• 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)

Lognor

Banned
Its because, the contract didn't cover that. She was supposed to be paid for the theater cut. But Disney broke the contract by putting it on the service.

Its like MS making a timed exclusive contract, but decides to put the game on gamepass.

Its not just upfront money.
Whatever it was, we saw how WB remedied this situation with Wonder Woman and other films released day one on HBO. Disney should have had that conversation with the filmmakers on Black Widow before releasing it on Disney Plus

They can renegotiate, you know?

We've seen a ton of day one film releases across Disney Plus and HBO. It's clearly possible.

Either way, I think we both agree that comparing PS+ to Disney is a poor comparison.
 

kingfey

Banned
Whatever it was, we saw how WB remedied this situation with Wonder Woman and other films released day one on HBO. Disney should have had that conversation with the filmmakers on Black Widow before releasing it on Disney Plus

They can renegotiate, you know?

We've seen a ton of day one film releases across Disney Plus and HBO. It's clearly possible.

Either way, I think we both agree that comparing PS+ to Disney is a poor comparison.
Its Disney. They don't negotiate like WB.

When you have the 3 most beloved franchises in the world, you will be drunk on power.
 

8BiTw0LF

Banned
Disney is still making shows for the service.
Movies have contract issues. Disney can't put them there for free.
They got sued for putting black widow on the service.
Not a good comparison. Disney is still putting certain movies day one on Disney Plus. I doubt Sony will do that. And that is not considering the tv shows made for Disney Plus. Sony is not comparable at all.

Oh, Sony will also add content for the service, just not their own (as we know of), but there's a slight chance some of their live service games will be "free" on the platform and they'll probably add more retro games along the way.

We all know how Sony operates. They put something out with bare minimum info - listens to the community and makes something people are happy with. +700 games tho' - that's a lot of games.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
I think you guys have no ideia how Gamepass revenue works.
Let's clear here.

When you put a game on Gamepass you expected to receive a parcel of the revenue subs based in how much people played your game (there is the very few exceptions that MS pays upfront but that is not how the actually works for 99% of the games there).
That is very little parcel but it come every month while the subscribers are playing your game.

To cover a $200m budget it can take months or even years... at the end the revenue from the subscription can even surpass the one of full priced sales if the game have continuous subscribers playing it for years.

But you invested $200m... you can't wait months or years to recover it... you have to already recovered and profit to invest in a new project.
So with full priced sales you have that... you pay your costs at launch windows and already accumulate funds to the next project.
You can set high budget because you know you will get it fast in the launch window (if not your made a failure).

With subscription having the game at day one you need to plan different.... you set lower budget target because you know it will take time to recover it.

If you kill decrease the number of full priced sales then you need to invest less in your games and so you have a different approach in development... the most time the subscriber keep playing your game more you will receive per month and you want them to play that game near forever... and that add mechanics that keep you playing it... that is why GAAS is better fit for subscription services with low investiment.

When you plan a big AAA budget game you target a number of sales at full price to cover all costs... it is a near term plan... you delivery, you recoup, you start to dev again, delivery, recoup, etc.
Subscription is a long term.... you need time waiting the game recoup.

You also
Forget it’s their own service and they get a bigger cut so when it’s their own games going on there they can take more for it. They would make up for it.
 

MHubert

Member
Where do you think that the funding for Sonys first party studios comes from? It is from Sony. The studios probably get bonuses when their games are finished, but the running costs and everything else which equates to the cost of the game comes from Sony lol

Sonys warchest pays for everything, and everything is theirs.


That was a silly question and I should have removed it.
No as I said before, even if sony owns them, the studios are still considered businesses in their own right, also economically
 

Kazza

Member
6azv0t.jpg
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
I don't want games like God of War on a subscription ever.

Idk. It somehow cheapens the experience for me. That game deserves 70$ price tag.
Is the game different when put on a service like GP versus buying it full price? You are getting exactly the same code and pixels.
 

Shubh_C63

Member
Is the game different when put on a service like GP versus buying it full price? You are getting exactly the same code and pixels.
I know the logic behind it and in a non passionate way it makes sense, but to me it feels like watching something you just came across over netflix than waiting for a release, obsessing over the hype and trailers, waiting for your copy to come and then you play.

As I said, idk. Feels different when you want something bad compared to when things handed to you for free(ish).

edit - I like cheap and free stuff. But I want actual brilliant products to have all the money so they can set a standard.
 
Last edited:

AGNT4SD6

Neo Member
Maybe not day one but it'd be nice to see them on the service 6-8 months from initial release date. At that time most games are heavily discounted and rely on DLC anyway to make profit.
 

FritzJ92

Member
They literally sent Hi-Fi Rush out to die with zero marketing and a shadow drop. Yet, they marketed the snots out of Redfall.

MS is out of touch.
Thats not what I was talking about. None of those are the result of a subscription service; instead, it's a company doing something dumb.

Also the shadow drop was at the studio's request, not MS's.
 
But the game wouldn't get the same sales, which would likely make the game unprofitable. As you know, profit is the motivation for companies to do stuff, like releasing more high quality games.
As long as Sony is giving its consumers their money's worth with their games then people should want Sony to profit as much as possible. I'd rather know I'm getting a polished high quality game for 70$ than be unsure and pay a 15$ a month subscription. Microsoft, in the next few years, will probably double the output of Sony's 1st party games. I remain very skeptical of the quality of their releases. They don't know how to support or manage their studios. Just buy up studios and let them sink or swim
 
Last edited:
Sony is very right, just look at Forespoken and Destruction AllStars. Subscription services are cancerous to gaming.
This isn't the gotcha moment you thought considering as soon as sony figured Destruction AllStars was a flop in the making they made it available day one on PS Plus, instead of selling it at full price.

They ain't releasing something like Ragnarok in there day one for sure.
 
Sony and Take 2 understand the blockbuster market better than anyone else, and it’s also why ABK haven’t put COD on the subs services day one.

If you spend hundreds of millions on a game and marketing, the best model is to get all the cash from a big tentpole retail/digital release and once that income wanes, put it on a sub to get a lump sum, or in the case of Sony, more subscribers.

3000 people are working on COD at a time. You don’t just put that out for ‘free’ and damage the value perception of the project. Same for GTA. Same for GOW.

The hundreds of millions made using the traditional model are then reinvested in more products and the cycle continues.

Outside of a view missyeps, Ryan knows exactly what he’s doing. Results so far show he knows how to make PlayStation a success and he’s wisely taking the division into new areas without sacrificing what makes them their bread and butter.
 
Last edited:

Aenima

Member
Sony is very right, just look at Forespoken and Destruction AllStars. Subscription services are cancerous to gaming.
Forespoken is not a Sony 1st party game. And Destruction All Stars was available on PS+ (the equivalent to Games with Gold) 2 months before being put up on sale.

If you cant see how big budget games are not sustainable day 1 in this kind of services, then you lack the ability to the see the big picture.
 
Last edited:
I still think Xbox should release their games maybe a month or three or longer, after they hit retail, onto gamepass. I just think gamepass hurts retail sales of games, which seems to be the case based on documents.

Edit: So I feel Jim made the right decision and is correct in what he said. 👍🏻
 
Last edited:

Roxkis_ii

Member
When you day and date games on game pass and pc, you devalue the console hardware.

I always wanted to play Forza Horizon games. I got a gaming laptop and bought it on steam, and now I will never need to own a Xbox. Compare that with Grand Turismo 7, where if I didn't own a ps5, I would never get to play that game. That adds value to the ps5. The Xbox consoles feels like just a device, while Playstation games make Playstation 5 feel special.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
All these comments from people big mad that Sony won't put their chips all-in on PS+ with AAA 1st party games. There are legit retards here and they honestly do a disservice to people that actually are the big R. Sorry, I don't mean that in a thoughtless way for those with family members, etc.

But yea, some people here strike me as if they have never taken into account how businesses function and manage to stay afloat.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Exactly, high quality costs, Playstation and Switch are a fine restaurant serving amazing food Xbox is a soup kitchen serving up slop, cmon Phil deliver some steak you idiot sandwich

Gamepass has zero do with Redwall being good or bad. Lot of misinformation being spewed here. No doubt ms needs more AAA content but it's not gamepass that affecting the output.
 

RyanEvans21

Member
Anyone who believes this BS is a moron. The games wouldn't suffer in the slightest. Having games go into a sub services wouldn't cause any issue with development. Y'all have Sony Stockholm s

But the quality? Look at Netflix & Disney+ content. :messenger_winking_tongue:
 
Top Bottom