• 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.

Microsoft Says Sony Will Benefit From Launching First-Party Games on PS Plus

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Lol. Media subscriptions are FAR from predictable. Disney just lost $1.1B supporting their subscriptions and they owned 70% of their content outright (meaning it wasn’t net new for the service). Netflix went from break even to loosing tens of millions when their number of subs started to decline.
People always claim this but have never looked at NF's financials ever. Netflix has been profitable since the early 2000s when they were still doing DVD mailers. It's the past maybe 5 years where profits really ramped up.

Even in the latest quarter when they said subs dropped 1 million users, they still made $1.4 billion profit.

 
Last edited:

KAOS

Member
Sony could easily obliterate Game Pass with their first party day one exclusives. They could also entice people to buy their games by offering to break the street date for early adapters as well as discounted or special dlc (take a hint MS). But just expecting their loyal subjects to pay $70 bucks is going to get old and counter intuitive.
 
People always claim this but have never looked at NF's financials ever. Netflix has been profitable since the early 2000s when they were still doing DVD mailers. It's the past maybe 5 years where profits really ramped up.

Even in the latest quarter when they said subs dropped 1 million users, they still made $1.4 billion profit.



And how much money does Netflix spent every year in content?
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Does Sony/MS/Nintendo spent more or less money in content and do they have more or less profit as Netflix?.
Not sure. Maybe you can research the details.

But going on high level sales, COGs and profits, NF should have more sales, COGs and profit than Nintendo or Sony's gaming division. MS doesn't break out their gaming financials, but NF would be higher as well.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
This is what doesn't make sense to me, they were already getting $9.99 a month from the online pay wall from most of their players, they went trough all this effort and spent so much money just for an extra $5? It just doesn't add up and that's why Sony would be extremely foolish to go all in on this Gamepass model as well.

Sony already had close to 50m subscribers to PS+ before they made the recent changes to the service, they have very little to gain by adopting this new model and pretty much everything to lose if people stop buying games. MS on the other hand seems to be willing to take on years of losses if it means it will hurt their competitors and allow them to consolidate the market.

The celling of how much money Gamepass can generate does not justify the amount of money MS has already spent at all.
The online pay wall cost $60 a year. Literally nobody paid $9.99 a month. And yes, there is a difference between $9.99 a month and $14.99 a month.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Lol. Media subscriptions are FAR from predictable. Disney just lost $1.1B supporting their subscriptions and they owned 70% of their content outright (meaning it wasn’t net new for the service). Netflix went from break even to loosing tens of millions when their number of subs started to decline.

Game pass in its current state is far from profitable, anyone with half a brain can see it. In the current economy, growth at any cost just doesn’t work. Sony just doesn’t want to play that game and I’m totally ok with it. I don’t trust Microsoft’s promise “to support subscription and non-subscription based distribution” in the long term if Gamepass realizes profitability.
MS is putting itself into a precarious position where it needs Gamepass to be absolutely killer and rock solid. I don't care what any fanboy on this page says, they cannot and will not subsudize it forever. Either they will reach astronomical subscription numbers OR they will be forced to cut costs and then it will be filled with junk and cookie cutter quick development games.
 
Not sure. Maybe you can research the details.

But going on high level sales, COGs and profits, NF should have more sales, COGs and profit than Nintendo or Sony. MS doesn't break out their gaming financials, but NF would be higher as well.
I tried to Google it but rapidly became so murky and nonsensical.

This why trying to debate with financials feels so futile.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
MS is putting itself into a precarious position where it needs Gamepass to be absolutely killer and rock solid. I don't care what any fanboy on this page says, they cannot and will not subsudize it forever. Either they will reach astronomical subscription numbers OR they will be forced to cut costs and then it will be filled with junk and cookie cutter quick development games.
Possibly.

But Xbox has been around for 20 years, surely made way less profits than Sony or Nintendo (maybe MS gaming is actually at a net loss over 20 years), but they're still here. I remember warriors claiming MS is going to throw in the towel during the Xbox One days. What happened is MS ramped up with even more systems, more studios, GP.

MS is also a company that is highly profitable with high margins. A division like Xbox is dragging down their profit margins. But Xbox is still alive and kicking.

At some point, maybe MS will ditch GP or Xbox and focus back on Office and Azure. But so far, Xbox has been around for 20 years and GP for 5 years. And there's zero sign of them easing up like they want to dump either one of them. If anything, they are more aggressive.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Possibly.

But Xbox has been around for 20 years, surely made way less profits than Sony or Nintendo (maybe MS gaming is actually at a net loss over 20 years), but they're still here. I remember warriors claiming MS is going to throw in the towel during the Xbox One days. What happened is MS ramped up with even more systems, more studios, GP.

MS is also a company that is highly profitable with high margins. A division like Xbox is dragging down their profit margins. But Xbox is still alive and kicking.

At some point, maybe MS will ditch GP or Xbox and focus back on Office and Azure. But so far, Xbox has been around for 20 years and GP for 5 years. And there's zero sign of them easing up like they want to dump either one of them. If anything, they are more aggressive.

They will probably generate more profits than Sony once the AB transaction closes.

Phil is out there trying to get more big budget games on Sony's service. That's dedication to gaming. Or he just doesn't want to pay $70 for GoW. :messenger_beaming:
 
MS is putting itself into a precarious position where it needs Gamepass to be absolutely killer and rock solid. I don't care what any fanboy on this page says, they cannot and will not subsudize it forever. Either they will reach astronomical subscription numbers OR they will be forced to cut costs and then it will be filled with junk and cookie cutter quick development games.
This is why Game Pass itself feels like a Hail Mary. Especially when Xbox itself said in the Epic Vs Aple court that Xbox has never being profitable.
 
They never talked about software and service profits, they said the hardware isn't profitable.
Yet they don't report about Xbox (division) profits. Why?.

Edit: Also, if I remember correctly in the Brazilian documents Xbox said basically that they "lost" the traditional business model?.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yet they don't report about Xbox (division) profits. Why?.

Edit: Also, if I remember correctly in the Brazilian documents Xbox said basically that they "lost" the traditional business model?.
Because they lump all their product lines into I think 5 pillars. And gaming goes into one of them that has Surface laptops and other electronics.

Why doesn't Apple detail profits by Mac, iPhone, Watches and iPads segments? They do for revenue, but never have for profits. All their detailed profit lines per segment aren't publicly known. Instead they lump all their products into a general Products line.

If Sony is so transparent, why didn't they update for everyone their PS Now count lately? Last time they did it was May 2021.
 

Leyasu

Banned
And which fanboy?
Sony continues to make money, ms makes even more money. You go with a pc, play on gamepass, 2 years later plays sony exclusives games with a better performance. Or get a console to play the games early. Without gamepass, playstation it's only worth for exclusives. And currently you get the best from gamepass playing on a pc, the series x is just a device to play gamepass on a tv.
michael jordan laughing GIF



This is something else.

Are you the alt account of ethomaz ethomaz ? By any chance?
 

ZehDon

Member
MS is putting itself into a precarious position where it needs Gamepass to be absolutely killer and rock solid. I don't care what any fanboy on this page says, they cannot and will not subsudize it forever. Either they will reach astronomical subscription numbers OR they will be forced to cut costs and then it will be filled with junk and cookie cutter quick development games.
I tend to agree with this position. Microsoft has made USD$77b in investments to ensure Game Pass has the biggest and best games in the world. But, that just highlights that Microsoft - not just its Xbox division - is expecting sizeable returns. 25 million subscribers just isn't going to cut it. They'll take the loss for a while - they've previously said its "sustainable" - but, for how long?

If Microsoft manage to hit that critical mass point, do you think it would entice Sony to change its ways?
 

supernova8

Member
Absolute nonsense :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Do you think the Xbox division themselves have taken the hit while Game Pass has been in the growth stage, or do you think MS did?

Do you think the Xbox division themselves were profitable enough to fund the Activision/Bethesda acquisitions, or did MS fund them?

MS is trying to drag Sony in to a fight they can’t win. Once Sony go all in on Plus what’s to stop MS from going and spending £100b on EA and Ubisoft and taking a loss on Game Pass for the next 20 years?

Yeah the difference is that Sony Group as a whole is pretty much being carried by the Games division right now.

Sony's game (G&NS) segment accounted for 30% of total sales and a whopping 56% of total operating income for FY21.

For Microsoft, it doesn't give detailed number for Xbox (it's within the More Personal Computing (MPC) segment).
However, MPC accounted for 30% of total sales and just 25% of total operating income for its FY22.
In that case we can assume that gaming accounts for significantly less than 25% of operating income since Windows OEM and cloud services (also within the MPC segment) likely have very high profit margins.

Just looking at the numbers alone, it's pretty clear that Sony cannot run its gaming business the way Microsoft is running its gaming business. Microsoft knows that, which is why they cannot keep competing the way they have before. Not sure about 20 years but yeah Microsoft could run it at a loss for a long time if they believed it could drive (Playstation (not necessarily Sony as a whole)) into the ground.

That's one of the beauties of Nintendo's business structure. While people could argue all day over whether Sony would really be fucked if Microsoft really did buy EA and Ubisoft after Bethesda and ActiBliz (I think they would be but some will disagree), it's pretty clear (just looking at the Switch) that people are more than willing to buy Nintendo consoles even if they do not get traditional third party support (here I'm specifically talking about the full-fat versions of FIFA, Fallout, COD, Battlefield day and date with the other consoles, not a downgraded port 18 months later or some Switch-specific weird version later on).
 
Last edited:
And that my friend, is what really is important when taking about these subscription services.

Disney+ just announced they are going to rise their prices (one tier is almost 90 USD monthly if I remember correctly)

Disney+ and its other subscription services have surpassed Netflix worldwide. And yet.. Disney streaming keeps losing money (and expenses are growing). Almost 1B in the last report.

Sub Services are here to stay, there is no doubt about it.

But is not going to be an "instant win", an 'Slam Dunk' some people think is going to be.
This mf said 90 monthly lmao
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Member
It's like "will Sony create Game Pass competitor?" all over again. I remember conversations around 2019, when PS fans beat their chest that Sony would never make Game Pass competitor and certainly won't put their games in subscription service. And yet, here we are.
Microsoft is doing something, and Sony is waiting....
...for the moment that they would have no choice but to put first-party games in PS Plus day one.

Question is if it won't be too late at that point. Like with PS Plus.

But I honestly think, that every live service Sony first-party game will come to PS Plus on day-one and by the end of generation every first-party game. It's just inevitable. That's why Jimbo let the door open in his last interview.
 
Last edited:

Wohc

Banned
The difference is a fair amount of Sony exclusives will actually sell very well without being on a subscription service day one, the same can’t be said about a decent amount of Microsoft’s day one offerings.
Because Sony spends crazy amounts on marketing and MS doesn't. Two different business models. With enough marketing you can even sell 10m Knack 3 or The Order 2.
 
Last edited:
It's like "will Sony create Game Pass competitor?" all over again. I remember conversations around 2019, when PS fans beat their chest that Sony would never make Game Pass competitor and certainly won't put their games in subscription service. And yet, here we are.

You probably don't remember very much then. The gamepass competitor was always about day one FP titles. Sony was already adding FP titles to PS Now in 2019
 

Godot25

Member
You probably don't remember very much then. The gamepass competitor was always about day one FP titles. Sony was already adding FP titles to PS Now in 2019
Yeah. They added one first-party title per eternity, and then yanked it after 3 months. Looks like now first-party titles will be staying in service forever. Which is huge change.
 
Yeah. They added one first-party title per eternity, and then yanked it after 3 months. Looks like now first-party titles will be staying in service forever. Which is huge change.

They yanked some. The rest were permanent

Point being the gamepass comeptitor still doesn't exist
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Member
They yanked some. The rest were permanent

Point being the gamepass comeptitor still doesn't exist
Of course it exists. Both services are providing catalogue of games for fixed price per month. Fact that Sony is not willing to put first-party games there day-one and therefore their service is more shit is Sony's problem but it does not mean, that services can't be compared.
 
Of course it exists. Both services are providing catalogue of games for fixed price per month. Fact that Sony is not willing to put first-party games there day-one and therefore their service is more shit is Sony's problem but it does not mean, that services can't be compared.

Not understanding the point of your post then if Sony's "gamepass competitor" already existed in 2019
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Because Sony spends crazy amounts on marketing and MS doesn't. Two different business models. With enough marketing you can even sell 10m Knack 3 or State of Decay 3.
Are you seriously trying to suggest Sony spend more than MS on marketing? Have you seen the marketing budgets for the Halo series since Halo 5? Where were the 10M sales?
 

Three

Member
do any Sony exclusives cost as much as halo to make? according toga halo one of the most if not the most expensive game to make
Because 343 spent years and years on it and the slipspace engine development which I'm sure they kind of regret now, plus its marketing budget was huge and a large part of the budget.
 
Last edited:

A2una1

Neo Member
Funny how every single person gives Nintendo a pass for this exact same fucking thing. Their games are trash, but their prices are never lowered. Some of their games are 5+ years old still FULL RETAIL. Where's your outrage? Only seems to happen when Sony does something.
Nintendo Games are not 80€ on day one.
 

Wohc

Banned
Are you seriously trying to suggest Sony spend more than MS on marketing? Have you seen the marketing budgets for the Halo series since Halo 5? Where were the 10M sales?
Much more on their big games. I've barely seen any Halo marketing compared to GOW/Spiderman/Horizon/TLOU/Uncharted and of course even with marketing you can't sell big numbers if your game is on a 1 Dollar subscription service or the main aspect of the game is free to play. This said SOD3 was a bad example.
 

phil_t98

Member
Halo is an outlier considering how completely botched that development was. The end result also does not at all reflect the alleged budget.

Because 343 spent years and years on it and the slipspace engine development which I'm sure they kind of regret now, plus its marketing budget was huge and a large part of the budget.

The point was because of subscription serivces the budget on games would be cut bit halo is an example of this not happening
 

Wohc

Banned
Funny how every single person gives Nintendo a pass for this exact same fucking thing. Their games are trash, but their prices are never lowered. Some of their games are 5+ years old still FULL RETAIL. Where's your outrage? Only seems to happen when Sony does something.
Sony and MS would gladly charge you 70-80 Dollars for their 5 years old games. They simply can't. People don't buy their old shit, because they got more than enough 3rd party AAA alternatives. Sony or MS don't drop prices massively within months, because they are so consumer friendly.
 

T-Cake

Member
If Ratchet and Clank hasn't dropped below 50 pound yet, doesn't that sort of prove that they don't need to release first party games on PS Plus on day 1?

I suppose, I don't care any more. I just got rid of all my consoles as of today now. Steam + XCloud + Game Pass for me now.
 

FergusFrost

Member
The point was because of subscription serivces the budget on games would be cut bit halo is an example of this not happening
Yeah and Microsoft have the money to just frivolously throw at failing projects that won't make it back, Sony have to be smarter.
 

Three

Member
The point was because of subscription serivces the budget on games would be cut bit halo is an example of this not happening
Halo infinite isn't even a subscription service game at heart, it was primarily a f2p GaaS multiplayer game. With Halo Infinite they aimed to be the next fortnite and spent big. Unfortunately it didn't gain much traction. Now they are buying their 'Fortnite' like franchise in CoD/CoD Warzone.

Much more on their big games. I've barely seen any Halo marketing compared to GOW/Spiderman/Horizon/TLOU/Uncharted and of course even with marketing you can't sell big numbers if your game is on a 1 Dollar subscription service or the main aspect of the game is free to play. This said SOD3 was a bad example.
I have a hard time believing that to be honest. They pretty much advertised everywhere and on everything where I am so it was near impossible to miss. This 2:30 minute TV spot aired during major matches like Chelsea vs Man U.


They turned oxford street into an xbox junction

Not to mention all this crap they did








Halo marketing was impossible to miss
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom