Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Their subscriptions are half of PS+. So that wouldn't work either.

50.1 vs 41.7 million per independent sources.

And roughly half are on the higher priced Ultimate-tier, versus 2/3rd of PSN which is on Essential (the lowest priced tier)

Omdia notes that PlayStation Plus is actually ahead with an estimated 50.1 million subscribers in 2023, compared to 41.7 million on Xbox (if you factor in users on Game Pass Core, formerly Xbox Live Gold). But it adds that Xbox Game Pass is ahead of PS Plus in regards to the tier mix and pricing structure.

"We estimate that nearly half of Xbox Game Pass subscribers will be on the Ultimate tier at the end of 2023," says Jijiashvili. "This is in stark contrast to PS Plus, which we estimate around two-thirds will be on the cheapest Essential tier."

 

[Team Andromeda]

Again, I've never made any such argument so no need for me to back up anything. You are the only one between the two of us making an assertion as to Xbox profitability.



I have no idea. Just more speculation. Either way, that's not my argument. I never said Xbox is posting losses. Not once. My argument is that there is no data to say either way.



That's fine. But it is based on conjecture and speculation. There are no "results" or data for you to base it on.

Most of it is pure speculation There is no in the red data for people here to base the assumption that Xbox is losing money. No one here can provide clear data on that fact or how much each of the In-House games actually cost Xbox to make.
So let's just leave it at speculation...

 

[DaGwaphics]

With some of the takes in here, MS's gaming revenue must really be sinking like a stone. Goes to check financial reports....

 

[Del_X]

They don’t pay the same licensing fee and they also launch on PC. There’s enough console-equivalent-or-better cards out there to sell into.

 

[yurinka]

I remember an interview with Epic Games where they stated that Gears 1 made more profit than Gears 3 because while the sales increased Gears 3 had a much bigger production budget that offset the sale gains. That was back on 360, since then the budgets for Gears 4 and 5 were probably a good amount larger than Gears 3 but the sales are much lower than even Gears 1.

Yes, since the 8 bits the AAA development budgets basically more than duplied every new generation. But sales or price didn't. Meaning the risk gets bigger and their profit margin decreased. This is why publishers kept going more multiplatform and embraced first DLCs and now GaaS: to get extra revenue.

Since game pass subsidizes everything who knows. I feel like the better route to go to maximize profit would be sell day 1 and release on gamepass anywhere from 3-12 months later. Kinda like movies in theaters before they go to on demand/disc. You're always going to have people who will be fiening to play. Look at all the people who spend the extra cash for deluxe editions to play early, then later on once the game hits gamepass it'll give it a second wind.

MS spends over $1B per year to put 3P GP games day one there. On top of that, they put all their games day one there, which means they lose a lot of game sales. And there's also the costs of online MP servers, cloud gaming etc. GP can't be profitable.

 

[TGO]

We need a Godzilla Minus One in the game industry.
I honestly think the budgets way over what they should be and are probably spent on unnecessary crap like people being paid for stuff that's doesn't even benefit the game like Sweet Baby Inc
The games are not that more advanced then they was 15 year's ago and yet the budgets are apparently more then blockbuster films are today

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

MS spends over $1B per year to put 3P GP games day one there. On top of that, they put all their games day one there, which means they lose a lot of game sales. And there's also the costs of online MP servers, cloud gaming etc. GP can't be profitable.

Except it is. You literally got that information straight from Phil Spencer and he said it directly. First time he said it was sustainable and people asked again what did he mean by that and he repeated that he meant that Game Pass is profitable. But it is hilarious that people still don't believe that (because probably it does not fit the narrative). But then believe all those smoke and mirrors by Sony, because it fits their narrative. That was literally dismantled with the leaks, where even Sony said that Sony's model was outdated and they needed to push more towards PC and streaming.

I honestly think the budgets way over what they should be and are probably

Essentially aside the cost of the workforce, nothing has changed much. If the game cost 2x times more despite looking the same it means that the workforce is more expensive now. I would not be surprised (and we see it already) that some games can be made with less people, be cheaper and look not worse than the games made by 300+ people.

 

[Woopah]

aka they make actual games and not movies walking sims.

It would save Sony money if they changed to doing that. But right now they are making actual games.

MS is the only console manufacturer not reporting profits or losses, without that info, assumptions are usually made.

There was the assumption that Sony 1st games didn’t made any profit, even respectable insiders/analysts said this. But with simple math and now with the Insomniac leak, it’s clear 1st party Sony games make profits and some more.

Again, without data from MS, only engagement numbers, plus the affirmation from Spencer that they are losing between $100-200 per Xbox console, assumptions are made.

Until they start being clear like the other two, we’ll never know if they make profit from Xbox division or not.

I don't think I've seen many people make that assumption. Most people have been thinking Sony's first party games are very successful no?

I

And I stand by that unless you can prove otherwise. I remember it took until Halo 3 for the Xbox division to report its 1st ever profit.
I've never read any factual data that the XBox division since the XBox One has made an actual loss for the year.

But that isn't enough to believe they made a profit.

For most of the last 10 years, we have no idea whether the Xbox division is profitable or not.

Maybe they were profitable for all 10 years. Maybe only 8, or maybe only 5. We can't say with any certainty.

 

[yurinka]

Except it is. You literally got that information straight from Phil Spencer and he said it directly. First time he said it was sustainable and people asked again what did he mean by that and he repeated that he meant that Game Pass is profitable. But it is hilarious that people still don't believe that (because probably it does not fit the narrative). But then believe all those smoke and mirrors by Sony, because it fits their narrative. That was literally dismantled with the leaks, where even Sony said that Sony's model was outdated and they needed to push more towards PC and streaming.

It isn't narrative, it's just maths. Sony's subs has twice the subs and they pay less for games because they put there older games. So their service must be more profitable.

Regarding GP we saw in the court docs that MS shown 'operative margin' for GP. Which can be mentioned as profit but really isn't, because it doesn't consider its costs that are accounted in other divisions, as is the case of the server costs put on Azure (cloud gaming, store, cloud storage, online MP, shop etc).

Essentially aside the cost of the workforce, nothing has changed much. If the game cost 2x times more despite looking the same it means that the workforce is more expensive now. I would not be surprised (and we see it already) that some games can be made with less people, be cheaper and look not worse than the games made by 300+ people.

Not only the dev budgets highly increase every generation, marketing budgets also do. Because since the game is more expensive, they want to make extra sure it sells enough. On top of that, every generation there are more publishers, developers and game released as competition, plus there's inflation, so the pricing of the digital ads keep increasing.

As of today, AAA games need he work of over 2000-3000+ people, being only 200-300+ the dev team of its lead gamedev studio. In this case Insomniac. Every generation the games get more expensive because they become way bigger and way more detailed, which means there's way more work required to be done.

As of now the only way to cut the costs is to make smaller and shorter games, as they did with Ratchet, Morales or Lost Legacy. Or the remasters and remakes or PC ports. Projects that despite being smaller and cheaper, also are profitable and since their budget is way lower, their risk involved is way smaller.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

As of now the only way to cut the costs is to make smaller and shorter games, as they did with Ratchet, Morales or Lost Legacy. Or the remasters and remakes or PC ports. Projects that despite being smaller and cheaper, also are profitable and since their budget is way lower, their risk involved is way smaller.

R&C aside (as we saw from Insomniac leaks, it seems Sony was not happy with them and pushed everything to SM). I agree. I do think that creating games like MM or Lost Legacy is the way forward. Release a huge game - then for a couple of years release the expansions for that game. As we saw with the slides, MM was crazily profitable. Unlike remasters and remakes, those are new games at least. Do we have information on Demon's Souls?

It isn't narrative, it's just maths. Sony's subs has twice the subs and they pay less for games because they put there older games. So their service must be more profitable.

Regarding GP we saw in the court docs that MS shown 'operative margin' for GP. Which can be mentioned as profit but really isn't, because it doesn't consider its costs that are accounted in other divisions, as is the case of the server costs put on Azure (cloud gaming, store, cloud storage, online MP, shop etc).

You are told directly from Phil Spencer that GP is profitable. You are literally told directly. Whether you believe that or not, it does not matter. (hilarious that each time we get more and more confirmation that Phil did not lie in anything). Also if PSN has more subs, it means that they need to pay for the servers, cloud saves, internet infrastructure more. Also with older games being put in the service (and keep in mind it is still more expensive for them as they have a bigger userbase), they benefit less from DLC and MTX sales that occur due to the game being in GP. Like people are more likely to buy a DLC for the game in Game Pass than without it.

Also keep in mind, that due to smaller marketshare games like Persona is cheaper to put on Game Pass Day 1 because the sales on Xbox itself will be smaller. And even with Play Anywhere - people will still buy games in Steam and on Playstation. So I don't think it is that expensive to put a lot of those games in Game Pass. Sure games like GTA or Star Wars might be out of budget, but a lot of games are not really expensive. I don't believe they are.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Their subscriptions are half of PS+. So that wouldn't work either.

So only profit if it's above PS+? Not to mention gampass cost more an tiers.

My post wasn't against PS so lower your shield dear.

 

[iHaunter]

So only profit if it's above PS+? Not to mention gampass cost more an tiers.

My post wasn't against PS so lower your shield dear.

Not what I said. I'm sure in a vacuum both are making a profit. I'm saying it doesn't make up for the immensely poorly made games on Xbox. Poor reviews and Day1 on Xbox.

 

[yurinka]

(as we saw from Insomniac leaks, it seems Sony was not happy with them and pushed everything to SM).

Sorry, I didn't see this anywhere. Rift Apart is a profitable game and the best selling Ratchet at least outside the PS2 games (projects who start by "RC" are Ratchet & Clank games). This seems to be from 2019 or early 2020:

The exception is R&C, which sold 7M. This is as of mid January 2022 (a day or two after releasing GoW PC), until then Rift Apart sold 2.72M but that was only during its first first 7 months, so will end selling much more:

You are told directly from Phil Spencer that GP is profitable. You are literally told directly. Whether you believe that or not, it does not matter. (hilarious that each time we get more and more confirmation that Phil did not lie in anything).

MS leaked this in the FTC trial:

Having this, you could say they are profitable. But the thing is, Accountability Margin aren't profits. It only counts the costs accounted to the division. So costs like server costs aren't counted here because they are accounted under the Azure division. Being creative with financials, not counting their biggest costs, they can say they are profitable, yes.

Also if PSN has more subs, it means that they need to pay for the servers, cloud saves, internet infrastructure more. Also with older games being put in the service (and keep in mind it is still more expensive for them as they have a bigger userbase), they benefit less from DLC and MTX sales that occur due to the game being in GP. Like people are more likely to buy a DLC for the game in Game Pass than without it.

True, but newer games are more expensive to pay for inclusion, and more sales are lost.

Also keep in mind, that due to smaller marketshare games like Persona is cheaper to put on Game Pass Day 1 because the sales on Xbox itself will be smaller. And even with Play Anywhere - people will still buy games in Steam and on Playstation. So I don't think it is that expensive to put a lot of those games in Game Pass. Sure games like GTA or Star Wars might be out of budget, but a lot of games are not really expensive. I don't believe they are.

MS said it's the opposite: 3P asks them for more money to MS for exclusives or GP inclusion compared to PS because by doing so they limit the game to a smaller audience, so more estimated sales lost have to be compensated.

MS also said they spend over $1B/year signing 3P games for GP.

But yes, they pay more or less for a game depending on the amount of months signed, the potential sales lost because including it there (so also depends if the game is new or old, bigger or small).

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

MS said it's the opposite: 3P asks them for more money to MS for exclusives or GP inclusion compared to PS because by doing so they limit the game to a smaller audience, so more estimated sales lost have to be compensated.

MS also said they spend over $1B/year signing 3P games for GP.

While I don't recall MS saying that third parties are asking MS to pay more than Sony, I do remember that PS was paying third parties not to put the games on Game Pass, which caused the uneccesary price increase for Microsoft (as for the third party it is easier just to get Sony's money and not to put anything in GP keeping the status quo). But regarding "over one billion", it is still not that much as we can take a look at all those marketing budgets, investments and support third party receive from the platform holder. Nothing of it is cheap.

But by and large, including the games in PS is much more expensive for Sony as the have to pay for the missing sales on the platform. And I don't doubt that just excluding Xbox is cheaper for Sony than getting a game in PS+ (unless they financed it by themselves). Sony do have a nice negotiation position as they can make deals using stuff like "we will ask for 20% cut rather than 30%" and so on.

True, but newer games are more expensive to pay for inclusion, and more sales are lost.

It depends on how much sales are lost in the first place. Like, people are laughing at JRPGs not selling on Xbox, but that just means that those games are easier to get in GP simply because less sales to abandon. And a higher chance for exposure. It really depends on the game.

All in all, there are a lot of trade-offs for every platform holder.

Having this, you could say they are profitable. But the thing is, Accountability Margin aren't profits. It only counts the costs accounted to the division. So costs like server costs aren't counted here because they are accounted under the Azure division. Being creative with financials, not counting their biggest costs, they can say they are profitable, yes.

The point is that, if it is considered profitable according by Phil Spencer - it is profitable. Simple as that. It is like saying that "70b acquisition means Xbox is losing money" or something.

Sorry, I didn't see this anywhere.

There was that Insomniac's slide where Sony mentioned their desire to lay off some staff and Ted Price was arguing that it is better to move staff from R&C to Wolverine, SM and so on.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Not what I said. I'm sure in a vacuum both are making a profit. I'm saying it doesn't make up for the immensely poorly made games on Xbox. Poor reviews and Day1 on Xbox.

Oh my.


Merry Christmas lol

 

[StealthGoblin]

The point is that, if it is considered profitable according by Phil Spencer - it is profitable. Simple as that. It is like saying that "70b acquisition means Xbox is losing money" or something.

Proven liar, bullshitter and hubris Phil Spencer?

I wouldn't believe him even if he told me my middle name correctly.

Guys a total Unreal Engine 3 rendered meat head.

 

[mckmas8808]

Looking at how low the profits on Sony's games are despite selling 10-20 million copies, there's simply no way Microsoft makes any money on their first party games because they don't sell even 1-2 million copies. Their last big seller was Halo 5 with 5 million copies sold, everything else is a lot lower. This was before gamepass was introduced, today these numbers are a lot lower still.

Why do people like this lie and say Sony's games make little profit at 15 million sold?

 

[mckmas8808]

How do I turn bad news for Sony into even worse news for Microsoft?

The mental gymnastics….

There was no bad news in the Insomniac leaks though. What are you talking about?

Sony doesn’t get all the profits from Spider-Man game related licensing.. they do have some sort of profit sharing deal with marvel but Spider-Man to Sony is more of a brand builder than a direct profit powerhouse.

But Spiderman has been a literal direct profit house for Sony so far. Like in the most literal sense.

None of these companies are wise with their $ except Nintendo.

EPIC makes bank off Fortnite and flushes it down the toilet with epic games store.

Neither Sony or Xbox is on a profitable path.

All of Sony's AAA games have turned a profit on the PS5. What are you talking about?

Thats crap. Insecure for what? My mans literally made a thread about the budget of Spiderman #2 and then tries to compare it to Xbox as if, surely if Sony is having budget issues and cant cover sales, Xbox must being doing worse. Why not just keep the conversation about what it was about? Why not try to figure out why Insomniac/Sony have bulging budgets?

My mans went straight to deflecting and making it about something else. I'd rather know why the game costs $300+. Its not about insecurities like, at all. Sony and Microsoft have already proven they arent the same when it comes to business models.

When did we see Sony can't cover the budget of their games with game sales?

 

[DenchDeckard]

There was no bad news in the Insomniac leaks though. What are you talking about?



But Spiderman has been a literal direct profit house for Sony so far. Like in the most literal sense.



All of Sony's AAA games have turned a profit on the PS5. What are you talking about?



When did we see Sony can't cover the budget of their games with game sales?

I personally think the insomniac stolen data shows us that these games aren't sustainable for the industry for the same simple fact that many claim game pass isn't sustainable for rhe industry.

We often here only Microsoft has the money to support gamepass and it isn't a fair representation of the industry and how it operates. Well, to me it's pretty clear that the industry can not support Sonys typical games and we shouldn't expect it to. Sony are using their benefits just as much as Microsoft are using theirs.

For a game to need to sell like 7.5 million copies to break even....thats wild. Do you think many games that are pitched to a publisher with that kind of requirement to break even get signed off? I doubt many if any at all.

It would only take a few games to underperform, say last of us 2 to seriously impact your business.

I think its worth discussing.

If spider man 2 cost 315 million and releases looking great but not mindblowing, what's the budget on the next last of us 3? 450mill? More? For a potential 7 to 8 million sales?

I'm not surprised that Sony have been looking at other ways to bring money in.

 

[DForce]

This thread is amazing.

As soon as Microsoft acquired Zenimax, people in this thread were predicting Sony's downfall because they couldn't stop Microsoft from acquiring more publishers.

Does anyone remember, "Sony can't make a ZeniMax level acquisition?" lol

But when we pull up Phil's own words regarding the 2027 projection and the poor Xbox Series S sales, people are saying that we're blowing things out of proportion. It's like people don't remember the stuff they were saying at the beginning of this generation.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Sony are using their benefits just as much as Microsoft are using theirs

Not quite. SIE is driving this, Xbox is not bankrolling / driving their strategy: MS corp as a whole is and you know it.

This game is made internally and with SIE’s money and most importantly in this Insomniac case everything except their smaller AA releases made money, Spider-man 2 will make quite large profits when all is said and done and it helps their HW sales too (which for them are important). Once you count the profits from their spin-offs (whose development costs are lower because of the investment in the base game already) the picture on Spider-man will look quite rosy. It is an IP it is quite safe to invest, only the most popular comics superhero in the world.

$80+ Billions for their acquisitions and the money which they plan to outspend Sony out of business with (GamePass being part of the way they plan to upend the console market with) is not coming from Xbox’s profits. You keep comparing PlayStation division to MS’s entire machine when convenient but not in the FTC/CMA trials ones where Xbox was playing the world smallest violin .

 

[mckmas8808]

I personally think the insomniac stolen data shows us that these games aren't sustainable for the industry for the same simple fact that many claim game pass isn't sustainable for rhe industry.

We often here only Microsoft has the money to support gamepass and it isn't a fair representation of the industry and how it operates. Well, to me it's pretty clear that the industry can not support Sonys typical games and we shouldn't expect it to. Sony are using their benefits just as much as Microsoft are using theirs.

For a game to need to sell like 7.5 million copies to break even....thats wild. Do you think many games that are pitched to a publisher with that kind of requirement to break even get signed off? I doubt many if any at all.

It would only take a few games to underperform, say last of us 2 to seriously impact your business.

I think its worth discussing.

If spider man 2 cost 315 million and releases looking great but not mindblowing, what's the budget on the next last of us 3? 450mill? More? For a potential 7 to 8 million sales?

I'm not surprised that Sony have been looking at other ways to bring money in.

Oh my freaking god man. For the 30th time, TLOU2 did NOT underperform. It's estimated to be at or around 15 million sold. There's no reality where that is not overly profitable or underperforming.

It was never bundled and never had a remaster like the 1st game. Why do you all keep lying like this? WTF is wrong with the world that people need TLOU2 to be a failure when we have data now? Geez bro.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Not quite. SIE is driving this, Xbox is not bankrolling / driving their strategy: MS corp as a whole is and you know it.

This game is made internally and with SIE’s money and most importantly in this Insomniac case everything except their smaller AA releases made money, Spider-man 2 will make quite large profits when all is said and done and it helps their HW sales too (which for them are important). Once you count the profits from their spin-offs (whose development costs are lower because of the investment in the base game already) the picture on Spider-man will look quite rosy. It is an IP it is quite safe to invest, only the most popular comics superhero in the world.

$80+ Billions for their acquisitions and the money which they plan to outspend Sony out of business with (GamePass being part of the way they plan to upend the console market with) is not coming from Xbox’s profits. You keep comparing PlayStation division to MS’s entire machine when convenient but not in the FTC/CMA trials ones where Xbox was playing the world smallest violin .

This is very important to everyone to understand. Sony manages every studio like their own independent business.

Their investments have come from SIE money. Every single acquisition, including Bungie. That may not be the case going forward, but I don't think anyone can argue that SIE have extracted more revenue and value from every dollar they've invested than Xbox. Xbox if they had SIE funding wouldn't exist anymore as they've made bad decision after bad decision.

Let's be clear - Microsoft has continuously subsidised Xbox hardware to the tune of billions upon billions. Their studio management has been dreadful. Their subscription is not viable with Xbox money. And let's not forget, a lot of expenditure that SIE includes in their outgoings (servers etc) are not booked under Xbox at Microsoft. Add in their full expenditures and Xbox's financials would be even worse.

And we don't even know their financials because they have deliberately hidden them for years.

 

[Chukhopops]

Let's be clear - Microsoft has continuously subsidised Xbox hardware to the tune of billions upon billions. Their studio management has been dreadful. Their subscription is not viable with Xbox money. And let's not forget, a lot of expenditure that SIE includes in their outgoings (servers etc) are not booked under Xbox at Microsoft. Add in their full expenditures and Xbox's financials would be even worse.

You got a source on that? Considering no one has access to a detailed Xbox P&L and this wasn’t mentioned in any of the investigations.

Edit: looks like it can be safely filed in the bullshit category.

 

[DenchDeckard]

This is very important to everyone to understand. Sony manages every studio like their own independent business.

Their investments have come from SIE money. Every single acquisition, including Bungie. That may not be the case going forward, but I don't think anyone can argue that SIE have extracted more revenue and value from every dollar they've invested than Xbox. Xbox if they had SIE funding wouldn't exist anymore as they've made bad decision after bad decision.

Let's be clear - Microsoft has continuously subsidised Xbox hardware to the tune of billions upon billions. Their studio management has been dreadful. Their subscription is not viable with Xbox money. And let's not forget, a lot of expenditure that SIE includes in their outgoings (servers etc) are not booked under Xbox at Microsoft. Add in their full expenditures and Xbox's financials would be even worse.

And we don't even know their financials because they have deliberately hidden them for years.

So, just that I understand clearly. When Sony purchase someone such as Bungie, and say they have 8 to 10 billion dollars for acquisitions, this is all purely playstations separate entity money and nothing to do with Sony as a whole?

If that's true, I never knew that and it's an interesting fact.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Oh my freaking god man. For the 30th time, TLOU2 did NOT underperform. It's estimated to be at or around 15 million sold. There's no reality where that is not overly profitable or underperforming.

It was never bundled and never had a remaster like the 1st game. Why do you all keep lying like this? WTF is wrong with the world that people need TLOU2 to be a failure when we have data now? Geez bro.

It's on a negative trajectory than the first game which I believe is not what Sony projected for the title at all. But ok.

It also was bundled in the UK at retailers and also dropped to £9.99 in the UK 1 year from launch. That's insane.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's on a negative trajectory than the first game which I believe is not what Sony projected for the title at all. But ok.

It also was bundled in the UK at retailers and also dropped to £9.99 in the UK 1 year from launch. That's insane.

This feels so cherry picked mate, just drop it. TLoU2 did NOT fail… it is a franchise now successfully expanded on TV as well with a successful series too.

 

[StealthGoblin]

So, just that I understand clearly. When Sony purchase someone such as Bungie, and say they have 8 to 10 billion dollars for acquisitions, this is all purely playstations separate entity money and nothing to do with Sony as a whole?

If that's true, I never knew that and it's an interesting fact.

It's more complicated.

When Sony say that, it's the whole of Sony's money. But each of their subsidiaries has their own money too. So while they may say the group has 8billion, each subsidiary will own a section of that money. Incidentally, SIE has the most cash on hand out of Sony's groups, I believe.

PlayStation has used SIE money to make it's acquisitions.

Xbox hasn't used Xbox money, because frankly they've been using Microsoft's money as a whole to keep existing. Both of those approaches are okay, but only one approach there would have facilitated Xboxes multitude of failures.

 

[DenchDeckard]

It's more complicated.

When Sony say that, it's the whole of Sony's money. But each of their subsidiaries has their own money too. So while they may say the group has 8billion, each subsidiary will own a section of that money. Incidentally, SIE has the most cash on hand out of Sony's groups, I believe.

PlayStation has used SIE money to make it's acquisitions.

Xbox hasn't used Xbox money, because frankly they've been using Microsoft's money as a whole to keep existing. Both of those approaches are okay, but only one approach there would have facilitated Xboxes multitude of failures.

So it's Sony as a whole making these purchases for PlayStation?

 

[Topher]

It's on a negative trajectory than the first game which I believe is not what Sony projected for the title at all. But ok.

It also was bundled in the UK at retailers and also dropped to £9.99 in the UK 1 year from launch. That's insane.

Not true. 15 million in 3 years while TLOU did 20 million in 6. Also, TLOU was bundled far more than TLOU 2. Nothing "insane" about it.

 

[DForce]

It's on a negative trajectory than the first game which I believe is not what Sony projected for the title at all. But ok.

It also was bundled in the UK at retailers and also dropped to £9.99 in the UK 1 year from launch. That's insane.

Where is this $9.99 in a year after launch? Do you have any proof of this?

 

[DenchDeckard]

Not true. 15 million in 3 years while TLOU did 20 million in 6. Also, TLOU was bundled far more than TLOU 2. Nothing "insane" about it.

I was just surprised to see the stolen data showing 10 mill units sold which seemed low for one of the most hyped games in history on a huge install base. It seems to be tracking lower than the first but we will see.

Anyway, back on topic. I just don't think these budgets are sustainable. They are too high but now the standard has been set and its one that I feel is unachievable for 90 percent of game releases.

The industry needs long hard look in the mirror.

 

[StealthGoblin]

So it's Sony as a whole making these purchases for PlayStation?

No. Think of it like pocket money.

A parent will say we've allocated £8b for acquisitions, but let's say during period, £5b of that is PlayStation's pocket money to spend what they want.

SIE are spending their own money, but Sony state the whole pot when talking to investors.

 

[Topher]

I was just surprised to see the stolen data showing 10 mill units sold which seemed low for one of the most hyped games in history on a huge install base. It seems to be tracking lower than the first but we will see.

10 million sales was revealed a year and a half ago my man. We didn't need a leak to know that.

 

[DenchDeckard]

No. Think of it like pocket money.

A parent will say we've allocated £8b for acquisitions, but let's say during period, £5b of that is PlayStation's pocket money to spend what they want.

SIE are spending their own money, but Sony state the whole pot when talking to investors.

Is that what xbox are doing?

So Phillie boy goes to daddy Satya and says " hey pops I been grooming Activision, can you give me 70 bill to make it happen" and daddy says yes?

 

[StealthGoblin]

Is that what xbox are doing?

So Phillie boy goes to daddy Satya and says " hey pops I been grooming Activision, can you give me 70 bill to make it happen" and daddy says yes?

Xbox don't have pocket money. They've been bleeding money and have had to ask dad to subsidise the sale of every console and have used central Microsoft funding for their acquisitions.

So it isn't entirely fair to compare the two approaches. Sony's is for PlayStation to be independently sustainable, Microsoft don't give a shit and just want to outspend everyone to the point where they can't compete.

Like I said, without central Microsoft rescue packages Xbox would have gone out of business last gen.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Xbox don't have pocket money. They've been bleeding money and have had to ask dad to subsidise the sale of every console and have used central Microsoft funding for their acquisitions.

So it isn't entirely fair to compare the two approaches. Sony's is for PlayStation to be independently sustainable, Microsoft don't give a shit and just want to outspend everyone to the point where they can't compete.

Like I said, without central Microsoft rescue packages Xbox would have gone out of business last gen.

But they are making increased revenue yoy so they must be doing something right. If it was like Nokia etc they would have just killed it or sold it off, surely?

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

Nueve

 

[StealthGoblin]

What else is "Xbox" and "Playstation" doing StealthGoblin?

We're about to pop some bottles VIP at the club with this stock bet money.

Boggles my mind that people don't know that stuff. Look at the way PlayStation run their studios - they even charge a studio for using their other studios services and bill them. Every step is accountable. When Insomniac wanted to use PlayStation's own VASG they billed them tens of million.

It's why they've closed studios down as their independent projections meant that they wouldn't have been sustainable with the projects in development.

Whereas at Xbox each series X is being sold at a loss by hundreds of dollars, they were happy to write of $700,000,000 in projected revenue for Starfield on PS5 etc.

Sony wouldn't do that and learnt that lesson the hard way with PS3. It's why the PS5 is holistically the better designed console.

PlayStation has been ran as a business from the get go whereas Xbox was ran as a bizarre mix of vanity project and curiosity.

That'll have to change now as they have a lot of IP and studios to manage with a huge workforce.

Sony were able to compete effectively when Xbox weren't using mind boggling amounts of money they hadn't earned but now they appear to have free access to Microsoft cash reserves then it'll change everything.

In my view for the worse.

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

Uno

 

[StealthGoblin]

Word, word. What happened to 989 Studios for Sony? These mf'ers made Everquest.

They were merged with another studio which became San Diego studio (MLB)

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

Dos

 

[ManaByte]

Word, word. What happened to 989 Studios for Sony? These mf'ers made Everquest.

Technically they didn't make EverQuest. Verant Interactive was spun off from 989 Studios and developed EQ.

989 was previously Sony Imagesoft. It then became Sony Interactive Studios America.

Verant Interactive became Sony Online Entertainment but was not part of SCEA for most of its existence. It was under Sony Pictures until 2008 when SCEA took them over before selling them off to the Russians.

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

Teleporter going up

 

[kazuyamishima]

It's on a negative trajectory than the first game which I believe is not what Sony projected for the title at all. But ok.

It also was bundled in the UK at retailers and also dropped to £9.99 in the UK 1 year from launch. That's insane.

The infamous (to a lot of people) Neil confirmed in an Interview back in 2020 that Part II was profitable from day 1.

The 10m units figure data from June 2022. After the TV show, numbers for all versions of the last of us games increased greatly. Also, revenue from Part II is higher than part I even at lower sales.

As for the topic, Again, the leak only confirmed what simple math was telling before it happened: Sony first party games and especially the Blockbusters are VERY profitable.

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

Need a dispenser here!

 

[mckmas8808]

Not true. 15 million in 3 years while TLOU did 20 million in 6. Also, TLOU was bundled far more than TLOU 2. Nothing "insane" about it.

It's insane how some people NEED TLOU2 to be a failure. Plus TLOU2 Remaster will only add to the sales numbers.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So, just that I understand clearly. When Sony purchase someone such as Bungie, and say they have 8 to 10 billion dollars for acquisitions, this is all purely playstations separate entity money and nothing to do with Sony as a whole?

Of course. PlayStation has made ~$3 billion a year in net profit several times. When has Xbox made $70 billion in net profits?

 

[adamsapple]

Their investments have come from SIE money. Every single acquisition, including Bungie. That may not be the case going forward, but I don't think anyone can argue that SIE have extracted more revenue and value from every dollar they've invested than Xbox. Xbox if they had SIE funding wouldn't exist anymore as they've made bad decision after bad decision.

Let's be clear - Microsoft has continuously subsidised Xbox hardware to the tune of billions upon billions. Their studio management has been dreadful. Their subscription is not viable with Xbox money. And let's not forget, a lot of expenditure that SIE includes in their outgoings (servers etc) are not booked under Xbox at Microsoft. Add in their full expenditures and Xbox's financials would be even worse.

Do you have a source or citation to validate any of that?

Or is it another "Trust me bro" case?

Where is this $9.99 in a year after launch? Do you have any proof of this?

Not exactly a calendar 12 month 'year later', but this is in 2021.

Black Friday 2021: GAME video game deals - The Last Of Us Part 2 for £10

GAME is advertising up to 50% off in its Black Friday sale, including one of the best Nintendo Switch bundles and Alan Wake for £18.

metro.co.uk

 

[DForce]

Not exactly a calendar 12 month 'year later', but this is in 2021.

Black Friday 2021: GAME video game deals - The Last Of Us Part 2 for £10

GAME is advertising up to 50% off in its Black Friday sale, including one of the best Nintendo Switch bundles and Alan Wake for £18.

metro.co.uk

DenchDeckard doesn't know this is not unusual. God of War was 9.99 around the same time frame.



This was about a month after it was added to the 19.99 greatest hits collection.

Sony adds 'God of War' and six other games to its PlayStation Hits lineup

Sony has been making the best of its most popular games for the PlayStation 4 with its PlayStation Hits program which offers iconic titles for $20. When the program launched in June last year it included a range of older best-sellers like Uncharted 4, Bloodborne and Metal Gear Solid V.

www.engadget.com