• 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.

Sony revenue vs GaaS

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
COD is not AAA, people've been mixing profits with content size, this is so wrong, AAA these days are rare, and it's not about review scores either, they're so unrelated, you can't squash AAA value from an average score, this is wrong and misleading.
COD is not AAA?

Its 100% AAA
 

BootsLoader

Banned
Sony's revenue numbers also include revenue from the sales of third party games and content on the PlayStation store. While their first party output is amazing, it's doubtful that their first party games alone provide enough revenue to keep PlayStation running. They need to create a stream of stable revenue they control that doesn't require 5+ years of investment per game before seeing any ROI. Especially with as much as it is currently costing them to run the business.

If they were to lose some of the top third party games they would be in a bad spot and with Microsoft opening the wallet it is possible that it could happen. So I think they need some games that they own, like their own Warzone or Fortnite, that bring in recurring revenue more quickly to even be able to keep making the single player masterpieces in the long run. Could be wrong, but based on their recent plans I don't think I am.
Well, the way you explain it, you have a point.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
How is it growing?

Is it just a few titles getting bigger or are more titles increasing the total pie? Or both?


It's both.

There are way more successful Live Service games today than there was 10 years ago.

There were way more successful Live Service games 10 years ago than there were 20 years ago.

The people using the term "market saturation" never look at the numbers.
 

SHA

Member
Counting experience the wrong way is wrong, SONY, MS and NINTENDO've been around for more than 2 decades, the least thing to say is "they know what they're doing".
 
Last edited:

Roronoa Zoro

Gold Member
Every zoomer I know primarily plays GAAS games. Some of them even exclusively.

PlayStation not adapting GAAS is insanity.

People need to shut the fuck up and leave their stupid little bubble.
Everyone stop making GaaS and force those Zoomers to do better.
 
Everyone stop making GaaS and force those Zoomers to do better.
Stop Motion No GIF by Mouse
 
How would you create a steady stream of income that would sustain PlayStation studios?

The answer isn't more high risk single player games with longer and longer development cycles.
You don't see Nintendo saying "oh, well we need GaaS to survive!." They know that if they keep making games their fans love, they'll be ok. They themselves were forced to rethink their old traditional strategy, but instead of flipping off the fan base, they catered to it. Instead of chasing the latest trends, they doubled down on what their fans wanted and gave it to them.

Maybe Sony should invest in bit coin?
 
You don't see Nintendo saying "oh, well we need GaaS to survive!." They know that if they keep making games their fans love, they'll be ok. They themselves were forced to rethink their old traditional strategy, but instead of flipping off the fan base, they catered to it. Instead of chasing the latest trends, they doubled down on what their fans wanted and gave it to them.

Maybe Sony should invest in bit coin?

Sony's fanbase expect high fidelity AAA games. They are inherently expensive.

Nintendo's fanbase tolerate much cheaper to make games.
 

MoreJRPG

Suffers from extreme PDS
How would you create a steady stream of income that would sustain PlayStation studios?

The answer isn't more high risk single player games with longer and longer development cycles.
It's really simple, stop making every first party release a photo-realistic 250 million dollar money sink that takes six years to develop and requires 15 million copies to break even. There's a reason Nintendo is running the industry right now. Just look at revenue via software sales, it's not even close. Nintendo raked in 5.18 billion dollars last year compared to 2.1 billion from Sony and 1.4 for Microsoft.
 

MoreJRPG

Suffers from extreme PDS
Sony's fanbase expect high fidelity AAA games. They are inherently expensive.

Nintendo's fanbase tolerate much cheaper to make games.

Sony's fanbase expect Call of Duty and Madden ever year with GTA and Roblox on the side. First party isn't a system seller for PlayStation(for anyone other than the hardcore forum dwellers), there's a reason they fought tooth and nail to stop Microsoft from buying Activison and rolled their eyes at Bethesda. COD generated over 800 million in revenue for Sony alone in 2021, no first party came close to sniffing that figure in 2021 or ever in their history. The best selling PlayStation first party of all time is Spider-Man at 20 million, and they needed to sell 117 million PS4's to hit that attach rate. That would rank 8th in Switch software sales. That's the difference between first party being a "need-to-have" and a "nice-to-have."

Third party drives PlayStation, not first. Always has and always will.
 
Last edited:
Sony's fanbase expect high fidelity AAA games. They are inherently expensive.

Nintendo's fanbase tolerate much cheaper to make games.
Believe it or not, original PlayStation fans want jrpgs: something that made them from the start. Nintendo's fan base gets the highest quality exclusives on the market. They also get on-the-go gaming that is easy and convenient: another thing they've expected from the company.
 
They aren't going all in though. This is the most spread SIE has been.
They'll be fine, as long as they don't drop the budget for sp titles people expect, while investing a bit in a few GaaS titles. As others have said, they should just do that with games they already have that might be suited for it.
 
They'll be fine, as long as they don't drop the budget for sp titles people expect, while investing a bit in a few GaaS titles. As others have said, they should just do that with games they already have that might be suited for it.

...that's exactly what they are doing.

Helldivers
GT7
MLB
Horizon
TLOU
Twisted Metal
Marathon
Destiny Mobile

There are a few new IPs, yes, but that's also to be expected.
 
...that's exactly what they are doing.

Helldivers
GT7
MLB
Horizon
TLOU
Twisted Metal
Marathon
Destiny Mobile

There are a few new IPs, yes, but that's also to be expected.
Of course no one knows for sure, but I think at one point they were going to go all-in, but then upper management stepped in and said "hold the phone on that a bit here" and changed that awful strategy idea. I base that idea on those firings they recently had.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
...that's exactly what they are doing.

Helldivers
GT7
MLB
Horizon
TLOU
Twisted Metal
Marathon
Destiny Mobile

There are a few new IPs, yes, but that's also to be expected.

Jim Ryan needs to allow his devs to talk about their games that are SP too. Anything coming out in 2024 or 2025 should have a trailer at some point next year.
 

protonion

Member
Sony is on top for over two decades by selling tons of hardware and non gaas games.

Yet buffoons like Jim do everything in their power to sabotage both revenue streams with their decisions.
Gaas games have been failing left and right, (even huge IPs like Diablo lately).
Just because a tiny list of games make billions doesn't mean you can just decide to make the next one out of the blue. Same like MS for many years get their ass handed to them when they try to rival Sony's games.

Every fucking time we have the people cheering chasing stupid new trends.
Remember Wii? These "lapsed gamers" that couldn't stand traditional controls and wanted everything to be motion?
I remember people in this very forum debating how this will sacrifice game design etc yet they insisted that this is the future.
How did this work out in the end? Wii died a sudden death taking it's successor with it, PS4 commited to traditional gaming and destroyed everyone.

Gaas games are mostly shit and not something that a good developer would want to make.
Sony employees were not happy I read here somewhere.

Also, regarding Sony. Spare us with your narrative that gaas investment is an addition to their traditional staff that will not affect anything.
Every single big release this gen has suffered from an uncharacteristic for Sony lack of polish and rushed development feeling. It is not a coincidence.

They wasted a whole gen with Jim's stupidity.
This guy and the other clown that is still there did so much damage that will affect them until next gen.
 

SHA

Member
How would you create a steady stream of income that would sustain PlayStation studios?

The answer isn't more high risk single player games with longer and longer development cycles.
Their actual lifespan is too short actually, roughly 3 weeks then we move to something else, that doesn't validate the wait for years.
 
Sony and Jim Ryan get a lot of hate from pursuing GaaS revenue but I really think that people have no idea how much GaaS generates in revenue compared to a traditional model and traditional AAA storyline games and just how unsustainable it is to be on the outside looking in on this.

Fortnite - 6 billion dollars in 2022
PUBG - 2.5 billion revenue in 2022 (PC, Console, and Mobile)
Roblox - 2.2 billion in 2022
Genshin Impact - 2 billion annually
League of Legends - 1.8 billion in 2022
Warzone - 1.8 billion~
Apex Legends - 2 billion in 3 years
CSGO - 6.7 billion in 10 years
Rainbow Six Siege - 1.12 billion in 4 years

Sony made 27 billion in 2022 in revenue but they aren't retaining much due to the high operating cost

91280_11_playstation-generates-record-27-billion-revenue-operating-profit-drops-40_full.png

3982526-screenshot2022-05-27at12.30.00am.png


I've said it many times, that I have zero interest in GaaS or even online games, but I think Jim Ryan has correctly understood that Sony needs at least one or two major GaaS titles to bolster operating incomes, otherwise, it's going to fall well behind other publishers. I think they were overly ambitious with the numbers they wanted to introduce, but I also think those numbers were inflated by games like MLB The Show.

He promised 10 by March 2026

Personally, if I was Sony my GaaS push would have looked like this:

1. Dreams on PC and PS5 + VR Support
2. Gran Turismo 7 on PS5 and PC
3. MLB The Show
4. SOCOM US Navy Seals
5. Destiny 3
6. Marathon
7. Last of Us Online
8. Fairgame (just because we know it exists)
9. Concord (just because we know it exists)
10. Twisted Metal

When you consider the likely canceled Deviation game, we also know of probably two Horizon projects that might fall under that. All in all, I don't think anything is really ridiculous in nature. That being said, we know Dreams isn't one and I don't think they're including Gran Turismo.

You throw in some other things that people might actually like, like Motorstorm, Warhawk, Starhawk, MAG, Resistance, Killzone, and JetMoto/WipeOut.

Regardless, I think they have some diversity in the types of games they're looking to make, but more importantly, I don't think any of this really has much of an impact on their single-player games. I don't think ALL their studios have been "FORCED" to make GaaS games. You swap out a Destiny 3 for Deviation's game that was canceled and SOCOM for Horizon.

That doesn't begin to touch games like Firewall Ultra, Helldivers 2, and London Studios' game that probably actually round out the rest.

Personally, prior to this year, I'd of gone for four GaaS titles:

1: Dreams (PS4, PS5, PC with an actual storefront and monetization model to sell your own games/creations)
2: MLB The Show (multi-plat AND a mobile version, kind of like how COD has Warzone on mobile)
3: GT7 (PS4 & PS5) with full GaaS GT Sport 2 integrated & standalone package; potentially F2P (PS5 & PC)
4: TLOU Factions Remake GaaS (integrating some content and features from Factions 2)(PS5 & PC)

That would have been more than enough for Sony in terms of GaaS content from 2020 onward. Then from 2023/2024-onward they could expand into some other stuff and replace some stuff such as:

1: GT Sport 2 Phase 2 (whatever that would entail)(PS5 & PC)
2: TLOU2 Factions (phase out Factions 1 Remake for Factions 2, as a free upgrade for subscribers of Factions 1 (subbed for a certain amount of time at least) and paid upgrade for new players with a F2P option they can try out if they wish (PS5 & PC)
3: Helldivers 2 (PS5 & PC)
4: Hot Shots Golf, Rhythm game, or fighting game-style GaaS (PS5, PC, mobile)
5: Marathon (I'm assuming this will be replacing Destiny 2)
6: Spiderman/Marvel GaaS (succeed where The Avengers failed)

And there you go. That'd be enough to get them along the whole gen and even start of 10th gen where GaaS is concerned. A slew of well-established IP making initial visibility much easier, good genre and demographic variety as well. This should have been the GaaS strategy IMO, but it's too late now for things like Dreams and Factions Remake. They can still do something MLB The Show-like for mobile, full-fledged GT Sport sequel using the GT7 engine and assets, etc.

Do Sony really need games like Fairgame$, Concord or whatever Deviation's game is? No. But those teams could be extremely beneficial to supporting more surefire hits. I get that SIE want more profits and GaaS is a means to achieving that, but IMO that's only part of the equation. They still need to cut back on the PC ports of non-GaaS modern titles, still need more 1P (in-house or with 3P partners) AA games (leveraging classic IP could be very useful here), and so on.
 

EDMIX

Member
There is more to GaaS than just an online games

I'm not seeing the difference.

An online game still is going to require the same things to be successful. GaaS, Live Service, Online etc what ever anyone wants to call it, still needs the same things to succeed and I don't see enough if any differences to have the term magically mean something brand new.

You could apply this term to the last several generations of online games. I feel people using the term, are making it out to be like Sony is doing something radically different then generations prior

tbh, they are just doing another round of Sony Online Entertainment with a set of different teams.
 

Gojiira

Member
Warhawk would be the best franchise for GaaS, seasons adding new maps,vehicles,cosmetics is a no brainer.
Killzone as well could work well if t seasonal model was focused on cosmetics and characters kinda like Apex maybe, each season could bring a new ‘sector’ that the ISA and Helghast are fighting over, launch the game with Season 1 like normal but with a stellar single player campaign and your golden.
Dreams is for sure a no brainer, and Destiny 3 is 100% coming, and they have Marathon in the meantime. I think these alone would be enough.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
In GaaS you get new content for free, while in normal games you have to buy DLC.
I don’t mind give money for good DLC like Old Hunter for Bloodborne, Future Redeemed for Xenoblade 3 and upcoming Elden Ring DLC. The best part all the games i mentioned even without DLC they are complete games.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
You think if some of them are really successful and make boat loads of money they are going to just use that money to make new single player games?
Yes, Sony's smart enough to know that not every GaaS they make will succeed and they're bargaining on 1 or 2 games that make a decent chunk of cash. I think it's safe to say that they will try to avoid making more and taking more risks once they get their golden goose GaaS.
They are already very successful making SP games and then getting their revenue cut from 3rd party games.
When you're a public company with many investors who demand more and more growth, "already very successful" is BS and not enough. You plateau you lose.
 

Humdinger

Member
Sure, I understand how lucrative GaaS games are (or can be, when they hit big). I mean, that's why Sony is going after them -- because they are so damn lucrative.

From my own perspective, though, I find that style of game uninteresting. So although I understand Sony's (and Microsoft's) motivation to pursue live service games -- it makes perfect sense from a business perspective -- from a gamer and an artistic perspective, I'm disappointed.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
I don’t care about revenue. Only good games.
I don’t give a crap if they have to sacrifice virgins and small children. I just want normal games.

There are many thing more lucrative than games. Sony now switching to real estate
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
You don't see Nintendo saying "oh, well we need GaaS to survive!."
1. Nintendo doesn't take a loss on anything they sell like Sony. Hardware is at a profit, games never go on sale, games in general are lower budget due to not having as high production values, etc. That's not to mention that Nintendo lives and dies by their first party, i'm pretty sure most of their profit comes from first party sales which don't have a cut that needs to be given to the publisher, they just get 100% of the cash. Sony lives by third party with some sprinkled in first party.

2. Nintendo multiplayer games already implement a few GaaS aspects... Mario Kart 8 is a 9 year old game getting new updates and content. Splatoon is just straight up GaaS. Smash has paid DLC characters, and for a time had constantly added content. Those are 3 of their most popular franchises, we just don't call them GaaS because it's Nintendo and they get a pass over for pretty much everything they do.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Believe it or not, original PlayStation fans want jrpgs:
I'm willing to bet "original Playstation fans" make up like 1% of the audience that actually buys Playstation products. Look dawg NeoGAF is not representative of the wider gaming audience.

It's really simple, stop making every first party release a photo-realistic 250 million dollar money sink that takes six years to develop and requires 15 million copies to break even.
I mean it's less photorealism as it is length, but sure, I agree. Sony could take notes from Nintendo (and even Microsoft) and invest more into some few indies that will cover the gaps between their gigantic first party releases. Those indies however will make a fraction of the money a (successful) GaaS will do, and we are talking about money hungry businesses here, soooooooooooooo
 

Aces High

Member
GAAS is how online multiplayer games are designed.

Even Nintendo jumped on the GAAS train with Mario Kart and Smash Bros which are getting content updates to keep the experience fresh.

Not having online multiplayer games in their first-party portfolio is a big mistake for PlayStation.

They have Gran Turismo, but they fucked up the monetization. Gran Turismo is not fun once you reach a certain level of progress. Instead of selling cosmetic livery items for real money, they decided to force you into buying cars for money in order to progress the single-player content. They were too greedy.

TLOU would have been a perfect IP for battle royale, but they had to go overboard with political content in part 2. TLOU is dead in the gaming world. A part 3 would sell much worse than the first two games. I'm really interested to see how the non-gaming audience reacts to season 2 of the TV show. Past years have shown that political content doesn't sell well in entertainment.

Then there's some Horizon online multiplayer game which looks absolutely awful based on leaked screenshots.

I see the biggest potential in Insomniac's superhero games. They can add an online multiplayer on top of the single player content like Rockstar did with GTA5.

Marathon is a key project for PlayStation since Microsoft bought CoD. Bungie is an amazing studio so I'm expecting them to deliver.
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
Multiplayer gaming. a change for the worse. But people will still be able to play their familiar SP games like usual because there's always a demand for those
Yeah, I should edit that post, already caused a bit of confusion.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with continuous support for mp games.
Predatory practices are on the developers/publishers, not on GaaS itself.
 
Last edited:

T0minator

Member
As long as there's good variety with multiple different multiplayer games, each with their own consistent updates, it wouldn't be a bad move.
I'm looking forward to something new in the multiplayer space. The doom and gloom before they even released anything yet is kind of crazy, isn't it
 
Top Bottom