]

First I will not be debating with brand fans. It is not a troll it is a opinion. Since I'm aware the only game from MS only sp is Ori. I didn't say they will be gaas, I said any online unnecessary online. Like a coop on Dishonered. Or on a Evil within game.

I know xbox fans prefer games with online elements. But since they are buying sp only studios I hope they preserve this state for these games.

It is just opinion. I'm not trolling. I'm 90% a single player guy. I don't like coop on story driven games so I would prefer if these games stay like that. In general gaas games I don't enjoy.

Click to shrink...

This is not a Microsoft thing. Games have been adding online modes like that for a decade, primarily to ensure long-term engagement and combat used game sales. If anything, Game Pass will work against this, because it inherently counters the worry of used games.

And I don't think it's necessarily the case that they will do the same to ensure long-term subscription. Look at Netflix, it's not like they started making extra long seasons or stringing them out over long periods to keep people subscribed. In fact, that's how TV used to work, and instead Netflix has been focusing their originals on shorter "prestige" seasons and releasing them all at once. It seems counter-intuitive but I think the thinking here is that the buzz generated by high quality releases draws people in and keeps them subscribing better than baking a "catch" into the content or release model.

Similarly, games won't need to add in DLC or MTX any more than they have until now, because GP offers an alternative monetization model. Maybe third party games will, but for MS it makes more sense to focus on quality.

 

[Adrifi]

I hope u are right must because of Bethesda, Arkhane, Tango and ID. Let's see how many of these studios will still be making only sp games with no gaas elements, coop or any other online element, besides obvious online franchises. Let's see how many game stays pure sp experiences.

Click to shrink...

Most of them will be. I already explained to you why it does not make sense to add GAAS elements to Game Pass games and you still haven't replied, after saying that it doesn't make sense to add single player games to the service (without explaining why at all): https://www.resetera.com/threads/di...-and-therefore-consumers.283856/post-44908976

 

[Bosch]

This is not a Microsoft thing. Games have been adding online modes like that for a decade, primarily to ensure long-term engagement and combat used game sales. If anything, Game Pass will work against this, because it inherently counters the worry of used games.

And I don't think it's necessarily the case that they will do the same to ensure long-term subscription. Look at Netflix, it's not like they started making extra long seasons or stringing them out over long periods to keep people subscribed. In fact, that's how TV used to work, and instead Netflix has been focusing their originals on shorter "prestige" seasons and releasing them all at once. It seems counter-intuitive but I think the thinking here is that the buzz generated by high quality releases draws people in and keeps them subscribing better than baking a "catch" into the content or release model.

Similarly, games won't need to add in DLC or MTX any more than they have until now, because GP offers an alternative monetization model. Maybe third party games will, but for MS it makes more sense to focus on quality.

Click to shrink...

I agree with u and I will be glad if Microsoft invests heavy on sp only games. If they want to attract other audiences to their consoles this is a must.
Like I said what I hope for this acquisition is that they let these studios do what they do best: sp games.

 

[aceldama]

With 15m+ GP subscribers could mean 1.5B a year?

Ratchet that up to 40-50m subs and it is more than sustainable.

Click to shrink...

Because increasing your subscriber count 3x is so straightforward.

 

[ResoRai]

He's saying this because they finacianlly can't do both. MS can, that's it really.

It took too long for MS to establish it's studios, but if it's AAA single player games down the road turn out to be great, then this whole "gamepass destroys single player games" narrative won't matter.

Likewise as long as Sony keeps putting out high quality games, it won't really matter because people will still come to them to play games they can't get on Xbox.

 

[Bosch]

Most of them will be. I already explained to you why it does not make sense to add GAAS elements to Game Pass games and you still haven't replied, after saying that it doesn't make sense to add single player games to the service (without explaining why at all): https://www.resetera.com/threads/di...-and-therefore-consumers.283856/post-44908976

Click to shrink...

When I look to ms portfolio before Bethesda most of their games have some kind of online elements. I hope u are right and they let these studios have their vision on their games.

Like Obsidian I don't want they wasting resources creating something like Grounded. Grounded is all I don't want from a rpg studio.

I'm subscribed to gamepass and I really want MS investing heavy on pure sp games.