• 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.

Xbox boss speaks on rumored PlayStation service tiers/consolidation

John Wick

Member
Day one has nothing to do with it. People straight up denied it ever happening. But as it has, the goalposts keeps moving like you just did ( i didn't mention nothing about day one).

Ps Now being rebranded with no day one games might as well be Ps now. Its not going to move the needle as is.
Ps Plus and PSnow will combine. Sony will add a games library for subscribers. It won't be day one releases but older games from PS5, PS4, PS3, PS2 and PS.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
You'd be surprised how many console gamers have a stack of 15-20 games on the shelf but only one, maybe two are platform exclusives, while the rest is just Fifa, CoD, Assasin, GTA5 etc. It's funny to read this on the internet but actually sad when you see it on your own eyes.
I hear ya. Out of all the 360 and recent Xbox One first party games, if I exclude all the GP games so it leaves just the disc/digital games available to buy from years back, I think I've bought:

- Gears 1-4
- Forza Motorsport 2-4
- Forza Horizon 2
- Halo 3
- KI
------------------
10 MS first party exclusives since 2006 when I got 360.


Number of COD: Every one from COD2 to now except Infinite. I dont know. I think thats about 15 COD games
NHL games: NHL 07 to NHL 16. Thats another 10 I think
------------------
25 COD and NHL games alone
 

Dr Bass

Gold Member
And your example of 15 games assumes Sony took in the entire $70/game at full pop. So no bargain binning, no third party games, no discs from Amazon where they get a cut. All first party games digitally at full pop.

Even if that was true (definitely not), if you got people swarming all kinds of games on a sub plan, not only can you get some gamers buying the game after its off the service, but you got tons of exposure for mtx from 50 or 100 games. Not just mtx opportunities from 15 games.
You're now making the argument that the style of game would need to change if a GP type of service came to PS (or Nintendo). Which is what people against the idea are saying from the get go.

Yeah MTX from 50 to 100 games ...

Yeah.. that's what people who like Sony/Nintendo games want. A totally different game style, where you're essentially paying a sub service to get F2P style games. And your inclusion of MTX shows that you very well know ... purchases are important? The very model of F2P is to get people to spend far more than a normal priced game over time because again .... purchases are important?

So what I am getting from the supporters here, as usual, is ... GP takes in enough revenue to cover all costs for all games from all their studios and 3rd party deals, even though it's not profitable. MS makes less money, sells less software, and less hardware, than Sony and Nintendo but Sony and Nintendo should do what MS does. GP is self sustainable, but it needs MTX games to contribute to revenue. This all makes tons of sense.

Do some of you have even the slightest inkling what you're arguing for? Get your heads out of the corporate bungus and use your heads.
 

kingfey

Member
You'd be surprised how many console gamers have a stack of 15-20 games on the shelf but only one, maybe two are platform exclusives, while the rest is just Fifa, CoD, Assasin, GTA5 etc. It's funny to read this on the internet but actually sad when you see it on your own eyes.



Easier said than done. MS initially wanted to buy out Nintendo when joining the console market, and didn't work out, Nintend cut them off right away. Sometimes deep pockets is simply not enough.

And MS being afraid of them, well let's say I'm having deja vu, and MS might yet again misread the market - remember then they said they're not aiming for 30M users but 300, because their biggest competition is not the other consoles but actually the TV that sits in the living room? Well we all know the end result don't we? They were actually close to those 30M... And now they say they aim for 3B users and Google and Amazon are their biggest competition just because they tend to offer various cloud services over their own infrastructure, but it seems like the two aren't as interested in gaming as Spencer paints it. And MS has already put a bet by sending some of the XSX APU's to power the xCloud servers instead of the consoles, the ratio vs PS5 is probably something like 1:1.5-2, and as it's been already proven to death. people will always go where their friends already are. So they better hope this bet pays off.
MS buying Nintendo was hilarious. But what would the outcome be, If Nintendo agreed to that? If MS increased the price for Nintendo, MS would have owned them by now.

The 300m mark is still possible. But we aren't there now. Gaming isn't big. It's grown more than last time. Still, they don't have mobile users.
There have pc market, which they have day1. And we know how much steam are there. They have windows store too. That is something Sony doesn't have.

Remember, you are counting hardwares. But MS does day1 for for PC. That bypasses your console ratios. That is outside sales for them for their 1st party games.

Google has Stadia, which is getting games. Amazon has Luna, which is getting games.

Both of these service are still baby now. But in 5 years, they will become a force.

Consoles reset every 8 years. By the time your new console gets dropped, these guys have huge cloud users. And they won't lose users, because of the new hardwares. That is something you need to keep an eye on.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
You're now making the argument that the style of game would need to change if a GP type of service came to PS (or Nintendo). Which is what people against the idea are saying from the get go.

Yeah MTX from 50 to 100 games ...

Yeah.. that's what people who like Sony/Nintendo games want. A totally different game style, where you're essentially paying a sub service to get F2P style games. And your inclusion of MTX shows that you very well know ... purchases are important? The very model of F2P is to get people to spend far more than a normal priced game over time because again .... purchases are important?

So what I am getting from the supporters here, as usual, is ... GP takes in enough revenue to cover all costs for all games from all their studios and 3rd party deals, even though it's not profitable. MS makes less money, sells less software, and less hardware, than Sony and Nintendo but Sony and Nintendo should do what MS does. GP is self sustainable, but it needs MTX games to contribute to revenue. This all makes tons of sense.

Do some of you have even the slightest inkling what you're arguing for? Get your heads out of the corporate bungus and use your heads.
It's not like all games in a sub plan have to be mtx hoarding F2P kinds of games.

PS Now is no different. Only some games fit that type of revenue generating model. On the other hand, some games just seem like normal games where a gamer plays through it normally without needing to buy skins or crates.

If sub plans are so bad, why does Sony have PS Now? Just junk it and you can make more money having those gamers force themselves to spend money the normal way through buying discs or digital downloads.
 

Dr Bass

Gold Member
Yikes you're a thick one. The subscriptions aren't free. MS has expenses for GP, which are equivalent to their development costs and the cost of the 3rd party content they include. There is a certain amount of revenue needed to break even and each additional subscriber after that is profit, the more subscribers past the break even point the more profit. It's literally unbelievable that this could be a new concept in 2021.
Hey dude, before you start calling people "thick" you should consider you don't know who you are discussing with. And consider arguments and facts only. Stop throwing around dumb ass insults and start discussing reality and facts. Make an argument you can actually support instead of using assumptions and suppositions.

What you are stating is an incredibly simplistic and yes "obvious" idea however there is zero evidence to support GP is profitable or falls in the black. They have long stated it doesn't make them money, and the best they have called it is "sustainable." This means they are subsidizing it. If GP were profitable MS would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Do you honestly believe ... that MS is paying salaries and costs for 23 studios, not selling their games by and large, while GP is currently failing to grow much, and MS is also buying deals from 3rd parties, giving away GP subs for a dollar, takes in less money (in the games division) than Sony or Nintendo and GP is .... profitable? This is literally your stated argument.

You call me thick and you literally don't even understand your own words. You are simply 100% wrong buddy, GP does not break even. Once it does MS will tell the world.

It's not like all games in a sub plan have to be mtx hoarding F2P kinds of games.

PS Now is no different. Only some games fit that type of revenue generating model. On the other hand, some games just seem like normal games where a gamer plays through it normally without needing to buy skins or crates.

If sub plans are so bad, why does Sony have PS Now? Just junk it and you can make more money having those gamers force themselves to spend money the normal way through buying discs or digital downloads.

PS Now is a way for Sony to make some money on old games people don't buy anymore. Isn't that completely obvious when you look at what you get with it?
 
Last edited:
It's 100% going to happen. Everybody loves a fucking deal, I don't care who you are. The reason Game Pass isn't just dying is because it's popular, and when Playstation eventually does the same, and they will, everybody will be praising the shit out of it. Sony may dip their toes in, and not just frog splash their way into this strategy, but Sony will be doing it, just like they're starting to take a more active PC release strategy. It's coming slowly but surely.
 
I know facts are hard to follow for people who like to console war and get special tags, sorry this eludes some people but Forza standard edition dropped same day on Gamepass and like 4 days earlier for people who bought the premium versions

I know that doesn't fit the mold I have seen by a couple of people in this very thread but it is what it is

Those are the facts, as inconvenient as they are for some.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Hey dude, before you start calling people "thick" you should consider you don't know who you are discussing with. And consider arguments and facts only. Stop throwing around dumb ass insults and start discussing reality and facts. Make an argument you can actually support instead of using assumptions and suppositions.

What you are stating is an incredibly simplistic and yes "obvious" idea however there is zero evidence to support GP is profitable or falls in the black. They have long stated it doesn't make them money, and the best they have called it is "sustainable." This means they are subsidizing it. If GP were profitable MS would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Do you honestly believe ... that MS is paying salaries and costs for 23 studios, not selling their games by and large, while GP is currently failing to grow much, and MS is also buying deals from 3rd parties, giving away GP subs for a dollar, takes in less money (in the games division) than Sony or Nintendo and GP is .... profitable? This is literally your stated argument.

You call me thick and you literally don't even understand your own words. You are simply 100% wrong buddy, GP does not break even. Once it does MS will tell the world.



PS Now is a way for Sony to make some money on old games people don't buy anymore. Isn't that completely obvious when you look at what you get with it?

I'll wait for you to demonstrate to me how GP isn't profitable first, remember without any assumptions or suppositions.

harvey levin laughing GIF by TMZ
 

kingfey

Member
What I didn't mention in my first post is how a subscription service would also lower the perceived value of games. Once you put your games on a sub, most people won't buy that game at MSRP or even sales prices.
That value is deluded once you make your games cost 10$ during sales. Even the last of us 2 saw permeant price cut in just 1 year of release.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
PS Now is a way for Sony to make some money on old games people don't buy anymore. Isn't that completely obvious when you look at what you get with it?
Thats what I'm trying to get at.

Now lets say Sony does the math and it shows putting day one games on PS Now leads to tons more sub fees + lots more mtx fees as more gamers use the service checking out other games + getting Xbox converts vs. a low PS Now sub count and selling games the normal way.

Then what?

It's like all of us saying launching Sony games on PC wont be the apocalypse. And were right. Sony is actually ramping up releasing more Sony first party ports on PC, so it shows the benefits outweigh any PS gamer bailing the Sony ecosystem for PC.
 
Last edited:

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
That value is deluded once you make your games cost 10$ during sales. Even the last of us 2 saw permeant price cut in just 1 year of release.
Even before a sale, Devs still had the opportunity to sell at full price. Day and date on a subscription service, and you lose both options.
 
Last edited:

Dr Bass

Gold Member
This whole discussion remains just as ridiculous as when the service first came out.

When was GP made available ... 2017? We are five years in and it has done jack to change the gaming landscape. In another five years it's going to be the same.

People can keep doing their silly calculations that don't hold up to any scrutiny or any kind, or actual results released in quarterly reports. It's really not worth arguing because some people are so up a certain corporations rear, they refuse to just look at the data. That's all it takes to see that it's not what MS hoped it would be. Yes it's a great deal for people who use the service, and it's a terrible idea for software houses that want to make good profit margins on their work.

The only thing that will change the gaming landscape is a change in the balance of quality games being released by the platform holders. If MS starts actually releasing the best games in the industry, thats when people who play games will notice. That's why Nintendo games sell 20-30 million copies of games. They make ridiculously fun software. The general public is by and large not loyal to gaming brands. They want fun. This has been seen many times through gaming history as people abandoned Nintendo for the PS1, then Sony for the 360/Wii, then Nintendo altogether with the Wii U, then ditching MS with the X1, then returning to Nintendo with the Switch. It's the software.

GP is MS' attempt to practically give away their software and it's still not really working. The fact the MS leadership still doesn't seem to get this is astounding to me. People are happy to pay for something when they see value in it. If you can't sell your wares it means people do not see the value. Despite everything MS remains a distant third. There is just no getting around that. More people want what Sony and Nintendo have to offer, and they are willing to pay more to get it, in greater numbers. Less people want what MS has to offer even though it is cheaper to get. These are the simple facts.

So argue GP all you want. But data doesn't lie.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
PS4 games weren't $70 plus any kind of subscription service is going to have to include 3rd party content that has to be paid for as well, there is a reason PlayStation brings in roughly twice as much money to Sony as Xbox does to MS and it's not just the larger installed base.

MS actually brings in more $ per console than Sony, if you want to look at it that way. Sony has twice the consoles but doesn't have twice the revenue. I'm not sure what you are going for here. 2021 was 15b for MS gaming and 25b for PS/Sony gaming.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
This whole discussion remains just as ridiculous as when the service first came out.

When was GP made available ... 2017? We are five years in and it has done jack to change the gaming landscape. In another five years it's going to be the same.

People can keep doing their silly calculations that don't hold up to any scrutiny or any kind, or actual results released in quarterly reports. It's really not worth arguing because some people are so up a certain corporations rear, they refuse to just look at the data. That's all it takes to see that it's not what MS hoped it would be. Yes it's a great deal for people who use the service, and it's a terrible idea for software houses that want to make good profit margins on their work.

The only thing that will change the gaming landscape is a change in the balance of quality games being released by the platform holders. If MS starts actually releasing the best games in the industry, thats when people who play games will notice. That's why Nintendo games sell 20-30 million copies of games. They make ridiculously fun software. The general public is by and large not loyal to gaming brands. They want fun. This has been seen many times through gaming history as people abandoned Nintendo for the PS1, then Sony for the 360/Wii, then Nintendo altogether with the Wii U, then ditching MS with the X1, then returning to Nintendo with the Switch. It's the software.

GP is MS' attempt to practically give away their software and it's still not really working. The fact the MS leadership still doesn't seem to get this is astounding to me. People are happy to pay for something when they see value in it. If you can't sell your wares it means people do not see the value. Despite everything MS remains a distant third. There is just no getting around that. More people want what Sony and Nintendo have to offer, and they are willing to pay more to get it, in greater numbers. Less people want what MS has to offer even though it is cheaper to get. These are the simple facts.

So argue GP all you want. But data doesn't lie.
How is it bad for profits for studios?

It's not like MS forces third party devs to sign up. If UBI wants to put that Extraction games on GP, or that small dev that is putting their next Guacumolee game on GP, they took a deal from MS. It seems worth it. If the deal was so bad, then forget it and sell the game the normal way. Only a small number of all the games released are even on GP.

So dont act like Mr. Accounting Big Shot thinking you know how financially feasible every GP deal is. PS Now or PS+ gets their share of day one exclusives too so dont forget to bad mouth Sony giving those studios a rip off deal too. But if both parties want to agree to a $$$ amount, it obviously is worth it for both sides.
 

SlimySnake

Member
Yet again Phil is attempting to marginalise any advantages his competitors have by trying to make them play by his rules and wishes.

Luckily for him Jim Ryan is weak and seems to be happy to go along with everything.
Phil and Jim are cut from the same cloth.

TLOU2 sold $240 million in 3 days. I dont see Sony doing this for Horizon 2, GOW Ragnorak and GT7 all of which should sell around $200 million in the first weekend each. It would make zero sense to completely gut that revenue which is why I fully expect Jim to go through with this.

Cant wait for PS Gamepass. I havent bought a single Xbox exclusives in the last five years and played pretty much all of them on day one. Cant wait to do the same with PS exclusives. Would save me a cool $140-210 a year.
 

Dr Bass

Gold Member
I'll wait for you to demonstrate to me how GP isn't profitable first, remember without any assumptions or suppositions.

harvey levin laughing GIF by TMZ


"Sustainable" is the opposite of profitable.



I can go on and on.

Again. Think about this. GP only has around 20 million subs still. Many of those purchased on the cheap with deals. Microsoft now supports 23 studios, spending 7.5 billion on Zenimax alone. Those 23 studios also have ongoing monthly costs, supporting salaries and infrastructure needs. Software salaries are incredibly expensive. MS also makes deals with 3rd parties to bring their games to GP. You think the minimal number of subscriptions GP has managed to acquire in five years, supports ongoing costs for all of their studios and 3rd party deals, all while MS makes the least gaming revenue in the business, won't share numbers, literally outright states GP is not profitable, but your little calculation where you pull all the numbers out of thin air shows GP makes a profit?

Again, nothing but facts above. You keep using rhetorical devices like "LOL", "you are thick," and laughing GIFs to distract from the fact you are getting massacred on an argument level here. You have nothing to stand on. All you're providing is middle school ridicule type stuff, which makes me think maybe I'm arguing with children on this board sometimes.
 

PropellerEar

Gold Member
MS actually brings in more $ per console than Sony, if you want to look at it that way. Sony has twice the consoles but doesn't have twice the revenue. I'm not sure what you are going for here. 2021 was 15b for MS gaming and 25b for PS/Sony gaming.
Where is the profit?
PlayStation profit is unfathomable compared to Xbox profit.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
How is it bad for profits for studios?

It's not like MS forces third party devs to sign up. If UBI wants to put that Extraction games on GP, or that small dev that is putting their next Guacumolee game on GP, they took a deal from MS. It seems worth it. If the deal was so bad, then forget it and sell the game the normal way. Only a small number of all the games released are even on GP.

So dont act like Mr. Accounting Big Shot thinking you know how financially feasible every GP deal is. PS Now or PS+ gets their share of day one exclusives too so dont forget to bad mouth Sony giving those studios a rip off deal too. But if both parties want to agree to a $$$ amount, it obviously is worth it for both sides.

Agreed. It's laughable to say that GP hasn't had an impact on gaming in general either. Certainly the Xbox division's fortunes have been altered in a positive way because of it and deals to support GP (like the Bethesda acquisition) have reshaped the landscape.
 

Ezquimacore

Member
Playstation exclusives are mostly single player games with 0 replayability after you're done so it actually makes sense for the consumer to have an option like this. Problem is, Sony doesn't release enough exclusives to justify that. I don't think it will happen, best I can see is an option to buy the games at a lower price and maybe a few weeks early.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member


"Sustainable" is the opposite of profitable.



I can go on and on.

Again. Think about this. GP only has around 20 million subs still. Many of those purchased on the cheap with deals. Microsoft now supports 23 studios, spending 7.5 billion on Zenimax alone. Those 23 studios also have ongoing monthly costs, supporting salaries and infrastructure needs. Software salaries are incredibly expensive. MS also makes deals with 3rd parties to bring their games to GP. You think the minimal number of subscriptions GP has managed to acquire in five years, supports ongoing costs for all of their studios and 3rd party deals, all while MS makes the least gaming revenue in the business, won't share numbers, literally outright states GP is not profitable, but your little calculation where you pull all the numbers out of thin air shows GP makes a profit?

Again, nothing but facts above. You keep using rhetorical devices like "LOL", "you are thick," and laughing GIFs to distract from the fact you are getting massacred on an argument level here. You have nothing to stand on. All you're providing is middle school ridicule type stuff, which makes me think maybe I'm arguing with children on this board sometimes.
Well who knew you were King CFO.

MS also bought Linkedin for $26 billion. Explain to all of us your opinion on whether was a good deal or not for MS.
 

kingfey

Member
You're now making the argument that the style of game would need to change if a GP type of service came to PS (or Nintendo). Which is what people against the idea are saying from the get go.

Yeah MTX from 50 to 100 games ...

Yeah.. that's what people who like Sony/Nintendo games want. A totally different game style, where you're essentially paying a sub service to get F2P style games. And your inclusion of MTX shows that you very well know ... purchases are important? The very model of F2P is to get people to spend far more than a normal priced game over time because again .... purchases are important?

So what I am getting from the supporters here, as usual, is ... GP takes in enough revenue to cover all costs for all games from all their studios and 3rd party deals, even though it's not profitable. MS makes less money, sells less software, and less hardware, than Sony and Nintendo but Sony and Nintendo should do what MS does. GP is self sustainable, but it needs MTX games to contribute to revenue. This all makes tons of sense.

Do some of you have even the slightest inkling what you're arguing for? Get your heads out of the corporate bungus and use your heads.
What kind of crap you smoking here my friend? Cuz I want some of that high.

25m currently, at 8$ average(Since you guys bringing that 1$ gamepass) is $200m. That is a month, with no game sales, no mtx, no dlc. nothing. You have 12 month in 1 year. you are getting $2.4b a year. This is just 25m gamepass users. not 30m, not 50m users. MS havent sold any game, they havent done any dlc sales, or mtx on their console. These are pure sub money.

People are estimating the cost of god of war ps4 at around $150m to $200m. Gamepass makes that much, at 25m subscription, with no dlc/mtx/game sales every month.

This is why people need to shut up, about topics they dont understand. It makes you stupid.
 
Spartacus has a huge potential if Sony plays its cards right. Especially outside USA. Because let's be honest there - Microsoft is unable to market their own games and services (or even consoles for that matter) outside USA (UK). So if Sony beat the drums right, people will flock to its Spartacus service simply because it is Playstation and will heavily cripple Game Pass chances in Europe. Imagine having Spartacus (lol) commercials on TVs, Youtube, State of Plays and so on all the time.

Another thing Sony was smart with is that rather than creating a parallel service (like MS did with Xbox Live Gold and Game Pass) they just extended their existing PS+ service (they don't even need to lose their revenue from online or cloud paywall there).

I don't have high expectations from Spartacus content wise but if they launch with FF7R (granted they gave it away in PS+ already so it would be cheap for them to give it away again) and RE8 Village, and then some backwards compatibility with older titles (I don't expect PS3) then it would be really solid alternative. Basically with PS+ tiered they will give away some titles every month, they can have those title almost permanently on higher tier + backwards compatibility. They can also launch multiplayer games in PS+ day one two.

I believe Sony's approach is kinda smart and less expensive even.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Member


"Sustainable" is the opposite of profitable.



I can go on and on.

Again. Think about this. GP only has around 20 million subs still. Many of those purchased on the cheap with deals. Microsoft now supports 23 studios, spending 7.5 billion on Zenimax alone. Those 23 studios also have ongoing monthly costs, supporting salaries and infrastructure needs. Software salaries are incredibly expensive. MS also makes deals with 3rd parties to bring their games to GP. You think the minimal number of subscriptions GP has managed to acquire in five years, supports ongoing costs for all of their studios and 3rd party deals, all while MS makes the least gaming revenue in the business, won't share numbers, literally outright states GP is not profitable, but your little calculation where you pull all the numbers out of thin air shows GP makes a profit?

Again, nothing but facts above. You keep using rhetorical devices like "LOL", "you are thick," and laughing GIFs to distract from the fact you are getting massacred on an argument level here. You have nothing to stand on. All you're providing is middle school ridicule type stuff, which makes me think maybe I'm arguing with children on this board sometimes.
why dont you post the last phil interview, where he said the service is sustainable?


Or do you like posting what you like?
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Again, nothing but facts above. You keep using rhetorical devices like "LOL", "you are thick," and laughing GIFs to distract from the fact you are getting massacred on an argument level here. You have nothing to stand on. All you're providing is middle school ridicule type stuff, which makes me think maybe I'm arguing with children on this board sometimes.

LOL Is that good for you. If you think you have "massacred" me in this argument, good for you. We'll agree to disagree. Your arguments and opinions on subscriptions in general provide me with great amusement.

Shake Hands Hello GIF by His Dark Materials
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Agreed. It's laughable to say that GP hasn't had an impact on gaming in general either. Certainly the Xbox division's fortunes have been altered in a positive way because of it and deals to support GP (like the Bethesda acquisition) have reshaped the landscape.
Exactly.

And even if MS changes the way GP works in the future, what do I care? I got my worth out of it as a consumer. I'll let MS's VP of Finance worry about whether or not I was a profitable user or not.

It's amazing.

Gaming is one of those industries where people go ape shit over +$10 games or consoles going over that magical $400 mark. Lots of bargain binning, cheapassery and trading in discs for $30 is like hitting the lottery. A lot of value conscious minded people in gaming. Hey, I'm one of them. I'm a cheap ass myself.

Yet one company gives gamers an option to do a sub plan for cheap for tons of games (incl day one), and it's somehow bad for gamers.

Figure that one out.
 

kingfey

Member
Playstation exclusives are mostly single player games with 0 replayability after you're done so it actually makes sense for the consumer to have an option like this. Problem is, Sony doesn't release enough exclusives to justify that. I don't think it will happen, best I can see is an option to buy the games at a lower price and maybe a few weeks early.
That is main problem with services that tries to compete gamepass.

Unless you have new games for the service, people will unsubscribe from your service. MS doesnt have any big game for their console until starfield. Redfall might be delayed. Same for motorsport. They are the only ones with enough cash to do day1 games for their service, until those games gets dropped to the service.

They basically add 16-20 games a month. that is like $70m-$100m a month.
 

DForce

Member
You'd be surprised how many console gamers have a stack of 15-20 games on the shelf but only one, maybe two are platform exclusives, while the rest is just Fifa, CoD, Assasin, GTA5 etc. It's funny to read this on the internet but actually sad when you see it on your own eyes.

Your info is based on looking at people's shelves?

If Assassins Creed is selling around 15-20 copies on multiple platforms, then that means PlayStation gamers are likely to own games such as Spider-Man, The Last of Us Part II, and God of War.

FIFA sells around 20-30 million copies on multiple platforms. How many of those are PlayStation owners? FIFA biggest audience is in Europe and the game is not big in America.

NPD - Top 2018
13 - FIFA 19
NPD - Top 2019
14 - FIFA 20
NPD - Top 2020
15 - FIFA 21


FIFA 18 sold 24m copies within a year on 5+ platforms and we can assume it has increased over the years since FIFA 18 was released.

The only games that are pushing overwhelming numbers compared to PS exclusives on the PlayStation Platform are games like GTA, Fortnite, and maybe Call of Duty. So your argument is based on a handful of franchises.

Based on the numbers, people care about exclusives more than you think.
 
This Spartacus won't be exactly like gamepass. New first party games won't launch on the service like on gamepass but I expect sony to make deals with 3rd party to launch games on the service. Hopefully they give a discount for 1st party games atleast.
 

DForce

Member
Narrative 1 - "Sony can't afford to release their games Day One on a subscription service."

Narrative 2 - "It's only a matter of time before Sony releases their games Day One on a subscription service."

The problem with Xbox fans is that they tend to run with two narratives at the same exact time.
 

yurinka

Member
We're are you getting these numbers?
MS and Sony.

If you are adding ps+ with Spartacus, then Gampass has more numbers due to xbox live.
PS Plus an PS Now are supposed to be merged into Spartacus. I assume in the same way they offer the XBL to GPU upgrade.

And for the last time, MS dominates the subscription space.

MS has xbox live. If that service is 25m-30m users, and gamepass is 20m+, that is more than Sony numbers.
No, it doesn't. MS never shown a number higher than the Sony ones. If they had it, they would have shown it.

As I remember in the numbers of the last quarter, or the last Sony shared, were around 47M for PS Plus and 3M for PS Now. Services that now will be merged into Spartacus, which is supposed to add a third tier that I think will bring more subs but my prediction is that for the first quarter they will be at 50M.

MS doesn't provide the XBL number anymore maybe it's because almost everyone did use the $1 deal to migrate from XBL to GPU (which includes XBL), which is a great deal and I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to use it. And the new users also have $1 GPU deal which also includes XBL, so there's no reaon for new users to go XBL instead of GPU.

The last number we had from MS was I think around 18M GP for January last year, and then for June instead of mentioning a number gave a year over year increase. But since we didn't have 2020 june numbers we had to extrapolate them with march and september 2020 numbers, so gave us around 18M for June 2021. Then in September they didn't share anything so I assume didn't have an increase. I personally bet that even if most MS fans already had GP, they got an increase with Halo and Horizon 5 release, so maybe yes they are at around 20-21M.

Regarding remaining people with XBL that for some reason didn't upgrade to GPU there may be some million but for sure they won't be more than the amount of GP subs.

Only way Sony dominates is Console numbers.
I already mentioned the ones we know.

MS has pc market. They have their own pc market, in addition to steam, which they release their games day1.
Yes, I give you that. Steam highly dominates the PC market but MS has a PC store which is more than Sony PC store, which doesn't exist. And MS released more games on PC, so they must have more games sold on PC.

Sony has great games. And great catalog. No one can ignore that. MS needs to do somework on their IPs.

Other than that, Sony doesn't do day1 pc. Sony doesn't do day1 on subscription.
True

Sony doesn't have cloud streaming for browser or phones. These are areas where MS dominates them.
Sony announced they were going to bring PS Now to these other platforms back in 2014, and mentioned it again more recently (seems they will release it this fiscal year) but it's true that MS implemented it before in smartphones and tablets.

We are getting in to the future. Just this year alone, we had chip shortages. If that shortages continues for 5 years, MS cloud system, and their day1 pc will come in handy. While Sony is stuck with whatever consoles they have.
As I mentioned Sony gaming has many branches. Regarding chip shortages, they don't increase the production more because chips don't allow it, but they got enough chips to break gaming history records.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Exactly.

And even if MS changes the way GP works in the future, what do I care? I got my worth out of it as a consumer. I'll let MS's VP of Finance worry about whether or not I was a profitable user or not.

It's amazing.

Gaming is one of those industries where people go ape shit over +$10 games or consoles going over that magical $400 mark. Lots of bargain binning, cheapassery and trading in discs for $30 is like hitting the lottery. A lot of value conscious minded people in gaming. Hey, I'm one of them. I'm a cheap ass myself.

Yet one company gives gamers an option to do a sub plan for cheap for tons of games (incl day one), and it's somehow bad for gamers.

Figure that one out.

Exactly. I'm literally about as cheap of a gamer as you'll find and GP is phenomenal for me.

While there is no need for us to worry about the numbers, it is a bit mystifying to realize there are people that can't even visualize how profit is made with a subscription model like GP, or Netflix, or any of the other software vendors that have developed subscription models. 🤷‍♂️
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Narrative 1 - "Sony can't afford to release their games Day One on a subscription service."

Narrative 2 - "It's only a matter of time before Sony releases their games Day One on a subscription service."

The problem with Xbox fans is that they tend to run with two narratives at the same exact time.

Xbox fans would never go with Narrative 1, that's what Sony fans go with until Sony tells them otherwise.
 

kingfey

Member
Narrative 1 - "Sony can't afford to release their games Day One on a subscription service."

Narrative 2 - "It's only a matter of time before Sony releases their games Day One on a subscription service."

The problem with Xbox fans is that they tend to run with two narratives at the same exact time.
I will be honest here, I will go with narrative 1.

Subscription day1 games is expensive. Not because you cant put your games on day1. but because it takes alot of money to maintain it.

Whatever money you make from that service, need to go back and reinvest in. You cant simply drop your games, and expect them to carry your service. People will leave your service if you do that.

With a company like Sony, they have other business to focus on. They cant risk their money, considering they also have other business to run. This a weird dilemma for them.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
I think Sony need to do this, I don't know how many copies of Rift Apart and Returnal were sold exactly but probably less than 2 million between them whilst Forza Horizon 5 had millions of paying customers before it even hit Gamepass.
No wonder Sony are all about cross gen this year with those facts staring them in the face, they at least need a subscription service they can put those low selling first party games on after a year before the PC port.
 
Sony: "Alright, God of War Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West and Gran Turismo cost 100M to produce, each. That's 300M right there...not counting marketing. We could release each one of these games for 70$ / 80€ and break-even during our first week of release...but you know what? Let's put them all back to back on our 5$ subscription service where not even 50M people are subscribed. Our investors will be much happier like this"

Gaf: "Finally! Poor dying Playstation brand finally saw the light"
Are you serious with this? (Apologies if anyone else made this point already, there's only so much of this I can read :messenger_tears_of_joy:)

$5 x 50m people per month is $250m per month. Times 12 months that's $3bn. And those three games cost $300m plus marketing (using your numbers, obviously there is much more nuance - games don't cost a flat fee to develop, subscription churn etc...)

Factor in that they wouldn't charge $5 per month, probably $10 ($6bn revenue) or $15 (9bn revenue).

$3bn is almost 43m individual game sales at $70. And only a fraction pay full price, so you could extrapolate 60m sales realistically to recoup $3bn.
$9bn is 128m+ game sales at $70. Extrapolate that to maybe 160m sales including discounted purchases. You think Sony's first party will sell that many? In a single year? And don't forget the 2022 exclusives keep adding value to the product in 2023, 2024, 2025 etc.

And then of course they will sell DLC to those 50m people who are more likely to spend because they have more disposable income that month (not in the long run, but most people don't think long run)...

A model like this is not about taking as much money as possible from the individual, it's betting that you can get (significantly) more people that wouldn't pay full price to give you smaller amounts of money to end up on the right side of the profit equation. To my eyes, Sony would be insane not to do this, and I don't understand why anyone who wants Sony to be viable long term would oppose it (physical collectors aside).

And I am absolutely sure the investors would agree.
 
MS first party games are day one on Gamepass
Forza Horizon forces you to pay for the Deluxe edition to play on the actual release (or before "release")... I mean, it depends what you call "release date", but this is certainly not day and date.



I could not fins shenanigans like this for Halo:I... but this is not a reality that you get all MS exclusives day and date, this is a lie and should be treated as such.
 

leo-j

Member
They wont compete with gamepass, with that offering. Sony might have a bigger catalog, but that means shit, compared to day1.

Remember, MS is a trillion company. They bought $7.5b Bethesda. That is 1/3rd of what sony generated last year. They are able to afford more day1 games, and large catalog of 3rd party games. While Sony cant. They have around 16-20 games a month for gamepass. that is 192-240 games a year. Sony cant compete with those offerings.

Gamepass tells you that. If you have xbox or pc, you can see the leaving soon section.

Gamepass entire business model is day1. That is something Sony cant afford at AAA level.
Considering Microsoft has rarely (edited for accuracy)had a game sell over 5 million copies since the 360 era, putting it in gamepass and getting more long term residual income may make sense to them, but I think it’s less about being able to afford it.

Sony’s gaming division made more than Nintendo and Microsoft combined in 2021, why in the world would they follow the lead of a company’s gaming division who made less than half the money Sony did?

Source: https://www.alltopeverything.com/top-10-biggest-video-game-companies/?amp
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom