• 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 says Sony’s games ‘could suffer’ by adding them to PlayStation Plus on day one (VCG)

MS is well behind Sony in sales. They are spending cash to stack gamepass to win customers for the long term. Sony is ahead and don't feel that they have to compete directly with gamepass in the same way and don't want to lose revenue. Both are 'greedily' going after market share based on a strategy. The comment is specifically about how switching to an MS model would reduce their revenue and that would mean they would have less cash to put back into games to make them successful products, not that MS cannot be successful and still produce high quality AAA games. It really depends on the numbers. 10 bucks a month is a lot of money if you get that from a majority of users consistently. However it is also a lot of money if you get it from some in addition to the full 70 bucks for any first party game. They know how their customers buy games so they know that they would lose revenue today by putting games on the service day 1. Less revenue per product means you put less value into each product. In a few years, if MS wins significant market share, they might have to change. But for today they just want you to buy their 70 dollar games and 70/75 dollar controllers with shitty battery life.
Wtf is this nonsense so all the high quality rated games that won them publisher of the year last year not high quality? Because you deem it so? Fanboy logic is so stupid .
 

ethomaz

Banned
He really destroyed his own argument with that. :messenger_tears_of_joy: Who are they trying to convince?
Yeap he agree with my points.

Day one sales that were the "driving a higher margin model" is how you make money.
He just didn't say it is where you cover your high costs and get the money faster allowing to invest in new projects with even bigger budget.

BTW he not enter in that part of how the investment based in the model happens... that was what I talking about.

Edit - Fixed for my lack of understanding.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Yeap... did you read everything?

"I can't really blame them for driving a higher margin model. That's HOW you make money. I get it."

;)
I did read it. I do believe that a low margin high scale model also works if you get it right; 30% margin that Apple is good but its not crazy; (just reminds how much i hate Google and it's ads business)
 

sol_bad

Gold Member
On storytelling and based on quantity, I agree.
But for now. Once The Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Avowed, Fables, etc. joined the already great games with awesome stories like Halo, Wasteland, Psychonauts 2 the reality will be different.

You are assuming those games will be great, I'm talking about games that were already released. I personally don't have much faith in Elder Scrolls 6 or Starfield after what we saw with Fallout 76.
Fables I can't say I'm throwing for either. Fable 1 and 3 were fun games but nothing amazing. Asking a car based studio to make an RPG is a big ask but I guess Guerilla did transition from FPS to open world adventure/RPG pretty darn well. It's a wait and see scenario ATM for Fables.

Unfortunately Microsoft's studios have done nothing in the past 5+ years to get me excited about their single payer games.
 

Chronicle

Member
A subscription releasing outstanding games, since 2018. Supposedly that its not feasible.
Unless you actually believe that the only AAA games on GP are Halo and Forza. If thats the case then you dont know what is GP at all.
So what are the big blockbuster games?
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
The opposite.
He agree with my points.

Day one sales that were the "driving a higher margin model" is how you make money.
He just didn't say it is where you cover your high costs and get the money faster allowing to invest in new projects with even bigger budget.

BTW he not enter in that part of how the investment based in the model happens... that was what I talking about.
That's what I'm saying... he agrees with you.
 

Plantoid

Member
He's right. You look at Forza and Halo's engagement numbers and they are around 20 million each, and yet neither game finished above top 20 in NPD. Forza was literally ranked 20th and Halo was nowhere to be found after charting 2nd in December.

Meanwhile Miles was ranked 6th in its SECOND year on the market. Mario Kark ranked 7th in its 7th year on the market. MS can eat that loss of sales because their main business is services and they make billions in profits every month from other products. Sony cant. Sony only makes money from their insurance business, and playstation. Everything else loses money or breaks even other than maybe cameras. They rely on Horizon, GT7 and GOW selling $300-500 million worth of copies in the first year each. Thats a billion to $1.5 billion in lost revenue.

This whole subscription nonsense is making people think services are more important than games. No, games ARE the product. You dont go to a Michelin Star resturnat for their service. You go there for their food. The food is the product. The Chef is the product. No one gives a shit about the waiters or bus boys. Sony studios are becoming very unproductive taking 5 fucking years to make last gen games. They cant afford to give them away for $10 a month. If a studio costs $20 million per year to run that's $100 million for one game. The marketing costs are typically the same as production costs so we are looking at $200 million products. They cannot survive in a streaming model.

What might end up happening is what we are seeing on Disney. Especially the Marvel stuff. 6 episode long seasons. 30 minute episodes. I grew up watching 24 episodes a season. At least HBO has 10-12 hour long episodes. WTF is this half an hour 6 episode bullshit. How would this work in gaming? DLCs every year instead of full games? Episodic trash? MS had to go buy COD and Bethesda for literally $80 billion just to fill their empty months on gamepass. Sony doesnt have that kind of money.

I am glad Sony is treating this shit like an afterthought. Focus should be on making games, not services.
You logic is flawed because you're using NPD as reference

Both switch and playstation have at least double the install base Xbox has, they need to have at least double the engagement too
 
Last edited:

Chronicle

Member
Could you explain in detail why it isn't feasible and not going to happen? Do you think the development cost of games for Sony is much higher than the development cost of Xbox Game Studios? Starfield alone was probably more expensive than any Uncharted game. So if Microsoft believes the business model works when they release games like that on Game Pass, then why wouldn't it be sustainable for Sony to do the same?
When I see the big blockbuster games I'll believe it. Starfield will be a huge get for gamepass (can't say I don't want this one as I really do.) But Microsoft is using its money right now to build a service. But it's not gonna happen long term. When I see the big games I'll believe it. Until the ... no chance.

Sony has huge blockbuster games. Non that I've seen from Microsoft of that caliber (minus Halo and Forza) yet to appear on ganepass.
 

phil_t98

Gold Member
The own OP is the evidence lol

and yet when Phil speaks nobody believes him. funny how people believe the side they choose no problem. that works both ways to

Also you were the guy speaking to the guy who helped make the new Xbox and didn't believe what he said so you have history of not believing what comes from trusted sources 🤷🏽🤷🏽🤷🏽
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
I did read it. I do believe that a low margin high scale model also works if you get it right; 30% margin that Apple is good but its not crazy; (just reminds how much i hate Google and it's ads business)
It works... I never said it didn't at all.
But you have less money at the end to invest in new things or less money in the near term.... subscription can give more money in the long terms? Probably if the subscribers keep playing that game for years (so that game keep getting it high revenue sharing because I believe MS split the revenue by usage with very few exceptions).

That is why investment plans to developer a game focused in day one sales and a game focused in long terms revenue (subscription) are different.
Since budget until the features choose for that game.
And so if you want to reach what AAA quality gives you then you need to rely in day one sales imo.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
That may well be true.

The problem Sony may have (note that I am using the word ‘may’) is that in three years time, MS could be pumping out equally polished titles on Gamepass. It would only take one or two absolute hits, to make Sony’s position harder to justify.

I’ll obviously stick with PlayStation as that’s where my friends play and I am invested in their system. But this is about kids who are 11 to 15 now. What system will they want in a few years time?

And I’ll say it again. The £70 price tag for first party can piss right off.
Until now Sony consistently getting more and bigger exclusive hits (both in sales and reviews or GOTYs) than Xbox during many years and generations.

So if they manage to put a properly curated and very extensive list of the best games -focusing on exclusives and fan favorites- of all their generations on PS Plus that side of old classics would be on their side.

Regarding the future years, they will not only continue frequently releasing big hits: all their team have been aggresively hiring and continue doing so, they are all growing. Meaning they will release even more games. And they are also acquiring studios, meaning their output will be even bigger. In the next few years they'll aso release MP GaaS games from top related devs which means pretty likely their 1st party game revenue will also increase due to them. Jim Ryan said PS5 will have more exclusives than any previous PS console, meaning they are also signing a shit ton of 2nd and specially 3rd party exclusives too.

Sony's game subscriptions have been growing during years, and with Spartacus they will grow faster and will increase their ARPU. They are already way more successful than the MS ones in all fronts in subscriptions, but also in hardware and software sales, plus have a bigger userbase.

Sony will also have more revenue and new sales thanks to multiple under development movies and TV shows using PS IPs and the next gen VR, and even continue their profitable trend of successful late PC ports which help them reach PC only players specially from countries were consoles aren't popular.

So no, both in the subscriptions side and in the overal gaming business Sony has an important lead compared to MS, most of their areas are in a growing path and/or have very promising plans for the next few years that would help them grow even more. It's going to be very difficult for MS to catch up and compete at their same level. One or two MS hits wouldn't change anything, Sony has them every year or two.
 

Helghan

Member
Saying someone else's business model doesn't work for your business isn't taking a jab at anyone.
He's not saying that the business model doesn't work, he's saying that the output of Microsoft Game Studios won't be as good as those of Playstation since they release it day one on Game Pass. At least that's how I read it.
 

Topher

Gold Member
He's not saying that the business model doesn't work, he's saying that the output of Microsoft Game Studios won't be as good as those of Playstation since they release it day one on Game Pass. At least that's how I read it.

Not how I read it. He said this isn't the road they have gone down in the past and it breaks their business cycle. He also says this may change in the future, but this is strictly in reference to Sony's business model:

"Ryan was also keen to point out that nothing about the new service is set in stone. “All I’m talking to today is the approach we’re taking in the short term. The way our publishing model works right now, it doesn’t make any sense. But things can change very quickly in this industry, as we all know.”"


Is this tweet supposed to be authoritative?
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Is this tweet supposed to be authoritative?
It is a thread and he start saying fans has no ideia... to in the 4th thread say Ryan is right and that he understand why that model (no day on subscriptions) is what made money agreeing with what we said here.
Basically he is saying the opposite to what the the post wanted to archive.

He is not an authority I guess... just a journalist.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It's all about sub counts and economies of scale.. that's really it..

Changing course is a gamble, and one where Sony if they did do it should not lower game budgets.. the goal would be to hit a certain subscriber count at a certain price + maintaining a certain amount of retail/$70 digital sales.

Recurring revenue models that appear to offer "too good to be true" value are about:
- Paradoxically bringing in more revenue per user joined up than before, despite the value proposition, because $15+ a month is actually a lot of money, and many gamers can end up spending more. AKA the amazon "Subscribe and save" kind of model.. designed to get you to buy more of a product than usual at a lower price but giving amazon more money
- Bringing new people into the ecosystem that just weren't there before, so that's "new money"

Sony can try this at any time, they can try it with an extra-expensive PS+ tier to mitigate risk..

Or they may never have to try it if they maintain a profit / growth / userbase lead anyways over competition.
 

reksveks

Member
Not how I read it. He said this isn't the road they have gone down in the past and it breaks their business cycle. He also says this may change in the future, but this is strictly in reference to Sony's business model:

"Ryan was also keen to point out that nothing about the new service is set in stone. “All I’m talking to today is the approach we’re taking in the short term. The way our publishing model works right now, it doesn’t make any sense. But things can change very quickly in this industry, as we all know.”"

Is this tweet supposed to be authoritative?
It wasn't to me, its just me highlighting the fact that there are different takes on this topic about whether PS can or can't put out games Day & Date. I think it's all maths that we don't have.

Post in thread 'Jim Ryan says Sony’s games ‘could suffer’ by adding them to PlayStation Plus on day one (VCG)' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jim-...on-plus-on-day-one-vcg.1633644/post-265910814
 
Last edited:

tmlDan

Member
In the end Sony is putting themselves in a position where they can change strategies on the fly, if they see the market teetering towards day 1 games being the ultimatum between success and failure they can quickly flip that switch.

At this point tho, it does not make sense and hinders revenue growth YoY for a company that needs it more than their competitor who has massive revenue streams in other avenues.

Does that mean that the value of this service is terrible? No. It gives you new games, and preserves some old games as well. Gamepass has offered very little in terms of high budget day 1 releases, especially recently (Guardians and Extraction), outside of first party (where its been dry) - could that change once these studio acquisitions gain structure? Yes, definitely.

But at this point we don't know what Sony plans to do with games, they could release major 3rd party games on there day one as well - they only specifically called out their own first party.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
It wasn't to me, its just me highlighting the fact that there are different takes on this topic about whether PS can or can't put out games Day & Date. I think it's all maths that we don't have.

Post in thread 'Jim Ryan says Sony’s games ‘could suffer’ by adding them to PlayStation Plus on day one (VCG)' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jim-...on-plus-on-day-one-vcg.1633644/post-265910814

Sure there are different takes. Twitter is full of them. Doesn't mean they are quote worthy especially one which is claiming other takes are "ill-informed".

Jim Ryan has said in Sony's current publishing model development would suffer under "day and date". Is he ill-informed? Maybe I'm misunderstanding his angle here.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Jim Ryan has said in Sony's current publishing model development would suffer under "day and date". Is he ill-informed? Maybe I'm misunderstanding his angle here.
He is saying fans or consumers are ill-informed because they are ignoring the fact that margins can change if Sony wants it to or that Sony could have tried with a higher monthly price. Those are variables that Sony decided to fix in their analysis.

Apple phone quality or R&D isn't going to drop as soon as they realise the Apple One subscription bundle that includes hardware.
 
Last edited:
He's 100% right.
Gaming Pass is the obvious way to a TV shitshow with no choice. You just don't see it yet and it will be too late once you realize it kids.Today is only the honeymoon phase.
Hopefully I will be dead on this day or going dark (piracy) or with my infinite backlog.
Buy Consume GIF by MOODMAN
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
He is saying fans or consumers are ill-informed because they are ignoring the fact that margins can change if Sony wants it to or that Sony could have tried with a higher monthly price. Those are variables that Sony decided to fix in their analysis.

Again, he isn't an authority in the matter so he can call anyone he wants "ill-informed" as twitter folk tend to do. Like you said, we don't have the data so we are all "ill-informed" in that respect.
 

kingfey

Banned
They do and done lots of different genres, some fail yet they keep trying.
It is your perception because of fanboy wars that keep the old “narrative driven games”

You got to understand that when “the formula” like you said, was created in a time where EA and other companies said single player games are dead! They were betting really hard on MP

Sony did the opposite, they keep making good single player games until some of their games got a lot of success.

If having a studio like guerrilla go from shooters to a new IP and different genre is not being brave then I have no clue what brave it is.

Since you talked about perception of studios. forza keeps being forza, halo keeps being halo, and so on. Yeah different genres but using a formula!
We are not talking about narrative games, like people call it.

We are talking about other genre. There are tons of single player games, that focus on certain genre.

Forza is an example, which has 2 genre. The Sim racing like gt, which is called Motorsport. And racing game like need for speed, which is called horizon.

They had it before ps4.
 

iorek21

Member
Exactly why I won't subscribe to any of the higher PSN tiers. I'll just buy most exclusives day one anyway, don't care about a 30-year-old classics collection.

Good for me.
 

JLB

Member
You are assuming those games will be great, I'm talking about games that were already released. I personally don't have much faith in Elder Scrolls 6 or Starfield after what we saw with Fallout 76.
Fables I can't say I'm throwing for either. Fable 1 and 3 were fun games but nothing amazing. Asking a car based studio to make an RPG is a big ask but I guess Guerilla did transition from FPS to open world adventure/RPG pretty darn well. It's a wait and see scenario ATM for Fables.

Unfortunately Microsoft's studios have done nothing in the past 5+ years to get me excited about their single payer games.

There is a difference between
- Microsoft has made no great games
and
- Microsoft has made games I dont like

MS made objectively great SP games last 5 years, from MS Flight Sim, Halo Infinite, Gears 4 and 5, Psychonauts 2, Wasteland 3, among many many many others.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Again, he isn't an authority in the matter so he can call anyone he wants "ill-informed" as twitter folk tend to do. Like you said, we don't have the data so we are all "ill-informed" in that respect.
It really isn't that hard to grasp, yet people are reaching for the wrong straws. Cause... war.
 

yurinka

Member
There is no academic evidence to prove this.

If you have, please share.
Big AAA games require several hundreds of millions of dollars to be made. They have over two dozen games under development plus deals with 3rd party exclusives and other deals and this requires a lot of money (plus many other costs like marketing or servers), mostly coming from their own revenue.

They are also growing in terms of manpower and amount of studios, and plan to grow in areas like PC ports, bringing their IPs to mobile, movies and tv shows, plus also investing efforts in subscriptions. So the amount of revenue they need is a lot and they'll need to be more, they need to grow it to continue being profitable.

Their revenue source comes mostly from sold games, not from subscriptions. Subscriptions are only a small part of their business and of the whole gaming business. They need to increase their revenue and profitability, not to decrease it which is what would mean to swap their current focus on selling games to one focusing on renting them.

To highly reduce their revenue and profitability would mean they would have way less money to reinvest on games. Meaning less games, smaller games and less teams working on them because that would be what they would be afford if wanting to keep profitable their business.

Which is a suicide and dumb idea. Their current strategy is super successful, generates more revenue than any console platform holder ever ganerated in gaming history and being profitable. So it's better to keep it as it is and only to keep tweaking and expanding it from time to time instead of changing it to a worse one that generates way less revenue and profit.
 

Jigsaah

Gold Member
I find that Gamepass saves me money but I wouldn't say it trains me not to buy games. It DOES train me not to pay full price for anything other than the games I want most.

I mean I bought Elden Ring, still own gamepass. Still bought Halo.

If anything I would hope that it trains developers to stop releasing unfinished products so they don't become fodder for services like Gamepass. Even the day 1 games like Outsiders...I was never going to buy that game, but they got me for the gamepass sub...something is better than nothing.
 

reksveks

Member
Again, he isn't an authority in the matter so he can call anyone he wants "ill-informed" as twitter folk tend to do. Like you said, we don't have the data so we are all "ill-informed" in that respect.
We are all missing the data needed to completely answer this question including Jim Ryan and the Sony financial team. They don't know the potential user growth from introducing day and date services, they will have a good guess but they won't know it for sure.

They are also prioritising different things.

Also you don't have to be authority to highlight the fact that others are missing data.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
We are all missing the data needed to completely answer this question including Jim Ryan and the Sony financial team. They don't know the potential user growth from introducing day and date services, they will have a good guess but they won't know it for sure.

Sony has data in which to make projections from. We don't even have that. Sony's good guesses are better than our "ill-informed" guesses. The same applies to guesses about the effect Game Pass will have on the quality of Microsoft's game output. Ultimately we are just spectators watching it all unfold.

Also you don't have to be authority to highlight the fact that others are missing data.

If that was all that was said then there wouldn't have been any disagreement from me, but it wasn't.
 

Chronicle

Member
None of those are even close to huge blockbuster games. Spiderman? Tlou 2? God of war?

We discussed halo and forza. So where are all the games??
 
Top Bottom