• 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.

Microsoft CEO: Xbox Series X|S Has Outsold PS5 in NA for 3 Qtrs in a Row. Sales tracking ahead of 360.

Status
Not open for further replies.

PaintTinJr

Member
First off, Microsoft WILL enforce that mandate until the end of the generation. It's not even a conversation devs will even worry about since they'll be happy to target an audience of millions of Series S owners.
But more importantly, we already have examples of beautiful games that still retain 95% of their visual quality on the Series S. Flight Sim looks spectacular there, as does Forza Horizon 5. Matrix is probably the most next gen thing we've seen running so far... And it runs on the Series S with some cutbacks.

Hellblade 2 and the Coalition's next AAA game will push Best-in-class visuals and will run on the Series S. So no need for you to wait years until the GTA6 reveal.

This whole thing seems like wishful thinking on your part. Even you must know that you're bound to be gravely disappointed when the XSS gets strongly supported to the end of the gen.
If it gets strongly supported then so be it, but Xbox's gamepass strategy has been reported to be at odds with the handheld market leader and the home console market leader's strategies for game development, and other big publishers might align closer to Nintendo and PlayStation IMO. Companies like Rockstar.

I think the XsS is a cynical move and see it being most profitable for devs as MTX sales channel, so obviously I'm not a fan. But am oaky waiting to see what the market decides when GPUs with RT cores get to the £130 price point of moving up PC requirements.
 

Kagey K

Member
If it gets strongly supported then so be it, but Xbox's gamepass strategy has been reported to be at odds with the handheld market leader and the home console market leader's strategies for game development, and other big publishers might align closer to Nintendo and PlayStation IMO. Companies like Rockstar.
Didn't one of those also rebrand and try to remarket thier game rental plan recently?

Have we seen any pushback about how That's going to be bad for them?

Game Pass doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Didn't Rockstar give away half thier game on a service recently? And it seems like other big companies are buying in.

This huffing and puffing is nothing but scare tactics.

You have 0 evidence that publishers are being pushed away, while other publishers and developers have said many times it gives them financial freedom to make the games they want
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Xbox One sold 50 million (approx.) even after its disastrous launch and mediocre first party library. Xbox as a brand has a much more compelling offering this gen compared to last. I think it is going to blow past 50 million with ease.
I'm not talking hardware sales, but the number of those that buy the hardware that actively buy their A-AAA games on the platform as an option. A customer number I don't think has changed much since the 360, but what percentage then do buy the xbox version instead of PC or PS5 swings depending on console hardware and reaction to strategy. The 360 being nearly the full 50m and the X1 probably being a lot less - closerr to the 30M in the direction of the original Xbox active userbase..
 

Ozriel

Member
I'm not talking hardware sales, but the number of those that buy the hardware that actively buy their A-AAA games on the platform as an option. A customer number I don't think has changed much since the 360, but what percentage then do buy the xbox version instead of PC or PS5 swings depending on console hardware and reaction to strategy. The 360 being nearly the full 50m and the X1 probably being a lot less - closerr to the 30M in the direction of the original Xbox active userbase..

So basically it’s a made up number with no basis.


If it gets strongly supported then so be it, but Xbox's gamepass strategy has been reported to be at odds with the handheld market leader and the home console market leader's strategies for game development, and other big publishers might align closer to Nintendo and PlayStation IMO. Companies like Rockstar.

So you’re saying Rockstar would align with Nintendo, even with ARM hardware that will undoubtedly be weaker than the Series S, but actual Series S support would be a bridge too far?

Lmao
 

onesvenus

Member
I'm of the belief that Xbox has roughly 40-50m customers that will buy the system and buy games on it every generation, but of those only 10-15M don't have a PC or PS where they could buy games at better or equal fidelity. The DRM situation in the Xbox I believe makes the reach of their brand less than it was in the 360 days with traditional gamers going buy friends that own XsX consoles and hardly use them and are non-lused with gamepass as a delivery method or the mostly sequel AAA content - that they feel was better years earlier. I also believe the PC minimum specs will be a RTX 2060 super/3060/4050ti/ RX 6700Xt/RX 7600XT in two years time when the GTX 1060 being able to just about run UE5 is considered below spec
Do you have any kind of data supporting all these believes?

I don't know about the finish, my opinion seems irrelevant to the pointm, but I beleive they don't cost PS 1st party or Rockstar money to make. Bethesda/idsoftware would have traditionally been considered AA devs IMO
Love how here you say your opinion seems irrelevant but that's all you have to do on the previous point: your believes.

Do you have data about the costs of first party Microsoft games to compare them to Sony's? And about Bethesda/Activision?
 

oldergamer

Member
Sweet jesus. Why the heck are people takin gamecube here?

Some Sony fans in the thread are in denial over xbox moving some units and having games. Sorry but imo sonys output imo hasnt been better since the first year and really the best output was in the first 6 months. GT7 isnt a great racing game imo, so that leaves not much this year. Im not a huge fan in japanese games with a few exceptions/ game makers. I love a good ratio of indie games and xbox has that as part of game pass. Im ok with some first party games being multiplatform. I loved Tunic, psychonaughts 2, forza horizon and halo. Imo opinion the out put has been better paced since late last year on xbox. However i do feel the summer month lull right now.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Didn't one of those also rebrand and try to remarket thier game rental plan recently?

Have we seen any pushback about how That's going to be bad for them?

Game Pass doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Didn't Rockstar give away half thier game on a service recently? And it seems like other big companies are buying in.

This huffing and puffing is nothing but scare tactics.

You have 0 evidence that publishers are being pushed away, while other publishers and developers have said many times it gives them financial freedom to make the games they want
That feels like a disingenuous point, because only gamepass has committed to releasing first party games on day 1. That is the strategy PlayStation and Nintendo, and probably Rockstar can't afford to do with their current business strategy.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Do you have any kind of data supporting all these believes?


Love how here you say your opinion seems irrelevant but that's all you have to do on the previous point: your believes.

Do you have data about the costs of first party Microsoft games to compare them to Sony's? And about Bethesda/Activision?
It is a forum where most things are going to be opinions, a little like anticipating if it is going to rain - in the UK, at least - which is a similar intuition. I don't need you to agree and am happy to hear your counter intuitive beliefs.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
..

So you’re saying Rockstar would align with Nintendo, even with ARM hardware that will undoubtedly be weaker than the Series S, but actual Series S support would be a bridge too far?

..
No, similar aligned business strategies or models hardly means anything other than that. Your ARM comment is a strawman IMHO.
 

Leyasu

Banned
If it gets strongly supported then so be it, but Xbox's gamepass strategy has been reported to be at odds with the handheld market leader and the home console market leader's strategies for game development, and other big publishers might align closer to Nintendo and PlayStation IMO. Companies like Rockstar.

I think the XsS is a cynical move and see it being most profitable for devs as MTX sales channel, so obviously I'm not a fan. But am oaky waiting to see what the market decides when GPUs with RT cores get to the £130 price point of moving up PC requirements.
what? Lol

Their gamepass strategy has no impact on 3rd party publishers. The 3rd party publishers that do put their games on the service are compensated too. They don’t put their games there for nothing.
 

onesvenus

Member
It is a forum where most things are going to be opinions, a little like anticipating if it is going to rain - in the UK, at least - which is a similar intuition. I don't need you to agree and am happy to hear your counter intuitive beliefs.
Well it's one thing to have opinions and it's another entirely different to have opinions without any data to support them.

Glad you are clear on that though. I won't debate with you over this the same way I don't debate with flatearthers.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
what? Lol

Their gamepass strategy has no impact on 3rd party publishers. The 3rd party publishers that do put their games on the service are compensated too. They don’t put their games there for nothing.
It indirectly impact everyone if gamers stop wanting to spend £50-70 on games at release.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
There are some strange theories in here.

A key point that blows this nonsense up (and that is fact based) is that the Xbox user base very frequently outperforms PS sales wise (on a sales per console basis). This is so evident that Sony negotiated their cross-play agreement with bonuses based on Nintendo and Xbox customers outspending PS players on a per user basis, and received regular payouts, go figure. Sony wins more sales because of a more than 2:1 userbase advantage, not because their users are more frequent buyers. MS on the other hand, routinely over performs its console split on key western titles. There is less interest in some genres on Xbox, but that's been a thing from the beginning.

You have to get out of the enthusiast gamer/developer/gaming journalist bubble and move to the general audience. People don't drop $500 on hardware they don't intend to use, or even $300.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I'm of the belief that Xbox has roughly 40-50m customers that will buy the system and buy games on it every generation

The 360 had roughly 86~ million lifetime unit sales, so you're point is incorrect just on the very first line.

The XBO was a terrible launch and the decisions made in the first year of the console hounded it through its life.

From what we've seen so far, they've learned the correct lesson and Series is already tracking faster than both XBO and 360 in their respective lifetimes at this point after release.
 

Bramble

Member
While this may true, I believe the real reason is because the PS5 is still impossible to find while you can get series S especially and X everywhere almost.

I also believe sales will shift towards Xbox when COD is on game pass. That will really boost the Xbox. Especially if the deal is closed and they can get COD MW2 in time for game pass

I find it very hard to believe people are willing to abandon their PS library and friends list in order to pay $180 a year (next to their PS Plus subscription if they keep a PS next to it) to basically rent Call of Duty instead of just buying the game and owning it forever, like they’ve been doing for decades.

Like others already pointed out, the only reason for these numbers are the facts that PS5’s are still really hard to find and Series S being available everywhere at a very low price point. My wild guess is 75% of Series consoles is Series S.
 

Dr.Morris79

Member
Bought both a Ps5 and both Series consoles. The Ps5 hasnt even been turned on in months, but will now only due to Stray.

I find the Ps5 utter ball ache to use, especially the 'upgrading' games aspect. Thats even before you mention the size of the fucking thing.

The Series consoles just work a charm. I account share with my lad which just works, the cloud save system just works and any relevant 'game' upgrades just work..

Not really knocking the Ps5 but personally for me, the Xbox has already won this generation with ease.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Well it's one thing to have opinions and it's another entirely different to have opinions without any data to support them.

Glad you are clear on that though. I won't debate with you over this the same way I don't debate with flatearthers.
The last data I'd maybe be able to find when Live was only on 360 - not PC as a paid sub - and Xbox reported sold consoles too is probably back in 2006-8 or something and I'm still adjusting for ylod/rrod. IIRC We used to get the occasional comment about Live subs in relation to active or online connected 360s. It isn't blind guessing, but it still wouldn't hold up as more than a belief, hence why I didn't try to defend my belief with recent hard data that isn't there or even inference of old data I would have to track down.

In general 360 customers haven't complained about paying for online subs, so the active userbase buying A-AAA games in the days of the 360 would have tracked live subs in general, as a trend, no?
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Considering all the accolades, extremely high meta scores, tens of millions of sales and consensus GotY awards, I would assume you also view Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games, SSM, Insomniac etc. as AA studios also.
AAA, AA and A is about spend and usual involves cutting edge rendering techniques, not how successful a game sells. And I said traditionally, today they presumably are a AAA spending dev, which make Starfield day 1 on gamepass an interesting situation, especially as it is a new ip
 

teezzy

Fantastik Tuna
I find it very hard to believe people are willing to abandon their PS library and friends list in order to pay $180 a year (next to their PS Plus subscription if they keep a PS next to it) to basically rent Call of Duty instead of just buying the game and owning it forever, like they’ve been doing for decades.

Like others already pointed out, the only reason for these numbers are the facts that PS5’s are still really hard to find and Series S being available everywhere at a very low price point. My wild guess is 75% of Series consoles is Series S.

People prefer subscription services in general. Just look at music and movies/tv. The entertainment/media landscape is evolving and the people clinging to the "I have to own it" mentality are a super niche demographic. Convenience always wins.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Bethesda/idsoftware would have traditionally been considered AA devs IMO
William Shatner Weed GIF
 
AAA, AA and A is about spend and usual involves cutting edge rendering techniques, not how successful a game sells. And I said traditionally, today they presumably are a AAA spending dev, which make Starfield day 1 on gamepass an interesting situation, especially as it is a new ip

Nothing interesting about it. We've all known their strategy. MS are going to put their games on gamepass day one regardless of whether the games cost $20 million or $200 million.
 
Last edited:

//DEVIL//

Member
I find it very hard to believe people are willing to abandon their PS library and friends list in order to pay $180 a year (next to their PS Plus subscription if they keep a PS next to it) to basically rent Call of Duty instead of just buying the game and owning it forever, like they’ve been doing for decades.

Like others already pointed out, the only reason for these numbers are the facts that PS5’s are still really hard to find and Series S being available everywhere at a very low price point. My wild guess is 75% of Series consoles is Series S.
80%of the gamers ( not in neogaf ) usually sell their games after a while or when they are done with it to buy newer games and offset the costs. not many collect games like most of us here.

I used to have a huge library of games on Playstation. I switched to PC. I do not see the problem with people doing the same ( I still have around 100 physical PS1 and PS2 games as collector items because those games were very close to my heart but since I Cant play them on PS5 anyhow so I don't see the point of your abandoning library you mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
This is so evident that Sony negotiated their cross-play agreement with bonuses based on Nintendo and Xbox customers outspending PS players on a per user basis, and received regular payouts, go figure.

That isn't accurate. Sony's cross-play agreement creates a ratio of time played on PS versus revenue spent over a 15% buffer. It isn't on a per user basis at all. If gamers spend most of their time on PSN but spend their money elsewhere then this clause kicks in and Sony gets royalties on the difference. But if Xbox gamers, for example, spend all their time on Xbox playing a particular game with PS gamers in cross play then Sony gets zero money no matter how much money those Xbox gamers spent.

"If 20% of the total Rocket League playerbase were on the PS4, for example, but PlayStation players accounted for only 10% of the game's revenue (because players buy way more skins on PC, or something), Sony presumably thinks it's paying the PSN infrastructure costs for all those players but not getting the return it should for allowing cross-platform play. To "offset the reduction in revenue," the game publisher would owe Sony a royalty payment based on the gap between the PS4 playerbase and proportional PSN revenue."

Sony wins more sales because of a more than 2:1 userbase advantage, not because their users are more frequent buyers.

You also have to factor in that the 2:1 userbase has a ton of casuals who typically buy less than the core gamer.

People prefer subscription services in general. Just look at music and movies/tv. The entertainment/media landscape is evolving and the people clinging to the "I have to own it" mentality are a super niche demographic. Convenience always wins.

I think that is more true with music than anything else since the music subscriptions are typically all-inclusive. It is hard to imagine movies/TV and video games having a subscription service that does the same. If I subscribe to Spotify then the vast majority of the music I want to listen to, if not all, is probably there. But if I'm wanting to watch the Stranger Things and the Mandalorian then I'm going to subscribe to two different services. If I want to play Star War Jedi Order, Halo Infinite, and AC Valhalla then that means three different subs. So people are probably going to end up jumping from one sub to another, but even then they don't have access to all the games with subscriptions. I think gamers, more so than movies/tv/music, are going to stick with buying over subscriptions for quite some time as a result.
 
Last edited:
Sweet jesus. Why the heck are people takin gamecube here?

Some Sony fans in the thread are in denial over xbox moving some units and having games. Sorry but imo sonys output imo hasnt been better since the first year and really the best output was in the first 6 months. GT7 isnt a great racing game imo, so that leaves not much this year. Im not a huge fan in japanese games with a few exceptions/ game makers. I love a good ratio of indie games and xbox has that as part of game pass. Im ok with some first party games being multiplatform. I loved Tunic, psychonaughts 2, forza horizon and halo. Imo opinion the out put has been better paced since late last year on xbox. However i do feel the summer month lull right now.

I don't like GT7, so let's discard it. Let's also discard Horizon FW, because I love black girls, and GOW Ragnarok because I hate snow. Problem solved! 😎
 

DaGwaphics

Member
That isn't accurate. Sony's cross-play agreement creates a ratio of time played on PS versus revenue spent over a 15% buffer. It isn't on a per user basis at all. If gamers spend most of their time on PSN but spend their money elsewhere then this clause kicks in and Sony gets royalties on the difference. But if Xbox gamers, for example, spend all their time on Xbox playing a particular game with PS gamers in cross play then Sony gets zero money no matter how much money those Xbox gamers spent.

Just semantics there. If player spending doesn't track with playtime, but your competitors not only does that but pushes ahead, the other player bases are spending more on average. The bonus was built to pay Sony when their player base under performs.

I understand that PS brand popularity has made them a strong choice for the lower spending casual market. I didn't post to imply that was a bad outcome or wrong in some way, just to refute the nonsense that people buy Xbox systems to look nice on a shelf or something while always making purchases on PC or PS. The numbers simply aren't there for that, no matter where you look.

I didn't even comment on the idea that Xbox owners are scared of MS's DRM in some way (somehow while leaning into digital purchases even further than PS owners). 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Just semantics there. If player spending doesn't track with playtime, but your competitors not only does that but pushes ahead, the other player bases are spending more on average. The bonus was built to pay Sony when their player base under performs.

I understand that PS brand popularity has made them a strong choice for the lower spending casual market. I didn't post to imply that was a bad outcome or wrong in some way, just to refute the nonsense that people buy Xbox systems to look nice on a shelf or something while always making purchases on PC or PS. The numbers simply aren't there for that, no matter where you look.

I didn't even comment on the idea that Xbox owners are scared of MS's DRM in some way (somehow while leaning into digital purchases even further than PS owners). 🤷‍♂️

Well yeah the semantics are important in this case
 

Topher

Gold Member
Just semantics there. If player spending doesn't track with playtime, but your competitors not only does that but pushes ahead, the other player bases are spending more on average. The bonus was built to pay Sony when their player base under performs.

Ok, but it is fundamentally different than what you described. In either case, we don't even know how often it kicks in so there is certainly no data to derive conclusions from.

I understand that PS brand popularity has made them a strong choice for the lower spending casual market. I didn't post to imply that was a bad outcome or wrong in some way, just to refute the nonsense that people buy Xbox systems to look nice on a shelf or something while always making purchases on PC or PS. The numbers simply aren't there for that, no matter where you look.

I didn't even comment on the idea that Xbox owners are scared of MS's DRM in some way (somehow while leaning into digital purchases even further than PS owners). 🤷‍♂️

No issues with anything you've said here.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Ok, but it is fundamentally different than what you described. In either case, we don't even know how often it kicks in so there is certainly no data to derive conclusions from.

I thought Epic testified that they paid out the royalty almost every month? I was thinking there was even a table released that showed the amounts of some of the payments.

It's been a while, LOL. I could be mistaken.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
I thought Epic testified that they paid out the royalty almost every month?

He said Sony was the only platform holder to require compensation. I don't believe he said how often or how much they paid. Whatever Epic pays to Sony, I'd guess it has more to do with purchases made on mobile than other consoles.

Edit:

Actually, Sweeney used mobile as an example in the testimony.

"...according to Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, Epic had to agree to the terms for Fortnite crossplay to be allowed on the PS4. "If somebody were primarily playing on PlayStation, but paying on iPhone then this might trigger compensation," he said in court on Monday."

From the PC gamer article I linked above.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
He said Sony was the only platform holder to require compensation. I don't believe he said how often or how much they paid. Whatever Epic pays to Sony, I'd guess it has more to do with purchases made on mobile than other consoles.

Edit:

Actually, Sweeney used mobile as an example in the testimony.

"...according to Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, Epic had to agree to the terms for Fortnite crossplay to be allowed on the PS4. "If somebody were primarily playing on PlayStation, but paying on iPhone then this might trigger compensation," he said in court on Monday."

From the PC gamer article I linked above.

He made additional statements about it besides that one quote. Hard to find the articles now that went over the full testimony of the witnesses. Not that it matters now anyway.
 
Last edited:
Just prove that then. Just name one direct response to my first point you made that I didn’t respond to directly? You can’t expect me to respond to your off topic pseudo responses.
It was on topic, you are the one who went off topic and are projecting. not to mention you responded to me, not the other way around. So you either dind't read what you responded to and should respond properly, or you're a coward.
There's no one lying. You just don't know what you're talking about. When I ask direct questions related to your posts, you just have an excuse not to answer my question.



You're contradicting yourself. Xbox production increased at a higher rate, but you can't blame supply constraints for PS5 sales.

I read it. Your entire argument is surrounded by this point and that's why I asked you the specific question. Your statement is not backed up by facts.


You don't on one hand say they were producing the console at a higher rate and then say the demand was higher for the X.

Where are your stats that back up this claim? Where are the numbers?

All we're getting from Mat, Zhuge, and others is that the XSS was produced to meet the demand.



All information indicates that Xbox Series S has outproduced Xbox Series X within the past year.



Repeating that XSS is irrelevant when we're talking about sales over the past 3 quarters is just an easy copout.

Cite your sources and back up your claims.


Last 3 quarters. This is what the thread is about. I read your post in full and it's mostly not back up by facts.


All recent analyses confirm that the XSS has been ramping up in production to fill the void.
Famitsu Sales: 12/13/21 – 12/19/21
Xbox Series X – 2,282 (73,190)
Xbox Series S – 607 (53,832)

Famitsu Sales: 7/18/22 – 7/24/22
Xbox Series X – 2,884 (127,800)
Xbox Series S – 2,128 (146,237)

The example here is from Japan. Late last year the XSS was down 19k units versus the XSX. Now it's ahead by 18k.

You don't have any proof that XSX is in higher demand. We do have proof that both PS5 and XSX have supply issues and that XSS helping to fill that void.

So you dodged the issue of PS5 stock and went right back to the OTHER argument you still haven't provided facts for, the myth that the S is the best selling SKu (in general) for Xbox Series.

So first, I take it you gave up and realized that PS5 demand isn't the issue and is indeed false since you never will directly address the post which was focusing on that.

So now that you lost that argument we go back to the Series S.

nothing you showed shows the S is ahead, it showed some instances of some shipments and select times, in certain regions that the S SHIPPED more. Then for the few that were talking about sales, the difference is marginal and does not overwrite the other regions where the X is ahead significantly (such as Germany, France, Mexico, etc, at least the most recent data from them, which was awhile ago but we have not gotten anything more recent to contradict those.)

That does not mean the S has sold more than the X overall for Xbox Series. This is the part you seem to incompetent to comprehend. You are associating shipments, and some sales in a few regions like Japan, US, and UK(?) and using those marginal differences (some countries even more marginal than japan by near 2x) as proof the S has overall sold more than the X, and yet we are seeing in the most recent reports for other region the X ahead by substantial margins.

All data we have of sales in any country/region, at least the most recent we have that split them up, primarily have the X ahead, and any time the S is ahead, the difference is marginal. Between 45-80% in it's favor depending.

Again, the belief the S is the best selling unit for the Xbox Series consoles, which was what i said from the start, not region, but entirely, is a MYTH.

Unless you have sales showing otherwise that are recent in several countries you can't possibly say this is a fact without any actual evidence. At best you're making an assumption based on shipments which aren't sales, or sales that are marginal in a few regions.

There is no PROOF that the S has passed and became the best selling SKU over all for Xbox Series, there is no new recent data that contradict the previous reports from the other regions that had the X way out in front.

We can't just make ASSUMPTIONS and say it's true without the sales proof. Like the people assuming the PS3 was 2nd place when we DON'T have 360 sales because they haven't been reported.

Your whole argument is dishonest because you are making it seem like I made a country by country, or a NA/UK argument when I didn't, I made a general statement for all Xbox Series sales, and the person who first brought up the S selling best was also talking about that, making all your tweets and other stuff useless because you're being dishonest about the premise in the first place (not to mention bringing up shipments wouldn't help your case either way)
 
17 pages? Ps fans can be so threatened by Xbox success. Sony is gonna be ok. There's room for everyone to be successful.
The GTA thread was controversial and had many pages, but 2 days ago this page zoomed passed it. it seems that for some reason the Series S specifically is greatly hated or the focus of many peoples distain.

Some of the excuses to exclude it, or inflate it's differences are crazy.
 
My narrative was that Sony was enforcing a royalty that paid them when their user base under performs in $. If you could explain to me how that outcome is incorrect or changes based on how I wrote my posts that would good.

Your narrative was that Sony put this crossplay policy in plce due to Xbox sales outperforming PS sales on a per console basis.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
My narrative was that Sony was enforcing a royalty that paid them when their user base under performs in $. If you could explain to me how that outcome is incorrect or changes based on how I wrote my posts that would good.

Because you are ignoring half of the equation and you tried to make it out as if this was entirely about Nintendo and Xbox gamers spending more money. This a very specific set of circumstances that has to be met including both percentage of game share on PSN in cross-play along combined with revenue spent. Just saying that Sony gets paid when its userbase "under performs in $" is a twist on the facts.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Because you are ignoring half of the equation and you tried to make it out as if this was entirely about Nintendo and Xbox gamers spending more money. This a very specific set of circumstances that has to be met including both percentage of game share on PSN in cross-play along combined with revenue spent. Just saying that Sony gets paid when its userbase "under performs in $" is a twist on the facts.

Are you saying that isn't what is happening when this is triggered? This only gets triggered if players on other platforms have a higher percentage of revenue than playtime (they are spending more on average).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom