• 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

It means Sony has deviated from their PS4 playbook. You no longer need Sony hardware to play Sony software. That was one of the first big steps Microsoft had to take with their first-party games before GamePass could take off the way that it has.
If anything it shows that Sony has so little fear of MS that they are willing to let go of one of their biggest differentiators because they know the PS5 is going to sell regardless.
 
Naughty Dog is to blame for that, surely they knew that the choices they've made will heavily polarize the audience and turn away some customers. I'm not saying they should be playing very safe with the sequels but it's still a product for the mass audience and making it too controversial is a recipe for disaster.
So if something as simple as a game’s story can have such detrimental consequences for a franchise (not a new revelation at all) then maybe it’s in their best interest to not rely so heavily on first party.

Just a thought. People can’t put their stanning of Sony to the side long enough to understand a basic point.
 
Last edited:

metaverse

Member
Microsoft also says in those documents MS couldn't sell games like Sony and Nintendo and that's the ONLY reason why gamepass even exists. They should just be quiet Lmao

 

Leyasu

Banned
lol @ MS advising Sony to dump their expensive AAA games out into feeding trough services.

Yea go dump Kobe beef out onto the masses at a buffet
The cheek of Microsoft. Until you realise that the PS subscribers are already heavily subsidising the development of Sonys first party games with their monthly sub.

Most likely that any lost day one revenue from subscribers downloading the games would have already been offset by the fact that they have covered the development costs or a massive percentage.
 
Last edited:
The cheek of Microsoft. Until you realise that the PS subscribers are already heavily subsidising the development of Sonys first party games with their monthly sub.

Most likely that any lost day one revenue from subscribers downloading the games would have already been offset by the fact that they have covered the development costs or a massive percentage.

Don’t forget the sales. That helps as well.
 

Leyasu

Banned
Yeah I know you can buy them on PlayStation. Just saying that losing none of those sales to a subscription helps with revenue to an extent.
The revenue doesn’t change that much though if subscribers have already paid for the development.

Or perhaps I should say profit
 
Last edited:
The revenue doesn’t change that much though if subscribers have already paid for the development.

Costs of development isn’t factored in revenue.

R = P x Q
Profit = ( P x Q) - (FC - VC)

Revenue is just talking about price multiplied by units sold. Pretty sure Sony creates a budget based off what they think the revenue will be. But I do agree that subscriptions can help subsidize a part of that but it’s also important to have day one sales at MSRP.
 

phil_t98

Member
Because somebody said I've barely seen any marketing for Halo when I said it had huge marketing and I was showing the extent of the Halo marketing. I made that clear already.

All AAA games have huge marketing deals. That’s the way it goes. The point is Microsoft are still putting big money into AAA games which people
Said wouldn’t happen because of being free with gamepass day 1
 

phil_t98

Member
Costs of development isn’t factored in revenue.

R = P x Q
Profit = ( P x Q) - (FC - VC)

Revenue is just talking about price multiplied by units sold. Pretty sure Sony creates a budget based off what they think the revenue will be. But I do agree that subscriptions can help subsidize a part of that but it’s also important to have day one sales at MSRP.


With games hitting day one sub services they still make money, they all have various editions with the standard being on the sub service. The games are still available to buy day one as some people don’t want to have a sub service. All bases are covers, then there’s DLC which also factors in and they are never free on the sub service
 
All AAA games have huge marketing deals. That’s the way it goes. The point is Microsoft are still putting big money into AAA games
With games hitting day one sub services they still make money, they all have various editions with the standard being on the sub service. The games are still available to buy day one as some people don’t want to have a sub service. All bases are covers, then there’s DLC which also factors in and they are never free on the sub service

which people
Said wouldn’t happen because of being free with gamepass day 1

But they don’t make the same amount of revenue. Which is where Sony may struggle to put games on PS+ day one.

Obviously, but sony can't sustain that model like MS can.

Basically is what believe is happening. For the type of company Sony is a gamepass like model may not be viable for them.
 
Last edited:

phil_t98

Member
But they don’t make the same amount of revenue. Which is where Sony may struggle to put games on PS+ day one.

Depends on how much they promote the sun service, having 30-40 million subscribers a month versus 2 AAA games being on the sun service and selling as well.
 
Depends on how much they promote the sun service, having 30-40 million subscribers a month versus 2 AAA games being on the sun service and selling as well.

Not all those subs go to one game though. It’s distributed amongst developers that are on gamepass and Microsoft’s 1st party studios. Doesn’t mean that model would work for Sony.
 
I think i prefer to buy as i go, ive had pS now had all these games at my will and i was overwhelmed and never decided what to play and ended up playing nothing at all. To many games to play. No one needs all that let microsoft do it for there customers
 

phil_t98

Member
Not all those subs go to one game though. It’s distributed amongst developers that are on gamepass and Microsoft’s 1st party studios. Doesn’t mean that model would work for Sony.

Yes that’s why games are still sold, it’s estimated that with the sub service Microsoft will bring in about 4 billion a year at present. That goes up the more subs are added
 
Yes that’s why games are still sold, it’s estimated that with the sub service Microsoft will bring in about 4 billion a year at present. That goes up the more subs are added

The problem here is that you assume that Sony should do this. It really depends on if they can afford it. Maybe the traditional model is the best option for them.
 

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
It means Sony has deviated from their PS4 playbook. You no longer need Sony hardware to play Sony software. That was one of the first big steps Microsoft had to take with their first-party games before GamePass could take off the way that it has.

Gamepass was big from the start, the reason why growth became slow was because the Xbox One didn't have much life in it. When the new consoles came out many of the new subs currently came from those, or people with Xbox One All Access upgrading to the Xbox Series consoles.

So they didn't need to do it, it's just icing on a cake. If it was that simple Gamepass would have grown more and more on the Xbox One given the 50 million install base instead of falling flat.
 

Leyasu

Banned
Costs of development isn’t factored in revenue.

R = P x Q
Profit = ( P x Q) - (FC - VC)

Revenue is just talking about price multiplied by units sold. Pretty sure Sony creates a budget based off what they think the revenue will be. But I do agree that subscriptions can help subsidize a part of that but it’s also important to have day one sales at MSRP.
The budget is not dictated by how much they forecast, the budget is dictated by the size of the studio (amount of employees) and the time they need to create the game.

They might tweak the marketing budget though.

Revenue generated after launch will obviously be down if several million subscribers download the game, but if Sony have hardly spent anything creating the game and it still sells millions are they really losing out??
 

Leyasu

Banned
Not all those subs go to one game though. It’s distributed amongst developers that are on gamepass and Microsoft’s 1st party studios. Doesn’t mean that model would work for Sony.
Of course they don’t go to one game. But say naughty dog needs 5 yrs to create a game, and the studio costs 20 million a year to run. Then that game costs around 100m to make without the marketing and actors salaries. So, as you can see, they are only taking a FRACTION of the subs revenue which Sony makes per year.

Weren’t they themselves bragging about 2bn+ Revenue per year??? Where do you think that this money is already going?
 

phil_t98

Member
The problem here is that you assume that Sony should do this. It really depends on if they can afford it. Maybe the traditional model is the best option for them.

and like wise you assume they can't afford this. I think one of the issues could be the gaming department proving up other parts of the company. I suppose Sony usually release 2 AAA games a year and then factor in number subscribers per month needed to make that revenue
 

0neAnd0nly

Member
lol. This shit again. I am assuming that you comment Sony exclusive game sales in the same way, you know the bundle cheat

You assume wrong.

I am also, again, pretty critical of Sony these days.

I think “pro” consoles should be under different selling. UNLESS multiple console manufacturers come out with a mid Gen console in the same 6 month window.

Fair enough?

X/S is weird AF. The S has 4 teraflops, the X has 12.

Even techradar says this:

The Xbox Series S is a great option if you want to avoid the sizable financial outlay required to own a full-blown next-gen console, but it has significantly less storage, prioritizes 1440p resolution for gaming, and does without the 4K HD Blu-Ray drive of the Xbox Series X.

When people make the argument that they “play the same games”, so does 99% of PS4 pro to PS5. Doesn’t make them the same thing.

The X is a way more powerful console, the S is like a mid-Gen refresh.

I don’t understand the weird latch people have to that as Microsoft fans. It’s weird. It’s 2 consoles compared to 1 for everyone else (Sony, Nintendo).

Again - I am fine with not counting bundled games as well. You think I am a blind PlayStation fan, but that isn’t true at all.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
You assume wrong.

I am also, again, pretty critical of Sony these days.

I think “pro” consoles should be under different selling. UNLESS multiple console manufacturers come out with a mid Gen console in the same 6 month window.

Fair enough?

X/S is weird AF. The S has 4 teraflops, the X has 12.

Even techradar says this:

The Xbox Series S is a great option if you want to avoid the sizable financial outlay required to own a full-blown next-gen console, but it has significantly less storage, prioritizes 1440p resolution for gaming, and does without the 4K HD Blu-Ray drive of the Xbox Series X.

When people make the argument that they “play the same games”, so does 99% of PS4 pro to PS5. Doesn’t make them the same thing.

The X is a way more powerful console, the S is like a mid-Gen refresh.

I don’t understand the weird latch people have to that as Microsoft fans. It’s weird. It’s 2 consoles compared to 1 for everyone else (Sony, Nintendo).

Again - I am fine with not counting bundled games as well. You think I am a blind PlayStation fan, but that isn’t true at all.
They counted together because they have the EXACT SAME LIBRARY. Just like X1 and X1X and PS4 and PS4 Pro. It makes no sense whatsoever to count them separately.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
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.
Just because Grounded hits Game Pass day one doesn’t make it a better game than DeS.
 

Neo_game

Member
lol I don't think so and I am not sure why Microsoft does it as well. They can always offer it later to subscription service.

I think GaaS can benefit because with day1 release as they need high user count and then make money using MTX and add-on content. Even if only 30-40% buy they will still make profits.
 
Last edited:

Gamerguy84

Member
I just want to point out that Sonys business model is discussed more by the competing fan base then their own.

All I've been hearing since 2018 is Sony better copy gamepass or they are doomed.
I like PSPLUS premium though and how they upgraded it. I'm playing DS now and Returnal after. Those were games I was interested in but not enough to throw down $70. Now I get to play them. If I like Returnal enough I'll buy it.

I also like to own the core games that defined the generation for me. I have a nice collection of PS2, 3, 4, and 5 games so far.

The only thing holding Sony back from the generation they envision is supply constraints and covid like it has the rest of the world.

MS went to a different model because the other wasn't working.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I mean, nothing has changed so far, all they did was rearrange PSNow and PS+ into a single service with multiple tiers. They still have shown no intention of adding their games day one on the service.

What has changed from the PS4 strategy?


Do people pay full price for Gamepass now? Why? So many tricks and promos going on all the time with it. I never paid more than $1 a month and had it for years.
Gamespass only has a 1 month option or a 3-month option.

Xbox Live always had a discounted 1 year cost.

Nice try.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
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.
If MS can solve their issues with studio management and fully leverage all the talent and studios they have acquired, then Gamepass will be an all time gaming win.

However, MS has not shown me in any way that they can competently manage first party development. Every game gets delayed 50+ times. Issues about studio management etc. THe way MS has handled the Halo franchise tells you everything you need to know about how their management works.

Things you rarely hear about from Sony.
 
Gamespass only has a 1 month option or a 3-month option.

Xbox Live always had a discounted 1 year cost.

Nice try.
Just create another account, after some time they'll offer you the trial again, so once you have a few of them you don't even need to create them anymore. The only thing you need to change is the email.

You used to be able to get a trial for regular gamepass and one for ultimate as well, don't know if that changed.

Nice try.
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Member
I just want to point out that Sonys business model is discussed more by the competing fan base then their own.

All I've been hearing since 2018 is Sony better copy gamepass or they are doomed.
I like PSPLUS premium though and how they upgraded it. I'm playing DS now and Returnal after. Those were games I was interested in but not enough to throw down $70. Now I get to play them. If I like Returnal enough I'll buy it.

I also like to own the core games that defined the generation for me. I have a nice collection of PS2, 3, 4, and 5 games so far.

The only thing holding Sony back from the generation they envision is supply constraints and covid like it has the rest of the world.

MS went to a different model because the other wasn't working.
I think the bigger context here is the inevitable emergence of subscription models and streaming.

Looking at the entertainment industry as a whole - music, TV, movies etc. If it wasn't Microsoft, it does seem a foregone conclusion that someone, eventually going to emerge with this business model.

Due to the value proposition, there was immense positive word of mouth and publicity for this offering (why wouldn't there be). Sony could continue to keep the good old days, but the markets commentary is getting louder and louder.

Sony wants to enforce the claim that they can't support this business model to protect their own massive profits. There's somewhat a bit of a role-reversal here between the two giants. Sony filters gaming profits as the lucrative section of their company to other parts of the business, whereas MS does the opposite.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
I think the bigger context here is the inevitable emergence of subscription models and streaming.

Looking at the entertainment industry as a whole - music, TV, movies etc. If it wasn't Microsoft, it does seem a foregone conclusion that someone, eventually going to emerge with this business model.

Due to the value proposition, there was immense positive word of mouth and publicity for this offering (why wouldn't there be). Sony could continue to keep the good old days, but the markets commentary is getting louder and louder.

Sony wants to enforce the claim that they can't support this business model to protect their own massive profits. There's somewhat a bit of a role-reversal here between the two giants. Sony filters gaming profits as the lucrative section of their company to other parts of the business, whereas MS does the opposite.

Oh yea there are definitely ways to monetize that model, with one of the big ones the monthly sub itself.

I've looked at gamepass myself and how they do things differently. The microtransactions, season passes, etc. Things that exist now but seem to be structured differently in both price and content.

Just not sure if Sony or Nintendo for the matter are at that point where they need to go there yet.
 

Zok310

Member
The kid that gets straight D minuses is trying to tell the kid that get straight A’s on how to study…
 

Chronicle

Member
The best part about this thread are the fanboys on damage control who didn't take a minute to read the OP.

Microsoft is saying this in their response to Sony telling Brazilian authorities that, basically, they cannot compete with Game Pass and Game Pass has like 70% of the marketshare. How it would take so many years and money to come close to rivaling Game Pass, etc., despite themselves calling PS+ a rival.

This is all the from the same documents that have already posted where Microsoft lawyers are spit-roasting Sony's arguments; there's nothing new here except a media outlet pointing out this specific section.

Basically, Microsoft is saying that Sony can make PS+ more attractive by adding day one titles, and it could rival Game Pass more if done so. Pretty much calling Sony's bluff by saying they rely on "buy-to-play" as their strategy while Microsoft is adopting another successful method, and Sony is just upset that they're marketshare is being threatened and they have to compete. Microsoft literally uses the words "afraid" and "incoherant" plus many more hilarious words in these documents to call out Sony, lmao.

But queue the Sony Defense Force to blindly jump in. It must suck to always be backfired upon. 🤭

"This is all the from the same documents that have already posted where Microsoft lawyers are spit-roasting Sony's arguments; there's nothing new here except a media outlet pointing out this specific section."
Then why do we need another thread about it?
 

John Wick

Member
Microsoft have lots of money but I doubt that other segments of the company are paying for the Xbox division, I don’t think for a second that Gamepass is burning money tbh. And Starfield likely have an insane budget.

Sony as a company also have several legs to stand on and they’re making tons of money. And the cheap tricks for PS+ Premium aren’t working anymore to my knowledge so 20+ million Premium subscribers would literally bring in hundreds of million dollars every month. And with Sony 1st party AAA games there day 1 20+ million is just the beginning.
So where did the $78 billion come from to pay for the acquisitions?
So gamepass cost MS nothing to start and to sustain? Don't forget thr RROD probably ate most of if not all of MS profits in 360 gen.
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
If MS can solve their issues with studio management and fully leverage all the talent and studios they have acquired, then Gamepass will be an all time gaming win.

However, MS has not shown me in any way that they can competently manage first party development. Every game gets delayed 50+ times. Issues about studio management etc. THe way MS has handled the Halo franchise tells you everything you need to know about how their management works.

Things you rarely hear about from Sony.
This is quite hyperbolic. There are specific studios that have had issues. 343i being chief among them. Rare, Obsidian, Coalition, Mojang, and Playground have all delivered multiple titles on time and with good scores. Even 343i's last title that while delayed and still currently unfinished has over an 85 Metacritic score.

You rarely hear ANYTHING about the internal workings of Sony. When the Series consoles launched there were numerous interviews with developers, and people were flown to MS to preview the hardware. Sony did the road to PS5 presentation and a video they did internally showing the hardware. It took months for external hardware reviewers to do a PS5 chip teardown and there are still aspects of the system people don't know. MS is always announcing new features and holding conferences to show aspects of their platform.

Halo is an easy whipping boy but like it or not the core gameplay is sound and if they can get more content it will be a fantastic package. I wouldn't bet against MS or Halo to crumble and disappear any time soon.
 

drganon

Member
So where did the $78 billion come from to pay for the acquisitions?
So gamepass cost MS nothing to start and to sustain? Don't forget thr RROD probably ate most of if not all of MS profits in 360 gen.
Yeah, there is no way gamepass is profitable as of now. It's funded and sustained by taking money from other actual profitable divisions.Of course, they could settle the argument once and for all if they actually showed some data.
 

pasterpl

Member
You assume wrong.

I am also, again, pretty critical of Sony these days.

I think “pro” consoles should be under different selling. UNLESS multiple console manufacturers come out with a mid Gen console in the same 6 month window.

Fair enough?

X/S is weird AF. The S has 4 teraflops, the X has 12.

Even techradar says this:

The Xbox Series S is a great option if you want to avoid the sizable financial outlay required to own a full-blown next-gen console, but it has significantly less storage, prioritizes 1440p resolution for gaming, and does without the 4K HD Blu-Ray drive of the Xbox Series X.

When people make the argument that they “play the same games”, so does 99% of PS4 pro to PS5. Doesn’t make them the same thing.

The X is a way more powerful console, the S is like a mid-Gen refresh.

I don’t understand the weird latch people have to that as Microsoft fans. It’s weird. It’s 2 consoles compared to 1 for everyone else (Sony, Nintendo).

Again - I am fine with not counting bundled games as well. You think I am a blind PlayStation fan, but that isn’t true at all.
You are making a mistake of focusing on differences. Xss and XSX got same gen cpu, gpu, memory, SSd etc. the whole architecture is same and current gen. And btw ps5 digital is also missing Blu-ray player (you chose to list this as a difference between consoles). Beyond power of gpu these consoles are almost the same.

When people make the argument that they “play the same games”, so does 99% of PS4 pro to PS5. Doesn’t make them the same thing.
That’s just stupid, as ps4 and ps5 got different gen cpu, gpu, memory, storage the whole architecture is different.
 
Top Bottom