Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Because MS is transitioning to services. You know, like Adobe. Like MS is doing with Office and even Windows at times. It's the way the entire company is moving. If they're releasing details their stockholders want it know, then they're doing their job.

How can you say MAU is a terrible metric one day and then be giddy over the same metric you just called terrible because now Sony has a high number with it? It's obvious hypocrisy.

But sure, compare it to 2007/08, a somewhat different gaming landscape where multiple game developers weren't too concerned about extending the life of their game if they were profitable enough from the start to a me a sequel.

They still manufacture and sell hardware. As much as you want to make it only about software and active users we all know that those two metrics alone don't paint the whole picture. If Microsoft decides they want to stop selling hardware then you would be correct, but that isn't the case.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Who thought holding online play to ransom would increase your subscribers

Still super slimy

 

[GhostTrick]

Because MS is transitioning to services. You know, like Adobe. Like MS is doing with Office and even Windows at times. It's the way the entire company is moving. If they're releasing details their stockholders want it know, then they're doing their job.

How can you say MAU is a terrible metric one day and then be giddy over the same metric you just called terrible because now Sony has a high number with it? It's obvious hypocrisy.

But sure, compare it to 2007/08, a somewhat different gaming landscape where multiple game developers weren't too concerned about extending the life of their game if they were profitable enough from the start to a me a sequel.

I think you missed the point on why MS got criticized by citing MAU. It's because it was a convenient way to not disclose hardware sales. That's the difference (not that I care about the MAU criticism or so).

Who thought holding online play to ransom would increase your subscribers

Still super slimy

That was a disgusting move and I cant believe they got a pass because of that funny "how to share games" video. And I cant believe Nintendo is following too.
But this is the reality. It's easier to get suscribers by online paywall rather than getting deals to offer better games.

 

[irfaanator]

26m people waiting for name changes.

ftfy

 

[Rembrandt]

They still manufacture and sell hardware. As much as you want to make it only about software and active users we all know that those two metrics alone don't paint the whole picture. If Microsoft decides they want to stop selling hardware then you would be correct, but that isn't the case.

They do, but companies offset losses all the time with profits in other markets. You know that here MS is getting flak for transitioning to a GaaS model, so why wouldn't they focus more on raising those numbers?

What are you even talking about? What was the purpose of your first post in this thread? Something about a pot and a kettle being called back springs to mind.

One company is now offering full transparency while the other is pushing numbers that make things look favourable while hiding other numbers in order to keep shareholders on side.

They're obfuscating things to shareholders while sony publically says theyre number one on NPD when they are and they're showing increases in revenue and services that generate shareholders consistent money.

Somehow that's bad because they're not constantly updating console sale WW. Something that's probably championed here more than in their office rooms.

 

[Ashler]

Stil no option to change our usernames.

 

[Linkyn]

I buy consoles for mostly single player experience or 2 player co-op. For FPS that is better playing with bigger groups, PC all the way, although I play Halo on Xbone

I'm more or less the same - primarily single player. If I go for multiplayer, then it's mostly splitscreen on console / online (if at all) on PC. Still, I don't exactly think of myself as representative of the average consumer.

 

[SephiZack]

If you knew that, you would have seen my post where I explained how I'm not ignoring anything, that's just a shitty translucent excuse to praise one company while discrediting the other.

My bad for being one of the few Xbox fans that hasn't been driven off to just Xbox topics because of the obvious fanboyism in a lot of threads.

If Sony stops releasing console sold numbers and instead releases MAU numbers, then people will make fun of Sony too.
Every time I see someone making fun of MAU, is because Microsoft justified themselves by saying MAU > Consoles sold so they wouldn't need to release console sold numbers.

But yeah, I must be a fanboy

Spoiler

(I have played on almost every console/portable console on the planet in the last 15 years + tons of PC gaming)

 

[Nydius]

Contrary to popular belief, plenty do not subscribe to Gold/PS+.

For me, the value of PS+ is tied to how many multiplayer games I play and how many friends I have who also play. When I had a bunch of friends playing Division, Overwatch, Destiny, and Ghost Recon Wildlands, I didn't mind at all. But now most of those games have run their courses for my friends. Very few of they stayed current through all three years of Destiny, most of them dropped off of Division not long after Underground dropped, and so on.

The two PlayStation exclusives I've enjoyed most this year so far (Gravity Rush 2, Horizon: Zero Dawn) didn't even benefit from PS+. I didn't need PS+ for any of the 74 hours I put into Mass Effect Andromeda's single player campaign and didn't find their online mode to be worth staying for. The "free" games from PS+ haven't been so compelling that I'll miss any of them if I lose access to them and I bought Resogun outright anyway simply because I wanted to support Housemarque. Now that Destiny 2 is going to come to PC without the online paywall, when my PS+ comes up in January, I can't see much reason to keep paying for it.

 

[bombshell]

Because MS is transitioning to services. You know, like Adobe. Like MS is doing with Office and even Windows at times. It's the way the entire company is moving. If they're releasing details their stockholders want it know, then they're doing their job.

How can you say MAU is a terrible metric one day and then be giddy over the same metric you just called terrible because now Sony has a high number with it? It's obvious hypocrisy.

But sure, compare it to 2007/08, a somewhat different gaming landscape where multiple game developers weren't too concerned about extending the life of their game if they were profitable enough from the start to a me a sequel.

Well, you're free to dig up a post where I've called MAU a terrible metric. Good luck with that.

It's ok to ask Microsoft for being transparent with their console sales. I'm sure that's a metric that stockholders are actually interested in. You can Lmaooo all you want about Sony being transparent.

 

[Grumplestiltskin]

Because MS is transitioning to services. You know, like Adobe. Like MS is doing with Office and even Windows at times. It's the way the entire company is moving. If they're releasing details their stockholders want it know, then they're doing their job.

How can you say MAU is a terrible metric one day and then be giddy over the same metric you just called terrible because now Sony has a high number with it? It's obvious hypocrisy.

But sure, compare it to 2007/08, a somewhat different gaming landscape where multiple game developers weren't too concerned about extending the life of their game if they were profitable enough from the start to a me a sequel.

MAU is not a terrible metric but is a very poor metric for analysis when given with absolutely no context whatsoever. Doubly so when said MAU figures are inflated via a separate platform with a large degree of guaranteed penetration and a much low ARPU. Consequently the people on GAF who usually care about things like MAU tend to be those who do analysis so for them MAU alone is almost useless hence the vocal derision and frustration. Why is it you cannot understand that added context is essential?

 

[Rembrandt]

If Sony stops releasing console sold numbers and instead releases MAU numbers, then people will make fun of Sony too.
Every time I see someone making fun of MAU, is because Microsoft justified themselves by saying MAU > Consoles sold so they wouldn't need to release console sold numbers.

But yeah, must be fanboyism (and I am someone who played on almost every console/portable console on the planet in the last 15 years + tons of PC gaming)

Why? I wouldn't if their MAU were high and that's what they were deciding to focus with reasoning behind it.

That's the issue. I honestly don't think that's why they release MAUs. From what I've read and seen. Not just from MS, but even Activision, mobile companies, etc. It makes sense for them. It's probably not what some people here want but it's not a bad thing or sneaky this inherently and its disingenuous to think so.

 

[itshutton]

Impressive numbers. Now they need to improve PSN and start giving us occasional AAA games.

 

[GhostTrick]

Why? I wouldn't if their MAU were high and that's what they were deciding to focus with reasoning behind it.

That's the issue. I honestly don't think that's why they release MAUs. From what I've read and seen. Not just from MS, but even Activision, mobile companies, etc. It makes sense for them. It's probably not what some people here want but it's not a bad thing or sneaky this inherently and its disingenuous to think so.

People already answered: All the exemple you gave made sense because they are software only. People didn't made fun of MS for releasing MAUs but for releasing only MAUs.

 

[jroc74]

Haha. People are amazing. When they don't mention sold units, we can make fun of them as well.

.

Also when they start mentioning MAU every month.

Like some have said, why not both?

 

[Rembrandt]

Well, you're free to dig up a post where I've called MAU a terrible metric. Good luck with that.

It's ok to ask Microsoft for being transparent with their console sales. I'm sure that's a metric that stockholders are actually interested in. You can Lmaooo all you want about Sony being transparent.

I was speaking in general.

I think MAU is a lot more transparent than consoles sold. If they sold a large amount of consoles but nobody was subscribing to XBL, buying things from it, using services so it was essentially dead as a console and they just released consoles sold. Are they be transparent? Is it suddenly hoenst even though consoles sold doesn't reflect retained player base?

 

[bombshell]

That's a lot of people not subscribed to PS+.

I guess singleplayer still reigns supreme.

PS+ online play privilege can easily be shared between two accounts on two different PS4 systems. I don't know how much it's known, but it's possible with the primary system function.

 

[jrcbandit]

I'm not shocked at the low PS+ subscription rate considering the world wide sales number of PS4s. Their free games have been massively underwhelming so people are paying primarily to play online and $60 is too much for that. I'm not resubscribing again unless I can find another good deal like the Costco one awhile back, I already let it lapse once before.

 

[Nightengale]

I'll throw in my two cents on the whole MAU vs non-MAU metrics or whatever. But I'm not interested in debating about it.

On the topic of financial transparency, both MS and Sony are pretty shit, actually.

MS more so than Sony due to the lack of HW numbers, but both aren't anything to praise about either.

Both companies should be sharing every single sales data they can disclose, all the way from individiual sales of every game they publish, MAU, hardware sales, accessories sales, etc.

Both companies could learn a thing or two from Nintendo. And even Nintendo, in terms of openness of biz information, is what I would call at best B-tier.

Capcom is a far better company when it comes to clear and honest investor relations transparency. Their website clearly details a catalog of their historical sales for all their products, they are updated quarterly and they show quarterly update of their key sales.

We take what we can get, but there's absolutely nothing to defend about MS's lack of sharing of broader sales data. That being said, Sony's sharing is nothing special either.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Not bad, but I was expecting more since MP games are the most played games.

EDIT: lol at Rembrandt meltdown.

The more I think about the number, the less impressive it seems.

Given this number would include Vita only and PS3 only, or PS3 and Vita (no upgrade to PS4 yet) owners, it seems a bit less impressive.

 

[Grumplestiltskin]

I'll throw in my two cents on the whole MAU vs non-MAU metrics or whatever. But I'm not interested in debating about it.

On the topic of financial transparency, both MS and Sony are pretty shit, actually.

MS more so than Sony due to the lack of HW numbers, but both aren't anything to praise about either.

Both companies should be sharing every single sales data they can disclose, all the way from individiual sales of every game they publish, MAU, hardware sales, accessories sales, etc.

Both companies could learn a thing or two from Nintendo. And even Nintendo, in terms of openness of biz information, is what I would call at best B-tier.

Capcom is a far better company when it comes to clear and honest investor relations transparency. Their website clearly details a catalog of their historical sales for all their products, they are updated quarterly and they show quarterly update of their key sales.

We take what we can get, but there's absolutely nothing to defend about MS's lack of sharing of broader sales data. That being said, Sony's sharing is nothing special either.

This is very true. It would always be nice to have more data and were this basically any other industry such data would be expected. But even with that said, its still reasonable to criticize one company for sharing substantially less data than its competitor does while also potentially inflating the data they do share and not providing any additional context to appropriately gauge its impact on revenue. Poor disclosure from one entity does not excuse even poorer disclosure from another.

I was speaking in general.

I think MAU is a lot more transparent than consoles sold. If they sold a large amount of consoles but nobody was subscribing to XBL, buying things from it, using services so it was essentially dead as a console and they just released consoles sold. Are they be transparent? Is it suddenly hoenst even though consoles sold doesn't reflect retained player base?

If they're releasing MAU of 55 million and half of that number are Windows 10 users that never actually use the Windows Store how is that useful exactly? No one piece of data paints the whole picture. Thats precisely the point people have been trying to explain to you. By refusing to provide any other data it is depriving people of the data they would need to actually do meaningful analysis on the health of XBox. What would normally be a useful piece of data then becomes a smokescreen to hide the less impressive numbers behind and potentially project a much better image of things than actually exists.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Why? I wouldn't if their MAU were high and that's what they were deciding to focus with reasoning behind it.

That's the issue. I honestly don't think that's why they release MAUs. From what I've read and seen. Not just from MS, but even Activision, mobile companies, etc. It makes sense for them. It's probably not what some people here want but it's not a bad thing or sneaky this inherently and its disingenuous to think so.

Some of those companies also give us sales numbers .
Sony gives us hardware , software and subscribers numbers .
So MS can do the same but all they talk about is MAU so people make fun of them.

I was speaking in general.

I think MAU is a lot more transparent than consoles sold. If they sold a large amount of consoles but nobody was subscribing to XBL, buying things from it, using services so it was essentially dead as a console and they just released consoles sold. Are they be transparent? Is it suddenly hoenst even though consoles sold doesn't reflect retained player base?

How can MAU be more transparent than consoles sold when it also has in PC and Mobile numbers.
If we want to discuss stuff having all the data is better than just some.
Which is what Sony does.

 

[Kinan]

You know MAU is becoming important if even Statista includes some data on it:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/531063/xbox-live-mau-number/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278933/monthly-active-users-of-the-most-popular-facebook-games/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/537713/mobile-gaming-mau-asia/

 

[notaskwid]

I'm not shocked at the low PS+ subscription rate considering the world wide sales number of PS4s. Their free games have been massively underwhelming so people are paying primarily to play online and $60 is too much for that. I'm not resubscribing again unless I can find another good deal like the Costco one awhile back, I already let it lapse once before.

Expect that when the games released with PS+ were mostly 'overwhelming' their subscription numbers sat at like 1/10 of this.

 

[Krayz]

How can you say MAU is a terrible metric one day and then be giddy over the same metric you just called terrible because now Sony has a high number with it? It's obvious hypocrisy.

Because we're not just comparing MAU's here. They gave us Subscriber numbers, for shareholders to scope how well PS+ is doing they need to know how many potential subscribers there actually are. Like isn't it a given, that the better selling console will have a higher MAU? I mean unless they make a dumb move that makes a chunk of their player base to migrate to their competitors, then yeah things will change over time. But that isn't happening here.

 

[Kayant]

Not a bad increase and continues to show charging online is a smart business decision and people will pay for it.

Side note - You would think people would learn that if you're​ going to cry about hypocrisy you need to show it or it's just an empty meaningless statement that adds nothing to the conversation. Hey but it's much easier to ROFL everywhere.

 

[oti]

PS+ online play privilege can easily be shared between two accounts on two different PS4 systems. I don't know how much it's known, but it's possible with the primary system function.

First time I'm hearing of this. Sounds interesting.

Anyway, I think these PS+ numbers make sense. Sony wants them to be higher but looking at their strategy they do what they can do best, offer big Singleplayer experiences that sell the console. When it comes to online games they rely on third party. That's why Destiny is such a huge deal for them, that's why that MOBA was a huge deal for them. They do offer Uncharted Multiplayer but that isn't the same, it doesn't have the same potential for online engagement.

 

[NolbertoS]

I'm not shocked at the low PS+ subscription rate considering the world wide sales number of PS4s. Their free games have been massively underwhelming so people are paying primarily to play online and $60 is too much for that. I'm not resubscribing again unless I can find another good deal like the Costco one awhile back, I already let it lapse once before.

I don't think I'll ever renew my Ps plus subscription at full price. I bough 5 years worth 3 years ago when they were sold for $29.99 each. If Sony never drops the price to that level again after I run out of my subscription, I can live without PS Plus. Its not a have must to me at full price for what they offer

 

[SolidSnakex]

I'm not shocked at the low PS+ subscription rate considering the world wide sales number of PS4s. Their free games have been massively underwhelming so people are paying primarily to play online and $60 is too much for that. I'm not resubscribing again unless I can find another good deal like the Costco one awhile back, I already let it lapse once before.

That's not low at all. In June of last year they were at 20m subscribers, so they's stacked on another 6m since then.

 

[Rembrandt]

MAU is not a terrible metric but is a very poor metric for analysis when given with absolutely no context whatsoever. Doubly so when said MAU figures are inflated via a separate platform with a large degree of guaranteed penetration and a much low ARPU. Consequently the people on GAF who usually care about things like MAU tend to be those who do analysis so for them MAU alone is almost useless hence the vocal derision and frustration. Why is it you cannot understand that added context is essential?

What context would you like? And you're pointing out the W10 thing like to should be discounted. If they were to cut out W10, which is what I'm assuming you're referring when talking about inflated numbers, how would you like them to go about it? Genuinely curious it.


And lmao, sure. Look at this thread and the last one. Or the forza one. Or MS financial one. Or the first 10 pages of NPD threads.


I like your shitty question like I haven't seen the posts that led to my "breakdown".

 

[ScottSullivan]

This is all your fault Microsoft. Between just the general idea of playing online and the price increase, I've been thinking of going back to PC gaming. I have a lot of good friends that play on console, but it used to be a feature we got as apart of our game purchase

 

[Nightengale]

Expect that when the games released with PS+ were mostly 'overwhelming' their subscription numbers sat at like 1/10 of this.

This.

Great games on PS+ matters jack shit in terms of improving subscription numbers. When PS+ was great and had no MP paywall, the business metrics that Sony shared was satisfaction levels of the service.

Paywalls work to get people to pay. Free MP with game rental services don't. That is the reality.

 

[GHG]

I was speaking in general.

I think MAU is a lot more transparent than consoles sold. If they sold a large amount of consoles but nobody was subscribing to XBL, buying things from it, using services so it was essentially dead as a console and they just released consoles sold. Are they be transparent? Is it suddenly hoenst even though consoles sold doesn't reflect retained player base?

You're really going off in the deep end here. Can you explain to anyone what would be so wrong with the reporting the hardware numbers along with the MAU numbers? In the case of Microsoft a MAU is somebody who logs on to Xbox live on Xbox, Windows 10 or their phone. Some of those users don't even play games.

Context is everything. It's very difficult to create any context when Microsoft are not disclosing the numbers that would enable proportional analysis.

 

[Acidote]

My subscription, only used to play Destiny, lapses in September and won't be renewed. Once the game hits PC I'll finally be free of the piece of shit that is PS+.

Fuck Sony and fuck Microsoft for starting this crap with Live.

 

[bombshell]

The more I think about the number, the less impressive it seems.

Given this number would include Vita only and PS3 only, or PS3 and Vita (no upgrade to PS4 yet) owners, it seems a bit less impressive.

Vita to an extent, but especially PS3 are dead platforms from an active user perspective. People are always bringing up the 80+ million install base number of the PS3 in these discussions, but those consoles are not actively used.

So Sony MAU is much more primarily made up of PS4 users compared to how much W10 and mobile makes up of Microsoft's touted 52 million MAU number. 360 is not a significant factor either in active users.

 

[jroc74]

^Exactly.

Because MS is transitioning to services. You know, like Adobe. Like MS is doing with Office and even Windows at times. It's the way the entire company is moving. If they're releasing details their stockholders want it know, then they're doing their job.

How can you say MAU is a terrible metric one day and then be giddy over the same metric you just called terrible because now Sony has a high number with it? It's obvious hypocrisy.

But sure, compare it to 2007/08, a somewhat different gaming landscape where multiple game developers weren't too concerned about extending the life of their game if they were profitable enough from the start to a me a sequel.

Sony had I high number of MAU before.. It's just that it's not the only thing they talk about when it comes to consoles, sales, etc.

Kind of a different thing vs what MS is doing.

Ppl also laughed at Sony for the PlayStation Family last gen.

 

[Rembrandt]

You're really going off in the deep end here. Can you explain to anyone what would be so wrong with the reporting the hardware numbers along with the MAU numbers? In the case of Microsoft a MAU is somebody who logs on to Xbox live on Xbox, Windows 10 or their phone. Some of those users don't even play games.

Context is everything. It's very difficult to create any context when Microsoft are not disclosing the numbers that would enable proportional analysis.

I've literally never ever said it's wrong with them reporting them. I said MAU are more translucent than console sales. It's my opinion.

We've has conversations across multiple Xbox and PS threads and I don't think we've ever agreed.

Pick a game to duel me in.

 

[MoogleMan]

Good for sony, but I'm really glad I'm not one of those 26.4 million. Paying to play online is bullshit.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Contrary to popular belief, plenty do not subscribe to Gold/PS+.

Sony and MS have no revealed historical Gold/PS+ subs at detail, but anecdotally based off my observation and research of when Sony started sharing details about PS+ subs...

My personal guess was that at around 2013, despite having 70+ million PS3s, PS+ had less than 3 million subscribers.

The CEO of WarGaming has said in previous interviews that he dislikes not being able to monetize around 30+ million non-Gold accounts with World of Tanks. This was around when Xbox Live had around 45-50 million accounts across Silver/Gold. That means that 60% of Xbox owners had no Gold account.

Makes you think that if PS+ or Gold are only depending on their own virtues instead of blocking the online functionality of video games that we purchase behind their subscription and use that as the main value of their "services", then just how much higher those non-subscribing percentage will get?

 

[dock]

Meanwhile I cancelled my PS+ subscription in March due to mistreatment from Sony Support when my account was hacked.

 

[Kashiwaba]

I think the number of plus subscribers represent the real number of psn accounts, most of my friends got ps+ but many including me got more than one about psn account including me

 

[anothertech]

Lmao

Wow.

Keep fighting the good fight warrior. Must be hard to be on that side of the war in 2017.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

Always somewhat surprised how relatively few people use these services. Subscribing to PS+ (and Live, way back when I only used a 360 for a year or two) was never something I thought anything of since I spend enough time gaming online. I just drop the $60 to not be bothered for a year and I'm good. And I've been poor as fuck the last 7 years, but essentially dropping $5 a month isn't an issue, for me.

I guess I get it, though.

(Microsoft leaning on MAU is fine, but, seriously, not including hardware sales is, lol. Pretending it's anything less than embarrassment of them is asinine)

 

[Van Bur3n]

Glad I'm not among them.

 

[travisbickle]

Not bad, but I was expecting more since MP games are the most played games.

EDIT: lol at Rembrandt meltdown.

According to the numbers it appears as though they're not. Maybe with the F2P games on PlayStation not needing PS+ the percentage will be higher but it appears as though the majority play not online.

 

[Grumplestiltskin]

What context would you like? And you're pointing out the W10 thing like to should be discounted. If they were to cut out W10, which is what I'm assuming you're referring when talking about inflated numbers, how would you like them to go about it? Genuinely curious it.

Additional context in the form of more useful data like:
- XBL Gold Subscriber figures
- ARPU per MAU and per XBL Gold Sub
- Average number of monthly transactions per MAU
- Average price of said transactions per MAU
- Conversion rate of XBL Gold per HW unit sold

These are the sorts of data people look for to perform market analysis. Sony provided the data required to determine the data point for some of these. MS provides none of the data required to determine the data point for any of these making their MAU figure less informative.

And lmao, sure. Look at this thread and the last one. Or the forza one. Or MS financial one. Or the first 10 pages of NPD threads.


I like your shitty question like I haven't seen the posts that led to my "breakdown".

I have 0 interest in engaging in brand wars with you. You seemed to not grasp the logic behind why MS is criticized for their MAU figures and Sony is not. I was trying to inform you why that is. Clearly you have no interest in learning the answer as everything just devolves back into "LMAO" and outright dismissals so I'll just stop trying.

 

[Rembrandt]

Wow.

Keep fighting the good fight warrior. Must be hard to be on that side of the war in 2017.

What's wrong with that post I quoted?


Wanna add me on steam, my PS3 I have around here, or XB1?

 

[notaskwid]

What's wrong with that post I quoted?


Wanna add me on steam, my PS3 I have around here, or XB1?

Is this the gaming equivalent of 'I have a black gay friend'?

 

[GHG]

I've literally never ever said it's wrong with them reporting them. I said MAU are more translucent than console sales. It's my opinion.

We've has conversations across multiple Xbox and PS threads and I don't think we've ever agreed.

Pick a game to duel me in.

What's wrong with that post I quoted?


Wanna add me on steam, my PS3 I have around here, or XB1?

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you, if you want to hold on to that opinion despite all the other points raised in this thread then that's up to you. Maybe if Microsoft decide to start reporting hardware numbers again you might change your mind.

As for the bold... What are you doing?

 

[bombshell]

First time I'm hearing of this. Sounds interesting.

Family/friend sharing of online play with one PS+ account is even officially detailed here: https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/g...plus-benefits-with-a-friend-on-playstation-4/

It's very easy with the whole "set your PS4 as your friend's primary PS4, set your friend's PS4 as your primary" setup. All accounts on the plus-subscribed account's primary system can play online.