Topher
Gold Member
Tomorrow's showcase better have a bunch of kick ass single player games or I'll be kicking you in the nuts.
-
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.
Jim Ryan: PS5 is expected to catch up with PS4 in Q2; PC revenue $250 million in FY22
Tomorrow's showcase better have a bunch of kick ass single player games or I'll be kicking you in the nuts.
Puscifer
Member
Seriously, I remember around the holidays they were selling fast as stores could stock them. Once word of availability got out the train started!
Alex Scott
Member
Did majority of the PC revenue came from Bungie?
Last edited:
Agree.
And even if you looked at the graph...it shows an increase in traditional. Ppl are just focusing on how big live service % is.
You cant expect Sony to have a push for live service and also not invest in it. It wont look like FY19 but in the reverse. It should be a balancing act.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Besides, what did people expect? They just acquired Bungie. Prior to that the only I've service game they had was GT. And that is not even a proper live service game. At some point, they are going to have at least GT7, Destiny, or whatever else Bungie makes, Factions, and at least one other IP.
balls of snow
Member
And they take more time and money to make. Sony knows youre only as good as your last game. Hence live service games to recoup some of that sinkholes.
Quixz
Member
Hopefully people will read this and the showcase will make things a little clearer on Wednesday
Last edited:
GHG
Member
I'd rather they stick to the FY19 ratio with increased spend, which would mean further investment in single player games, which are what have got them where they are today. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.
I don't give a fuck about GAAS games, never will.
Ansphn
Member
Stop the cap. You're not going anywhere.
diffusionx
Gold Member
XesqueVara
Member
It looks like they're going to invest a lot in Mobile, I have to say if they follow the formula of other Sony divisions like Crunchyroll and Aniplex in their mobile games, you shouldn't even touch them.
ProtoByte
Member
I understand and frankly agree with
GHG
's vehement anti-live service stance, but
ChiefDada
and
tmlDan
made excellent points that explain why it's not time to press the panic button just yet.
Personally, the cancelation of Deviation's game is another reason towards that. Other publishers and dev studios have pushed forward with live services that were never going to work out. Sony is at least discerning enough not to chase after a golden goose no matter what.
GHG
's vehement anti-live service stance, but
ChiefDada
and
tmlDan
made excellent points that explain why it's not time to press the panic button just yet.Personally, the cancelation of Deviation's game is another reason towards that. Other publishers and dev studios have pushed forward with live services that were never going to work out. Sony is at least discerning enough not to chase after a golden goose no matter what.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
ReBurn
Gold Member
Not surprising. The ROI on the traditional model is taking longer to realize as development timelines expand. 5+ years to see payday is risky, as is having to rely on the 30% cut from third party sales to keep cash flowing to fund the games. That puts their business model largely in the hands of third party games they have little control over. They need games that bring in recurring revenue to feed the machine.
Thirty7ven
Banned
That's not what I wanted to see.
Sony about to learn live service games bomb more often than not.
Topher
Gold Member
I was thinking the same thing.
Crayon
Member
That or they stop announcing sp games.
Maybe I'm missing something here but as far as I can tell, gass outside of mobile just means multiplayer games.
XesqueVara
Member
At the sametime if one of them takes off the Investiment will pay more than any Single Player title could.
ulantan
Member
Yes but for some reason people don't like them now
sachos
Member
Exactly what i was about to say, FUCK! Don't forget what makes Playstation great Jimbo!!
That's not what I wanted to see.
Last edited:
Cyber_hunter026
Member
About to get that mobil money & PS4 ports are dead next year
Am I reading this wrong or something. What does this chart indicate?
Spitfire098
Member
Ain't no way Sony gives #s on its vr set, but MS doesn't on its consoles 
Elder Legend
Banned
While it's fine not to care about GAAS titles the reality is that the industry sure does because it brings in a ton of money IE - Fortnite, WoW, Destiny 2, Apex Legends, CoD MW and so on. This is the future and with how expensive games are now, live services helps to alleviate those costs through MTX and so on.
You either going need to adapt or find a different hobby, this is just the beginning.
Sony already has -
TLOU Factions
Twisted Metal
Horizon MMO
New Bungie IP
As planned GAAS titles and there is going to be at least a total of 10 by 2025 according to Jimbo.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
Sony has had years of experience in live, MMO, and other multiplayer games. Now I'm not saying they're going to be successful with everything, but I have a feeling they are going to be way more successful at this than people expect.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
That we are getting some big PC releases this year.
Am I reading this wrong or something. What does this chart indicate?
Mr.Phoenix
Member
What you are saying doesn't make sense though. Its unreasonable.
The same thing that got them to where they are now, they are still doing. And even increasing spending in that area. It just so happens to be that they are also expanding their market. And spending on areas that they previously didn't have much of a presence.
If spending was reduced in the areas we love, then what you are saying would have merit. I don't care about GAAS, and likely never will, however, I am fine as long as they are still spending on what I love. Which they are doing, and even increasing spending in that area.
So your problem here is not just you don't like something, but you have a problem with them trying to expand to that market, even if it doesn't affect what you do like. Even when spending is increasing in what you do like. See? Unreasonable.
Guess the joke is on me for trying to reason this out then.
sachos
Member
I get your explanation, but is that spending really "increased" when taking into account the 6 years of inflation and increased dev time and cost? It looks almost the same ammount of money in 2025 vs 2019.
Thirty7ven
Banned
At what cost though? If they have a bunch of live service flops and even have their premier sp studios working on some of these games, there’s an opportunity cost there.
This doesn’t seem true though. They have less studios working on SP games than they did last gen, and some of their premier studios are working on live service games which is probably going to tie them down pretty hard.
Safe bet that Naughty Dog will again only release two games this generation and one of them will be live service. It’s disheartening.
They are chasing this crowd way too hard, and it’s not the strategy that turned PS3 around and made the PS4 what it is.
Extremely hard to be excited about this vision.
Last edited:
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
I predict that the Sony live service games will flop hard.
That's not what I wanted to see.
Razzy-
Member
onnextflix5
Member
Hope the live service stuff fails for them, can’t sand that shit.
gothmog
Gold Member
Money needs to be spent to get the support needed for these types of games. Sony has earned my trust. If it seems like they're derailing their own success then I will start loudly complaining. Until then, I'll dream about another Starhawk game.
Last edited:
Moriarty1889
Member
Sony are rolling along moneywise with the PS5 right now. However, this push for Live service games and it being prioritized over the traditional SP games down the line that has made Playstation unique will be its downfall imo. Jim putting their games on PC and now this live service push are what MS has been doing since last gen. Funny that he is now adopting the same tactics. He is riding the wave of success from PS4 onto the PS5 but decisions like these will eventually catch up and lose the hardcore fans who have always loved Playstation for their SP games. Hopefully it is an experiment that will not do well and make Jim realize don’t try and fix something that isn’t broken. Especially when it has been doing so well as Playstation has done each generation. I may be wrong but I don’t like his vision for 2025 and his live service push for Playstation. I for one will not support live service games pushed by Playstation and instead continue to buy and support their amazing SP games. Gamers should speak with their wallets when companies try to push this shite on them. Hopefully if enough people do it will make Jimbo realize live service was a bad idea and just keep making SP story driven games. Let the third party devs experiment with live service rubbish. Keep Playstation unique.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
That is the cost of success. You cant maintain that position without trying to expand your business, otherwise you will lose all the oppurtunity that is infront of you.
MS learned this hard during xbox one, when they heavily relied on 3rd party during xbox one. That action led them to ignoring their first party games.
While Sony games are top teir, it needs budget to sustain them for long term. And printing out the same type of games isnt a good idea, as you generally need to expand your genre games.
Sony is currently lacking shooter and live service games.
yurinka
Member
Notice that this graph has percentages, not amount of games.
Also, excluding Bungie games and potentially maybe some other GaaS exception, all PC releases will be ports of old games.
You also have to consider that Returnal and TLOUP1 were released just at the end of the previous fiscal year, so will have most of their sales in the current fiscal year.
Also, pretty likely this year several of the previous games -released with expensive price- will get juicy discounts.
You're wrong.
They won't decrease their investment in traditional non GaaS games. The oposite, they'll increase their investment in non-GaaS games. Their investment growth in GaaS, PC and mobile is done on top of investing more than ever before in non-GaaS PS5 games:
But they must grow in GaaS: notice how the revenue from digital and specially physical game sales are decreasing, while it's highly increasing the add-ons (dlc/mtx/passes) mostly due to GaaS:
This means they must invest in GaaS to keep being relevant and growing, because if not their 1st party revenue would decrease, while the development and marketing costs keep skyrocketing generation after generation.
The console market also gets stagnant, so to continue growing, in addition to grow in console they should also grow in PC and specially mobile:
Jimbo is investing in more of everything. He's investing also in having more sequels than before, and in having more new IP than before:
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Member
It's going to be interesting to me if Sony has any way to create GaaS titles that don't SOLELY depend on multiplayer engagement.
Like, I think it would be cool if games could support Solo play with asynchronous online community building. Like in "Factions" you join an online community but don't need to play with them and in the background they are helping to build your faction community which allows, over time, for stronger individual character progression and you can play these missions solo or in co-op and bring resources back to the "tribe" in the background while others aren't actively playing.
Like, I think it would be cool if games could support Solo play with asynchronous online community building. Like in "Factions" you join an online community but don't need to play with them and in the background they are helping to build your faction community which allows, over time, for stronger individual character progression and you can play these missions solo or in co-op and bring resources back to the "tribe" in the background while others aren't actively playing.
I agree, and there are only a finite number of studios that can make AAA single-player games of the caliber that can pass Sony's quality. What's more problematic is if Sony forced studios that specialize in GaaS to make single-player games.
Now, if Sony forced their AAA single-player studios to make GaaS titles, that would also be a problem. But I don't see that happening.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
like Ass Creed?
Sony only need 1 or 2 GaaS games behemoth and all the investments for multiple trial-and-error GaaS games would pay off.
It's also unreasonable to think that once Sony finds success in a GaaS game or two they will now just create more and more GaaS games. The market can only sustain so many GaaS games and Sony knows it. Sony only needs one or two GaaS games that can be as big as Fortnite or Genshin Impact and they will stop trying. The steady flow of income from these successful GaaS can allow Sony to be a more risk taker for their single-player games.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
A lil different
Hermen Hulst talked about their GaaS plans as bringing the "Single Player production values to MP Live experiences"
I am hoping we get some unique titles that can appeal to both SP and MP players alike and offer that high quality experience. What we typically get with GaaS is a bunch of watered down SP experiences that fail to keep players engaged or excited
lh032
I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
I think they will succeed, big time. (with several fail GaaS of course).
Remember how people say most PS gamer wont subscribe PS premium?
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I appreciate you and
ChiefDada
putting things into perspective, but I do notice the amount going into traditional game investments is barely budging, and that can be considered good and bad simultaneously.You already touched on the good, but the bad is that budgets for AAA traditional games keep increasing, so $180 million in FY25 likely won't net the same number of 1P AAA releases that $180 million would have in 2019 or 2020, as an example.
2021 for example, I don't know what portion was allocated to traditional games but I assume it wasn't that far off from 2019 or 2023. Had they released on time, we would've gotten GT7, HFW and GOW Ragnarok that year, all cross-gen games. But if the budget allocation for traditional games stays relatively static going forward, and PS5-only sequels to those games were to come about, we might only end up with two such games for a fiscal year instead of three, due to increased costs per game and yet the amount for those traditional games basically staying the same.
So, that is a potential downside here. Just something to maybe consider.
Ain't no way Sony gives #s on its vr set, but MS doesn't on its consoles
IKR? 600K+ is probably something Bloomberg Takahashi wanted to hear. Kills yet another of his FUD PS narratives.
Seriously, if Bloomberg haven't fired the dude by now (or at least moved him off PS-related topics), then they should by now. He's got so many Ls he can open his own bank.
Last edited:
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
It's a chart showing investment in dollar value. If you pay attention you can see that the SP game investment is the same as the highest year in 2019... what does that mean? It means the studio overheads they paid in 2019 to cover the cost of FP development for all the big SP game studios making SP games in 2019 will continue making big AAA SP games.
It just means they're disproportionately expanding their additional investment into their upcoming crop of AAA Live service games, much of which will include the newly added Bungie and the multiple games they're currently working on (D2 included).
So we're not getting any fewer SP games. It's just that the new Live Service games will increase Sony's overall dev costs considerably because those games require so much more frequent content updates thus dev resources (none of which is being pulled away from their current SP studios).
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Ya'll are forgetting they purchased Bungie since 2019 (Bungie is freaking massive). Plus Haven and Deviation. All of which make GAAS exclusively. So that increase in the proportion of investment into GAAS is purely represented by those studios and the multiple projects their working on.
That's all this graph is saying.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Okay now that you put it that way, maybe some of my concerns have been dissuaded. The traditional AAA games they've been funding since 2019, some of them still haven't released, and they've been putting roughly $170 million - $180 million each year since 2019 towards those.
So even if the live-service/GaaS budget looks to be really big (especially for FY25), it probably actually still turns out to be less in total funding by that point than what the traditional games from FY19 to FY25 will have received.
The only concern from that POV would be if for successive FYs the ratio continues similarly lopsided in favor of the GaaS/live-service content. But I suspect, especially considering post-FY25 they will have stabilized on at least a few of the live-service/GaaS titles as big titles to just continuously fund for updates (but wouldn't require huge financial investments to do that), naturally the allocation for the non-traditional games comes back down and it swings back to prioritizing traditional games again.
Which going by historical trends would just mean total investment costs come down as a whole. But, per-game costs for AAA games as a whole, including traditional ones, might increase more, so traditional game funding might increase to like $200 million or something like that per FY like around FY26 or FY27.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked