And that right there explains the CoD acquisition and why they want gamepass on Playstation so bad. At some point you reach market saturation on one device and need to expand."We're seeing incredibly growth on PC... on console I've seen growth slow down, mainly because at some point you've reached everybody on console that wants to subscribe."
The cloud stuff could be pretty compelling if they supported it on smart tv platforms instead of just phones and web browsers.Gotta sell more consoles to get more subscribers. At least until their cloud stuff kicks in.
The cloud stuff could be pretty compelling if they supported it on smart tv platforms instead of just phones and web browsers.
It didnt take a genius to know that. 2.9bil made last year with probably 500mil-1bil in game fees paid tops (after seeing 6mil for GOTG, 600k for Cooking sim, and the Epic leaks, i think thats a fair estimate, if not on the high side).
I doubt it costs more than 2bil a year to run Gamepass, server costs, etc.
It's funny. Because when Spencer said that main reasons for ActiBlizz acquisitions were Blizzard (for PC stuff) and King (for mobile), people laughed.And that right there explains the CoD acquisition and why they want gamepass on Playstation so bad. At some point you reach market saturation on one device and need to expand.
Lots of people eating crow now.
I didn't see any actual confirmation, just an unconfirmed claim. But I believe his claim nonetheless, as he has no reason to lie about profit when his investors can already see what he's doing for them.
They paid $5 million for Guardians of the Galaxy. Sony and MS both paid $3 million for that ark game. These games come very cheap.It didnt take a genius to know that. 2.9bil made last year with probably 500mil-1bil in game fees paid tops (after seeing 6mil for GOTG, 600k for Cooking sim, and the Epic leaks, i think thats a fair estimate, if not on the high side).
I doubt it costs more than 2bil a year to run Gamepass, server costs, etc.
I don’t doubt that it is, but when they start adding in AAA games that cost tens if hundreds of millions to produce, and eat into their retail/digital sales by giving them away for ‘free’ - that’s when it gets interesting. That is why Sony don’t want to do it.
I don’t doubt that it is, but when they start adding in AAA games that cost tens if hundreds of millions to produce, and eat into their retail/digital sales by giving them away for ‘free’ - that’s when it gets interesting. That is why Sony don’t want to do it.
But why are we only counting the cost of these third-party deals? A large portion of first-party game development costs should also be accounted in the "Gamepass costs" because those games are made available day one to GP subscribers, which affects lifetime game sales.They paid $5 million for Guardians of the Galaxy. Sony and MS both paid $3 million for that ark game. These games come very cheap.
I highly doubt the content costs are more than $1 billion a year. Probably $500 million max. Server costs are not in the billions. Couple of hundred million max including the cost of the console hardware sitting in server warehouses. AWS cloud service packages are very cheap.
Thats a valid point.But why are we only counting the cost of these third-party deals? A large portion of first-party game development costs should also be accounted in the "Gamepass costs" because those games are made available day one to GP subscribers, which affects lifetime game sales.
Same goes for server and xCloud hardware costs.
trying to account for this shit is a pain and it gives companies huge leeway.But why are we only counting the cost of these third-party deals? A large portion of first-party game development costs should also be accounted in the "Gamepass costs" because those games are made available day one to GP subscribers, which affects lifetime game sales.
Same goes for server and xCloud hardware costs.
Only 10-15% of those costs the probably...But why are we only counting the cost of these third-party deals? A large portion of first-party game development costs should also be accounted in the "Gamepass costs" because those games are made available day one to GP subscribers, which affects lifetime game sales.
Same goes for server and xCloud hardware costs.
I dunno, I've used it, it's not bad. I wouldn't take it over native gaming, but the pricing and value proposition is appealing enough and if it worked on my TV I am sure my wife would use it to play stuff in the living room.Until most have decent internet with low latency......
But why are we only counting the cost of these third-party deals? A large portion of first-party game development costs should also be accounted in the "Gamepass costs" because those games are made available day one to GP subscribers, which affects lifetime game sales.
Same goes for server and xCloud hardware costs.
I thought it took 5 billion a month for it to be viable though.I doubt it costs more than 2bil a year to run Gamepass, server costs, etc.
This is another thing; I think the announcement of that Keystone thing really goes back to their mythical "2 billion gamers" thing. But the thing about streaming is that it is genuinely a massive money sink. There's no fuzzy math or careful language to get around that. They will burn massive mounds of cash to get that working. Google did, and they've bailed out.It is profitable but he believes is not going to grow significantly more?. Very interesting.
You know the real answer to this.I thought it took 5 billion a month for it to be viable though.
It is profitable but he believes is not going to grow significantly more?. Very interesting.
I didn't see any actual confirmation, just an unconfirmed claim. But I believe his claim nonetheless, as he has no reason to lie about profit when his investors can already see what he's doing for them.
I don’t doubt that it is, but when they start adding in AAA games that cost tens if hundreds of millions to produce, and eat into their retail/digital sales by giving them away for ‘free’ - that’s when it gets interesting. That is why Sony don’t want to do it.