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.Glad that Playstation's approach to their first-party offerings is different from Microsoft's, gives more confidence in their future output.
I mean if they do it, sure. But that won't happen any time soon.So when Sony eventually puts their games day 1 on PSNOW, will they also be saying this
How is 19 million for one single game not much with a measly 200 million in revenue a month?
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.Aye, because Gears 5 and The Outer Worlds were both such terrible games. I can't believe I even spent any time on them.
I didn't pay 60 for them, no, but I don't think that means they aren't "worth" that much.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 $240 next year in 1st party titles. Those numbers do not work out for MS lol.
Exactly. Pushing in a direction that devalues your games via a pricing model that isn't even known to be sustainable in the long-term is not a move you make unless you've reached a point where nothing else will do for your brand. PlayStation is not in that position.If you compare sales numbers from Sony's big exclusives to Xbox exclusives this gen, you see exactly why they are not giving these games away for a 60$ yearly sub.
It would be an absolute desperation move. PSNow can be a fantastic service on it's own by having a huge diverse library. But Sony isn't going to just devalue their big IP's like that.
I don't think you know nearly enough about Xbox and their financial situation to claim this."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.
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.
"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.
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.
If he values his first party games so much why don't he value his own services the same ? I mean by releasing first party games in PSnow the value of the servies would increase as well.
I'm surprised they haven't tried selling streaming versions day 1, I feel that's be a good option to have next gen, PSNow was originally a rent service, before becoming more of a subscription based service, so I assume it's possible.
If they don't want to offer the games on PSnow for only the price of a Sub then they should sell them on PSnow for 60$. Problem solved
they are going to fall way behind on streaming if they don't do this
Yes, of course there are other licensing costs but if the $19 million for DMC5 rumor is accurate, then licensing costs are not much compared to potential revenue - 20 million subs at $10/month would be $200 million in revenue every month.
You know....you would think some ppl would know this....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.
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 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.
"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.
Of course. They'd love for Sony to give away their games for $10 on PS4/PC lol.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.
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.I'll never get tired of people saying they think Gamepass has been anything but a success for Microsoft and developers. There have been several interviews with indie and AAA studios that have been happy with the result. I haven't seen one saying the opposite.
It's not fear mongering but an actual fear.There's a lot of "fear mongering", deliberate or not, around what gamepass or PSNOW or other subscription models could lead to and I don't buy it. Subscriptions give a guaranteed revenue stream and it's not like all games will suddenly become free to play model games just because they launch day one on a subscription.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Oh, I thought you meant $$$.Or are you saying Sony is spending money to stay competitive with an unsuccessful service? That would be pretty odd.
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.
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.
So the big games won't be included, but smaller titles (ala Knack or Gravity Rush) would be then?
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.
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.
The model of Sony is not Netflix but Disney +. I suppose he game sign by Shuhei Yoshida division will appear day one in PsNow.
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.
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.
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.
What blockbuster films are Netflix making for the cinema??You can have a subscription service without 1st party day one, you don't see big blockbuster movies day one on Netflix or other platforms , even though they got millions of people. Bad sales of 1st party was one of the main reasons to put them day one on service in order to boost their player base and push GP subscriptions.
This.Microsoft started this because their 1st party sales were abysmall, the popular franchises being in decline. Gamepass saved games like Sea of thieves, state of decay, etc.
Gamepass is their all-in.
Sony, on the other hand, shows great results with 1st party offerings this generation. Quality + big marketing + big userbase = great sales, so no need to risk at all, play safetly.
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.
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.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?
Translation :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?