• 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.

PlayStation’s Focus Has Shifted From Game Sales to Actual Play Time, Sony Says

midnightAI

Member
Honestly that article title is just completely fabricated nonsense.

I have no doubt PS has a GaaS drive and would love some Fortnite money but they have not said their focus has shifted from sales to play time. Not once in any way shape or form have they said this. It's a complete failure of understanding what was said. It points more to profitability of hardware rather than a change in software sales metric.
This is correct, you'll be ignored though
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a shitty idea.

It's not really how long you play the game they care about, but mtx cash spent in these games. Perhaps those are correlated but to say it's expressly the "time in game" that they care about is imo disingenuous.
They probably have a whole formula down. I.e. if we get x amount of hours it will average y amount of mtx purchases…
 

StereoVsn

Member
Short term profit scrapings against long term problems.

Whatever money the PC ports are making, it's not substantially changing the financial outlook for them. The long term, training customers to understand that they don't need a PlayStation going into next gen, adding on the QA and optimisation load of more than one platform when their devs have thrived developing for 1 architecture and at most 2 specs, is poisonous.

Again: Anything Microsoft has done, do the opposite.

Yep, basically Sony is George Costanza now.
fantasy-football.gif


28a3af28-947a-4151-8885-93f8a1ea7462_text.gif


84593175-aa1e-482b-ab41-9bc19b3ad413_text.gif
 
Everyone questioning why Sony are doing some of the things that MS are doing ... perhaps they see the writing on the wall for the industry. We've had Jim Ryan quit (what exec quits when things are going great and they think it's just going to be more smooth sailing?) got Sony execs coming out and saying that they need to be more profitable, axing studios despite high console sales, leaked docs saying they're at risk due to differences between their and MS strategies, moving focus to GAAS, now this measurement.

The writings on the wall, everything's not peachy in the world of videogames and Sony are included.
 
People really are willing to spend money on MTX instead of buying games.
Idiots and zoomers. That is all. I don't understand it but I'm an old head who's hayday of online was quake 3.ut, team fortress bf 2-4, cod 2-mw2, total war Rome and medieval... Oh and Eq2/Conan/lotro mmo.

Mtx I can't stand, sorry I don't want to see some douch dressed as Nike mana or snoop or have weed camo...

Problem is zoomers is who they are focusing in on. Not 30-60 year old gamers with actual cash who grew up playing single player games and know what life was before Mtx.

I'm just glad we get a trickle of single player and a lot on switch. Also the mini consoles have been awesome for me.
 
Last edited:

ZehDon

Member
Perhaps I read it wrong, but to me it actually reads like Sony's business model is shifting from "PlayStation 3 games must sell on PlayStation 3" to "PlayStation 4 games must sell on every PlayStation after PlayStation 4 because we now have evidence that people put lots of hours into PlayStation 4 games on PlayStation 5." If anything, they're double down on sales because they've realised they can keep selling games longer thanks to backwards compatibility. This is a good thing - though, I'm sure they'll find a way to "Sony" it.

This is the same metric we saw Microsoft identify last gen, when they realised they needed backwards compat to help people invest into the Xbone because they were still playing Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
This is a bunch of nonsense, "engagement" doesn't matter AT ALL in a traditional sales model. If somebody buys your game, you have their money, it doesn't matter if they play it or not, they can even throw it in the trash and you still have their money. Even for a subscription service model, you get the subsciber's money every month whether they download and play games or not, so again "engagement" doesn't matter too much although you want to make sure they stay subscribed obviously.

There's two possible reasons I see why these platform holders think engagement is important. The first is because they foresee a grim future for console gaming where people, especially young people, would rather be on their phones than play console games. And in a world where social media is becoming more and more important, companies feel like they need engagement to generate social media buzz that can potentially amplify sales. Helldivers 2 comes to mind in that regard. The game generated a lot of buzz on social media, word of mouth if you will.

The second reason is because they're seeking alternate revenue streams such as in-game advertisements and product placements, and those can only generate revenue if the player plays through the game and sees that ad or product.

Either way, the shift of focus towards "engagement" doesn't forebode anything good for traditional gamers.
 

RCU005

Member
Nintendo Switch 2 is going to be successful by default. Only because the other two are just competing for who makes the worst decisions and lose gamers ASAP.

Just look at the facts:
MS and Sony trying to chase the GaaS shit - Struggling and losing
Nintendo - Keep doing tradition business which is what people want - break every sales record.
 

RickMasters

Member
Sign of the times. gen Z don’t really play the games most of us over 35 play. They mostly prefer these live service games. They don’t care much for something called a games console…. That’s what their dads play on. They play on tablets and laptops if they can be bothered to get one of those.


People don’t really wanna hear it but for real the traditional business models in gaming are dead. Who is winning is really just coasting off yesterdays victories.


Even though people do cartwheels when they hear news of subs stagnating. That won’t always be the case. We are not seeing some massive uptake of physical media. Nah…. That’s still declining. Console sales ( console war bullshit aside for a moment) are not that great even for the winners( Sony and Nintendo) as they look on at changes in consumer habits happening which are for the most part led by people younger than most of us.


And none of us are getting any younger. 5 million of us might buy the latest triple A and we might call it a success. But that’s not enough for these companies. I don’t think it’s so much greed as it is cost of making these modern AAA games. Though there is an element of greed to it as they watch live service games generate way more while costing way less to develope. That’s why I don’t think subs or gas’s is going anywhere, the industry is having a hard time adapting to Tommorows consumers though that’s for sure. Other industries seem to be facing a similar challenge…..
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Imagine if movie theaters stopped caring about how many tickets they sold but how long people are watching the movie or going to see it again.

Sound stupid? Yes, because it’s stupid there and in games.

Sell good products without insane budgets. It’s just that simple.

To be fair, games and movies are different. You can buy DLC for movies.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So I read the source material and I'm pretty sure that the article author is misunderstanding what was said. It's all based on this slide:

Screenshot-20240515-174930-Adobe-Acrobat.jpg



"Playtime has increased" means that unlike the previous generations now games from the PS4 gen sell and are played on next gen "beyond the generation". Whereas before on PS3 a game made for it did not profit much beyond that generation unless it was remade. Console cycles have changed in that the PS4 base still provided profits well into the PS5 gen. They're not saying that hours played are now more important than game sales.


Oh THANK GOD you found this. This explains it well.
 

MrRenegade

Banned
They keep a close eye on the pigs' behaviour. If they see signs of depression from not eating, they throw in some real treats. The pigs start going to the troughs again and everyone can relax until the pattern returns 🐖.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
This is a bunch of nonsense, "engagement" doesn't matter AT ALL in a traditional sales model. If somebody buys your game, you have their money, it doesn't matter if they play it or not, they can even throw it in the trash and you still have their money. Even for a subscription service model, you get the subsciber's money every month whether they download and play games or not, so again "engagement" doesn't matter too much although you want to make sure they stay subscribed obviously.

There's two possible reasons I see why these platform holders think engagement is important. The first is because they foresee a grim future for console gaming where people, especially young people, would rather be on their phones than play console games. And in a world where
Not this shit again… How long will it take until game sales dry up because of this and we’re back to #4theplayers?

No one wants to acknowledge it, but the traditional model has been drying up for a while now. The death of AA, the death of new IP have been the canaries in the coalmine.

The engagement model has breathed new, much needed life into the industry.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
That fixes the Rebirth issue, then. I'm 80 hours in Costa Del Sol, if that's their metric for success then Autist Army guys like me will carry the industry or whatever. ....in like twice as long as a normal person would.
 
Spiderman 2: bloated budget that highlighted the big issue with AAA games.

Rebirth did not meet their sales expectations.

Stellar blade isn't a 5m game.

Meanwhile, hell divers 2 sold 12m in just 3-4 months. A game which they can monetize due to it's nature as gaas. Low cost budget, high return investment. Much better than all those 3 combined.

You said SP games are dead. I showed you they aren't and Sony is still investing in them. None of the points your brought up mean anything. The idea that Sony is going to abandon SP games because of one hit in HD2 doesn't even make sense. Sony isn't MS, they don't just jump around changing strategy every year the minute things don't go there way.
 

Monkfish877

Member
So what's the point of their first party studios then? you can't just turn them into GAAS studios, it doesn't work like that as we have already seen with the likes of naughty dog. Starting to develop these really malicious feelings towards this crappy little company, I hope it blows up in their faces. I'll be rooting against them, that's for sure.
 

feynoob

Member
You said SP games are dead. I showed you they aren't and Sony is still investing in them. None of the points your brought up mean anything. The idea that Sony is going to abandon SP games because of one hit in HD2 doesn't even make sense. Sony isn't MS, they don't just jump around changing strategy every year the minute things don't go there way.
SP games don't bring that much return unlike love service games. A single hit live service game brings more money than a game like Hogwarts legacy. MTX flips that scale.

The reason why SP isn't that great due to one and done model. Consumers will not care about it after they are done with the game. While live service games see more people play it overtime.

It's all about retention and how much money you can get from those games.
 
Top Bottom