To be fair I could be off, I thought there was a thread here recently that stated that PSNow subscriptions were higher than others. If I'm wrong that's fair. I still stand by PSNow being a success though.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Regarding PC, Sony should do a late-release strategy
- Thread starter laziboi
- Start date
Why? Just because a game you like isn't on your piece of plastic? Don't tell me or others what to think. I know what I like and don't like, and I and others see nothing wrong with exclusives in platform-based business models.
That poll is too fundamentally flawed to be useful. It's missing the very basic option "No, I wasn't going to buy a PS5 regardless". PC-only gamers, or PC+Nintendo players can't vote on it.
Not to say that they're definitive numbers, but Ars Technica posted this article a month ago. Here's an excerpt from the article:
Note that they DID correct the number at some point, and even then it's nowhere close to Game Pass.
Feel free to post other sources if you have them, but the fact that Sony isn't exactly shouting its PlayStation Now numbers from the rooftops probably says something.
I would obviously prefer delayed PC releases to none at all (I would rebuy Bloodborne in a heartbeat should it ever hit PC), but simultaneous releases with PC would be the best possible scenario "for the players."
I don't think such a strategy would significantly hurt console sales. Only core gamers purchase consoles for exclusives; most casual players would still purchase consoles for their ease of use and lower price tag. I also think it would ultimately benefit Sony's bottom line as their margins are higher on software than hardware anyway, and PC has a massive user base.
If Sony were serious about publishing on PC and maintaining their margins, they could always develop their own launcher/storefront, and release titles on it simultaneously with PlayStation. Then have delayed releases for third party storefronts like Steam or EGS. I mean, I'd prefer day one releases on Steam, but this could be a viable strategy for Sony and Nintendo, and their presence in the PC space would be huge for player choice and game preservation.
I don't think such a strategy would significantly hurt console sales. Only core gamers purchase consoles for exclusives; most casual players would still purchase consoles for their ease of use and lower price tag. I also think it would ultimately benefit Sony's bottom line as their margins are higher on software than hardware anyway, and PC has a massive user base.
If Sony were serious about publishing on PC and maintaining their margins, they could always develop their own launcher/storefront, and release titles on it simultaneously with PlayStation. Then have delayed releases for third party storefronts like Steam or EGS. I mean, I'd prefer day one releases on Steam, but this could be a viable strategy for Sony and Nintendo, and their presence in the PC space would be huge for player choice and game preservation.
Does it really matter? You don't have to be a business man to want a good business strategy. Because having a good business strategy is what will benifit me as a consumer.
Sony said they have 1M, so they are shoutin, i just trying to know were is the 10M gamepasd
Do you work for Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo? I'm assuming no. If no, why as a consumer do you want a business model that doesn't give consumers more options? It doesn't make sense, unless you are just a fanboy and rooting for one over the other.
I think it matters greatly as it seems like you're just talking out of your ass about business strategy across several posts as the words "business strategy" are not defined as one's hunch about the decisions made by his preferred console maker.
Because Sony has a platform to sell, and they aren't going to do that by undermining most of their games with simultaneous PC releases. Having more options is good in some instances, such as with multiplayer games. But you need to lock some things down to convince people your platform has any worth.
What I mean is that Sony is and should be doing things that benefit them and their model, in addition to consumers. They clearly benefit from having most of their games PlayStation exclusive, so there's no need to put most of them on PC day and date.
If they release day and date with PC how does it impact you? If Sony sells 96 million Ps5's instead of a 100, what does it matter? It's still a ridiculous amount of consoles pushed.
You're not really about a good business strategy. You're simply about a plastic box that you bought being the only way to experience PlayStation games.
I'm sure as hell not buying another console if they release everything on PC tbh. Delayed releases for some games is probably the best we're going to get.
No. I said before that I don't mind PlayStation transitioning to a software based platform. But at the end of the day, it's still a platform. So it needs games you can only get on PlayStation as a platform. Netflix isn't bound by any piece of hardware, yet it has exclusive content as a software based platform.
You already got a PlayStation and will get the games. A simultaneous PC release wont change this. People who play on PS will get it on PS, and the same for PC.
I don't see the point in such a strategy from Sony POV. If you delay too long, then maybe their interest runs out, hype died down, and sales will be low.
If you make same day release, you kneecap your own console and lose sales on units because anyone with a beefy PC has no need for your console.
I don't expect a change in exclusivity strategy going forward.
If you make same day release, you kneecap your own console and lose sales on units because anyone with a beefy PC has no need for your console.
I don't expect a change in exclusivity strategy going forward.
You say that like it's a bad thing that you wouldn't have to buy another box. It would be good for you, maybe not as good for Sony.
It doesn't have to transition to a software based platform. The PlayStation platform can go beyond just a console, and remain a PlayStation platform.
You make wider availability of games sound like a bad thing somehow
Kinda depends on economic models (long tail which focuses on concentration at an end https://spreadablemedia.org/essays/edery/ vs. the more recent stegosaurus tail theory which is spikier and focused on flash sales https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Lar...l_when_quotThe_Long_Tailquot_grows_spikes.php ) but from a third-party perspective exclusives don't make sense, and from a first-party perspective they're continuing to make less sense. The purpose is to drive sales of those plastic boxes, but it's less and less possible when fewer and fewer developers are willing to do it, meaning the only option you have is in-house. And there's a real limit to what you can make when you can at best get a handful of developers to develop for you and the box you want to sell.
The real reason exclusives are on the decline is because it limits potential sales elsewhere. Those "spikes" in the other model are facilitated by platforms that can promote to a wider audience over time, whereas the drop-off rate for smaller platforms is... well, hard would be an understatement. It's simply really difficult to have a "big" success on a console that doesn't offer much that differentiates it from a controller on a box you already own (i.e., a PC). The Nintendo Switch, and really most Nintendo platforms, stand out because they have focused on their toy-like dimension, intentionally designing for use with unique controls and displays.
There's also probably the upper limit of tech that's approaching as well, but that's a different discussion.
The real reason exclusives are on the decline is because it limits potential sales elsewhere. Those "spikes" in the other model are facilitated by platforms that can promote to a wider audience over time, whereas the drop-off rate for smaller platforms is... well, hard would be an understatement. It's simply really difficult to have a "big" success on a console that doesn't offer much that differentiates it from a controller on a box you already own (i.e., a PC). The Nintendo Switch, and really most Nintendo platforms, stand out because they have focused on their toy-like dimension, intentionally designing for use with unique controls and displays.
There's also probably the upper limit of tech that's approaching as well, but that's a different discussion.
Last edited:
I feel like the crux of this thread OP and the reason so many people dispute your suggestion is the following.
As a consumer you benefit from good games. Nothing else.
If Sony could survive forever giving their games away for free, you shouldn't offer to pay them money. It's an extreme example but to relate it to a prior point.
If Sony could give you their exclusives on PC (where you want them) right now, why ask for them a couple of years after release?
PC gamers that wont buy a PS5 because of exclusives coming to PC are of no value to Sony, especially if they'll be selling the PS5 at cost/loss. All those PC gamers will just buy a PS5, play some exclusives and then either let it collect dust or sell it, while buying all their multiplats on PC. Sony can get must more value out of them by just simply selling their games to them directly on PC.
The problem is that this doesn't really help Sony in the long run, nor is there any evidence that what your suggesting will be the case. It may work for Microsoft, but for Sony, it simply doesn't.
It's not anti-consumer.
Which is exactly what a software-based platform is.
It's bad when you need to sell a platform. Expanding PlayStation as a platform is one thing, but by not giving people any reason to buy into it then you're just handicaping yourself.
I mean, Many of Sony's games have sold 10 million copies by being exclusive to PS4 alone. So I don't think Sony has to worry.
Well, if they're selling the systems at a cost or loss, then they almost assuredly shouldn't be selling PS5 to begin with. Doing this tends to dig really deep holes which can take years, in some cases, to dig out of (if they ever do). This was one of Twitter's biggest problems https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/tech/twitter-earnings-q4/index.html .
I have no problem with PC gamers also getting FP Sony titles. I would not support this decision if releasing simultaneously on PC means delaying the PS5 release in order to iron out compatibility and performance, however.
Would you rather Sony use resources for such an effort or move onto the next title to make the platform more compelling?
Would you rather Sony use resources for such an effort or move onto the next title to make the platform more compelling?
Aren't we all consumers here? There are arguments why one would want games to be focused on one platform. One is quality. All San Diego studio had to focus on is one platform and made an outstanding product cause of it. Now they're going to make The Show for Xbox one, Scarlett, Switch, PC, PS4 and PS5 and mobile. I don't doubt their skill to do it, but it's an argument.
It don't have to be "fanboyism" every time someone disagrees with a multi platform strategy.
Me myself love The Show and am a fan of Sony games (and Nintendo and Xbox games) and very happy that this game will sell better from now on. But I don't want the quality of these games spread thin to where it obstructs the experience. I'll get each console for their whole experience.
Just my take on it. I also think a 1 year or more delayed strategy is good to release their games on PC. I mean the whole purpose is extra sales right? Give it to em, but make em wait. They want to play day 1 get a PS5. That's fair I think.
So you just choose to ignore the fact that they can keep selling Playstations?
None of these arguments are about caring about Sony's business. Let's be real.
They can sell PlayStation as a platform. Which includes PS5, PS Now, and perhaps a PS PC launcher if they want to. But they need exclusives that can sell the whole ecosystem.
*Sighs*
We might as well just wrap this thread up, I don't think any useful discourse will come of it.
I'd say that's entirely possible, but I do find Sony's own earnings reports and record-keeping to be a bit suspect.
Like, they said they've sold https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/30/sony-earnings-ps4-console-sales/ 100 million units, which fine, great, but they've also said they have 94 million active PSN accounts too? https://www.statista.com/statistics/272639/number-of-registered-accounts-of-playstation-network/ Like, even though PSN is just a distribution platform I would expect most of the people signing up for the service are doing so to connect their PS4 systems - so... that's a bit hard to believe? I dunno - regardless, the earnings for their games division was down while their movie division was the big winner this year. Even if I'm being generous I'd say that their video games aren't what's keeping Sony's lights on these days.
From a business perspective, spending lots of money on vanity first-party titles makes a lot less sense.
I guess this would be a bad thing if I were a major shareholder in Sony, sure
Only thing this would preserve is fanboy arguments.
There's no reason to delay a games release on other platform other than to try to sell consoles.
There's no reason to delay a games release on other platform other than to try to sell consoles.
Bottom line. You have a platform, you need people to buy into that platform. Ergo, you need exclusive content to get people to use that platform and buy from it. How is that a difficult concept to grasp?
Which is what they should be doing.
Well it would change it by at least 700 https://www.resetera.com/threads/if...-your-decision-of-getting-a-ps5.158247/page-2
Exclusives work.
You are aware that 94/100 is indeed "most"? That's 6% of their customers haven't registered an account.
I guess? Even then if we're going to talk from the company's perspective we can also just have them get by on price, i.e., selling the hardware cheaper. Self-produced content is there, I'd argue, to make the console a loss leader anyway, whereas games distribution is cheap enough any sales past the development cost are pretty much pure profit. Like that's the whole reason these systems are cheaper than comparable PCs at least at time of launch.
And what would be the "successful" thing to be copied in this case ?
PSN accounts include PS3 and Vita, and it's more likely that the continued increase is from multiple PSN accounts per device (i.e. multiple family members of one household).
I'd say marketing is what sells platforms, especially in today's market.
The fact that only two of the best-selling exclusives are on the top 10 best-selling games (and the best-selling games all look very alike on both platforms), mostly illustrates that what sells consoles has a lot less to do with exclusivity than it did in the past. Those games might be tentpole releases, but they're a) not what's making money for the platform owner, and b) continuing to be less important (and profitable) than in the past. I think ten years ago I would have agreed with your statement, but it's becoming less true as time goes on.
I'm aware, but even then that's still hard to believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles
Steam has a billion accounts but only 90 million active users each month https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/steam-one-billion-accounts-1203201159/ . I have a hard time seeing how PSN has that many active users (unless it's using a very creative way of determining "active"). Even if we're being really generous, with roughly 200 million devices for PSN, 94 million active accounts, would be close to 50% of the userbase. Which again, I have a hard time believing.
Last edited: