• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

If pubs realize f2p monetization brings more money for MP games, PS+ will lose its value unless Sony bombard the service with 1st party MP games.

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,689
3,961
410
We're seeing more and more free-to-play MP games as this attracts both gamers and casuals. Little by little publishers are realizing that free-to-play monetization brings more profit for their multiplayer games. Activision for example is now banking on their newfound success with a free-to-play Call of Duty Warzone. Will this trend continue? Will publishers follow the free-to-play route for their multiplayer games?

If the answer is yes, then PS+ will gradually lose its value, unless Sony do something about it.

I propose:

1. Increase first-party (or second-party) development of multiplayer games.
2. Also, maybe revive Warhawk, Socom, PS HOME, and those MP games which were successful in the past.
3. Release those games day 1 on PS+. (We already have a precedent with Destruction Allstars.)

*basically, instead of following the free-to-play monetization, it would be a sub-to-play. But yeah, both mtx monetization heavy.

4. Keep the PS+ Collection and improve it, maybe add AA games too?. (PS+ has grown by 6.1M subs in the last 12 months, IMO it's because of the PS+ Collection.)
5. Add a few movies and shows here and there because why not.


This should be separate from the hypothetical movies+shows+anime+videogames. That service should be streaming only. That service should be catered to casuals. In that hypothetical Sony+, the videogame aspect is just an added value. The movies and shows and anime are the focus of the service.

What do you think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

skit_data

Member
Nov 3, 2020
1,660
4,149
385
They have added good Single Player games since a couple of years back, and they haven’t had a PS+ requirement for F2P games since... ever so I think they’ve found a pretty good balance. They offer good games, at least. They have definitely increased in quality as well, especially in the last 6 months.

PS+ main point never was to make money on users that only play multiplayer. It was created to offer monthly games and better discounts to members. It changed going into last gen, mainly because their competitor made tons of ”free” cash on it.

The attention should rather be turned to Xbox Live Gold, which has had no good reason to exist for years and with them finally removing the need for it to play F2P games even less so
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
Mar 8, 2021
964
1,751
415
1st party free multiplayer game on PS Plus should help increase the subscription base.
 

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,689
3,961
410
1st party free multiplayer game on PS Plus should help increase the subscription base.

Well, technically it is not free. I agree it will increase the subscription base. Also, considering they are MP games, having mtx wouldn't get much backlash.
 

ReBurn

Member
Dec 6, 2008
12,652
3,477
1,240
SC USA
Considering how much people complain about micro transactions I'd be surprised if traditional multiplayer dies in favor of F2P. If the cut that Sony and Microsoft gets from transactions offsets what they lose in plus/gold subs the probably won't care. If it doesn't they'll just make people pay to play online.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Amiga

Member
Jul 8, 2020
1,480
2,369
520
F2P currency is bought on the PSN store. Sony get a share of that. requiring MP would be double charging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Bonfires Down

Member
Jul 31, 2007
3,088
4,393
1,570
Sony gets 30% of F2P transactions so I don’t think they are worried. I’m sure they’ll keep improving the free game offerings on PS+ as they’ve already been doing for a while.

 

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,689
3,961
410
If the cut that Sony and Microsoft gets from transactions offsets what they lose in plus/gold subs the probably won't care.

I think f2p mtx money will more than offset the "potential decrease" in subscription numbers. I say "potential" because that doesn't necessarily have to happen. They can combat it with a more robust PS+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amiga

Amiga

Member
Jul 8, 2020
1,480
2,369
520
Considering how much people complain about micro transactions I'd be surprised if traditional multiplayer dies in favor of F2P. If the cut that Sony and Microsoft gets from transactions offsets what they lose in plus/gold subs the probably won't care. If it doesn't they'll just make people pay to play online.

Western publishers dream to reach the levels of monetization in Asia. Western player resistance held them back thank God. I hope this lasts long.
 

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,689
3,961
410
F2P currency is bought on the PSN store. Sony get a share of that.

I'm aware of that. Hence, Sony could also just follow that free-to-play monetization with their planned MP games. F2P bring the monies.

As an alternative though, just put in PS+ to increase its value. And there could still be mtx. Hopefully not too intrusive though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tomeru

reinking

Member
Jun 1, 2020
1,196
1,704
445
Sony like any company is going to go where the money is. Even if they resist it at first in the end dollars rule. You can look at PS+ as an example.

MTX are unfortunately a part of gaming now. That are not going away. My hope is Sony does not embrace the model as much as that other company and start telling us how much better GAAS is going to be for us consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
12,829
4,139
1,685
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Only a few top games make a ton of money with F2P, all the other F2P games tank and aren't profitable. Both in console/PC and mobile.

Paid games for console and PC are a safest bet for most companies.

Activision for example is now banking on their newfound success with a free-to-play Call of Duty Warzone. Will this trend continue? Will publishers follow the free-to-play route for their multiplayer games?
Like ~80-90% of the F2P players never pay in a game, so F2P games nee insanely huge userbases. Call of Duty is an insanely big brand only comparable to maybe 4 or 5 more, and Activision is the biggest publisher in console so they can spend a huge amount of money on marketing to throw there more players. CoD going F2P is a case in a million. Like Fortnite, it isn't a formula that all the other big publishers could easily replicate.

On top of that, GaaS/F2P require a ton of time invested there from players, which blocks them from playing other games. So they amount of F2P/GasS that can have a big success is limited. There isn't enough time for all of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: megreotsugua

MastaKiiLA

Member
Jun 11, 2020
2,414
4,434
410
Are people really subscribing to PS+ just to play multiplayer? I always thought the main appeal was the giveaways, and also the fact that it's not expensive. $5 per month at full price, which is less than a fast food meal in many countries. I have a PS+ sub, and no console. Just have it to collect games while I wait for a PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,689
3,961
410
Only a few top games make a ton of money with F2P, all the other F2P games tank and aren't profitable. Both in console/PC and mobile.

Paid games for console and PC are a safest bet for most companies.

But the ability to play online the big games like Call of Duty is what really brought the numbers up. If those big games go free-to-play and find success then paying for online wouldn't make much sense for many online players. Unless Sony creates its own pool of players through its own MP games that can only be played through PS+.


Are people really subscribing to PS+ just to play multiplayer? I always thought the main appeal was the giveaways, and also the fact that it's not expensive.

IMO, there's a large chunk of subscribers who are in it to play multiplayer.
 
Last edited:

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
10,120
23,994
970
Ireland
I started subscribing before it was necessary for online play, back on PS3.... it was just for the free games and... possibly cloud save.

I am not playing much multiplayer right now, not for the last few months but the huge catalog of games I've built up through the service is worth keeping available to me. I also use the cloud saves to switch between our 2 PS5's and sometimes the Pro.

I think if they keep putting some desirable or at least good quality games on there, it keeps adding to the value of your backlog. I must be approaching 400 games now....
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
12,829
4,139
1,685
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
But the ability to play online the big games like Call of Duty is what really brought the numbers up. If those big games go free-to-play and find success then paying for online wouldn't make much sense for many online players. Unless Sony creates its own pool of players through its own MP games that can only be played through PS+.
At least in my case, I pay PS+ because they give me enough games I like that cover that price, and with their discounts I save enough money every year that covers that price too. I almost don't play online, and when I do it is on paid games I don't like F2P games. I assume there must be plenty of players like me.

The PS+ subscriptions continued growing at the same pace after Fortnite or the CoD Warfare release, so they don't affect PS+. Maybe paid MP games like CoD, FIFA and so on are still way more popular than the F2P games.

Sony also get 30% from the F2P game microtransactions, so it's ok for them. F2P don't require PS+ because Sony may have seen that it works better for them: F2P games need a bigger userbase so didn't make sense to limit them to their subscribers but instead to give them to the entire PS userbase seems to be a better deal both for the dev and for Sony.

No they don't if gamers decides to purchase cosmetics and Battle Passes on competitors platform.
In the Epic vs Apple trial they did show that for crossplatform games with cross-save they check if the revenue the game gets from each platform matches with the playtime of the players on each platform. If there is a big difference where players play more on PS but spend more elsewhere, the dev compensates Sony for it.

So Sony's butt is safe.
 
Last edited:

megreotsugua

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,689
3,961
410
At least in my case, I pay PS+ because they give me enough games I like that cover that price, and with their discounts I save enough money every year that covers that price too. I almost don't play online, and when I do it is on paid games I don't like F2P games. I assume there must be plenty of players like me.
You have to keep in mind that PS+ numbers only really start to grown exponentially when it became a requirement sine qua non for online play. So we cannot discount the fact that many players are subscribed because of the ability to play online.
The PS+ subscriptions continued growing at the same pace after Fortnite or the CoD Warfare release, so they don't affect PS+. Maybe paid MP games like CoD, FIFA and so on are still way more popular than the F2P games.
Yeah I don't see games like FIFA will be f2p anytime soon.
Sony also get 30% from the F2P game microtransactions, so it's ok for them.
Financially, I can see that it wouldn't move the needle. I'm only looking at it from the point of view of potential decrease in PS+ numbers. I thought that doesn't necessarily have to happen if Sony would be willing to grow the service through different measures I mentioned in the OP.
F2P don't require PS+ because Sony may have seen that it works better for them: F2P games need a bigger userbase so didn't make sense to limit them to their subscribers but instead to give them to the entire PS userbase seems to be a better deal both for the dev and for Sony.
F2P should not require PS+. That was a good call from Sony.
 

ReBurn

Member
Dec 6, 2008
12,652
3,477
1,240
SC USA
Sony like any company is going to go where the money is. Even if they resist it at first in the end dollars rule. You can look at PS+ as an example.

MTX are unfortunately a part of gaming now. That are not going away. My hope is Sony does not embrace the model as much as that other company and start telling us how much better GAAS is going to be for us consumers.
Sony is not opposed to GAAS by any means. PS+ and PSNow are GAAS offerings. If Sony had a way to get you to pay monthly to access their blockbusters that generated the same revenue that direct sales of their blockbusters generates they would probably do it. Recurring revenue is more desirable than one time sales for most companies.

I don't think that it's wrong to believe that gaming subscription services will play an important role in the future of gaming. It's already been successfully implemented in almost every other form of media. Gamers are just arrogant in thinking that gaming is somehow different and special and they're weird to want to continue to pay many hundreds to thousands of dollars per year to do it as some sort of "hardcore" badge of honor.