-
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.
- Status
I don't think they're considering the users who will go with Xbox as their main console or ecosystem because of Game Pass. Sure, they might make less money per user without game sales but they will also have less users. It's kind of like selling the console at a loss.
They didn't sell because they barely had a first party at the time. You gotta release stuff to get sales. I really cannot parse what you're saying in your 2nd paragraph.
Wait, why are you bringing up a person that borrows a game from a friend as that being a person that will definitely want to pay a sub price? If they already don't buy a game even when it's been reduced, why would you think they would sub for a game?
This seems very short-sighted in some respects. I understand the problem they face with production costs being high for their experiences but they are pigeonholing themselves into a corner. What if xbox studios start releasing games that are bigger budget and more impressive than Sony + are not just $70 purchases, can they still fall back on the "premium experience" moniker. I see them pivoting to day 1 once their service hits a certain number of Subs or they start to see a drop in customers prepared to buy their 70 dollar games.
You do realise how this reads, right? Increased user numbers that lead to increased micro transactions spend. That does nothing for single player games, and that was always the worry.
Well, I can't say much about PS games because I only have a switch, Xbox and mobile. But isn't this already the new normal? Would it change that much? That's an honest question, ok?
Yeah, I know that Sony CFO knows more about Sony numbers and strategy better than any of us. Thank you for reminding me.
But I also know that CFO, CEO, or any C-level professional are going to say things that preserve one thing: profit. And if you look at Sony's profits, you'll see that they have a lot of it. So, as I've said, I think it's bullshit.
They (all of those big game corporations) are selling you 70 USD games (Nintendo 60USD) and are also selling you MTX, day one DLCs, etc. This already (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not checking these numbers right now, just using some of my memory here) represents most of PS revenue. Full games sales are becoming less and less relevant in the big picture each day and I don't think anything can revert that now. Even Nintendo is trying this new model (at some level) with NSO.
Oh, and about Netflix and Spotify: completely different. Spotify doesn't make music. It's just a store. You have tons of apps out there that can do the same thing. Netflix, on the other hand, produces its own series and movies (and it did wonders for them). But I still think it's very different. See, if want to play Uncharted, you can only play on PS platform. Look at Nintendo, they rocking with Mario and Zelda for how long? Decades. I can think of very few series or movies that saw this kind of attachment over time. Games are a different experience, more intimate, more interactive, and I believe that's why people usually stick to one console. But that's just my opinion.
And by the way, I don't think stock prices are the best way to define the way things really are. Yeah, Netflix expects to lose 2 million clients, but damn, the whole fucking world is their client. Boooom. Stocks down, Netflix is doomed.
It's really difficult for people to understand that MSFT's strategy has been implemented nicely.
100% of the people attendending to the GDC knows that percentages and ratios without scales and volumes means nothing.
Just because it works better for them (i.e. is projected to make them more money this way) doesn't mean that they can ONLY make AAA games if they charge you $70 per game.
Let's not pretend this is purely a GAAS issue either, as Sony executives have stated their intent to have 10 GAAS games within the next 3(?) Years or whatever the exact number was. Obviously those will have MTX, that's why you make them, and why you buy Bungie to help teach your studios to make them.
Gamepass pc also has issues let's be honest. On consoles there's no functional difference between playing through gamepass or the store.
I agree that MS has a good amount of big GaaS titles, that Sony doesn't, and that this likely boosts Xbox's overall subscription strategy.
What I was responding to was just your statement about "nearly all" which is inaccurate. Even "the majority" is inaccurate. Here's the actual data:
- 3 of 5 games released in 2021 were non-GaaS or single player only (I'm counting Halo $60 campaign separately from the F2P multiplayer but call it 2 of 4 if you want to combine them). Halo campaign, Psychonauts 2, Age of Empires 4.
- 6 of the 10 games they released in 2020 were non-GaaS or single player only. Ori, Wasteland Remastered, Tell Me Why, Battletoads, Gears Tactics, Age of Empires 3 DE.
So that's 9/15 games that aren't GaaS, which I think we can both agree is quite a ways short of "nearly all GaaS". Maybe you don't want to count remasters so it's 7/13, or maybe you think Age of Empires 4 is GaaS because it has a roadmap for updates (but no MTX and any future paid DLC almost certainly on the expansion model). Whatever. The point is that no matter how you slice it GaaS is not a majority of their output in the Game Pass age.
Sometimes people are gonna correct you when you're wrong. It's not personal. If you read my post as angry or defensive that's on you.
Makes sense. sony doesn't have trillions to burn through to keep a loss leader service going for 10 years and that's fine. With PS+ numbers down though they do have some rethinking to do as to what content ends up on PS+ Extra. Don't think God of War Ragnarok should be on there but if they want to drive higher tier subs & retention & GaaS playerbases then just get them hooked by putting the GaaS shit on there. That much is necessary.
Top-Selling DVD Titles in the United States 2010 - The Numbers
Top-selling DVD titles in the US for 2010www.the-numbers.com
Top-Selling DVD Titles in the United States 2021 - The Numbers
Top-selling DVD titles in the US for 2021
Same thing will happen with games. Some people will still do it, but the majority will be happy with the sub. Game sales will probably drop off even quicker since gaming had a much more robust trade market. Customers look for deals much more then with movies or music, or TV shows.
Oh, I haven't bought a DVD in over 10 years. I buy digital.
I didn't say anything about "definitely".
I'm trying to illustrate that there are many types of consumers and there are some cases where even getting occasional 1 month subs from a person actually represents an increase in the revenue that the subscription provider is getting from said person. The most obvious case is new customers, but there are other potential ones like I described here - people who might have sought other ways, but with a low enough barrier to entry (and day one hype), they'll now pay a little bit.
Focusing only on one vividly imagined type of user - the kind that will stop buying games they were previously willing to spend full price on day one for, then immediately unsuscribe within 1 month - is obviously not going to give you the full picture.
Last edited:
GamePass proves it increases spending on games and their first party stuff didnt decrease in investment, so not sure I agree here *shrug*
Of course Sony has to do the service right, I see that more as an issue than anything else.
Of course Sony has to do the service right, I see that more as an issue than anything else.
I think Sony is willing to take that chance. Their bread and butter is still the third person action game, and I think Microsoft would have a hard time consistently delivering above or even equal to what Sony is doing in that sector. Even if Microsoft pours on mad money, it's hard to compete with the experience that studios like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch and Santa Monica have. That said, I think it's fair to say Microsoft are crushing the realistic racing game space, but even then it's not as though Gran Turismo sales dried up either. So even if Microsoft can get their games where they need to be, I'm not convinced it would be an issue for Sony as long as their titles are still so high quality. I think the only thing that could really take down Sony would be if Sony started to consistently underdeliver on quality titles, opening themselves up for "defeat".
Gotta love when people compare a gaming subscription to Netflix in this manner. Gaming subscriptions aren't replacing all methods of payment and income, you get MTX, DLC (heads up almost all games have DLC before any sort of subscription service), merch, collectors items, game sales, 3rd party sales on the platform, 3rd party DLC/MTX sales from games like Fortnite and such, while Netflix has 1 stream of revenue.
Netflix shows and movies also costs more than games and are enjoyed once and are done usually, games can be played for YEARS and have income coming in from sales/mtx/dlc for YEARS.
Do people forget on these gaming subscription services you can still buy games so if they so call ruin the game quality then people will stop buying the game because of it and then they would lose revenue, people will also unsubscribe from the service if the game is bad. I don't understand this notion that a new payment method will suddenly make people ok with bad games, if the game is bad it doesn't matter the payment method people won't play it, simple as that.
1 or 2 Fortnite sized game can probably fund the entire platform and this doesn't take into account mobile which is a huge market and makes more money than any platform really and those users love MTX.
Everything about this program feels rolled out through gritted teeth from the inability to say what exactly is going to be on the service, to the blocking of subscription cards, to statements like this one. This offering so far really feels like the equivalent of some execs throwing up their hands and saying "Fine, you win. Here you go, I guess."
they aren't pigeonholing, they will just change. Jim ryan himself has said things can change very fast in the game industry. When they have to pivot, they will. PS3 online experience was terrible and a massive joke from the store to the servers; compare that to the PS4 and it is night and day. They are very very good at changing when they need to.
From a consumer point of view, we all want to play God of War Regnarok on a sub.
From a business point of view, the numbers clearly don't make sense.
From a business point of view, the numbers clearly don't make sense.
They're trying to do a difficult balancing act. They want to make their premium subscriptions more enticing to increase revenue from those sources, but they aren't willing to match the competition for fear that it will lead to revenue reductions.
Eventually, they will either be proven correct or they will be forced to match. Only time will tell.
The thing is, we can all argue about what we want, but there is no indication that gamepass is actually hurting Sony at all, and thus they don't need to respond. The console is still selling out instantly, their revenue and profits are still quite high, they are doing extremely well. From their point of view, the competition is doing something that doesn't seem to be having an influence. Its benefiting Microsoft heaps, but not hurting Sony, so really.. isn't that that base case scenario? People bring up Sony in this argument only for some reason, but Nintendo and Steam also are having no issues on their end. All companies are extremely healthy and doing things in their own way, so again, why should Sony change? And why do these topics only focus on Sony but not Nintendo?
I imagine at some point there is some sort of percentage that revenue drops that will make them ultimately decide to pull the trigger, but that is years and years at this point.
I imagine at some point there is some sort of percentage that revenue drops that will make them ultimately decide to pull the trigger, but that is years and years at this point.
I think that all these points reinforce the point that Sony is making about their first party titles. Gamepass can be great for some type of games, but not necessarily for all types of games.
If it wasn't for the £70 price tag games like Gran Turismo would have to do a promotion with a real life action house and sell digital cars for £160. I'd rather not see the last bastion of AAAAA games go down that route thank you very much.
Makes sense if it's all true. I'll stick with Xbox and Nintendo only this gen. Maybe Don't can win me back next gen with services that cater to what I want.
no, he isn't.
it doesn't reinforce anything except access and exposure.
just because people are looser with their money doesn't a) signal the quality of the games or b) the budget of the games.
it's an overview of what is already available.
But PS+ numbers aren't really down that much, the current service has just hit the saturation point years ago and that's probably one of the biggest reasons (in addition to GP of course) why they're revamping the service, and the upcoming GaaS titles will almost surely be included in it.
While MS is definitely taking a big risk by investing a lot to GP, not a single company will spend absolutely anything to a service without a realistic plan and calculations for return of investment. GP will of course have some bigger flagship MS titles like Starfield which will match the development budget of Sony's first party titles, but with MS' business strategy imo it's quite unrealistic to expect (and still to be seen of course) that all or most of MS's first party would be like Sony titles, where basically every single game has a massive budget and is polished to high heaven. It just doesn't add up and the difference in selling games at full price vs. putting all of them day 1 to a cheap subscription service has to make a difference at some point. We only have very vague statements of people spending more who are subscribed, and frankly data like this doesn't tell us much.
Impossible to say which one is the better strategy for us and it probably depends on who you ask, but what the Sony CFO is saying sounds plausible to me. Who wouldn't want games as cheaply as possible, but I don't play so many games that personally I'd much rather just buy a couple big budget Sony games a year which I like the most than have the whole first party available through a subscription service day 1 if it means smaller development budgets.
Sony is not a trillion dollar company that can afford to lose money on games sales in order to, hypothetically, make a subscription service grow. I do think they should reduce the time before these games become available on PS+ though. Six months would be fine.
This industry is super secretive so I won't ever get an answer, but I would really be curious to know the budget of TLOU2. Without marketing.
This industry is super secretive so I won't ever get an answer, but I would really be curious to know the budget of TLOU2. Without marketing.
Microsoft has their own targets, Sony has their own targets. these two companies have wildly different pools of resources to tap into to make their offering the most attractive to it's potential consumers and in turn make them a profit.
they don't need to do the same thing in order to get a customer, as long as their is value in the product they are offering, consumers will flock towards them.
they don't need to do the same thing in order to get a customer, as long as their is value in the product they are offering, consumers will flock towards them.
It's absolutely right and Sony won't do a single thing that isn't wholly driven by immediate profit. They've been like that as a company since they regained market dominance and it's why, for example, they haven't offered backwards compatibility since they stripped it from the PS3 to save costs. It's not immediately lucrative. Everything they do is with maximum caution, hence this tiered, half-baked subscription system.
People need to forget about Sony doing what Microsoft are doing because they're in two completely different spaces. One is market leader and one is doing everything it can to gain ground on that. Sony are absolutely fine where they are, until the day that they aren't. But the PlayStation brand has survived some fairly big bumps so I'd suggest they'll do just fine.
People need to forget about Sony doing what Microsoft are doing because they're in two completely different spaces. One is market leader and one is doing everything it can to gain ground on that. Sony are absolutely fine where they are, until the day that they aren't. But the PlayStation brand has survived some fairly big bumps so I'd suggest they'll do just fine.
This is what Sony has to compete against. A company that is considered part of 'Big Tech'
Sony has to compete against a company that spent $70 Billion on Activision Blizzard in all cash, 45% of Sony's market cap at the time. MS has enough Net Income to make back that purchase within a year.
Sony has to compete against a company that spent $70 Billion on Activision Blizzard in all cash, 45% of Sony's market cap at the time. MS has enough Net Income to make back that purchase within a year.
Last edited:
Its just not worth it in Sony's current game pipeline that emphasies expensive games that you will likely play once and not touch again for a long time. When they will manage to have more service oriented games that push consistent engagement, like MS has with franchises like Halo, Gears, Forza, Flight Simulator, then such a strategy could make more sense for them. But everything needs to be taken with context.
I've stopped buying xbox first party games. until the threaten to pull that system why?
Probably not a winning strategy, but I guess you can't really go against MS, they have too much money.
This is also important. Once their GaaS plans are worked out (I question that happening currently) the tunes will change.
How does Sony's investment into VR fit into your theory about their maximum caution?
is microsoft even interested in those types of games? halo, forza, blizzard activison games, have all become services where they continually get income so giving a games upfront for free doesn't hurt. sony seems to be moving there too but they still seem to want to have their spidermans and TLOU part two that are totallly divorced from that. its seems this is saying those singleplayer games can't be given away for free day one. but that those service games might have a lower cost or be given with these tiers
Sony is directly moving to where all the industry is and it's Live Service games.
We know they have at least 10 in development, they spent $3.6 for Bungie for this exact purpose.
When they start to see Apex Legends/Warzone money flowing at each quarter they will eventually start to make some concessions and release some of their games on PS+ especially if they gain a sizeable audience there.
The gaming industry is rapidly changing, not even 3 years ago nobody could've predicted Sony porting PC games and escaping their comfort zone and start making GAAS.
What galaxy brain logic is this? Forza 5 (which I haven't played as I don't own an Xbox series) is by all accounts more expansive than GT7 (which I have played), has what has been studied to be a less grindy unlock/MTX system, came to game pass day one and was considered a roaring success for Microsoft.
So unless this is sarcasm that is flying over my head, how did the price rise save Gran Turismo as an experience? Especially after the shit storm surrounding the always online requirements and the grindy MTX experience?
If anything, GT7 is the worst example to bring up to defend Sony's logic about why day one games can't come to their Game Pass service.
Last edited:
MS are interested in all types of games. They need everything for GP. One of the biggest games this year is going to be Starfield.
I understand where sony is coming from but i don't agree with it.
To me exclusive games exist to entice potential customers to buy a console (a subscription service). That's the way they should make their money. Releasing big AAA titles, more quirky experiences (that nobody else would develop) and supporting genres that are lacklustre on their platform are the things a platform owner should do.
But that's not enough for them anymore it seems. Now they need to make a profit with every single release.
That's what i'm reading in that comment. "We're making more money this way, we don't want to change that."
I remember that i paid 50€ for PS3 AAA games when every other AAA title was 60€. Nintendo did that too for a long time (selling their own games cheaper).
imo exclusive content should only be used to bring in a bigger audience into your walled garden, so that they buy the next few games on your platform and not through your competitors. That's what makes sony, ms and nintendo the big money. That's why Epic has exclusive games on their storefront and is outright giving games away for free.
Making a profit with exclusive content on it's own is a nice side effect but shouldn't have ever become as expected as sony and nintendo are doing nowadays.
To me exclusive games exist to entice potential customers to buy a console (a subscription service). That's the way they should make their money. Releasing big AAA titles, more quirky experiences (that nobody else would develop) and supporting genres that are lacklustre on their platform are the things a platform owner should do.
But that's not enough for them anymore it seems. Now they need to make a profit with every single release.
That's what i'm reading in that comment. "We're making more money this way, we don't want to change that."
I remember that i paid 50€ for PS3 AAA games when every other AAA title was 60€. Nintendo did that too for a long time (selling their own games cheaper).
imo exclusive content should only be used to bring in a bigger audience into your walled garden, so that they buy the next few games on your platform and not through your competitors. That's what makes sony, ms and nintendo the big money. That's why Epic has exclusive games on their storefront and is outright giving games away for free.
Making a profit with exclusive content on it's own is a nice side effect but shouldn't have ever become as expected as sony and nintendo are doing nowadays.
- Status