-
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.
Report: Sony overhauling PlayStation Plus with new tiers and streaming
Hitchyhero
Banned
But gaf has been saying for the past year or 2 that subscription services are terrible and a bad idea.
Now Sonys gonna do it and it's a great idea?
Now Sonys gonna do it and it's a great idea?
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Couldn't agree more.
Hopefully, Sony holding back their tentpole games from the service will send a clear message to third party pubs that there's still clearly a market for AAA tentpole blockbuster games that absolutely wouldn't be able to be financially viable in an exclusive subscription model future.
El Pistolero
Banned
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Netflix spent approximately $70 million to make Season 1 of The Witcher show, which is in line with what a typical AAA game would cost. Netflix debuts dozens of new shows every year.
tmlDan
Member
I think the profit model hurts when you release your games day and date and pay for exclusivity deals.
If its just for legacy and some new games from time to time post release it wont cost as much to uphold.
MS on the other hand releases their games day 1 and they cost $300M to make, they need a certain sub count that i'm sure they have outlined internally that they need to reach before they even make a dime.
it's a risk that might not pay off unless they get a huge sub count, as stated in this thread Netflix needed over $200 million subs to make a profit - potential is there but its ambitious
Kenshin775
Member
You started off strong with that first sentence. I expected so much better from the rest of the ad.
Lol. I actually think Sony has a better first party than MS. Ms has had a great year but Sony first party is proven..
if they dropped their games Day 1 on a sub than it might even overtake Gamepass as the premiere sub. I just think MS has taken the right approach from the beginning and now its paying off and Sony still doesn't want to go all in.a
DaGwaphics
Member
Strange way to look at it. You have basically the option of everything is F2P with literally all $$ earned from nickel and diming or an option where development costs can still be covered by end-users up front via subscription. At least the subscription model still allows traditional sales to happen as well. Player habits are already changing, the days of gamers spending all their time in games purchased for $60-$70 upfront is losing ground and has been for years. I'd much rather the industry move to subscription than F2P, but that's just me.
Last edited:
GhostOfTsu
Banned
I don't get comments like this and all the people liking and loling at it? Did you guys even read what this is about? PS+ and PSNow already exist. They are just adding another tier and bundling them.
Gamepass is basically their version of PS Now. MS was not ahead of anything. You could even stream on TVs and Vita in 2017.
tmlDan
Member
And Xbox plans to do the same, that's why they bought up studios and will continue to do so.
Do you remember how Netflix began? they barely made their own content.
They are modelling after them, im not saying its not valid im just saying that its risky.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
That's just their net income. They've been burning money for years
This is so true and on point. You can expect any Season/Battle Pass game to require roughly 150 hours per season to reach max level. There seems to be an industry standard on how many levels to gain, how much it's gonna cost and how much time you have to spend. This is some serious investment for a hobby, especially if you do anything else besides gaming. But since you have a lot of gamers already in that hamster wheel and they can't or won't or don't play anything else of course you have to stretch that grind because if 90% of your player base is done within two weeks they will probably go somewhere else. And all of the sudden the majority is fine with the time sink they spend their time on. Strange times, if you ask me, but maybe I'm just too old for this.
If it was only those F2P/freemium games, though. Because then you have seemingly traditional games, where the line to becoming a life service game becomes blurrier by the day, offering daily challenges and activities, or pushing the grind in similar or other ways. You probably know all the big titles and studios going down that path... They don't want you to reach the end credits and be on your way, they want you to really commit to these games nowadays.
Personally, I don't mind this Game Pass model as long as I can still buy to keep them. On PC, it's rather the shite Windows Store still working in the background with the Xbox App only as the middle man with some bizarre limitations. I would never pay a penny on that store front because it's so fucking unstable you never know when it breaks something.
This might get lost in the thread , its kinda interesting to read though
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13443463/acastro_181114_1777_amazon_hq2_0003.jpg)
Amazon charges sellers fees that are high enough to offset losses from Prime, a new report says
Amazon says most of its fees are for optional services.
www.theverge.com
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
When you compare the volume of shows and movies Netflix produces each year to the number of AAA games Sony and Microsoft produce each year it makes sense. Microsoft including AAA games day 1 tells you that AAA budgets aren't a limiting factor. Netflix invests billions in content each year, more than Sony invests in first party AAA each year, and makes billions in profit. Microsoft is willing to go all in on AAA. You might need to consider that your assumptions could be wrong.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They're going to gradually kill off the PS Now branding. Cloud Gaming will just fall under the PS+ branding basically
which game costs 300M$ to develop? Xbox and Sony are not making GTA or RDR...
kyliethicc
Member
Report: Sony overhauling PlayStation Plus with new tiers and streaming
Sony is planning to switch up its PlayStation Plus offering next spring, according to a new report from Bloomberg.Citin…
www.gamesindustry.biz
Salty Popsicle
Banned
It's only risky if you're betting the whole farm on it. The amount of money being used to make Game Pass relevant is chump change to Microsoft. If they think it'll provide a net profit 10-years from now, they will do it happily just like Netflix did.
DaGwaphics
Member
You need to make a lot less games in a year though. Netflix spends $13b+ a year on content, a gaming service would never need to spend that much. Plus, there are additional revenue streams with gaming that aren't there with Netflix, and traditional sales as well.
tmlDan
Member
It's kinda hard isn't it, without looking at their books we don't know what costs and allocations are.
We could look at Netflix' books and be like "wtf are you even doing throwing money around like idiots no wonder you haven't made any money" but i guess they convinced investors to believe in the long term.
Maybe MS believes with only 40 million subs they will turn a profit which is far less ambitious and likely given they're almost halfway there.
It's all assumptions, we can only go off of what we see.
Chukhopops
Member
If that’s true and there’s no content change then that’s terrible value.
tmlDan
Member
you'd be surprised, almost all first party games cost that much now.
wasn't it rumoured that Halo was at $500M? you better believe Starfield will be up there.
Kokoloko85
Member
I hope so. Fingers crossed they give a download option. PSnow is ok with PS3 games like Slycooper etc but I wanna download them. Better yet let me buy them unlike what Nintendo is doing now
DaGwaphics
Member
I agree that any sub without day 1 games is not going to look like as good of value unless it is a lot cheaper. The difference between a sub that gives access to $60/$70 games and one that gives access to $20 games. Not that I don't value the older offerings in GP like EA Play, etc. but all the first-party content is the biggest draw.
Last edited:
I mean, Jason states the first tier would be PS+ as is, the second is a broader catalog which sounds like the PS+ Collection on steroids (aka PS Now without the streaming side?), then third tier is streaming and the PS1,2,3 PSP BC stuff
Sorry, but you are just dumb. Netflix spends same amount annually on original content as is Xbox's revenue for fiscal year. They need 214 millions subs to pay bills because they are making plenty of content.
Xbox is not spending that amount of money on original content, so they need way less subs.
And I'm not even talking about fact that Netflix has one revenue stream - subscriptions, meanwhile Xbox is selling full priced games, has 30% cut on everything and is also selling accessories
James Sawyer Ford
Member
soon exclusives will matter less and less?
then why did Microsoft give Xbox a 7.5B bailout to buy Bethesda so they could have more exclusives?
Xbox has been on a huge buying spree playing “catch up” with Sony…so clearly exclusives matter
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Not a chance. If that $500 million is true it's probably factoring in post-launch support
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Thats what I was saying a few pages back as well, if none of their big games are on it day one whats the point?
Thats still no competition for Gamepass imo
ReBurn
Gold Member
Net income is actual income after cost of revenue and taxes are deducted. That's the bottom line. Their gross revenue for the most recent quarter was $7.48b. Their gross revenue for the first nine months of this year was nearly $22b. No doubt they're burning money, but they're not burning all of it.
tmlDan
Member
You need to read between the lines and use your brain, i didn't say now but i'm sure its truly their ambition to expand their games production and increase the sub count to go after a larger audience.
Think long term, not in your bubble - don't call people dumb based off of single comparable, that makes you look stupid
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They've been burning all of it. Their cash-flow has been -1$ billion+ for like the last 10 years
That's why they have to raise debt to develop content.
remember_spinal
Banned
This is pretty much the disney plus strategy. It’s just adding their library of legacy content on one big service, big releases are still gonna be full price.
Sony is never gonna give away their big tent pole games for free so the gamepass cheerleaders will always have rome
Sony is never gonna give away their big tent pole games for free so the gamepass cheerleaders will always have rome
tmlDan
Member
I don't know for sure, the only official statement we have is from Sony who says it costs $200-300M to make games now. Wouldn't be surprised if some exceeded that.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Combining Plus and Now allows for them to charge people more, assuming Plus disappears as a standalone product and you have to buy this to play games online.
Halo is Back
Member
This will be fun seeing all the Sony fans do a 180 if this service drops. Competition is good for consumers and I'm curious how Sony responds to MS Game Pass service.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
The figure was upwards of $100 million or something. Not $200-$300M
Last edited:
Dream-Knife
Banned
Sounds like they're copying Nintendo's online more than anything. Fits with their current policy of keeping games at a high price like Nintendo.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Even so just my 2 cents thats not "Taking on Gamepass" as the headline alludes.
Unless you include your first party games you are falling short
DaGwaphics
Member
Agreed. With competing subscriptions it seems like original content would only get more and more important.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I agree
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
He's just speculating if costs aren't brought under control (which they need to be)
As of right now the games in development aren't in that ballpark. None of these companies want to be burning money like with Star Citizen
kyliethicc
Member
It'll probably be like this:
Game Pass Ultimate at $15/month. Get all of Xbox's 1st party games day 1.
vs
PlayStation Plus Premium at $10/month. Get some of PlayStation's 1st party games day 1 or months later.
Get less, but pay less. That's the pitch basically.
They'll never say exactly when they'll add 1st party games to this Plus library, or how many, or for how long etc.. because they don't want people to know. Keeps people buying games for $70 day 1. Just like how Sony is vague about when/which games are going to PC.
Sony, as always, are slow to move. Just like with PC ports, its gradual. Years later they can simply start adding more day 1 games if they need to. Just like how Game Pass didn't start with all their games dropping day 1. (Came later.) Sony still want their big blockbuster day 1 launches at $70 because of how expensive their big 1st party games are to make. They'll change if they have to, eventually.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked