At least we are at the point of admitting the subscription model requires stuffing the games full of microtransactions. No thanks on any level
- Status
At least we are at the point of admitting the subscription model requires stuffing the games full of microtransactions. No thanks on any level
Sony makes a ton of money on 1st party game sales, they also make a ton of money on subscription services. They clearly don't feel the need to sacrifice the revenue of the former to strengthen the latter. Not a single publisher in the industry follows Microsoft's business model. I'm not sure what's this never ending obsession with Sony having to do it.
They have a sub count of nearly 50m, far and away the largest of any gaming subscription service
They pointed out some vague statistics but im not sure what we're supposed to gleam from that
They have a sub count of nearly 50m, far and away the largest of any gaming subscription service
They pointed out some vague statistics but im not sure what we're supposed to gleam from that
Netflix has over 200m and even they are having issues right now with subs and now have plan have ad tiers. Not sure what that really means if they even had 100m.
Exactly lmao. Terrible deal.
Didnt Matt confirm Sony's game division operates under a much higher budget than XGS?
Excited to see the video game industry in a few years. Will Microsoft have a decline in quality? I feel like if anything we'll probably see an increase but guess we'll wait and see.
Microsoft was Metacritic’s highest-rated publisher in 2021, with the largest average score ever | VGC
The publisher beat out Sony…www.videogameschronicle.com
Lmao, now that's a shitty article. Imagine thinking stuff like this matters.
Microsoft owns twice as many studios, that can't possibly be true
Sony has a different approach and expectation to their business model that makes copying another competitor's model ala carte not viable for their goals as they are right now from their point of view.
Doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever but as it is now they don't want to go that route. And we've known this for years.
It's not that complicated.
Doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever but as it is now they don't want to go that route. And we've known this for years.
It's not that complicated.
Sony's issue isn't that people expect these high budget titles day one, it's that they have continued to push mid to low budget projects away in favor of the God of Wars and Horizons of their portfolio that take 4-6 years to produce.
With the amount of beloved IP Sony owns along with their willingness to cooperate with dev teams outside of their family of studios, there's absolutely no reason why they can't make stuff like an Ape Escape or Locoroco every so often to give more value to PlayStation Plus and the platform in general.
With the amount of beloved IP Sony owns along with their willingness to cooperate with dev teams outside of their family of studios, there's absolutely no reason why they can't make stuff like an Ape Escape or Locoroco every so often to give more value to PlayStation Plus and the platform in general.
Honestly, I hope that PlayStation and Nintendo are able to continue selling full price games and they are still able to sell million or even tens of millions of units. Similar to a healthy theatrical release market being and not everything going directly to streaming services is better for movies. However, I'm honestly not optimistic.
Super Mario Run didn't work out for Nintendo and that was the previous attempt to buck a market trend. I think the move to subscription services will happen there will absolutely be consequences people don't realize now. No different then Netflix taking over, Uber taking over, Napster taking over etc.
I think a day where nobody is willing to buy/play a single game that isn't FTP or part of a subscription they already subscribe to is inevitable and the good and the bad that comes from that are both coming.
Super Mario Run didn't work out for Nintendo and that was the previous attempt to buck a market trend. I think the move to subscription services will happen there will absolutely be consequences people don't realize now. No different then Netflix taking over, Uber taking over, Napster taking over etc.
I think a day where nobody is willing to buy/play a single game that isn't FTP or part of a subscription they already subscribe to is inevitable and the good and the bad that comes from that are both coming.
they put out they spent more, not necessarily games (microtransactions, other subscriptions)
Also I don't think those games combined cost as much as sony games. they're on a whole another level with their first party. obviously I don't have numbers
this is not clear. "on gaming" can mean a bunch of things and would necessarily translate to sony funding its AAA 1st party games. he doesn't sound like he's saying they would lose money, but they would have to change the types of games that people have come to associate with sony
Nonsense is thinking that they decide based on tastes and not numbers.
They would do what's better for them based on numbers they have.
And remember what happened to netflix last month, keeping a GAAS model growing or at least not decreasing is very hard and a lot of investment that you probably need to take away from first party studios.
Of course you could eventually ship great games , like MS did with GP. But also they are "giving" subs for $1 for example. It's not that simple as some people think.
They don't care as long as it juices consumer spending in the ecosystem. That's the next wave of work to be done in the space; how do you turn a $100/year customer into a $200/year customer? Remember that these are all publicly traded companies. They cannot say "we make enough money, we're gonna just hold at this level and coast." It's all about Growth, and there's a cap on how many people have the money and will to buy $500 boxes and $70 games. The ceiling is going to probably end up being the Switch for getting growth through new customers (I think it can totally take the #1 spot over the next couple years). So where do you get growth after that?
All of the manufacturers know this. It's why Sony is looking more and more to the PC space and expanding their release options. MS has their GP model in place, and will soon be adding streaming devices to the mix. Nintendo has added their own recurring revenue stream with their online subscription, and I suspect they'll need to be open to more release options in the future as well.
The future isn't standalone boxes and standalone titles and locked down software. Capitalism literally demands growth no matter what.
Does it need to be an either/or situation? I subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Paramount+ yet every month I spend more money on purchases movies and TV shows. The same applies to gaming - at least for me.
50 million for plus but that's not the sub they'd put their 1st party on since they'd want to charge more. The ps now sub version.
Im sorry I dont quite get it. For MS (and Sony), the end goal is having lots of spending in their platform. If its by buying lots of games or subscribing to something and paying for some DLC, it doesn't really matter. 50% more spending is 50% more spending.
Even with less MTX in their first party games compared to MS right now (not like they arent making GaaS though, GT7 just came out and they have like 10 more GaaS games on the way), I dont doubt spending would overall increase. With that kind of money you could still fund your big SP games without much compromise to keep the people that like them subscribed and locked in to your platform.
Last edited:
I guess I understand them. It's just feels like Microsofts strategy is working to the point where it's hard not to see the price of a single AAA game on the Playstation Store as "a bad deal" compared to how much I get for GamePass instead.
That's fine, Sony.
I don't mind paying for games. Been doing it forever and not changing it now. No need for subs and other non sensical ways to sell things.
I don't mind paying for games. Been doing it forever and not changing it now. No need for subs and other non sensical ways to sell things.
PS Now's current subscriber count is pretty irrelevant since the service isn't going to exist for much longer.
I mean...yeah. I at least haven't bought a single Microsoft title since GP and just subbed for a month here and there, either because of a big release or (mostly) because it has just been dirt cheap. I would do the exact same thing on PS5 if I could.
You realize...they have microtransaction and subscription revenue...currently, right?
Also, the CFO of Sony knows what Sony could survive more than all of us here.
In the current market environment, when the market is actually taking a hard look at content subscription services and all of a sudden have realized that profitability is more important than subscriber growth, and no longer rewarding industry leaders with market rich valuations:
- Spotify is down 59.38% YTD
- Netflix is down 70.36% YTD
My theory is that Game pass subscribers are mainly enthusiasts (myself included) that would normally spend more on gaming anyways. The question is can a subscription model appeal to casual, mainstream audiences that wouldn't normally spend money on games. Games are not consumed in the same way that movies and television are so the whole gaming subscription model is an interesting experiment. I totally understand why Sony is hesitant and also why it works for MS. I'm happy to be a customer of both models as long as I continue to get great games but I'm speaking as an enthusiast that posts on forums like these. People here might be overestimating the appeal of a subscription service to the mass market where they have access to a bunch of games they've never heard of or might even have the time for.
I'm surprised people are still having a conniption every time Sony says this. I'm not even telling people how they should feel about it, it is what it is at this point. He was pretty clearly only talking about Playstation and what makes sense for them. He even specifically avoids commenting on Microsoft, so you don't have to take this as some kind of personal attack every time an investor asks them this question.
Spoken as someone who has never worked at a large company. Numbers matter, but there are people with points of views and biases that make decisions, not numbers. And numbers can also be misleading.
I don't think MS have sacrificed quality at all for game pass. It's increased and even reviews back that up.
As others have said though. They don't make the same type of games and Sony know their own business better than anyone.
Consumers need to make their own decisions about about the paths both have chosen.
As others have said though. They don't make the same type of games and Sony know their own business better than anyone.
Consumers need to make their own decisions about about the paths both have chosen.
Top-Selling DVD Titles in the United States 2010 - The Numbers
Top-selling DVD titles in the US for 2010
www.the-numbers.com
Top-Selling DVD Titles in the United States 2021 - The Numbers
Top-selling DVD titles in the US for 2021
www.the-numbers.com
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.
Top-Selling DVD Titles in the United States 2010 - The Numbers
Top-selling DVD titles in the US for 2010
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.
Well, even if that happens, we aren't anywhere near that point. Switch just sold more retail software than any year before in Nintendo's history.
This approach works for now.
I say let them experiment. I'm sure their output over the next 4-5 years will be very informative, particularly the 10+ live service games (heck, even the VR games) and how they are received and what the subscription model can bring to their long-term viability. Huge single-player games that we're used to, I can see why they want to tread lightly and focus on evolving the value offering in a way the makes sense to their business.
I say let them experiment. I'm sure their output over the next 4-5 years will be very informative, particularly the 10+ live service games (heck, even the VR games) and how they are received and what the subscription model can bring to their long-term viability. Huge single-player games that we're used to, I can see why they want to tread lightly and focus on evolving the value offering in a way the makes sense to their business.
I feel like I've heard this before in other mediums of entertainment where streaming now by far outweighs anyone purchasing content in those mediums…
It's Microsoft's job to sell their service to developers at GDC. These stats are all fine and rosy until we scrutinize the fact that they chose these to highlight specifically. A lot of them have nothing to do with finances (yes we already know if stuff is free people are more likely to try it).
The other numbers don't tell us enough to determine if it's actually healthy for the industry. If the average money spent on DLC is 10 dollars, spending 50 percent more is spending just 15 dollars. This is after losing the 30-70 dollars buying just the game (versus whatever fee you receive for putting it on the sub service). It is very murky still whether that's a good bet.
If subscription service has a cost that is equivalent to 2 games/year, that's equal to or higher than the average console attach rate on a y/y basis vs console life to date. So if you have 100 million console owners and 100 million subscribers, your revenue through the subscription is as high or higher than the revenue of sales generated by software. I am being nice by saying as high because the subscription is full retail games, nothing on sale. nothing in the $20 bargain bins.
Also these services are *CURATED* meaning there's less games.
So how would having the same amount of players, at a higher revenue per player with less games end up with lower budget games?
This question is rhetorical, because it does not.
MS supposedly compares gamepass subs to "similarly highly engaged users" when comparing total spending (also that figure is up from 20% to 50% now)
This proves the point Shawn Layden has been making for a while, as well as Amy Hennig i think. AAA games are getting so expensive to make that they think it's not sustainable. This kind of proves that in a way. Sony 1st party games absolutely need to be massive successes, and at full price which actually had been raised lately. The pressure on the studios to keep creating these high quality games must be huge, as well as the risk for these games to not earn back the cost.
I guess I can see it, I end up just waiting. Most SP games drop in price quite a bit even just a few months later. I'd sub for day one play but I can wait 6 months to play a single player game. I have plenty to play.
Not that they can't sell, but that they simply couldn't sell. The Xbox One sold around half as much as the PS4 and as long as first party games were full exclusive their sales were inherently limited compared to PS4 exclusives or multiplatform releases. Add in the general negativity of the brand and lack of marketing/positive word of mouth and yeah, those games couldn't sell.
Game Pass is successful though because first party games would sell if given the platform to do so. It's just that the management of Xbox feel that in recovery there's more money to be made in Game Pass
Because a lot of people think gamepass is ruining the industry even though it's an amazing service and even if it turns to shit they don't realize that people can simply stop subscribing.
Plus i think sony will be doing it they juat have a habit of saying things and after awhile doing the complete opposite.
Sony will do what's best for them. If things change then we might see day one releases on PS Plus. Not gonna suddenly act like I'm an expert on the matter. I have no idea how their business model works. Hell I don't even know how GP truly works. So if he says they can't sustain the same level of AAA quality without selling games then there's nothing more to add from a consumer point of view.
I said nearly all as in the majority. Nor did I say that there isn't good single player stuff in the game pass model. MS has a lot of GaaS titles to keep people subscribed on Game Pass and Sony doesn't have much in that line; that was my main point.
why get so defensive? In no way was my post saying one is better than the other ffs. I was literally saying that this business model works well for MS and doesn't work for how Sony is structured right now. Relax
people need to just except that Microsoft is taking a loss with Xbox putting first party games on Game Pass. Because they obviously aren't running with lower game budgets. It does a ton for engagement but there is no way they are doing as well on dollar sales. If it was a more profitable strategy wouldn't other companies being jumping to do the same thing? It's sustainable because it's Microsoft they can do whatever the F they want and it's great for consumers. Don't be weird and argue it's also profitable when they've never shown numbers to support that. Sony isn't an underdog Mom and Pop shop they're a multibillion dollar company but they can't do what Xbox is doing and be more profitable than they are now. If they could, they would. It's really that simple. The fact that past execs are agreeing and talking about how unsustainable AAA development is, and we even have recent examples. Seeing the profit margins of Square's Western devs that people have labeled as unfairly targeted by Square with crazy expectations yet we learn they haven't made any money despite millions of sales. And still we act like $70 games are going directly to fat cat CEO and not an adjustment to ensure games stay profitable when now it takes 5 ducking years for a AAA dev to make anything original.
Especially considering that there will be an overlap between people buying the games while having those subscriptions, so offering them there will just disincentivize those users from buying future titles as that will create an expectation that they will eventually show up in that service.
They know their numbers and what is best for them. Don't wanna pay full price wait for sales down the road like I do, plenty of shit to play from constant sales and psplus/gamepass, free epic games, amazon prime games etc. anyway. Combat your fomo. I have done it succesfully with games and movies.
Bingo. Sony has done the math and they know, at least as of today, which works better for them. Microsoft can eat the cost while the service grows but I don't think anyone should be shocked when the price eventually increases to recoup investment costs.
Saying Sony should do this just because you want them to, even if it doesn't make financial sense for them, is goofy.
And if anyone thinks I'm some anti Xbox fanboy I have an all access Xbox and loving that game pass. I just can understand two different companies may make two different decisions.
If they don't want to put games on a subscription service that's their decision, but the idea that "prestige"(can we please stop using this word?) games can't work with a sub is just nonsense.
No a sub doesn't mean a game is of lower quality or is a GAAS.
No a sub doesn't mean a game is of lower quality or is a GAAS.
I'm fine with this. My philosophy when it comes to this subject is that if I want to play a specific game so bad, I should have no issue paying full price for it. If I don't mind waiting, then I will wait until it's discounted. Subscriptions have always been a cherry-on-top situation.
Sony's CFO and their army of world class accountants with intimate and complete knowledge of the company's financial data clearly doesn't understand game budgets.
/s
It's not that straightforward, though? You could argue that customers that subscribe to Gamepass are more likely to spend more time/money on their device in the first place. It stands to reason that someone who has an Xbox and only buys the yearly blockbuster titles wouldn't also subscribe to Gamepass, and I find that far more likely than just 'subscription service = higher revenue'.
I don't understand what you're saying then. Are you taking shots at the number of subscribers on a service that doesn't exist yet? Because that's what the article is about...
Sony can only say this for so long. Once Microsoft"s studios really get their games out, after being acquired, are we really sure Sony releases will be better quality than Microsoft releases? After all, Microsoft games outscored Sony titles last year. And the studios Microsoft have acquired have gone on hiring sprees post acquisition. MS is putting massive resources into the gaming division and there is no reason games from a subscription service can't be as good or better than non-subscription titles.
Sony's stance on this issue will be outdated in the years to come. Just like the music, tv, ,movies and print industries won't go back to a pre stream world, neither will the video games industry. Sony needs to figure out their streaming and cloud strategy soon or they face the danger of no longer being the leader. They are fighting against irreversible trends that they eventually will have to also follow.
Sony's stance on this issue will be outdated in the years to come. Just like the music, tv, ,movies and print industries won't go back to a pre stream world, neither will the video games industry. Sony needs to figure out their streaming and cloud strategy soon or they face the danger of no longer being the leader. They are fighting against irreversible trends that they eventually will have to also follow.
Last edited:
- Status