• 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.

All-new PlayStation Plus launches in June with three flexible membership options

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
People really seem to be missing the fact that this includes the PS Plus service you're all already buying, which makes it a whole lot cheaper than GamePass, which is a separate service. Frankly, if you have PlayStation and play online already, the extra $40 a year for the next tier up is a no brainer.

I guess time will tell. It's only $20 less per year than the package of games they were already offering and only a few million PS+ users bothered with that. We will see if the type of games they add changes or if things stay as they are.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
You were off by a year. They switched the price in October 2019. That's 2 1/2yrs, not 1 1/2yrs. The advertisement and agreement I made was for $60/yr until cancelled. Not $120.

The letter they sent me was very ambiguous, it left the door open to the possibility that if you keep an up-to-date payment method on file and don't cancel the existing sub things might continue (though that is not implicitly stated).
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Imagine being deluded into thinking no day 1 releases is a good thing for Sony......

That's because there's some of us that understand the economics of a media industry. And there's no way putting day 1 games on a video game service is profitable. At least not yet! And Sony and MS have shown that selling video games is a model that can create profit very easily.
 

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
The letter they sent me was very ambiguous, it left the door open to the possibility that if you keep an up-to-date payment method on file and don't cancel the existing sub things might continue (though that is not implicitly stated).
It's probably the same email. The billing info in the subscriptions still says next charge will be $60. If that's true, then I'll stay subscribed at that price.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
That's because there's some of us that understand the economics of a media industry. And there's no way putting day 1 games on a video game service is profitable. At least not yet! And Sony and MS have shown that selling video games is a model that can create profit very easily.
Thus why Disney is not putting the next Doctor Strange, etc on Disney+ day 1.

They want more monies out of their themepark banger the box office provides them.
 

sinnergy

Member
That's because there's some of us that understand the economics of a media industry. And there's no way putting day 1 games on a video game service is profitable. At least not yet! And Sony and MS have shown that selling video games is a model that can create profit very easily.
I understand what I need, gamepass is very gamer oriented, real value for me.. seems Sony isn’t for the gamers.. 🤣 but for their own wallets. And let’s be real , who doesn’t want free first party games included day one to stream or download.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
""When we've dabbled with backwards compatibility, I can say it is one of those features that is much requested, but not actually used much," said Ryan."

Something I said a lot of times in the past.
A nice feature to have but that most don't use.
Sadly it become console war even when having no BC affected in nothing PS4.

Gamers buys new console for new games.
That didn't change and will never change.

Jim Ryan is wrong here. Plain and simple. I wish Sony would fine him $100,000 each time he said this.
 
As those PS1/PS2/PSP games are going to be downloadable do you think you can actually buy them too without the subscription?
I'm trying to understand the situation here as you already have access to PS2 Classics
What's different here?
Clearly PSX & PSP are new.
But are these titles gonna be different to the ones available and locked behind the Premium Subscription?

They haven't said just yet, but the assumption is that you should be able to buy PS1/2/PSP games individually as well as stream them as part of the service. I see no reason why they'd take that option away when they've provided it since PS3 gen.

But they should be. I don't see any reason why every game ever made, plus every new game to be released, can't be on a subscription service from day one. The age of paying money for a single game would end overnight if people could play it on their subscription service of choice on day one.

I'm at a loss as to why this isn't an option yet.

It's not an option because it doesn't make financial sense yet for the vast majority. If three AAA games with $200 million budgets each were to sell 10 million copies each @ $60, they'd generate $1.8 billion on a combined budget of $600 million. So net revenue (minus production & marketing costs) of $1.2 billion.

Subscription service A has, let's say, 20 million users who pay an average of $12.5/month for the full fiscal year. That's revenue of $3 billion per fiscal year. But, if those 3 AAA games mentioned above are 3P, for them to be in the service Day 1, knowing those games would sell 10 million each, Subscription Service A would need to pay out $1.8 billion (to cover the production/marketing costs AND expected revenue). So now net revenue for Subscription Service A drops from $3 billion to $1.2 billion, and that's if they get 20 million users paying an average of $12.50 per month the entire year.

Now say the company that owns Subscription Service A has two AAA games of their own with production costs of $150 million each. That's now gonna take net revenue for the service from $1.2 billion to $900 million. If those games could've sold, say, 5 million copies each, but may now sell say 3.5 million copies due to being the service, then combined those games would've normally generated $600 million in sales, but now they'll only generate $420 million, a difference of $180 million. Instead of subtracting that $180 million, though, Subscription Service A will now need to generate an extra $180 million in subscriptions to make those 2x 1P AAA games cost-effective for adding to the service.

In other words, that service needs another 1.2 million subscribers for the full year in order to make the numbers work out. They need net revenue, therefore, of $1.08 billion annually to make it work..and that is all just net revenue. There's still operating income costs for running the service's servers, deals they may have to pay for other smaller 3P indies, late-coming 3P AAA and 1P smaller AA-style games. Those combined could eat up another $300 million for the year, so dropping revenue back down to $780 million for the fiscal year. Then consider monies to pay for games based on meeting certain milestone quotas with player metrics...that could be a potentially allocated $50 million, so now we're at $730 million in revenue. And finally, advertising costs, which let's say is maybe $25 million between traditional advertising, influencer payouts, and social media postings/videos etc.

That is, at best, $705 million for the company owning Subscription Service A in profit off a service generating $3 billion...and that number is probably a bit higher than what it would actually be. If those are Microsoft's profit margins on such a service, they're actually a bit better than Sony's (though if combined with MTX/DLC profits would be less than Sony's), worst than Nintendo's (1:3) but....the ceiling in actual total revenue is much lower than with the traditional gaming model. I think the reason why guys like Shawn Layden and the such have said companies would need such high sub numbers to make things work is because it's only when something like GamePass has 100 million - 160 million users when the subscription model can generate enough sheer revenue to match the revenues traditional gaming models tend to generate annually ($15 billion - $25 billion).

And again, my numbers for MS's profits on GamePass at a best-case of 20 million subs paying full average of $12.5 per month a whole year are probably a bit on the higher side of what they'd actually be, and in Microsoft's case you also need to consider the $7.5 billion they paid for Zenimax and the $69 billion they're paying for ABK, as well as the millions they paid for the 2018 studio purchases. They still have to make that money back before they can really claim GamePass is generating a profit because while that would technically be true, all of that profit is actually just paying off those acquisition costs.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I understand what I need, gamepass is very gamer oriented, real value for me.. seems Sony isn’t for the gamers.. 🤣 but for their own wallets. And let’s be real , who doesn’t want free first party games included day one to stream or download.

Now what if I told you if Sony did the same thing, their 1st party game output would decrease by 50% (in quality)?
 

IDKFA

Member
They haven't said just yet, but the assumption is that you should be able to buy PS1/2/PSP games individually as well as stream them as part of the service. I see no reason why they'd take that option away when they've provided it since PS3 gen.



It's not an option because it doesn't make financial sense yet for the vast majority. If three AAA games with $200 million budgets each were to sell 10 million copies each @ $60, they'd generate $1.8 billion on a combined budget of $600 million. So net revenue (minus production & marketing costs) of $1.2 billion.

Subscription service A has, let's say, 20 million users who pay an average of $12.5/month for the full fiscal year. That's revenue of $3 billion per fiscal year. But, if those 3 AAA games mentioned above are 3P, for them to be in the service Day 1, knowing those games would sell 10 million each, Subscription Service A would need to pay out $1.8 billion (to cover the production/marketing costs AND expected revenue). So now net revenue for Subscription Service A drops from $3 billion to $1.2 billion, and that's if they get 20 million users paying an average of $12.50 per month the entire year.

Now say the company that owns Subscription Service A has two AAA games of their own with production costs of $150 million each. That's now gonna take net revenue for the service from $1.2 billion to $900 million. If those games could've sold, say, 5 million copies each, but may now sell say 3.5 million copies due to being the service, then combined those games would've normally generated $600 million in sales, but now they'll only generate $420 million, a difference of $180 million. Instead of subtracting that $180 million, though, Subscription Service A will now need to generate an extra $180 million in subscriptions to make those 2x 1P AAA games cost-effective for adding to the service.

In other words, that service needs another 1.2 million subscribers for the full year in order to make the numbers work out. They need net revenue, therefore, of $1.08 billion annually to make it work..and that is all just net revenue. There's still operating income costs for running the service's servers, deals they may have to pay for other smaller 3P indies, late-coming 3P AAA and 1P smaller AA-style games. Those combined could eat up another $300 million for the year, so dropping revenue back down to $780 million for the fiscal year. Then consider monies to pay for games based on meeting certain milestone quotas with player metrics...that could be a potentially allocated $50 million, so now we're at $730 million in revenue. And finally, advertising costs, which let's say is maybe $25 million between traditional advertising, influencer payouts, and social media postings/videos etc.

That is, at best, $705 million for the company owning Subscription Service A in profit off a service generating $3 billion...and that number is probably a bit higher than what it would actually be. If those are Microsoft's profit margins on such a service, they're actually a bit better than Sony's (though if combined with MTX/DLC profits would be less than Sony's), worst than Nintendo's (1:3) but....the ceiling in actual total revenue is much lower than with the traditional gaming model. I think the reason why guys like Shawn Layden and the such have said companies would need such high sub numbers to make things work is because it's only when something like GamePass has 100 million - 160 million users when the subscription model can generate enough sheer revenue to match the revenues traditional gaming models tend to generate annually ($15 billion - $25 billion).

And again, my numbers for MS's profits on GamePass at a best-case of 20 million subs paying full average of $12.5 per month a whole year are probably a bit on the higher side of what they'd actually be, and in Microsoft's case you also need to consider the $7.5 billion they paid for Zenimax and the $69 billion they're paying for ABK, as well as the millions they paid for the 2018 studio purchases. They still have to make that money back before they can really claim GamePass is generating a profit because while that would technically be true, all of that profit is actually just paying off those acquisition costs.

All those words and you've failed to see a simple solution to your problem. Increase the cost of the subscription service. It's that easy, even a child could come with it.

What would you be willing to pay for a subscription service that had every game that's ever been made, every game that will be made and the guarantee no game will ever leave the service? I'd easily pay £70pm for that kind of deal.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Jim Ryan is wrong here. Plain and simple. I wish Sony would fine him $100,000 each time he said this.
What make you think otherwise? People that plays old games are very small in numbers and if you are one of them it is fine but you are not the normal joe that buys new consoles... I did only touched GT7 PS4 on PS5 to show the comparison between PS4 and PS5 except that I did not play any other BC game on my PS5.
 

Orbital2060

Gold Member
Its great that Sony are doing this. But Im surprised they didnt secure the financials to also publish their games on the service day one. That whole spiel about games suffering is just because they cant afford to do it.

This really should have been about Playstation Studios’ games on (PS5, PC, PS+).
 
People acting like day one releases on Game Pass is because Microsoft gives a shit about the gamers. They don't. They care about money like everyone else the only difference being GP is put out there because they were in a position of weakness. Like it or not, Sony is NOT in that position.
You mean to tell me a money making company like MS isn't my friend and doesn't care about 'the gamers' but only about making the $$$?

I understand what I need, gamepass is very gamer oriented, real value for me.. seems Sony isn’t for the gamers.. 🤣 but for their own wallets. And let’s be real , who doesn’t want free first party games included day one to stream or download.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
Last edited:

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
that's not how subscription services work or Netflix would be in a LOT of legal trouble
It's been pointed out to me that PC Gamer might have been wrong, and the sub might stay $60 until cancelled or payment missed. It's my expectation to pay $60/month until cancelled like they advertised. It would suck for future PC subscribers to pay $120, but in that case they would have fulfilled their offer to existing customers.
Sue Netflix everytime they raise prices, I guess?
If it doubles in price I'll just cancel. If they keep my sub $60 I'll continue to enjoy the service.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
It's not an option because it doesn't make financial sense yet for the vast majority. If three AAA games with $200 million budgets each were to sell 10 million copies each @ $60, they'd generate $1.8 billion on a combined budget of $600 million. So net revenue (minus production & marketing costs) of $1.2 billion.

Subscription service A has, let's say, 20 million users who pay an average of $12.5/month for the full fiscal year. That's revenue of $3 billion per fiscal year. But, if those 3 AAA games mentioned above are 3P, for them to be in the service Day 1, knowing those games would sell 10 million each, Subscription Service A would need to pay out $1.8 billion (to cover the production/marketing costs AND expected revenue). So now net revenue for Subscription Service A drops from $3 billion to $1.2 billion, and that's if they get 20 million users paying an average of $12.50 per month the entire year.

Now say the company that owns Subscription Service A has two AAA games of their own with production costs of $150 million each. That's now gonna take net revenue for the service from $1.2 billion to $900 million. If those games could've sold, say, 5 million copies each, but may now sell say 3.5 million copies due to being the service, then combined those games would've normally generated $600 million in sales, but now they'll only generate $420 million, a difference of $180 million. Instead of subtracting that $180 million, though, Subscription Service A will now need to generate an extra $180 million in subscriptions to make those 2x 1P AAA games cost-effective for adding to the service.

There's some oddities with the numbers there. Why, in this scenario, is the subscription buying out every copy that would be sold and the entire marketing budget, when the 3rd party would still have sales (both on the sub platform and outside it with marketing dollars being applied there). And why would a first-party game that would "normally" generate $600m in sales count against the subscription budget both for the production cost and for the lost sales? If the game never appeared in the sub, the production costs would already be removed from the $600m generated. Plus, it ignores the fact that a popular sub is going to do a lot of your advertising for you (especially in the case of first-party), drastically reducing marketing costs.
 

Dlacy13g

Member
As you look at this move more closely and ensuing discussions and comparisons of PSPlus to GamePass I am more convinced this move is a two fold action: 1) They are setting up to have services expand in the future for PSPlus that likey will include day one releases of some Sony First Party. 2) Most importantly in one PR Announcement they kill off the constant comparisons of the failure of PS Now in comparison to Game Pass. Now PS Plus numbers will be posted against Game Pass will look far more favorable to investors vs the paltry numbers they had for the PSNow standalone service. This move is a bit of a shell game that helps Sony shift narrative quickly in the short term and has potential for long term implications as well.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
What make you think otherwise? People that plays old games are very small in numbers and if you are one of them it is fine but you are not the normal joe that buys new consoles... I did only touched GT7 PS4 on PS5 to show the comparison between PS4 and PS5 except that I did not play any other BC game on my PS5.

I'd argue that if Sony made it easier and better to play old games, more people would do it. MS has it right on this. 100%.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Its great that Sony are doing this. But Im surprised they didnt secure the financials to also publish their games on the service day one. That whole spiel about games suffering is just because they cant afford to do it.

This really should have been about Playstation Studios’ games on (PS5, PC, PS+).

Isn't the bolded the MOST IMPORTANT part!?!?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
As you look at this move more closely and ensuing discussions and comparisons of PSPlus to GamePass I am more convinced this move is a two fold action: 1) They are setting up to have services expand in the future for PSPlus that likey will include day one releases of some Sony First Party. 2) Most importantly in one PR Announcement they kill off the constant comparisons of the failure of PS Now in comparison to Game Pass. Now PS Plus numbers will be posted against Game Pass will look far more favorable to investors vs the paltry numbers they had for the PSNow standalone service. This move is a bit of a shell game that helps Sony shift narrative quickly in the short term and has potential for long term implications as well.

Doesn't the comparison to GamePass only work for Tiers 2 and 3 of PSPlus though?
 

ethomaz

Banned
I'd argue that if Sony made it easier and better to play old games, more people would do it. MS has it right on this. 100%.
Easier and better than just download the PS4 version and play?

That is not why people trend to not play old games… they already have too many new games to play to even care about BC.
 

Orbital2060

Gold Member
Isn't the bolded the MOST IMPORTANT part!?!?
Not sure what you mean by most important - but yeah an essential part of a game subscription. Sony made a statement that made it sound like games suffer by default by being published on a subscription service. When its only their wallet that suffers.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Easier and better than just download the PS4 version and play?

That is not why people trend to not play old games… they already have too many new games to play to even care about BC.

But what about PS3, PS2, and PS1 games?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Not sure what you mean by most important - but yeah an essential part of a game subscription. Sony made a statement that made it sound like games suffer by default by being published on a subscription service. When its only their wallet that suffers.

If their wallets suffer, then they won't be able to make the type of games that they current make. That's "the" point. That's why I said it's the most important part.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
How many guys sign PSNow?

I'm not sure. I think it was like 3 million. But that's the point. You can't play PS3 games directly on the PS4 or PS5 without streaming them. If you could, I think more people would want to play those PS3 games. And they'd love to sign up for a service that gave them access to play them natively.
 

sinnergy

Member
People acting like day one releases on Game Pass is because Microsoft gives a shit about the gamers. They don't. They care about money like everyone else the only difference being GP is put out there because they were in a position of weakness. Like it or not, Sony is NOT in that position.
Who gives a shit? It’s still a better deal that Gamepass has to offer gamers … brand new Aaa games day one .. for 120 euro a year I can play most new games
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
I'm not sure. I think it was like 3 million. But that's the point. You can't play PS3 games directly on the PS4 or PS5 without streaming them. If you could, I think more people would want to play those PS3 games. And they'd love to sign up for a service that gave them access to play them natively.
So in a userbase of 120m the amount of people that sign PSNow is 3 million.
You say if there is PS3 download should be more… well how much more?

I mean even in the most optimistic scenario 10m users plays BC games… that is still low.

Maybe if and a big if there is no new release people will play more BC but I have the feeling people will drop the platform and not even buy it instead.
 
Last edited:
Who gives a shit? It’s still a better deal that Gamepass has to offer gamers … brand new Aaa games day one .. for 120 euro a year I can play most new games
Not Microsoft for sure. Bada boom.

It's important to remember when discussing motivations between one money hungry corporation and another. Just like it's silly to expect someone to adopt the strategies (albeit damn good on for their position on MS's end) and in the process toss out a shit ton of money because we all want (nearly) free shit.
 

sinnergy

Member
A voor reqium
Not Microsoft for sure. Bada boom.

It's important to remember when discussing motivations between one money hungry corporation and another. Just like it's silly to expect someone to adopt the strategies (albeit damn good on for their position on MS's end) and in the process toss out a shit ton of money because we all want (nearly) free shit.
It’s simple , you can’t stop how the market is progressing, and that’s subscription based .. ever for AAA games, what you can do is join and start learning and building
 
All those words and you've failed to see a simple solution to your problem. Increase the cost of the subscription service. It's that easy, even a child could come with it.

Problem there is that if you raise the cost of the baseline tier, you will inevitably lose some subscribers. It's impossible to tell the amount of subscribers you'd lose compared to the extra revenue you'd get from remaining ones at the higher price, until you actually do it.

Or, they could just add a more expensive tier. Problem with that though is that it requires more work (to add value), and you'll only get a very small fraction upgrading to the higher tier. At some point the gains in subs to the higher & higher tiers is offset by the losses in the value created for the higher tier in the first place.

What would you be willing to pay for a subscription service that had every game that's ever been made, every game that will be made and the guarantee no game will ever leave the service? I'd easily pay £70pm for that kind of deal.

Nothing, because such a service can never exist. Not one owned by a single company, anyway.

It'd have to be like a joint consortium or something with every publisher sharing the sub revenue. But then, you'll inevitably get some publishers/developers demanding they get more of that revenue because they'll try finding other metrics saying their games are bringing in more subscribers than the other publisher/developer, so on and so forth. Infighting and disagreements would probably cause that to break down.

Giving such a service to a single publisher/platform holder gives them too much power, they can just BS metrics and obfuscate data that would empower publishers providing games to the service, lowball payments for 3P games into the service, etc. Which might actually be a concern some publishers have with GamePass, I'm not 100% sure what hard metrics/numbers Microsoft shares with publishers in getting games into the service, especially Day 1 big releases, especially if inclusion into the service could impact purchasing habits of the game on other platforms simultaneously.

There's some oddities with the numbers there. Why, in this scenario, is the subscription buying out every copy that would be sold and the entire marketing budget, when the 3rd party would still have sales (both on the sub platform and outside it with marketing dollars being applied there).

That's actually a good point, I didn't account for it before. They wouldn't have to pay for all potential sales on other platforms too, you're right. But, if the game is available on those platforms Day 1, while also available in GamePass Day 1, you know there will be some loss of sales on those other platforms by gamers who gravitate towards getting it in GamePass since it would work out to be so much lower. Microsoft knows that, too, otherwise they wouldn't try netting the game for Day 1 in GamePass to begin with.

So Microsoft would still be on the hook for paying for some of the lost sales on the other platforms. Say the game sells 20% less on the other platform because it's in GamePass Day 1, and it sells 25% less on Xbox because it's in GamePass Day 1. Microsoft would still have to cover for the 20% less being sold on the other platform in some way, same way Sony has to cover lost sales of timed exclusives for not being on Xbox or Switch Day 1.

And why would a first-party game that would "normally" generate $600m in sales count against the subscription budget both for the production cost and for the lost sales? If the game never appeared in the sub, the production costs would already be removed from the $600m generated. Plus, it ignores the fact that a popular sub is going to do a lot of your advertising for you (especially in the case of first-party), drastically reducing marketing costs.

Also fair points. But to the first question, it's because the game being in the subscription will inevitably have a small impact on total sold copies. There are going to be some people who would've normally purchased it, now not purchasing it because it's in the service. So the service needs to generate enough revenue off subs in order to offset the loss in sales, even for a 1P game.

Otherwise yeah, production costs (I rolled advertising into this as well) would be a factor whether it's in the service or not, but inclusion of it in the service would impact total capacity of sold copies, and that has to be accounted for. It's kind of an invisible cost taking out from the absolute revenue the service would generate in the time frame. For advertising, the service itself being advertised can offset some of the cost to a degree, but it can't completely replace a traditional advertising route especially for a AAA game.

A lot of people are not going to bite in terms of subscribing to a service unless they know enough about the actual specific content inside of the service first, and a lot of that is still going to be done through traditional advertising, which will cost more money. So I don't think the part of advertising just pushing the service alone would cover, covers any significant amount of the total advertising budget. Maybe it does for smaller AA and indie games, but not AAA releases.

I guarantee you we're going to see a massive traditional marketing blitz for Starfield, just as a case in point. It's Bethesda's first new IP in over two decades, they're going to push this as a magnum opus across as many big channels, shows, film trailers etc. you can imagine...if they're doing it the right way 😉
 

twilo99

Member
I don't think it's worse, both are lame at same level if you ask me.

This shit is too pathetic tbh, i'm really disappointed on Sony that are following Microsoft footsteps, instead of following their own strategies and ideas like they always did since the beginning of time, somebody need to fire those clowns heads and move Sony HQ to Japan.

You don't want them to be the "boomer" company do you? They gotta move on with the times...
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So in a userbase of 120m the amount of people that sign PSNow is 3 million.
You say if there is PS3 download should be more… well how much more?

I mean even in the most optimistic scenario 10m users plays BC games… that is still low.

Maybe if and a big if there is no new release people will play more BC but I have the feeling people will drop the platform and not even buy it instead.

I'd say 10 million people would be a huge number and something that should be catered to imo.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Because that’s what being a business is .. future proofing . Not short term earnings .

And that's what this new PS+ 3 tiers is. Sony is future proofing. But their current strategy of game making is working now. And it's been working for the last 25 years!
 

Orbital2060

Gold Member
But why would they do that, if their current investments are working so well?
Because times change.

When Bezos started Amazon up in the mid 90s, he told his investors that the company was going to be in the red for maybe 20 years before theyd see a return. But that the business model would win in the end, over the old retail book store one. Same with Netflix. And Game Pass. And Im pretty sure Apple too if they decide to enter the gaming space.

Thats what I mean by securing the financials - for long-term investments, 20+ years.
 
Last edited:
You don't want them to be the "boomer" company do you? They gotta move on with the times...
I don't think wanting them to be "boomer" is the opposite of them following in line. I think SSfox SSfox just wants Sony to go back to being the same trendsetting company they were during the PS1, PS2, and PS3 generations. They arguably have been playing it safe since the PS4 gen, aside from PSVR being a thing.
 

SSfox

Lies about why mods reply ban and warn me.
I don't think wanting them to be "boomer" is the opposite of them following in line. I think SSfox SSfox just wants Sony to go back to being the same trendsetting company they were during the PS1, PS2, and PS3 generations. They arguably have been playing it safe since the PS4 gen, aside from PSVR being a thing.
I think they have done incredible in PS4 generation, some example:

- They still release Last Guardian even with all the issues (if it was hermen he would probably kill the project and the studio imo)
- They believed in Cory Balrog vision for GOW reboot, sure now that the game been huge success it's hard to realize the risks, but when you go back you realize that GOW PS4 was a risky project.
- Along side a lot of awesome new IPs like GOT or Dayz GOne.
- They were the ones that pushed for fighting games, and still are today actually (one of the few things Sony are still doing right today)
- And VR as you mentioned, and probably other stuffs i'm forgetting.

But yeah today i feel they're going way too safe while focusing too much into weirds games, i mean i can understand they want their GaaS parts but i feel they're focusing too much on it. And then you have Insomnicas that's turning into a Marvel games studios, killing off Japan Studio. And also as mentioned following too much MS steps, while i'm not huge Nintendo fan but i respect the fact that they don't keep on following whatever people like MS does. Sony are slowly turning into a MS clone while losing their personality, wtf!!!
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Because times change.

When Bezos started Amazon up in the mid 90s, he told his investors that the company was going to be in the red for maybe 20 years before theyd see a return. But that the business model would win in the end, over the old retail book store one. Same with Netflix. And Game Pass. And Im pretty sure Apple too if they decide to enter the gaming space.

Thats what I mean by securing the financials - for long-term investments, 20+ years.

But Sony doesn't have the deep pockets to lose money for 20+ years. Plus, they are making super profits now. And nothing is in the way to change that profit making for the foreseeable future. It's up to MS to show the world that making subscriptions the main way you "sell" games, can work globally.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I think they have done incredible in PS4 generation, some example:

- They still release Last Guardian even with all the issues (if it was hermen he would probably kill the project and the studio imo)
- They believed in Cory Balrog vision for GOW reboot, sure now that the game been huge success it's hard to realize the risks, but when you go back you realize that GOW PS4 was a risky project.
- Along side a lot of awesome new IPs like GOT or Dayz GOne.
- They were the ones that pushed for fighting games, and still are today actually (one of the few things Sony are still doing right today)
- And VR as you mentioned, and probably other stuffs i'm forgetting.

But yeah today i feel they're going way too safe while focusing too much into weirds games, i mean i can understand they want their GaaS parts but i feel they're focusing too much on it. And then you have Insomnicas that's turning into a Marvel games studios, killing off Japan Studio. And also as mentioned following too much MS steps, while i'm not huge Nintendo fan but i respect the fact that they don't keep on following whatever people like MS does. Sony are slowly turning into a MS clone while losing their personality, wtf!!!


- Insomniac being a Marvel games studio is one of the smartest things Sony and insomniac have EVER done! That's interesting to me, plus it's super profitable.
- You forgot making dual sense and haptic feedback an important part of their PS5 generation a thing.
- And yeah.......their VR push really started during the PS4 era, so I'm not sure why you guys are saying Sony was too safe.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
But Sony doesn't have the deep pockets to lose money for 20+ years. Plus, they are making super profits now. And nothing is in the way to change that profit making for the foreseeable future. It's up to MS to show the world that making subscriptions the main way you "sell" games, can work globally.
Sony made $12 billion profits on $80-90 billion sales. PS division makes like $3-4 billion of that as profit. They got lots to spare if they really wanted to. It's not like a similar GP service is going to make them lose $3-4 billion/yr.

The big difference between MS and Sony is PS is Sony's most important sales and profit driver.

Xbox is MS's bottom division which they never seem to care if they make profit or not over 20 years. They just spent another $80 billion on Bethesda and Activision past 2.5 years like it's raining money.

Sony cant afford to do stop the growing profits as PS is their growth driver, so thats why they are all into making more money off sub plans and mtx lately.
 
Top Bottom