MiguelItUp
Member
I can totally see this happening.
Please be Bloodborne. Please.
Please be Bloodborne. Please.
-
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.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Voted Bloodborne but realistically it will be something nobody is asking for like Dreams or Knack
SLB1904
Banned
Yeah. Dantes inferno is almost lost
Kuranghi
Member
Being an owner of both PC and PS5, after the PS5 updates to many of these games its got to be Bloodborne and Gravity Rush 2 (If had to choose between the 2, rather than both), because both would sing at 60fps, and thats not been possible up until now.
I'm not a BB fan but I can see how the combat and animations in that would mahoosively benefit from a well-paced 60fps or greater presentation. GR2 I love and would just like to see it in higher resolution and framerate, I'd probably just spend all my time on PC collecting the pink jambos since I've already beaten it twice, because I bet "falling" at 60fps feels acebeans.
Its REALLY bizarre there hasn't been 60fps updates for these games yet, for different reasons though I'm sure. BB because they have something bigger planned or a proper remaster at least. GR2 probably just because they don't gaf about it tbh
I'm not a BB fan but I can see how the combat and animations in that would mahoosively benefit from a well-paced 60fps or greater presentation. GR2 I love and would just like to see it in higher resolution and framerate, I'd probably just spend all my time on PC collecting the pink jambos since I've already beaten it twice, because I bet "falling" at 60fps feels acebeans.
Its REALLY bizarre there hasn't been 60fps updates for these games yet, for different reasons though I'm sure. BB because they have something bigger planned or a proper remaster at least. GR2 probably just because they don't gaf about it tbh
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Me every time I open these threads
NewYork214
Member
I can see dreams coming to PC eventually. Creating stuff would have to be easier with M+KB. Plus all the new creations would work in console version I would assume. It would benefit everyone.
DrumNBassDanTTV
Member
Erm you forgot GoT? only the best game of the last 10 years.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Unreal engine has more worth than the store.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Not having to wait 3 to 10 years for a port
Again there releasing pretty much all the PS4 games on P.C. They are done pushing PS4, and its great advertisement that if you want the sequel you will have to purchase it on PS5. Sony gets alittle more money and potentially a larger user base. When PS6 come out expect all PS5 1st party games to go to P.C. also. I bet God of war and Spiderman PS4 will come to P.C. alittle bit before God of War 2 and Spiderman 2 comes out for PS5.
Derktron
Banned
It would be very suicidal to only make it exclusive to Epic Games, just because they have a deal with Epic Games which has to do with development tools doesn't mean a damn thing for the Epic Games, if Sony wants to expand their marketplace, even more, it's in their best interest to keep it on Steam. Nothing more needs to be said.
Wunray
Member
I don't, maybe it must be a regional price error.Not for me, maybe you have coupon active
Yup 20 dollars mate.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
It Begins!
Kidding aside, glad to see Dreams take #2 in the poll; that is a game practically begging for a PC port, I'd love to make some stuff in it there (but with KB&M support, don't really fancy making stuff in VR).
Interesting that they are pushing for Steam vs. EGS for this, though I guess it also makes sense considering they already have a presence on Steam and it's by far the bigger storefront out of the two. I'm curious if they will still bring these to EGS too though (I would say GOG but after Cyberpunk I don't think Sony are too kind to that option ATM).
Actual data works completely against this idea. For starters, taking a sampling of a few dozen people here who have PCs good enough to play Xbox games is not reflective of the majority of the PC gaming market, who are still rocking 1060s going by the Steam survey. The majority don't have cards good enough to match the new MS & Sony consoles.
Sticking with MS for a moment, they also reported their best gaming quarter only a little while ago for the Xbox division in terms of revenue and profit, so it's at least somewhat evident that going day-and-date on PC is not hurting their revenue streams for the Xbox platforms. This can also be seen when looking at performance of 1P games like Forza Horizon 4 (and to the same degree, GamePass inclusion Day-and-Date has only helped the majority of titles in terms of sales, and didn't hamper sales of games like FS 2020).
Exclusives are nice value-adds to the consoles and help give them identity, but they are NOT what drive console sales outside of a specific segment of the hardcore. Third-party games are what drive console sales and ecosystem growth, and it's been that way since almost forever. The only platform holder this doesn't necessarily hold true for is Nintendo but even in their case it is somewhat debatable because where would the Switch, for example, really be at without its 3P support? Probably nowhere near the numbers it is actually at, I would wager.
This isn't me saying many exclusives don't sell big numbers: they do. However, when you look at the absolute BIGGEST games on the market, they're all 3P: GTA 5, COD, FIFA, Minecraft (well this one is technically owned by a platform holder but treated as a 3P franchise), Roblox, Fortnite, Valorant, Apex, R6, DOTA etc. Very few platform-holder exclusives come close to the mindshare and community retention of these games, or long-term persistent impact.
Exclusives help play a role in console sales and ecosystem growth, yes, but they aren't the main driving factor and they've almost never been. I also think an argument can be made that if a particular device is quality enough in terms of the features, build, design etc. it provides, it aught to be able to sell on those merits to at least a pretty strong degree and not need to rely so much on exclusives to give it identity or presence. That's one of the reasons we see Apple's products sell so well; there's very little software-wise "exclusive" to their devices but people still buy them in droves because of the hardware features, how they bring QoL benefits, their design etc. This can be applied to the console platform holder as well.
Lastly, I think people need to take a step back and realize that pushing console sales is not in itself the end goal, because these companies lose money on the hardware. Hardware sales mean little if your profits from software sales are not enough. Let's take a look at the PS5 here for example. They're at 6.5 million units sold, that's great. But now let's look at what it has "costed" them. 6.5 million x $525 (I'm just estimating a BOM here, kind of line with some earlier reports) = $3.4125 billion. Now, that's actually a conservative estimate because it doesn't take assembly, packaging and shipping/handling/distribution costs into account, but it works for the example.
That is $3.4125 billion dollars Sony has essentially "lost" on selling their PS5 so far (better to say, it has costed them $3.4125 billion to manufacture and sell those PS5s), but as they sell them to retail at $499 and $399, assuming a 3:1 ratio in favor of the $499 model, they have only essentially lost $325 million on those systems sold so far. Now I'm guessing here, but I figure companies tend to want at least a 2:1 ratio favoring profits over sunk costs for manufacture, development, and shipping, so Sony are probably looking for total profits in any given quarter to sit around $2 billion - $3 billion, going by previous quarter.
The thing is that, they need to generate at least $22 billion in revenue from the PS division to do this, going by their business model. This was pretty easy to do with PS4, but now PS4 is being phased out and PS5 being phased in as the main product; PS4s weren't costing Sony money lost on each system sold, and production costs were way lower. Those factors aren't there for PS5 and won't be for a couple of years (this is part of the reason they want aggressive sales volumes early on, so that pricing discounts on increasing volume orders can kick in sooner).
How are they going to generate $22 billion in revenue on a system with a literal fraction of the PS4's install base, while said PS4 is being phased out both by the manufacture and by customer demand declining now that the PS5 is available? These questions can be equally applied to Microsoft with the Series platforms, but they have a very different business model as a corporation. Speaking of which, to Sony's case, yes they can offset generation of that additional revenue from other divisions like film and television and finance, but that also means those divisions have to see big jumps in their own revenues as well, which might be asking for a lot, considering PlayStation is by far the biggest part of Sony.
Sorry if this was a bit of a detour; I just wanted to get a little deeper into where I think obsession over certain metrics misguides some people. My main point is that Sony wants to increase profits off their own software and rely less on royalties from sales of 3P software to kick into their net profits, because for several years they have already seen what those numbers look like and apparently they aren't enough for what Sony has planned going forward.
Particularly when you consider the rate of royalty cuts they generally get from 3P sales, the size of the install base, the increases in production costs for 1P content and marketing, and the fact that more competition from companies both stalwarts (Microsoft, Nintendo) and new to the space (Amazon, Tencent, Embracer Group, Apple etc.) may likely mean less opportunities for "essentially" 3P exclusives, or even timed exclusives (this could also manifest in the amount needed to pay for such increasing by magnitudes to the point it may not be worth the costs for certain platform holders). These plus increasing costs on high-volume hardware manufacturing, marketing, distribution costs etc. are why Sony is making more moves to publish on platforms like PC and, like was mentioned earlier, there are already well more than enough real data points in the market they can look at to see it mainly serves to benefit them and PlayStation, not hurt.
Kidding aside, glad to see Dreams take #2 in the poll; that is a game practically begging for a PC port, I'd love to make some stuff in it there (but with KB&M support, don't really fancy making stuff in VR).
Interesting that they are pushing for Steam vs. EGS for this, though I guess it also makes sense considering they already have a presence on Steam and it's by far the bigger storefront out of the two. I'm curious if they will still bring these to EGS too though (I would say GOG but after Cyberpunk I don't think Sony are too kind to that option ATM).
Actual data works completely against this idea. For starters, taking a sampling of a few dozen people here who have PCs good enough to play Xbox games is not reflective of the majority of the PC gaming market, who are still rocking 1060s going by the Steam survey. The majority don't have cards good enough to match the new MS & Sony consoles.
Sticking with MS for a moment, they also reported their best gaming quarter only a little while ago for the Xbox division in terms of revenue and profit, so it's at least somewhat evident that going day-and-date on PC is not hurting their revenue streams for the Xbox platforms. This can also be seen when looking at performance of 1P games like Forza Horizon 4 (and to the same degree, GamePass inclusion Day-and-Date has only helped the majority of titles in terms of sales, and didn't hamper sales of games like FS 2020).
Exclusives are nice value-adds to the consoles and help give them identity, but they are NOT what drive console sales outside of a specific segment of the hardcore. Third-party games are what drive console sales and ecosystem growth, and it's been that way since almost forever. The only platform holder this doesn't necessarily hold true for is Nintendo but even in their case it is somewhat debatable because where would the Switch, for example, really be at without its 3P support? Probably nowhere near the numbers it is actually at, I would wager.
This isn't me saying many exclusives don't sell big numbers: they do. However, when you look at the absolute BIGGEST games on the market, they're all 3P: GTA 5, COD, FIFA, Minecraft (well this one is technically owned by a platform holder but treated as a 3P franchise), Roblox, Fortnite, Valorant, Apex, R6, DOTA etc. Very few platform-holder exclusives come close to the mindshare and community retention of these games, or long-term persistent impact.
Exclusives help play a role in console sales and ecosystem growth, yes, but they aren't the main driving factor and they've almost never been. I also think an argument can be made that if a particular device is quality enough in terms of the features, build, design etc. it provides, it aught to be able to sell on those merits to at least a pretty strong degree and not need to rely so much on exclusives to give it identity or presence. That's one of the reasons we see Apple's products sell so well; there's very little software-wise "exclusive" to their devices but people still buy them in droves because of the hardware features, how they bring QoL benefits, their design etc. This can be applied to the console platform holder as well.
Lastly, I think people need to take a step back and realize that pushing console sales is not in itself the end goal, because these companies lose money on the hardware. Hardware sales mean little if your profits from software sales are not enough. Let's take a look at the PS5 here for example. They're at 6.5 million units sold, that's great. But now let's look at what it has "costed" them. 6.5 million x $525 (I'm just estimating a BOM here, kind of line with some earlier reports) = $3.4125 billion. Now, that's actually a conservative estimate because it doesn't take assembly, packaging and shipping/handling/distribution costs into account, but it works for the example.
That is $3.4125 billion dollars Sony has essentially "lost" on selling their PS5 so far (better to say, it has costed them $3.4125 billion to manufacture and sell those PS5s), but as they sell them to retail at $499 and $399, assuming a 3:1 ratio in favor of the $499 model, they have only essentially lost $325 million on those systems sold so far. Now I'm guessing here, but I figure companies tend to want at least a 2:1 ratio favoring profits over sunk costs for manufacture, development, and shipping, so Sony are probably looking for total profits in any given quarter to sit around $2 billion - $3 billion, going by previous quarter.
The thing is that, they need to generate at least $22 billion in revenue from the PS division to do this, going by their business model. This was pretty easy to do with PS4, but now PS4 is being phased out and PS5 being phased in as the main product; PS4s weren't costing Sony money lost on each system sold, and production costs were way lower. Those factors aren't there for PS5 and won't be for a couple of years (this is part of the reason they want aggressive sales volumes early on, so that pricing discounts on increasing volume orders can kick in sooner).
How are they going to generate $22 billion in revenue on a system with a literal fraction of the PS4's install base, while said PS4 is being phased out both by the manufacture and by customer demand declining now that the PS5 is available? These questions can be equally applied to Microsoft with the Series platforms, but they have a very different business model as a corporation. Speaking of which, to Sony's case, yes they can offset generation of that additional revenue from other divisions like film and television and finance, but that also means those divisions have to see big jumps in their own revenues as well, which might be asking for a lot, considering PlayStation is by far the biggest part of Sony.
Sorry if this was a bit of a detour; I just wanted to get a little deeper into where I think obsession over certain metrics misguides some people. My main point is that Sony wants to increase profits off their own software and rely less on royalties from sales of 3P software to kick into their net profits, because for several years they have already seen what those numbers look like and apparently they aren't enough for what Sony has planned going forward.
Particularly when you consider the rate of royalty cuts they generally get from 3P sales, the size of the install base, the increases in production costs for 1P content and marketing, and the fact that more competition from companies both stalwarts (Microsoft, Nintendo) and new to the space (Amazon, Tencent, Embracer Group, Apple etc.) may likely mean less opportunities for "essentially" 3P exclusives, or even timed exclusives (this could also manifest in the amount needed to pay for such increasing by magnitudes to the point it may not be worth the costs for certain platform holders). These plus increasing costs on high-volume hardware manufacturing, marketing, distribution costs etc. are why Sony is making more moves to publish on platforms like PC and, like was mentioned earlier, there are already well more than enough real data points in the market they can look at to see it mainly serves to benefit them and PlayStation, not hurt.
Last edited:
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
.
Last edited:
DrumNBassDanTTV
Member
This is a Gaming thread.
All_Might
Member
Dude so I finally caved and ordered Gamepass ultimate with the trick you linked and it works flawlessly. I enjoy the games there, especially flight simulator 2020. So thank you very much and have a wonderful weekend21:9 144hz max settings and more even.
anyone still on the fence, do the 3 years GPU 'hack' on your PC. now!
Xbox Game Pass Ultimate tip: Get 2 years of access for dirt cheap
Currently, Xbox Game Pass Ultimate costs $17 per month. But with this trick, you can get it at over 50 percent off for up to two years.www.pcworld.com
Last edited:
Reality Czar
Banned
It's pretty obvious this will be TLOU. They are going to want to pimp that game out when the TV show releases.
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
.
Last edited:
Sloth Guevara
Banned
So I have gone from the 360 to the PS4 and now PS5.
I just don’t understand the salt of people not wanting more peeps to play masterpieces like ghost of Tsushima. Just so odd.
I just don’t understand the salt of people not wanting more peeps to play masterpieces like ghost of Tsushima. Just so odd.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Think about God of War on PC.
Sentenza
Member
Already among the rumored ones incoming, according to several sources.
Personally, after Bloodborne gets officially announced Shadow of the Colossus is the next one I'd want to buy on PC.
Too bad several rumors mentioned The Last Guardian but no "insider" mentioned this one.
RaySoft
Member
..and when he snaps, half of them are gone?
Last edited:
DrumNBassDanTTV
Member
Yes? But GoT is obviously Ghost`s of Thushima...but obviously it was a very weak attempt at sarcastic humor.And this is a soccer avatar
Yselacrey00
Banned
Sony doesn't have a cloud infrastructure. Again, they didn't choose to make money, they chose to help the competition.
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
.
Last edited:
itsArtie
Member
You can't play the best ones. I'm sure a team of professionals did their calculations and determined that the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to bringing PS games to PC and I'm sure this will be pretty profitable for Sony.
Yselacrey00
Banned
So why invest in that in the first place if you don't believe in it and you're activate competing against? That's what anyone would call a stupid investment.
Ezquimacore
Banned
Sony is one of my favorites third party publishers
Ezquimacore
Banned
And soon those professionals will tell Jim "hey man, the best ones will sell 5 million copies"
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
Good lord at the speed they work at!!?? You'd see it in 2030 when they're just about ready to show Gran Turismo 8
ANIMAL1975
Member
In the beginning... ps4 after a few months was already selling without loss, and after the slim revisions they start making profit... Hey the focking thing is still selling at 300 euros almost 8 years after releasing, 350 with games _ every other ps was already half the initial price by now. They are not loosing money with hardware.
jakinov
Member
I've already explained that. But let me try again. I'm going to use arbitrary numbers going forward.
Lets say that steam has 95% market share in PC digital distribution and is worth $300 Billion because of it. Lets say that Epic Games is worth $5 billion for just their store business (and they don't do anything else for simplicity) and has like 3% market share
People don't like having money sitting in the bank, because they don't want it doing nothing because you want to at least beat inflation but ideally you want to turn it to a lot of extra money.
If you see that Epic has been super successful lately and think that they have growth potential because of whatever trends and you invest $200 million into Epic Games. If Epic Games manages to double their business (i.e. market share) the value of the company could effectively double (companies go up in value when this happen but it's not always a proportionate). But lets just say for this example that when Epic Games gets 6% market share they are now worth $10 billion (double). Your $200 million dollar investment is worth $400 million (+100% ROI). Steam going to 100% market share is something super hard to do and even if they do, unless the market significantly grows (i.e. almost doubles in size) you probably aren't going to see a 100% ROI. In stagnant market and in this oversimplified scenario, Steam going up 5% would only increase that $200 million investment to ~$210 million whereas Epic Games gaining a measly 3% market share could double your investment.
In reality, things are a lot more complicated that that. But the key take away is that you can invest in companies that can double, triple or quadruple in size and still don't believe that they will dominate the market (especially in everything that they do). People invest because they look into getting their money back and more. The example above didn't really need to be Steam vs Epic but I just used them as a relevant example of how you can invest in a company that you think can grow significantly but not necessarily be the "winner".
A more straightforward answer is that Epic Games is dominating with Unreal Engine and Fornite and they are going to go up in value. Epic needed money and gave Sony the opportunity to own piece of them as they grow and grow. Sony can still think that Epic Games could be worth $50B or $100B one day without foolishing championing and supporting everything they do just because they own a small fraction of them; especially if it comes at a cost to their main business.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Sony has put their games on GOG as well (my preferred option.) I hope they continue to do that.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I'm asking for dreams.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
What's the point in selling you a loss leader console when they can sell games to you on PC without that BS?
Aguero9320
Member
Having games limited to just one platform is stupid. Hopefully Sony are brave/smart enough to do this properly and not half heartedly. Day one with everything.
Hezekiah
Banned
Own a PlayStation and a gaming PC and you live and game like a king
.Yselacrey00
Banned
Again it doesn't make sense. If you want your investment to grow then you help that company, what part of that you can't understand? I'm sure Epic is going to grow a lot by Sony releasing games on Steam lmao.
jakinov
Member
It makes perfect sense. They want to try to make the most money possible.
They invested in the company without thinking that they were going to actively try to help their money grow. People or companies don't help companies they partially own in very facet and sacrifice your own money for them unless you think you'll make more money in the end doing so. Most people who think AMD or Apple stock will go up and buy it don't then exclusively buy AMD and Apple products to help their stock in a minuscule way. They buy what they actually want to buy and what is the most economical and brings them the most value to themselves. Microsoft doesn't do everything to support Facebook just because they own a small percent of them. They still compete with them on many facets because it makes them more money. But they still thought Facebook could still double, triple, or whatever in size.
You forget that Epic Games main business is making games (Fornite) and selling their engine (Unreal Engine). Sony probably invested in them because a shit ton of games rely on them nowadays and they have one of the most popular games in the world. Not because of their digital store front with a negative perception, no innovation and that's currently bleeding money. So yes, thy are going to grow a lot while Sony releases games on Steam too because Epic's main business units are not affected by that.
If Sony exclusively puts their games on EGS, they will probably make way less money than putting it on both. If Sony invested in Epic Games because they think the company will go up,. then the value of EGS would have to go up a lot because of that decision in order to justify denying Steam-only users.
Sony likely expects to make more money in the end because Epic Games will go up at its own volition and by being able to capitalize on all PC users they make a shit ton of money. Whatever money they would have got by supporting EGS only is likely seen as too risky (and speculative) or too little.
kyliethicc
Member
killatopak
Member
They had Gaikai.
Yerd
Member
Sony exclusives are the only reason I own a playstation. If they finally put the good games out, then I will stop trying to buy a ps5.
RCU005
Member
Except the diehard fanboys who think that by porting PS games to PC is a crime and their lives are ruined.
Similar threads
- Poll