Sony's strategy and particularly PS and PS Now strategy and priorities continues being the same: to iterate the previous generation to primarly sell more software than before, which also means to sell more consoles than before and to use exclusive stuff as unique selling point. And as secondary market growths to use stuff like subscriptions, streaming, VR, mobile, PC and movies to keep expanding them. None of these things were ideas of the new leadership.I agree, and that was essentially the point I was making. After he and other senior staff members left Sony, the people who took over the mantle apparently didn't see things the same way. You can see this in the fact that they've stopped adding any new PS2 games and even PS3 games since more than two years ago. The people in charge now seem to have different priorities. Unfortunately, even some of their shared priorities (such as expansion to mobile and smart TV platforms) seem to be getting brushed aside.
Annoying thing is that if it's not available, you cannot even download those games.Announced in 2014, still not available in my country...
They earnt a ton of GOTY awards in the last decade, PS4 sold more games than any console in gaming history and both PS4 and PS5 broke many gaming history hardware sales records, their gaming division is making more revenue than any console maker in gaming history, they have more game subs than anybody else and no game streaming platform claimed to have more subs than them. They are also working now to expand their IPs to mobile, PC, movies and tv shows. I think they are doing a pretty good job.Outside of investing in the small VR space, what has Sony REALLY done to try and push the industry forward and return investment to our gaming futures? They don't even try to PRETEND to care.
What happened was a global pandemic that killed presential events."This year we will be participating in hundreds of gaming events all over the world!" Really? Which ones again? Never happened.
When did they lie?It's all a bag of $70 lies
Yes, game streaming services like PS Now and xcloud are only available in some countries.Sony should call this service NATO game streaming since it's only available in a handful of countries. Cheap fucks don't want to invest in more servers to expand their service...
The small data we have leads to think it would need to have around over x10 or maybe even x20 the amount of subscribers they have to be profitable (not sure if it was Layden who explained it) if we consider the costs of the 1st party games they will put there. Phil said it's sustainable, he didn't say it's profitable.That's a weak cope my friend. Gamepass isn't losing money, sorry.
The small data we have leads to think it would need to have around over x10 or maybe even x20 the amount of subscribers they have to be profitable (not sure if it was Layden who explained it) if we consider the costs of the 1st party games they will put there. Phil said it's sustainable, he didn't say it's profitable.
Then how will sonys cloud strategy progress? They will need ps5 hardware sonewhere unless they mandate there games are developed with A PC version too.(a pc version not for public release)Azure deal was about stabilizing core services (PS +, PS Store ect) there wont be an SX style server side integration. Takes very specific silicon to do this.
A year or two ago they mentioned to their investors that they plan to continue expanding PS Now in this new gen and that part of their plan was to bring it to tvs and smartphones, to put there PS5 games etc. And filled patents related to game streaming over 5G and so on so yes, they're working on it.
Back then I didn't expect Sony to not fully capitalize on the vision of "play anywhere" model with a subscription service. Laptops, mobile, within the TV itself, anywhere... just by streaming the games and boom you're in!
That is the eventual future. We all know deep down that games will be played by the majority streaming to their device of choice.
PS Now was presented in 2014 as the next step in gaming. Why hasn't Sony jumped on this path as much? Xbox may have seen that presentation and said "alright we're making our own service now, that's the future and we need to do it" Microsoft jump of this idea and road those bull horns all the way up till today.
Sony will now have to respond to their response, sometime soon. The foundation is there, they have to commit because their lifeblood will be those services they started so many years ago. Does anyone think Sony will push those services more in this next year than they ever have before? Potentially combining them into 1 service
They earnt a ton of GOTY awards in the last decade, PS4 sold more games than any console in gaming history and both PS4 and PS5 broke many gaming history hardware sales records, their gaming division is making more revenue than any console maker in gaming history, they have more game subs than anybody else and no game streaming platform claimed to have more subs than them. They are also working now to expand their IPs to mobile, PC, movies and tv shows. I think they are doing a pretty good job.
What happened was a global pandemic that killed presential events.
When did they lie?
Yes, game streaming services like PS Now and xcloud are only available in some countries.
Regarding the GOTY I wasn't including only the Geoff ones, I was including all the GOTY awards: the ones from the fans, the industry, the media and so on. In fact last year TLOU2 won more GOTY awards than any other game in gaming history. In all the metrics I mentioned to measure their performance or success Sony is the top dog. Nintendo is the top dog regarding 1st party game sales and consoles sold launch aligned at the life cycle point they are now with Switch. And Sony is even improving in 1st party game sales (they are selling more than ever did) and if PS5 achieves their goal for this FY will go back to being the best selling console ever launch aligned.Not trying to console war, but like i said... Sony is full of crap and some people make excuses and eat it up. "Sony get the most 1st party GOTY games every year!" is a very small short sighted thing for Sony to solely focus on at this point, the bar is no longer just about how many consoles are being sold or how many shiny awards that Geoff Keighley makes sure they get every year.
The technology mentioned in patents needs time to be developed and implemented in commercial products and services. Pretty likely next year (or maybe 2023 due to chip shortages and so on) they'll release PSVR2, which pretty likely will implement many related patents we saw. Regarding PS Now they also filled many game streaming related cool stuff to reduce latency and improve image quality that very likely we'll see relatively soon too.Sony is constantly filing great patents that never come to fruition.
Yes, it's a valid excuse. A ton of 2021 games from all companies have been delayed to 2022, including their own GoW, Horizon 2 and GT7. They even made some State of Plays that were embarassing because the games that were available to show. Many companies aren't even confident enough to show release dates. Regarding their exclusives and main 3rd parties released this year they had more than enough exposure.The pandemic is NOT an excuse for near total lack of communication with its fans.
It's your personal opinion, the market numbers (so the opinion of the majority) say they are killing it in many fronts and breaking records.i am just severely disappointed in what they have allowed themselves to become. Stagnant.
Nothing says any of these competitors are more successful than PS Now. They didn't reveal their numbers, so we can't say they are doing a better job than PS Now.That's the issue, which goes back to the original point of this thread. Sony has cited this "vision" for years, but they haven't made much meaningful progress. Meanwhile, Microsoft has delivered on most of those promises with Xcloud, despite entering this race about four years after Sony. Nvidia has also made great strides to grow GeForce Now in the last year or so. You've also got Stadia and Luna, both of which had slow starts and took a lot of criticism, but seem to be willing to put in the necessary effort to improve.
While Sony has done good work with some aspects of PS Now, it's a shame that they've allowed these competitors to leapfrog them in certain critical areas. They need to listen to their customers, and do what's necessary to take a leadership position in the streaming video game market.
This FY PS division made $25B, $3.6B of them with game subscriptions, $5.1B from digital game sales, $1.3B from physical sales and $8.6B from DLC+MTX. The division had $3.23B of operating profit.Layden didn't explain anything with his statements.
100m users with an average monthly sub of 10 usd is 12bn which is 75% of what Microsoft makes today across software and hardware. I am 99% confident that Sony makes less than 10bn usd on full download sales given that dlc is 60% of their software revenue.
Sony made roughly 680,000 million yen last year so roughly 6bn usd
We all know deep down that games will be played by the majority streaming to their device of choice.
Yeah but they'd make way less money and devalue full price sales if they did so. Sony are strategically not pushing this service hard but have it in a position if it ever becomes viable they can.They did support SmartTVs and mobile (Xperia) early on, but quickly dropped those platforms because there wasn't enough interest.
If they had invested in media propaganda, it would have "picked up" pretty quickly, I guess.
They used to have that actually, but killed it off. I thought it was boneheaded at the time, seems monumentally stupid now.Sony have a bit of an ace up their sleeve when streaming does become mainstream,
They make televisions so the PlayStation app would be embedded and they can cross sell. All the player will need is a joypad.
Whether or not those competitors are more successful from a financial perspactive is unknown. But, unquestionably they have made great gains from a mindshare perspective.Nothing says any of these competitors are more successful than PS Now. They didn't reveal their numbers, so we can't say they are doing a better job than PS Now.
I don't think that is a part of their strategy, if it does shift to that they'd likely have to pursue non-azure solutions. But I doubt sony wants to get into the game of having to maintain evergreen servers comprised of custom tech as PS5s weren't built with server integration in mind.Then how will sonys cloud strategy progress? They will need ps5 hardware sonewhere unless they mandate there games are developed with A PC version too.(a pc version not for public release)
They removed support for a lot of those devices because they were upgrading PS Now at the time for PS4 games and improved video quality. Most of those devices either didn't have the processing power to handle the new codecs, or (if they did) had too small of a market presence to be worth the effort.They used to have that actually, but killed it off. I thought it was boneheaded at the time, seems monumentally stupid now.
You'll be waiting for a long time then because MS only report revenue for individual business units like their gaming division.Lmao. So much denial. I'll be waiting for the profit reports, thank you.
I don't think that is a part of their strategy, if it does shift to that they'd likely have to pursue non-azure solutions. But I doubt sony wants to get into the game of having to maintain evergreen servers comprised of custom tech as PS5s weren't built with server integration in mind.
“We could conceivably use the cloud for our technical infrastructure, but the cloud gaming experience we’re offering will be unique and only on PlayStation.”
“We’re still having conversations with [Microsoft] about exchanging ideas,” he said. “We’re still talking to them about exchanging ideas, and there’s some very interesting stuff, so when the time is right, we’ll announce our cloud strategy.
The money isn't gone? The money is absolutely spent, i.e. gone. The question is did MS get 7.5 billion+ in value out of the transaction. Zenimax was trying to offload itself for years. And it was supposedly valued at 2.5 billion a few years ago. There is such a thing as overpaying, and it happens all the time in business. MS paid 8 billion for Skype, a basically dead, behind the times service. They paid 7.6 billion for Nokia, and then ran that into the ground. This idea that they are buying things, at a price that is a good deal or is equivalent to the real intrinsic value is demonstrably false.Just a hint, when you buy a publisher worth 7.5 billion dollars, you have a publisher worth 7.5 billion dollars. It's not like the money is gone.
With regards to all the running costs you mentioned, those are covered by Gamepass fees and other Xbox revenue. That's what sustainable means after all.
We can't really make that kind of statement without knowing what's going on behind the scenes.Sony doesn't seem to give a fuck about changing currently.
They are making too much money to care.
Somebody got a degree in business here.The money isn't gone? The money is absolutely spent, i.e. gone. The question is did MS get 7.5 billion+ in value out of the transaction. Zenimax was trying to offload itself for years. And it was supposedly valued at 2.5 billion a few years ago. There is such a thing as overpaying, and it happens all the time in business. MS paid 8 billion for Skype, a basically dead, behind the times service. They paid 7.6 billion for Nokia, and then ran that into the ground. This idea that they are buying things, at a price that is a good deal or is equivalent to the real intrinsic value is demonstrably false.
Why would a company valued at 2.5 billion, that wants to offload itself, be actually worth 7.5 billion? Why would a company want to sell itself if it felt it had a healthy future outlook? They saw the huge cash out and took it.
By the way, Spencer clearly said sustainable not profitable. It means MS is probably willing to subsidize it for a very long time. They are playing such a ridiculous smoke and mirrors game with all this. "Hey yeah, it's sustainable, 10 million players for Forza ... wait what? You want numbers? No! Those are secret!" It's silly and stupid beyond belief the way they act, paired with the narrative they try to sell. I don't understand why the discussion around Xbox can never just be taken at face value. They clearly have things to hide.
Got a news flash for you. Big corporations do not keep positive numbers a secret.
You can also spend the time getting triggered by everyone who says anything you don't like of your pos service.You'll be waiting for a long time then because MS only report revenue for individual business units like their gaming division.
You can spend that time voicing your "concern" for Game Pass sustainability though, so that it doesn't feel as long.
Gamepass (not xCloud, not GP Ultimate) had ~18M subs at the end of June, and we don't know which portion of them are $1 deals, free month promotions from Discord Nitro and so on, etc. We know their server costs should be high and same goes with putting all these games day one there. Specially the AAA games that costs hundreds of millions to make and MS plans to put several of them day one on Gamepass every year. Layden did some numbers to get a rough estimate of what would it needed to keep GP profitable and I don't remember the details but I think it was like around 500M subscribers.
This FY PS division made $25B, $3.6B of them with game subscriptions, $5.1B from digital game sales, $1.3B from physical sales and $8.6B from DLC+MTX. The division had $3.23B of operating profit.
We all know deep down that games will be played by the majority streaming
I know you're coping, but just notice that Microsoft doesn't report profit numbers for any of their subdivisions. Now do some mental gymnastics and explain to us how Azure isn't profitableThe money isn't gone? The money is absolutely spent, i.e. gone. The question is did MS get 7.5 billion+ in value out of the transaction. Zenimax was trying to offload itself for years. And it was supposedly valued at 2.5 billion a few years ago. There is such a thing as overpaying, and it happens all the time in business. MS paid 8 billion for Skype, a basically dead, behind the times service. They paid 7.6 billion for Nokia, and then ran that into the ground. This idea that they are buying things, at a price that is a good deal or is equivalent to the real intrinsic value is demonstrably false.
Why would a company valued at 2.5 billion, that wants to offload itself, be actually worth 7.5 billion? Why would a company want to sell itself if it felt it had a healthy future outlook? They saw the huge cash out and took it.
By the way, Spencer clearly said sustainable not profitable. It means MS is probably willing to subsidize it for a very long time. They are playing such a ridiculous smoke and mirrors game with all this. "Hey yeah, it's sustainable, 10 million players for Forza ... wait what? You want numbers? No! Those are secret!" It's silly and stupid beyond belief the way they act, paired with the narrative they try to sell. I don't understand why the discussion around Xbox can never just be taken at face value. They clearly have things to hide.
Got a news flash for you. Big corporations do not keep positive numbers a secret.
If Layden thinks XGP needs 200 million subs to be profitable and can fund 23 XGS he is just insane.The small data we have leads to think it would need to have around over x10 or maybe even x20 the amount of subscribers they have to be profitable (not sure if it was Layden who explained it) if we consider the costs of the 1st party games they will put there
Layden can't do basic maths. His estimate is hilariously wrong.The small data we have leads to think it would need to have around over x10 or maybe even x20 the amount of subscribers they have to be profitable (not sure if it was Layden who explained it) if we consider the costs of the 1st party games they will put there. Phil said it's sustainable, he didn't say it's profitable.
Yeah so? The costs will also keep going up, if they want to hit it big, if they're comfortable with not growing the service and userbase, then they can stay right around where they are and probably achieve profitability but only a measly sum that of course won't be worth the investment and certainly not what they're shooting for. There's profitability and there's also "why the heck did we go into so much trouble? profitability". It's obvious Layden is thinking about making big money not achieving profitability making peanuts in profits.If Layden thinks XGP needs 200 million subs to be profitable and can fund 23 XGS he is just insane.
200 mil. subs means 2 billion dollars per month at 10$ per month and 24 billion dollars per year just from GamePass. Not counting other revenue streams.
I double checked it. He said around 500 million subs, not 200. Btw, a lot of people doesn't pay $10 for GP. Same goes with GP Ultimate.If Layden thinks XGP needs 200 million subs to be profitable and can fund 23 XGS he is just insane.
200 mil. subs means 2 billion dollars per month at 10$ per month and 24 billion dollars per year just from GamePass. Not counting other revenue streams.
Unlike you he was CEO of SIE. So it means he knows the costs of AAA games, of paying 3rd parties to include games in a subscription service, the costs of the infrastructure, how the money of the subs gets split, etc and obviously knows basic math.Layden can't do basic maths. His estimate is hilariously wrong.
If they are irrelevant they why is xcloud only available in a few countries instead of being available worldwide?First the server costs are largely irrelevant thanks to the huge benefits of Microsoft owning the servers and being able to rent them out when it isn't being used for xcloud.
What changes is that selling them at $60 and selling a few millions of copies for each AAA they make more money than putting these on a subscription that only has some millions of subs and many of them paid a small $1 fee.Making AAA every year doesn't really change with or without gamepass. I don't think that scales with users base so can assume that's fixed.
Not all GP subscribers pay $10 a month and part of that money goes to taxes. AAA games cost 100-200+ million+almost the same in marketing, then there's the money for putting 3rd party games there, server and infrastructure costs, etc. I assume he includes there having to recoup $10B+ MS invested on acquiring studios recently.500m at a monthly subscription cost of 10 usd is 5bn a month, at 5 usd its 2.5bn a month. That's 60bn or 30bn a year. You really think that's the cost of gamepass or is the point where Microsoft break even? How do you think the individual costs scale?
He didn't explain it too much, he said:If you can find his maths, I would be really grateful.
Right now doesn't reduce almost anything because it only represents a very small of the market. If it grows a low, it would affect game sales first. And having all games available on PC day one hardware sales too.So 6.4bn came from first party and third party sales. Gamepass removes/reduces what revenue stream?
Hardware? I doubt it
Third party sales? I doubt it but let's say it halved
DLC and mtx? Again nope.
Well, Sony has invested money into both VR & streaming. The difference is, Microsoft hasn't put any money towards VR for Xbox (yet); while Sony hasn't pushed their streaming service any further. They could integrate it into their OS and allow people to try out games (similar to what MS has rolled out recently) or what Google was planning with Youtube (watch a video and jump right into a game.) Personally speaking, I don't mind the delay since I am not a big fan of streaming but in order to stay competitive, they can't ignore PS Now anymore, specially when they were the first player in it.Pretty much this, like MS with VR, Sony won’t do much with it til the market shifts.
"Mindshare" is just a wildcard word to use as an excuse when there are zero facts or objective data to back up your claims.Whether or not those competitors are more successful from a financial perspactive is unknown. But, unquestionably they have made great gains from a mindshare perspective.
Yes, there are many Sony haters and uncultured people out there.Look at almost any industry article about video game streaming. They almost always mention Stadia, Luna, and Xcloud, but PS Now is often left out of the conversation, or (if they do happen to mention it) treated as an afterthought.
I had it at home during a few weeks thanks to a friend who is a youtuber, it's nice. Yes, PS Now doesn't work in a website like the other ones and Sony won't do a PS Now client for another console (specially one nobody is going to buy) in the same way they don't release games for other consoles. They want you to buy their own console instead to play them there because their business mostly is focused on it.Look at the new Atari VCS system. They have a dedicated area of their user interface just for streaming game services. They have like 8 or 9 services included in their interface. These include Stadia, Luna, Xcloud, GeForce Now, Antstream, and about 3 or 4 other minor services whose names I forgot. Yet, there is no presence of PlayStation Now. That's one heck of an achievement, where they feature UI spots for B-tier and even C-tier services, but the service from a recognizable name like PlayStation is absent.
Do you want to know why PS Now isn't on the Atari VCS? Simple. Because they don't have a way of accessing the service through a Web browser. All of those other services can be accessed through Chrome. As far as I know, all Atari did was put up icons which are just browser links to those services. They don't have any special software in the VCS. If Sony were to make browser access possible, then I'm sure Atari would be happy to feature it in their user interface. Sony just needs to put forth that effort.
Oh Im with you on this one, I'd rather not stream and worry about lag or artifacting but ppl want convenience. Streaming and quick resume in and out of games is the end game years from now
Not trying to console war, but like i said... Sony is full of crap and some people make excuses and eat it up. "Sony get the most 1st party GOTY games every year!" is a very small short sighted thing for Sony to solely focus on at this point, the bar is no longer just about how many consoles are being sold or how many shiny awards that Geoff Keighley makes sure they get every year. Sony is constantly filing great patents that never come to fruition. The pandemic is NOT an excuse for near total lack of communication with its fans. PSNow could be absolutely incredible with their priceless back catalog of previous generation of games but they just DON'T CARE. If they reverse this in the coming years and we get an amazing BC offering like Xbox has, i will 100% happily reverse my take on this. I'm not hating on Sony because i'm a "green rat", i am just severely disappointed in what they have allowed themselves to become. Stagnant.
What changes is that selling them at $60 and selling a few millions of copies for each AAA they make more money than putting these on a subscription that only has some millions of subs and many of them paid a small $1 fee.
If they are irrelevant they why is xcloud only available in a few countries instead of being available worldwide?
That's why I included the very conservative 5 usd example unless you believe that Layden thought the average sub fee would be lower for some unknown reason. Happy for you to show data on the average sub cost or it is going to have to be an area that we fundamentally can't agree on an estimate.Not all GP subscribers pay $10 a month and part of that money goes to taxes. AAA games cost 100-200+ million+almost the same in marketing, then there's the money for putting 3rd party games there, server and infrastructure costs, etc. I assume he includes there having to recoup $10B+ MS invested on acquiring studios recently.
Another part of the equation that Layden forgot to account for. With 500m subscribers, and no change to dlc/mtx from the first party software side. What happens to dlc/mtx revenue for xbox? It stays the same or goes up? This is part of the equation that Layden is missing/ignoring.I don't think it would negatively impact DLC and MTX, in fact I think MS will turn many of their big IPs (Halo, Forza, Gears, Doom, Quake, Fallout, Elder Scrolls...) into GaaS or even F2P trying to compensate the revenue lost moving from sales to GP, so they would pretty likely increase DLC and MTX.
Yes, he was CEO of SIE. That's what makes his horribly bad estimate even more funny (or sad).Unlike you he was CEO of SIE. So it means he knows the costs of AAA games, of paying 3rd parties to include games in a subscription service, the costs of the infrastructure, how the money of the subs gets split, etc and obviously knows basic math.
It also explains the "progress" Sony has made so far with Psnow.Yes, he was CEO of SIE. That's what makes his horribly bad estimate even more funny (or sad).
Then he is even more insane. 500 mil. subs at 10$ is 5 billion in revenue per month. That's 60 billion per year just from GamePass. FYI Sony had 25 billion dollars revenue from all Playstation businesses and that was a record. Not counting other revenue streams like selling games, MTXs, HW and accessories.I double checked it. He said around 500 million subs, not 200. Btw, a lot of people doesn't pay $10 for GP. Same goes with GP Ultimate.
Unlike you he was CEO of SIE. So it means he knows the costs of AAA games, of paying 3rd parties to include games in a subscription service, the costs of the infrastructure, how the money of the subs gets split, etc and obviously knows basic math.
You know what would help? Stop giving it for granted. Push back every occasion. Don't open Overton's window.Oh Im with you on this one, I'd rather not stream and worry about lag or artifacting but ppl want convenience. Streaming and quick resume in and out of games is the end game years from now