• 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.

PlayStation need to realize that they are not a service company

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,120
2,893
330
That's unfair, because that's really the only metrics people have. It is up to MS to release more relevant metrics, e.g., GP ROI, GP $15 paying subscribers, how many people are on GP PC and GP Xbox, how many gamers are using the xCloud services on GP, etc.
Ms release all games on pc (steam) and gamepass is also on pc and xcloud how it could be using just console numbers the right metrics? ..ms givin the right metrics going forward is gamepass numbers and software sales number (because of steam) you don't need to know if xcloud gamepass number is superior to the do the pc one , the pay the same.
 
Last edited:

ZehDon

Member
Jun 13, 2013
3,779
5,937
815
Australia
Speaking for an entire ecosystem of players is never going to go well, OP.

From my limited perspective, I think the OP's, and others, seeming discontent stems from a lack of platform vision for the PS5. Last gen, Microsoft had a vision... but it was a dumpster fire that damn near torched the brand. So, Sony was easily able to point at that calamity-of-stupidity and say "That right there? Yeah, we're not doing that" and that was enough of a vision for us to understand. The PS4 was a bare-bones console that was designed to play games with no bullshit at the best resolution and frame rates. Simple. Put the disc in, play the game looking as good as it can, no online bullshit. #4ThePlayers was absolutely brilliant messaging; I jumped ship from Xbox because of how attractive that clear vision was.

This time around, I think PlayStation lacks the same clarity of vision that they were able to put forward with the PS4. Microsoft finally have their vision sorted out, and turns out it's actually pretty attractive: Xbox Series consoles play all Xbox games and are an access point for Gamepass - the Netflix of games. They're committed to a diversity of game styles - FPS, RPG, Racing, Fighting, Platformer - you name it. "Xbox means lots of great games". That's a really good message. Sony, on the other hand, just doesn't have that same clarity with the PS5. PS5 plays some PlayStation games, but not all... for seemingly arbitrary reasons. It has a kind-sorta-Netflix-of-Games... but Sony doesn't seem to care about it. They're committed to a diversity of game types... as long as its cinematic third person action adventure games. It does seem Sony are coasting off of the monumental success of the PlayStation 4, without actually conveying what PS5 is all about. PS5 means... games like Returnal are USD$70 while MLB is on Gamepass? PS5 means... terrible cross-gen compatibility setups? PS5 means... re-buying classic games you already own?

I'm sure Sony will get it sorted out and start actually putting their marketing foot forward. When Sony needed to rescue the PlayStation 3, they came up with Kevin Butler and the absolutely brilliant "It only does everything" marketing campaign. I have no doubt they'll get there with the PS5, too.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,856
6,256
445
Ms release all games on pc (steam) and gamepass is also on pc and xcloud how it could be using just console numbers the right metrics? ..ms givin the right metrics going forward is gamepass numbers and software sales number (because of steam) you don't need to know if xcloud gamepass number is superior to the do the pc one , the pay the same.
But "Gamepass now has 18 million subscribers" doesn't tell us anything honestly. Is 18 million good? Is 18 million bad? Is it profitable? What's the operating income or total revenue from these GP subscribers? What is the target # of subscribers? What is the EOY target?

This 18 million really doesn't tell us anything, let alone enable us to compare it with other competitors (Nintendo and PlayStation). At the very least, Microsoft should tell us the annual net income of the Xbox division, so we can see how the three companies are performing.

As of now, Xbox is in 3rd position in terms of consoles sold, 2nd or 3rd position in terms of overall # of subscribers (PS+ is on top, and I don't know about NSO), and 3rd in terms of revenue (Xbox division).
 

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,120
2,893
330
But "Gamepass now has 18 million subscribers" doesn't tell us anything honestly. Is 18 million good? Is 18 million bad? Is it profitable? What's the operating income or total revenue from these GP subscribers? What is the target # of subscribers? What is the EOY target?

This 18 million really doesn't tell us anything, let alone enable us to compare it with other competitors (Nintendo and PlayStation). At the very least, Microsoft should tell us the annual net income of the Xbox division, so we can see how the three companies are performing.

As of now, Xbox is in 3rd position in terms of consoles sold, 2nd or 3rd position in terms of overall # of subscribers (PS+ is on top, and I don't know about NSO), and 3rd in terms of revenue (Xbox division).
I repeat as in the first post. The success of Ms cannot be measured ONLY by the consoles sold. Last generation Ms like Sony ran their consoles at a loss to increase fast their userbase that allowed them to be able to increase the software sold (because that's what gives you money) At the end of the gen we had a Sony audience of how much? what user reach did it have? 100+ millions users . Well steam immediately adds 120m. honest Do you think will he sell more halo infinite on pc + series console or any other game he has already released or will Sony release on ps5 console?
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,856
6,256
445
I repeat as in the first post. The success of Ms cannot be measured ONLY by the consoles sold. Last generation Ms like Sony ran their consoles at a loss to increase fast their userbase that allowed them to be able to increase the software sold (because that's what gives you money) At the end of the gen we had a Sony audience of how much? what user reach did it have? 100+ millions users . Well steam immediately adds 120m. honest Do you think will he sell more halo infinite on pc + series console or any other game he has already released or will Sony release on ps5 console?
I agree that # of console units sold is only one part of the equation. And Microsoft/Xbox performance should not be measured on that alone. But then, what's the other alternative? What's the figure that MS should release in place of console sales?

In my opinion, it should be the operating profit of the entire Xbox division, at the very least. If MS wants more granularity, it should also add:
  • # of retail software sales on PC
  • # of retail software sales on Xbox
  • GamePass revenue and income
At the moment, we just don't have the data. You said that Steam adds 120m users, but are those 120m users buying all Xbox games? That 120m is the potential reach, but did Xbox actually leverage it successfully on a per game basis? We don't have those numbers.
 

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
4,170
1,503
525
Speaking for an entire ecosystem of players is never going to go well, OP.

From my limited perspective, I think the OP's, and others, seeming discontent stems from a lack of platform vision for the PS5. Last gen, Microsoft had a vision... but it was a dumpster fire that damn near torched the brand. So, Sony was easily able to point at that calamity-of-stupidity and say "That right there? Yeah, we're not doing that" and that was enough of a vision for us to understand. The PS4 was a bare-bones console that was designed to play games with no bullshit at the best resolution and frame rates. Simple. Put the disc in, play the game looking as good as it can, no online bullshit. #4ThePlayers was absolutely brilliant messaging; I jumped ship from Xbox because of how attractive that clear vision was.

This time around, I think PlayStation lacks the same clarity of vision that they were able to put forward with the PS4. Microsoft finally have their vision sorted out, and turns out it's actually pretty attractive: Xbox Series consoles play all Xbox games and are an access point for Gamepass - the Netflix of games. They're committed to a diversity of game styles - FPS, RPG, Racing, Fighting, Platformer - you name it. "Xbox means lots of great games". That's a really good message. Sony, on the other hand, just doesn't have that same clarity with the PS5. PS5 plays some PlayStation games, but not all... for seemingly arbitrary reasons. It has a kind-sorta-Netflix-of-Games... but Sony doesn't seem to care about it. They're committed to a diversity of game types... as long as its cinematic third person action adventure games. It does seem Sony are coasting off of the monumental success of the PlayStation 4, without actually conveying what PS5 is all about. PS5 means... games like Returnal are USD$70 while MLB is on Gamepass? PS5 means... terrible cross-gen compatibility setups? PS5 means... re-buying classic games you already own?

I'm sure Sony will get it sorted out and start actually putting their marketing foot forward. When Sony needed to rescue the PlayStation 3, they came up with Kevin Butler and the absolutely brilliant "It only does everything" marketing campaign. I have no doubt they'll get there with the PS5, too.
I've forgotten what the marketing campaign slogan for the ps5 is. I know ps4 is for the players but I can't remember off the top of my head what ps5's is.

Xbox is pretty much using the the same style of game releases , exclusive content and free-ish games that Sony did in the past. They pretty much are making games all types of games like flight simulator, to gears tactics, to cinematic third person, and first person shooters. This was the style that Sony used during the ps3 days where they banked on just 1 or 2 games making a ton of profit even though they released like 10 games. Exclusive games especially when it comes to Japanese stuff was Sony's bread and butter during the ps3 and we kept hearing exclusive over and over again. Now you hear that at Microsoft's conferennce. For the free-ish games from game pass Sony was king during the ps3 era with tons of great games coming to playstation plus making xbox gamers jealous. Now folks are wondering is this all were getting with playstation plus when Microsoft has first party games like Forza or Gears coming to it day one. Microsoft pretty much took Sony's old playbook and made it their own, while Sony seems to stick to the Nintendo model of making great games but unlike Nintendo they have decent hardware.

The lack of vision idea is interesting. Jim Ryan's deception doesn't help as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZehDon

LuciferSatan

Neo Member
Apr 1, 2021
9
9
90
Easy, shows are cheap 30 min to a hour time sinks where I don't mind streaming it, games are expensive and I'd rather own them as suppose to have to connect to play ALL MY GAMES. So no one is saying something isn't or is ok, (dear god get that out of your systems please), what is being stated is I PERSONALLY don't give a shit to stream or rent my games..

I don't use cloud for PS because I literally own a copy of PS6, why would I then pay money for life for something I already own and NEED to be online to use? Nahhhhhh

Logical reasons exist why many don't use stuff like that as subscriptions. If you are ok with that, have at it.

So I don't care if my internet cuts off and I can't watch a show, but I'm not fucking adding in my whole game library and my actual work to that equation. I don't mind subscriptions, but no way in hell am I putting all hobbies in subscriptions, let alone my damn work to be required to be always online when I literally have a copy of PS already, but shit I should pay not only more, but monthly and locked to online? nahhhh, I'm not getting in that trap.
I don't think you will have a choice. I also preferred the pay and done style of software for my work. But these days software like AutoCAD, Ansys, and other rendering and analysis software are only available in subscription form; and these are premium engineering software. If these could happen to professional software, then consumer software is not that far off. Especially when these things have already happened on the PC platform. In my country, I no longer see physical discs for PC games. It's gone all digital. Now, we're just one step away from subscriptions. We never had a choice in that matter for our work and I don't think I will have a choice when it comes to my games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX
Apr 11, 2016
1,423
1,647
510
while Sony seems to stick to the Nintendo model of making great games but unlike Nintendo they have decent hardware.
very generous here with sony and "great" games. I cant run fast enough from their cinematic movie games. You look at tlou2, it has a full walkthrough at 20 hours. Then you search a cutscene only montage for it and its 11 hours. That turd has you spend more time with your fingers up your ass than actually playing. And when i say playing, it means going from one magnetized, automated setpiece to another, where you barelly interact with the game. Thank god this type of turdish design goes well with game journos so they apear to have "great" games
 

RoyalLaFlame

Member
Oct 22, 2013
3,498
650
730
Sony needs to do whatever the fuck they want with their business to make it more profitable. If you or others don't like it then maybe it's time for a change.


People need to understand that companies only go after growth and profits. The sooner you accept this, the happier your gaming life.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,856
6,256
445
very generous here with sony and "great" games. I cant run fast enough from their cinematic movie games. You look at tlou2, it has a full walkthrough at 20 hours. Then you search a cutscene only montage for it and its 11 hours. That turd has you spend more time with your fingers up your ass than actually playing. And when i say playing, it means going from one magnetized, automated setpiece to another, where you barelly interact with the game. Thank god this type of turdish design goes well with game journos so they apear to have "great" games
The highest number of readers' choice awards (by gamers like you and me) in the history of gaming disagree with your statement. Those are great games for the majority of gamers (journos or not).
 

Trimesh

Member
Jun 8, 2019
886
1,068
415
Yea, I'll always be a Sony fanboy in a way just because of my love for the PSX, PS2, and PS3 but the PS4 never did much for me. Got into it late, didn't buy too many games. Just didn't grab me like their previous consoles did. Same with the PS5 so far. I'll definitely be getting one at some point but I feel like Sony is missing something that made them so exciting in previous generations. I am glad that they were able to get Insomniac though, very smart of them.

Pretty much the same as me, although I've never considered myself as a "fanboy" for company - I do still regard the PS2 as my all-time favorite console, though. The PS4 (and, to be fair, the Xbox One, too) just felt like something of a misfire and my lack of excitement about the current generation is nearly palpable. OK, I would probably have still bought them at launch if they had been more readily available (as I did with 4 previous generations of Sony consoles and 3 generations of Xbox) - but all the supply nonsense and the lack of compelling content made me decide not to bother. And I still don't feel I'm really missing anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fart town usa

LuciferSatan

Neo Member
Apr 1, 2021
9
9
90
PlayStation is much bigger than Steam..... it has 75 - 90% of Europe and then almost everything in Japan outside Nintendo, it also dominates the middle east and still is in 1st position in north america.
the 25 billion revenue alone is about 4 times the revenue of Steam.

So I don't think you have the facts.
Steam is a privately owned company. It's a miracle that it's as big as it is. The thing is, Playstation doesn't have total domination in the way Steam has on the PC platform; nowhere near close. And whatever domination they have lasts a single console generation, and then they've to do the entire process again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX
Apr 11, 2016
1,423
1,647
510
The highest number of readers' choice awards (by gamers like you and me) in the history of gaming disagree with your statement. Those are great games for the majority of gamers (journos or not).


you can see in this thread the type of "gamers" sony has. The game is inflated simply by nature of being a sony game. And in truth, a lot of people are just smithen with the story and presentation and confuse that with a good game. Naughty Dogs games are incredibly primitive and simplistic in their design. Everything is guided, restricted and style over substance.
 
  • Strength
Reactions: ACESHIGH

Graciaus

Member
Nov 17, 2014
1,419
1,265
575
It's crazy that OP is likely a grown man and continues to make the most pathetic fanboy laced posts possible.
 

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
4,170
1,503
525
very generous here with sony and "great" games. I cant run fast enough from their cinematic movie games. You look at tlou2, it has a full walkthrough at 20 hours. Then you search a cutscene only montage for it and its 11 hours. That turd has you spend more time with your fingers up your ass than actually playing. And when i say playing, it means going from one magnetized, automated setpiece to another, where you barelly interact with the game. Thank god this type of turdish design goes well with game journos so they apear to have "great" games
I just didn't buy the game since I'm just not a fan of Naughty Dogs walking simulator and this one just had too much toxicity. With that said I probably will still go and beat Uncharted 4 eventually and last of us not the 2nd one. I don't mind cinematic movie games that much just make the setting fantasy and interesting and I'm good( zombies bore me). I can't go so far as say Sony doesn't make great games ,they simply just aren't my cup of tea.
 

Sony

Nintendo
Jun 15, 2016
1,851
1,103
710
Are people forgetting the enormous first party talent that Sony has? Quality output is the last thing I would worry about...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,120
2,893
330
I agree that # of console units sold is only one part of the equation. And Microsoft/Xbox performance should not be measured on that alone. But then, what's the other alternative? What's the figure that MS should release in place of console sales?

In my opinion, it should be the operating profit of the entire Xbox division, at the very least. If MS wants more granularity, it should also add:
  • # of retail software sales on PC
  • # of retail software sales on Xbox
  • GamePass revenue and income
At the moment, we just don't have the data. You said that Steam adds 120m users, but are those 120m users buying all Xbox games? That 120m is the potential reach, but did Xbox actually leverage it successfully on a per game basis? We don't have those numbers.
as yesterday 9 games in the top 20 are microsoft games ..steam is working very good
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,856
6,256
445
as yesterday 9 games in the top 20 are microsoft games ..steam is working very good
Again, my point is that this number doesn't tell us if Xbox is doing better than Sony and Nintendo. Until MS releases numbers like net profit and ROI (metrics that matter to them), they will continue to be judged based on the number of consoles sold.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,120
2,893
330
Again, my point is that this number doesn't tell us if Xbox is doing better than Sony and Nintendo. Until MS releases numbers like net profit and ROI (metrics that matter to them), they will continue to be judged based on the number of consoles sold.
and that judgment will continue to be gross and inaccurate. It is up to ms to decide if it is worth telling us what we enthusiast would like to know. we can't do much about it
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,856
6,256
445
and that judgment will continue to be gross and inaccurate. It is up to ms to decide if it is worth telling us what we enthusiast would like to know. we can't do much about it
Then gamers are completely entitled to use the console sales unit as the measurement of success.

MS says that's not the number we should be judged at and then refuses to share the number that they think is the real measurement scale. You can't have your cake and eat it.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
4,884
8,251
675
No PS fans want a new service, we want new studios... we want more exclusives and we want them to be full exclusive.



Frankly, most people couldn't care less about exclusives, as well as Sony doesn't care about 10k or whatever die-hard fanboys on the internet who need ammo for their console wars. Because really, 5-10 titles can make only so much impact. Not to mention that being exclusive doesn't automatically make the game any better, and vice versa - a game doesn't have to be exclusive to be great.

And I think it's funny how a service (PS+) is what actually brings them the most money, just like in most industries, where a service-based model brings much more money than a product that is being sold once and that's it, whereas service can be infinitely milked. That's why for example we're seeing F2P titles making more money every single year than all those 70€ games in their entire lifetime. So if Sony wants to keep making more and more money, they'll have to switch to a service-based model sooner or later. I mean, everyone is already doing the transition, that's where the market is heading, and Sony won't want be the ones that are being left in the dust, so expect more info about PS+ and PS Now in the nearest future.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: DrAspirino

Rhazer Fusion

Member
May 2, 2006
11,025
2,331
1,660
In my own world.
m.youtube.com
Sony is already starting to change and they will be doing more of it the future. Eventually, their exclusives will be day one on PC and by the time next gen starts, their exclusives will also be on PS Now (or whatever rebranding it goes through) day one as they should be because a subscription service and recurring revenue is simply worth far more than a single $70 purchase and for those that are physical, Sony barely gets any of it. Their exclusives would easily make their subscription service valuable and extremely appealing. Sony needs to start adapting to what the future will be as opposed to staying with the old, outdated and obsolete current setup because if they don't, they'll simply be left behind.
The day Sony does day one first party games on PC is the day their hardware sales most likely will take a huge hit. That’s exactly one of the reasons Microsoft’s XBOX sales have fallen significantly which is probably why all of a sudden they don’t display sales data anymore. It will be XBOX all over again with people saying, why buy a PS5 when I get all the games on PC? Sure, they’ll probably sell a bit more software, but is it worth potentially sacrificing hardware sales.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Sub Boss

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,120
2,893
330
Then gamers are completely entitled to use the console sales unit as the measurement of success.

MS says that's not the number we should be judged at and then refuses to share the number that they think is the real measurement scale. You can't have your cake and eat it.
the gamers can do whatever they want and judge according to any measure they choose seen that they do not sit on any board of directors and most likely in the vast majority of cases they are not shareholders. All this does not change the fact that this method of measurement is at this point for ms objectively completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,120
2,893
330
The day Sony does day one first party games on PC is the day their hardware sales most likely will take a huge hit. That’s exactly one of the reasons Microsoft’s XBOX sales have fallen significantly which is probably why all of a sudden they don’t display sales data anymore. It will be XBOX all over again with people saying, why buy a PS5 when I get all the games on PC? Sure, they’ll probably sell a bit more software, but is it worth potentially sacrificing hardware sales.
hardware are sold for most part of a gen at a loss. it generate revenue not profit
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,544
1,012
1,340
Sony will be whatever they want to be if it makes money.

But they aren't gonna release GamePass 2.0 anytime soon
Sony already has it. It's PS Now. The only thing that they are not doing now, that they need to start doing is, promote it. I don't think Sony's version will ever have first party day & date but that doesn't have to stop Sony from approaching third party developers for it. Given how aggressive MS has been on Game Pass so far, I think that is what we will see Sony end up doing.
 
Last edited:

ripeavocado

Member
Jul 26, 2020
603
886
325
They better not be a service company because service are usually bad for customers other than few cases (such as netflix) and definitely bad for games.

They are super good for gaming companies though, sweet juicy profits.
 

peter42O

Member
Aug 9, 2014
4,231
2,183
580
The day Sony does day one first party games on PC is the day their hardware sales most likely will take a huge hit. That’s exactly one of the reasons Microsoft’s XBOX sales have fallen significantly which is probably why all of a sudden they don’t display sales data anymore. It will be XBOX all over again with people saying, why buy a PS5 when I get all the games on PC? Sure, they’ll probably sell a bit more software, but is it worth potentially sacrificing hardware sales.
Xbox sales fell off because Mattrick and others fucked up everything in 2013. Even if the games didn't go to PC, Xbox One was as close to being dead on arrival as you can get.

PC is a different user install base. Having the exclusives on PC day one isn't going to hurt their console sales because vast majority of console owners have no interest in PC gaming (like me) so it wouldn't affect them. Plus, console sales isn't the end all be all. Sony and Microsoft lose a shit ton of money on every console sold. They always have and they always will because they don't sell them at cost.

Putting the games on PC allows an entire different user install base to have access to your games because otherwise, they're not buying a PS5 because they don't care about consoles to begin with. Look at every third party game. All of them always sell millions more on consoles than PC because for majority, they just want to play the game where as on PC, it's more for those who want to customize their experience, not be held back by the limitations of a console and to use MODS if they so choose.

Also, PS4 is around 120M console sales. Sony's best selling exclusive is Spider Man at around 20M. What happened to the other 100M PS4 users? Even owning a PS4, those 100M still are NOT buying them so to get MORE sales and thus more profit, Sony needs to put their games on PC day one which considering every game is made on PC's anyway, why wouldn't you?

People are looking at this shit in the old, outdated and obsolete way. Too many other potential buyers/users out there to stay limited to a console that has a ceiling of around 130M.

It also looks like Sony is preparing to have a Game Pass killer which means that their exclusives will be day one on their subscription service because that's the only way it would ever even have a chance at being the Game Pass killer.
 

massivekettle

Formerly 'ksharp'
Jun 2, 2013
3,710
322
785
That's unfair, because that's really the only metrics people have. It is up to MS to release more relevant metrics, e.g., GP ROI, GP $15 paying subscribers, how many people are on GP PC and GP Xbox, how many gamers are using the xCloud services on GP, etc.

They don't really need to. The fact that more publishers become interested in the service is a testament to its viability.
 

EDMIX

Member
Apr 5, 2018
5,427
4,520
565
33
South Florida aka Outer Haven
I don't think you will have a choice. I also preferred the pay and done style of software for my work. But these days software like AutoCAD, Ansys, and other rendering and analysis software are only available in subscription form; and these are premium engineering software. If these could happen to professional software, then consumer software is not that far off. Especially when these things have already happened on the PC platform. In my country, I no longer see physical discs for PC games. It's gone all digital. Now, we're just one step away from subscriptions. We never had a choice in that matter for our work and I don't think I will have a choice when it comes to my games.

Agreed. I think that shit sucks and I hate to see the industry head in this direction. I think gamers need to fight hard and make it none such options need to exist as I trust no publisher with a 1 market type platform, even Sony.
 

DJTaurus

Member
Apr 6, 2012
122
485
710
They should also consider (as the topic title suggests) that they are not a remaster/remake only company.... maybe for a change start giving some obvious things / upgrades for free. It’s becoming a meme....

 
Last edited:

SLB1904

Banned
Oct 24, 2017
2,674
5,190
575
Ive never really understood the line of thinking that goes, "this is a great game but it would be even more fun if less people could play it."
tribalism, now you get it

you can see in this thread the type of "gamers" sony has. The game is inflated simply by nature of being a sony game. And in truth, a lot of people are just smithen with the story and presentation and confuse that with a good game. Naughty Dogs games are incredibly primitive and simplistic in their design. Everything is guided, restricted and style over substance.
you trippin. the last us 2 is hands down one of the best third person shooters ever. the ai is above anything in the market right now, the gunplay the agility the llevel design every thing. find a better 3rd person shooter than tlous 2 go on ill wait.
 
Last edited:

Rhazer Fusion

Member
May 2, 2006
11,025
2,331
1,660
In my own world.
m.youtube.com
Xbox sales fell off because Mattrick and others fucked up everything in 2013. Even if the games didn't go to PC, Xbox One was as close to being dead on arrival as you can get.

PC is a different user install base. Having the exclusives on PC day one isn't going to hurt their console sales because vast majority of console owners have no interest in PC gaming (like me) so it wouldn't affect them. Plus, console sales isn't the end all be all. Sony and Microsoft lose a shit ton of money on every console sold. They always have and they always will because they don't sell them at cost.

Putting the games on PC allows an entire different user install base to have access to your games because otherwise, they're not buying a PS5 because they don't care about consoles to begin with. Look at every third party game. All of them always sell millions more on consoles than PC because for majority, they just want to play the game where as on PC, it's more for those who want to customize their experience, not be held back by the limitations of a console and to use MODS if they so choose.

Also, PS4 is around 120M console sales. Sony's best selling exclusive is Spider Man at around 20M. What happened to the other 100M PS4 users? Even owning a PS4, those 100M still are NOT buying them so to get MORE sales and thus more profit, Sony needs to put their games on PC day one which considering every game is made on PC's anyway, why wouldn't you?

People are looking at this shit in the old, outdated and obsolete way. Too many other potential buyers/users out there to stay limited to a console that has a ceiling of around 130M.

It also looks like Sony is preparing to have a Game Pass killer which means that their exclusives will be day one on their subscription service because that's the only way it would ever even have a chance at being the Game Pass killer.
You have some valid points, but it seems this day one strategy isn’t really working out for Microsoft as much people think. Seems like their hardware sales dropped even further when they announced all games will come to PC. I like Gamepass, but I really think people are overestimating it’s importance. It’s been available for around 4 years for cheap and has it really made a substantial difference for Microsoft compared to Sony and Nintendo? Sony’s “archaic” method helped them dominate 4 generations. Nintendo is the most old fashioned and traditional game company around, yet they are doing better than ever.

A few or even some older first party games on PC is fine, but imho day one games on PC and say, PSNow would give gamers less reason to buy a PS5. How smart would putting $100 million AAA games on a cheap subscription service be? Also, I don’t think we will see as many AAA games from Sony if they have to prepare and build them around a subscription service. When was the last huge budget game we saw from Microsoft? Halo Infinity is coming, but isn’t that a GAAS game? Who wants to see that for Sony first party games honestly? I certainly don’t.

I guess gamers are vocal about this because they do not want to see Sony turn into Microsoft 2.0. People say Sony has to adapt or get left behind? Why? They are still in the lead by a large margin, so why fix what’s working? What Microsoft does is fine and distinguishes them from Sony a bit, but do people really want that for Sony?
 

wolffy71

Member
Feb 19, 2014
652
602
555
tribalism, now you get it


you trippin. the last us 2 is hands down one of the best third person shooters ever. the ai is above anything in the market right now, the gunplay the agility the llevel design every thing. find a better 3rd person shooter than tlous 2 go on ill wait.
Yeah that's a word for sure. Being loyal to a tribe doesn't mean liking to consume fish less if the opposing tribe is also eating fish. So the concept escapes me still. Its more like stupidity than tribalism.
 

peter42O

Member
Aug 9, 2014
4,231
2,183
580
You have some valid points, but it seems this day one strategy isn’t really working out for Microsoft as much people think. Seems like their hardware sales dropped even further when they announced all games will come to PC. I like Gamepass, but I really think people are overestimating it’s importance. It’s been available for around 4 years for cheap and has it really made a substantial difference for Microsoft compared to Sony and Nintendo? Sony’s “archaic” method helped them dominate 4 generations. Nintendo is the most old fashioned and traditional game company around, yet they are doing better than ever.

A few or even some older first party games on PC is fine, but imho day one games on PC and say, PSNow would give gamers less reason to buy a PS5. How smart would putting $100 million AAA games on a cheap subscription service be? Also, I don’t think we will see as many AAA games from Sony if they have to prepare and build them around a subscription service. When was the last huge budget game we saw from Microsoft? Halo Infinity is coming, but isn’t that a GAAS game? Who wants to see that for Sony first party games honestly? I certainly don’t.

I guess gamers are vocal about this because they do not want to see Sony turn into Microsoft 2.0. People say Sony has to adapt or get left behind? Why? They are still in the lead by a large margin, so why fix what’s working? What Microsoft does is fine and distinguishes them from Sony a bit, but do people really want that for Sony?
Xbox One hardware sales fell off because they made way too many mistakes in 2013 that haunted them for the entire generation. Also, because PS4 started off great, a lot of people including myself jumped from Xbox 360 to PS4. Hardware sales are important but they're not as important when you have the PC and Cloud user install bases at your disposal where as with Sony, all they have is hardware and that's it. If Sony sells 120M PS5 consoles and Microsoft sells 85M Xbox Series X/S consoles but has an extra 20M on PC and another 20M via Cloud, that's 125M which is far more valuable than the 120M that Sony would have. Plus, more importantly, having three ways to play is far more important simply because the growth potential is massive where as just being all about consoles has a ceiling of around 130M.

Game Pass has been around for years but between 2017-2020, it wasn't fully utilized to the greatest potential because Microsoft/Spencer were simply waiting for this generation to start. I wouldn't have spent any money at the end of Xbox One generation either because it wouldn't change anything. A new generation equals a fresh start. The previous generation means nothing when a new generation begins. I look at Sony and loved PS4 which is my #1 all time gaming console but this time around, they haven't done any thing for me. I still own a PS5 but this time around, im not expecting Sony to match what I had with PS4.

Sony dominates because they're a worldwide brand and look at what their competition did. Sega died. Nintendo stayed with cartridges and then used mini-discs for N64/Gamecube. PS2 dominated mainly because it was the cheapest DVD player at the time. $300. Xbox was the new kid on the block and unlike Sony in 1995, they didn't have the competition screw up. Sony slipped with PS3, barely beat out Xbox 360 and lost to Nintendo Wii. They dominated in 2013 but look at why - Nintendo was a disaster with Wii U and Microsoft screwed up horribly. When your competition screws up badly, you don't really need to do anything.

As for Nintendo, they'll always succeed because there will always be kids/teenagers, their consoles are rarely if ever sold at a loss and their games are the most successful in the industry because they rarely if ever go on sale and more importantly, are nowhere near expensive to create and develop.

Sony putting their exclusives on PC day one again doesn't affect their console sales because it's two different demographics and user install bases. If anything, I think it's more about Sony fanboys have a list of exclusives to brag about than anything. If PC users were to buy the exclusives, that's extra revenue for Sony who otherwise wouldn't have bought them since they wouldn't be buying a console. Even years later, Sony fanboys go nuts for some odd reason which tells me it's just for bragging rights as opposed to actually seeing Sony be more successful than they already are.

As for PS Now, getting a subscriber for $10 a month that stays subscribed which would be $120 a year is far more valuable than a single $70 purchase especially if that purchase is disc based because Sony doesn't get the entire $70. Why wouldn't anyone buy a PS5? First, if there's no specific PC/Cloud version, the games would still only be on PS5 but in addition to buying them, you could subscribe to PS Now and play them day one. If the content is there, people will stay subscribed and getting a set amount of guaranteed revenue every month is worth far more than selling a game for $70 and if that $70 game is a new IP, that's an even bigger risk. But having a subscription service eliminates that risk completely once you build and establish it which is what Microsoft is currently doing.

Microsoft was able to get Outriders day one which has been the 3rd most played game across Xbox consoles only behind COD Warzone and Fornite which are both free to play games. If it wasn't for Game Pass, Outriders wouldn't even be in the top ten. Having a subscription service and putting third party games into it is extra advertising and marketing that the publisher doesn't have to pay for. MLB The Show 21 is going to be huge and if the rumors about Resident Evil VIII being on Game Pass day one end up being true, oh man, that's going to be huge for Game Pass, Xbox and Microsoft while Capcom would get a massive upfront payday guaranteed along with whatever other bonuses are in the contract while at the same time, stays available for purchase to everyone on every platform. Basically, no one loses.

Halo Infinite will have a 20 hour campaign, their MP modes and post-launch content which is smart because that's how you keep people subscribed and invested. Playing through for example Miles Morales was great but it was a one and done for me (and mostly everyone) because there's no reason to keep playing it after completing the six hour campaign. Not every Microsoft game is going to be a live service game. Yeah, there will be some but they have 22 studios, 35 teams with more incoming so they will be able to even it out. Hellblade 2 is a single player story driven third person action adventure game. If there's any post launch content, it would be like The Witcher III where you get expansions and that's it.

One and done or a live service game simply depends on the game itself and what it is. Starfield is going to be a normal massive Bethesda Game Studios RPG that's probably 80+ hours and if you want more, you can buy the expansions. If not, you move on. Of course, getting people to stay and keep paying is what it's all about because that's worth money in the long term and overall than a single $70 purchase. Game Pass also eliminates the risk and pressure for the development studio because they no longer have to worry about sales and can simply concentrate on making the best game possible.

Look at Bend Studio. I loved Days Gone and I know that series is dead because while profitable, Sony wasn't happy with it and rejected the sequel but are going ahead with them developing a new IP which is far more risky than a sequel to Days Gone would be especially when the foundation and assets are already built from the first game. A Game Pass type subscription from Sony would allow the studios to stay intact, be given total and complete creative freedom which they obviously don't have anymore at Sony as this is pretty obvious at this point and eliminates the risk of a $70, $100M flop.

Not only that but facts are that the more people that play games in a subscription service, they're more likely to not only buy that game because they basically get a free full version demo of it via Game Pass but they'll also be more willing to spend more money on other games and whatnot which keeps them in the eco-system and adds more revenue to Microsoft with minimal risk.

Another factor is having a subscription service is more likely to guarantee that consumers stay in your eco-system and in turn, spend more money because they're invested. Buying one exclusive a year for $70 is not worth a year's worth subscription and unlike the subscription, the sale isn't the full price anyway. For example, I jumped from PS4 to Xbox Series X and I have already spent over $350 in three months not including the $800 I paid for the Xbox Series X bundle from GameStop. One of the main reasons is Game Pass because why should I buy a game for $60+ when I can stay subscribed an entire year for two games worth?

I was going to buy Outriders but instead, im playing it on Game Pass so I have already saved $50 and because of this, im thinking about buying Necromunda: Hired Gun which on sale for $34 on Xbox because I figured that I have already come out ahead and thus, have no problem putting more money into the Xbox eco-system where as with Sony and PS5, I bought Miles Morales for $50 on disc, played and completed it 95% in under 25 hours and traded it in for $20 credit with GameStop so it only cost me $30.

Haven't bought anything else on PlayStation 5 and won't until Ratchet in June and I will do the same thing. Buy, complete and trade in. Basically, Sony isn't getting an extra money from me where as with PS4, they had me spend over $3000 and that's just what I have documented. It's more like double that if not triple.

As for Sony not doing this and getting left behind, it's real simple. Sony can't just stay with one aspect and expect the same results. Look at 2013 Microsoft in which everyone bashed them for the decisions that they wanted to make. But look now, eight years later. Pretty much everyone is online gaming one way or the other. Digital Sales have surpassed physical sales overall and for live service games, no reason to buy it on disc. Point is that Microsoft saw what gaming was going to become but presented it in a horrible way with too many restrictions and limitations instead of it being optional.

Game Pass in my eyes is the paradigm shift for this industry because at the end of the day, nobody loses. Consumers win. The company in this case, Microsoft wins especially in the long term which is what business is all about. Publishers win because they get guaranteed money upfront and small Indie developers get upfront money and whatever else is in their contract that eliminates the risk of possibly releasing a flop and having to close down because of that flop. I know a lot of people worry about the quality of Microsoft's first party games but with so many studios, they can all take their time and be worry free due to Game Pass because they no longer have to worry about their game flopping where as with Sony, after today, I think their development studios don't have that creative freedom anymore (Naughty Dog remaking TLOU 2013? Like really? SMH), seem to be unhappy as a lot of people have left and will continue to leave and now have the extra added pressure of doing only AAA blockbusters which is a huge risk with minimal reward.

Obviously, we have to wait and see how it all plays out over the course of this generation but im much more confident in Microsoft's direction than I am Sony's.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Rhazer Fusion