• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Business Take-Two CEO: "Subscription model doesn't really make sense for frontline titles”

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
42,968
46,404
1,310
39
Brazil
Take Two doesn't publish enough titles to justify a $15/month subscription. I'm sure Game Pass will inflate to $20 by 2025 or so (assuming they can get a AAA title each quarter)
We can try to make a little math with that.

- Assumes all subs pays $15 a month.
- Assumes $5 from the sub pays the service costs.
- Assumes you will have no profit.

You will need around 3.5 million subs to have a $100 million to get an AAA game deal each quarter.
You will need around 7 million subs to have a $200 million to get an AAA game deal each quarter.

But I'm having a lot of assumptions... not all subs are paying $15 a month... I have no ideia which the costs per sub to maintain the service... I don't know the profit margin of the service.

In any case every AAA publisher will want both... full priced revenue from day/week/month one and the subscription revenue after months/years.

IMO if I was a big Publisher my games should only reach subscriptions services after at least one year (and that based in how much it is actually selling after that year... if sales are still good it can be extended for life).
 
Last edited:

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
6,747
7,085
740
I mean, that's kinda understood though right? You spend half a billion developing a game to put it on a subscription service? No...you wait until the sales die down or until you need a fresh infusion of new players.

Hence GTAV was on gamepass for only a few months...then they got out. They wanted to rope the 10 people that don't already own the game, get em to buy some shark cards and then rip the rug from under them to make 'em buy the game on top of that.

You muhfuccers ain't slick.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
2,914
10,179
505
GAF to Strauss Zelnick:

Why Dont You Love Me The Office GIF
 

Stooky

Member
Oct 18, 2017
452
839
395
There's always some potential backstage theatrical politics involved with these figureheads when they talk, whether it's Microsoft, Sony, or Take-Two, etc. You should never take what any of them say as pure gospel just because it might confirm your preexisting biases.

So far we've seen many more cases of games actually selling more copies (or selling well in general) in spite of being on GamePass versus games that have seen sales decrease. The only one people routinely point towards to imply the latter, is Gears 5, which at this point is an anomaly likely impacted more by other factors outside of GamePass. Yet, it's the only concrete proof anyone who keeps implying GamePass decreases game sales can ever point to. Talk about being a stubborn mule :S.

As to what he considers frontline, well I think with where GP's subscription numbers are currently at, a game of GTA 5's caliber probably doesn't work relying on the service alone. But that's just the thing; all of these figureheads talk as if the games are exclusively on the service itself, when they know they're not. So why do they keep speaking as if the only way to engage with these games in the ecosystem is through the subscription service?

Eventually if and/or when services like GamePass can reach a threshold in active subs that's high enough, then even games like GTA 5 financially work out better being included on such a service Day 1 (along with physical and digital copies available) versus not being there. If Microsoft, for example, gets to a point within the next 2 years where they have 50 million subs paying an average of $10/mo, that is $5 billion/mo in subscription revenue. People vastly overestimate the costs Microsoft incurs on running GamePass and getting content secured for it; they aren't 100% like Netflix, because Netflix doesn't own their own streaming hardware/servers and networking software/OS in a vertical stack the way Microsoft does. That alone saves a ton on operational costs.

And even somewhat more prolific AA games like The Medium seemingly cost only $7 million to secure on the service Day-and-Date; assuming they did this with all near 400 games on the service, that is an absolute worst-case of $2.8 billion over the course of a year (assuming they added 400 The Medium-budgeted games Day-and-Date to the service in one year, which is improbable), or more realistically, over the course of four years (GP has been around since 2017 IIRC). That's an average of $700 million/year in investment for securing 3P content on the service and, again, that is in no way a realistic example because you have some games higher-stature than The Medium but came to the service much later, and other games lower-stature than it which probably costed even less to secure on the service.

People do realize that they would make that up nearly 2x over in the course of a single month's sub revenue @ 50 million active users, right? Let alone the rest of the 11 months of the year, and I think it's a good hunch to assume operational costs for running and managing the servers isn't in the billions annually, or even greater than $100 million/year most likely (I'm just talking about the Azure servers for Xbox, not Azure as a whole, though I don't think operational costs annually for that are suddenly magnitudes higher, either).

Like I said, you gotta wonder if there's theatrical political chess moves trying to be made sometimes by some of these comments, because I know it doesn't take a lot to some of this napkin math and just working on some common-sense points. I get it though; again if we're talking about something at the scale of a GTA 5, yes, dropping that through a subscription service on its own probably wouldn't work if it's at the size where GamePass is currently...but that's also primarily dependent on the subscription service being the ONLY point of delivery, not an option, which is what it actually is.

Over time though, even this will fall apart as an excuse as recurring subscription revenue for a game that retains as much user engagement as GTA 5 (particularly GTA 5 Online) pretty much outweighs the standard non-subscription model handily.
They are right, big games like GTA or COD wont get gamepass Day 1 unless Microsoft pays alot for it. GTA COD dont need game pass, those games have their own eco system, they make a large amount of money from sales. They wont potentially cannibalize their sales for a subscription service.
 
Last edited:

Excess

Member
Dec 8, 2020
931
1,525
365
Now this model doesn't make sense for Sony or Nintendo, they don't have a problem with their 1st party games selling very well, so there's no point in selling them off in a service like the game pass.

Firstly, no one here has the financials and projections, so it's all just conjecture.

Secondly, if Game Pass ends up being successful, then there will undoubtedly be a PlayStation "Pass" of some sort. There's still millions of PC and Xbox players who aren't buying their 1st party games, and a subscription plan is a way to circumvent that and increase market share. I would gladly buy a PS Pass on PC, if it existed. Remember, the revenue isn't in hardware anymore; the revenue is derived from intellectual property and content delivery.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
2,914
10,179
505
We can try to make a little math with that.

- Assumes all subs pays $15 a month.
- Assumes $5 from the sub pays the service costs.
- Assumes you will have no profit.

You will need around 3.5 million subs to have a $100 million to get an AAA game deal each quarter.
You will need around 7 million subs to have a $200 million to get an AAA game deal each quarter.

But I'm having a lot of assumptions... not all subs are paying $15 a month... I have no ideia which the costs per sub to maintain the service... I don't know the profit margin of the service.

In any case every AAA publisher will want both... full priced revenue from day/week/month one and the subscription revenue after months/years.

IMO if I was a big Publisher my games should only reach subscriptions services after at least one year (and that based in how much it is actually selling after that year... if sales are still good it can be extended for life).
An easier (and more accurate) way to calculate is to just see the revenue of the division. For instance, PlayStation broke even at $22 billion last year.

If they were putting every game day one on PS Now, their retail sales would be neglible (so let's not count that). Moreover, assuming that they earned $7B from third-party revenue (we can get a more accurate number by looking at their financial reports), that leaves us a $15B revenue to earn from PS Now.

In that case, Sony would need 250 million subscribers, paying at $60 per year, to break even. For reference, they earned $3.1 billion in profits with their current strategy.

To put things into perspective, PlayStation's total userbase is ~120 million. PS+ (the best-performing gaming subscription in the industry) hasn't reached 50 million subscribers yet. With that strategy, PlayStation would need 5x the number of PS+ subscribers subscribed to PS Now. Moreover, they'd need 2x the number of total PlayStation users subscribed to a paid service.

That sounds ridiculous and absolutely unattainable, let alone sustainable.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
48,228
15,543
2,000
Well yeah. Red Dead 2 sold like $750 million worth of copies in one month. GTA sold almost a billion. They cant afford to give it away for $10.

GTA has now sold 150 million copies. Most of them at around $30-40. Red Dead 2 is now at 38 million and I have never seen it drop below $40 even after three years.

Subscription model should work for MS now that they have 24 studios potentially pumping out games left and right but Rockstar makes like 1 game every 5 years.

But it's not just about the "number" of games per year you make. It's about the cost of each title to create. MS can afford to lose money on their games due to GamePass, since they own GP. That's different from 3rd parties.
 

cyber69

Member
Sep 21, 2018
2,575
4,777
435
Take two doesn't have frontline cash like Microsoft. So they can't put their frontline games on a subscription model. Or is he saying Microsoft's games aren't considered frontline? If so, that is an insult to the frontline push Phil has been doing for the past 7+ years.
 
Last edited:

Azurro

Member
Jun 11, 2018
2,651
4,850
485
Exactly. You lose money in the beginning, something that could sink sony. Theres an exclusive club of a few companies who could partake in this subscription model, and everyone else could only dismiss it because they couldn't try it even if they wanted to.

In the beginning? There's no signs this business model will ever produce a return for MS.
 

Rhazer Fusion

Member
May 2, 2006
11,519
2,898
1,660
In my own world.
m.youtube.com
Firstly, no one here has the financials and projections, so it's all just conjecture.

Secondly, if Game Pass ends up being successful, then there will undoubtedly be a PlayStation "Pass" of some sort. There's still millions of PC and Xbox players who aren't buying their 1st party games, and a subscription plan is a way to circumvent that and increase market share. I would gladly buy a PS Pass on PC, if it existed. Remember, the revenue isn't in hardware anymore; the revenue is derived from intellectual property and content delivery.
Isn’t PSNow essentially Gamepass except with streaming titles as well as game downloads?
 
May 10, 2018
701
1,753
440
CA
An easier (and more accurate) way to calculate is to just see the revenue of the division. For instance, PlayStation broke even at $22 billion last year.

If they were putting every game day one on PS Now, their retail sales would be neglible (so let's not count that). Moreover, assuming that they earned $7B from third-party revenue (we can get a more accurate number by looking at their financial reports), that leaves us a $15B revenue to earn from PS Now.

In that case, Sony would need 250 million subscribers, paying at $60 per year, to break even. For reference, they earned $3.1 billion in profits with their current strategy.

To put things into perspective, PlayStation's total userbase is ~120 million. PS+ (the best-performing gaming subscription in the industry) hasn't reached 50 million subscribers yet. With that strategy, PlayStation would need 5x the number of PS+ subscribers subscribed to PS Now. Moreover, they'd need 2x the number of total PlayStation users subscribed to a paid service.

That sounds ridiculous and absolutely unattainable, let alone sustainable.
If Sony started offering their first-party AAA games day and date on PS Now, the yearly subscription price would be increased substantially from the current $60/year, so lets not be disingenuous about the pricing strategy. If we assume they increase the price to $100/year (which still seems low), that would mean they need 150 million yearly subscribers to break-even, not 250 million.

Additionally, being a streaming service means the consumer base is not limited to the number of consoles sold.
 

Excess

Member
Dec 8, 2020
931
1,525
365
Isn’t PSNow essentially Gamepass except with streaming titles as well as game downloads?
Yes, but not only is the library severely limited to legacy games, it's also limited in terms of what you can download.

I'm not going to stream God of War to my PC. Give me native ports like Horizon Zero Dawn.
 

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
There are several games franchises that do over $500 million in full priced sales... but we can lower the number to $200 million that will basically put all franchises in the same situation as GTA.

Games that have big revenue in full priced sales will take time to enter in subscriptions services.

That is the reality of subscription.. except for first-party you will only see 3rd-party franchises when it gets old... they will be some few small to mid franchises exceptions per year but that is all.
You are over thinking this too much.

In order for a game to hit that, they need to be a massive franchise, sell in all 3 devices, and have a successful game.

Few games have that. Even the mighty skyrim barely managed to hit 3m in 2 days. That is on 3 system.

Games now days have a competition. Unless you are a first party game, good luck hitting 5m in your first month on all platform.

Resident evil 8 did 4m in 1 month. This is a long running franchise, on a 5 system. Pc, xseries , ps5, x1, ps4.

You also have to consider the risk if making these big hits.

God of war costed $200m for Sony to make. In 4 years, with discounts and being 10$, it sold estimate of 20m copies, since release. Since it's Sony game, they don't have to pay 30% cut. If the game had failed, Sony would have lost alot of money. Because they Paid $200m just to make the game. How many millions do you think sony would need to cover that loss? They would need to sell 3.5m copies to hit that $200m cost. If the game made 2m sold in 1 month, that would have been a huge loss for Sony. as 2m is $120m at a 60$ price cost. 20m for 4 years is $1.2b profit, if the game stayed at 60$. But it had 10$ as its lowest. If we do average, which is 30$ per copy, God of war would have made $600m at minimum in 4 years. Substract the cost of making, and you get $400m profit in 4 years. That is 20m copies. Who didnt flop, and its a 1st party game.

Now do that, to 3rd party games. If resident evil 8 gets sold on Playstation, they would have to pay 30% cut of the 2m potentially sold in that console. With the price tag of 60$ as a majority, the game would have made $120m/30%=120m-36m=$84m. same for other devices, which takes 30% cut, $84m. total is $168m. Now you takeout the game cost, and marketing, and what is left is the profit.
What would the R8 profit be, if it sold 1-2m on that month? Do you think they would have recouped their loss?

This is what 3rd party games would need to deal with. As games gets expensive, it would harder for them to make profit. They will also need to fight other game releases, especially big games. Outriders were lucky, it didnt get released between Battlefield, Halo and COD. That is why it sold well. The good window helped the game get more players.

You have gamepass at its infant. By now, it should be 20m+ users. Subs fees alone would be $200m. That is the cost of making god of war. With 30m, subs fees would $300m. This is just at average of 10$. Not counting 1st party dlc, and those who just want to buy the games that are on gamepass, or pay mtx, or small adds on, like dlc characters.

They can just get unlimited funding for their 1st party games. Get 3rd party games, who are afraid of losing their investments, like outriders.

This what happens when a game fails.

13. Marvel's Avengers​

Year released: 2020

Developers: Crystal Dynamics

Publishers: Square Enix

Platforms: PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Stadia, Xbox SeriesX/S, Windows

Fallout: Approximately $67 million loss

If you have no exclusive deals, or timed exclusive, you will lose that much money on your product, if its not successful. Every year a game fails.
this is a 2018 game.

7. Overkill's The Walking Dead​

Year released: 2018

Developers: Overkill Software

Publishers: Starbreeze Publishing

Platforms: Microsoft Windows

Fallout: At least 60 jobs and millions of dollars lost

I remember seeing ads for this game. That is how much it suffered, because it didnt sell well.

Not everyone is lucky as gtav, or have Sony/Xbox/Nintendo name. Studios who dont have financial backing would shoulder that much loss, if their game sold less.

This is why Subscription service is important. Making a deal with those companies, allows the company to have some of its cost shaved from them, and face less losses. If their game is truly sold bad.
 

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
more than $400 million in global sales of Halo 5: Guardians games and hardware

more than $400 million in global sales of Halo 5: Guardians games and hardware

more than $400 million in global sales of Halo 5: Guardians games and hardware

so they counted the sales of the game AND console to inflate numbers? or what does this hardware part mean?

FYI. Halo5 sold 9m on 51m devices, while god of war did 20m on a 116m devices. If Xbox had that much ps4 numbers, they would have sold the same as gow. But i doubt you care.

Halo 5 was despised by its fan, and its sold that 9m on a 51m device, and its still available on gamepass. Not to mention, the game isnt even on pc, where halo is gigantic.

Continue your console dream though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatmarco and Riky

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
There are several games franchises that do over $500 million in full priced sales... but we can lower the number to $200 million that will basically put all franchises in the same situation as GTA.

Games that have big revenue in full priced sales will take time to enter in subscriptions services.

That is the reality of subscription.. except for first-party you will only see 3rd-party franchises when it gets old... they will be some few small to mid franchises exceptions per year but that is all.
How much of that $200m do you think the devs make? That is almost 3.5m copies for a game. Not counting the 30% cut the store have to take. Which leaves them with $140m after cut. You take the cost of making the game, and its lower for profit.
The devs would 100% gets MS money. Because in order to hit 3.5 m, the game has to be successful. Mlb sold 2.1m copies. Being on xbox and PlayStation. They also got 2m users from gamepass. The 2018 mlb sold 1.06m copies. How many copies do you think they will need to hit that $200m without gamepass?
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
42,968
46,404
1,310
39
Brazil
How much of that $200m do you think the devs make? That is almost 3.5m copies for a game. Not counting the 30% cut the store have to take. Which leaves them with $140m after cut. You take the cost of making the game, and its lower for profit.
The devs would 100% gets MS money. Because in order to hit 3.5 m, the game has to be successful. Mlb sold 2.1m copies. Being on xbox and PlayStation. They also got 2m users from gamepass. The 2018 mlb sold 1.06m copies. How many copies do you think they will need to hit that $200m without gamepass?
Devs? They got around 5% of the revenue.
But that is not a Dev concern but Publisher one that takes 30 to 40%.
 
May 28, 2013
1,302
2,311
715
How much of that $200m do you think the devs make? That is almost 3.5m copies for a game. Not counting the 30% cut the store have to take. Which leaves them with $140m after cut. You take the cost of making the game, and its lower for profit.
The devs would 100% gets MS money. Because in order to hit 3.5 m, the game has to be successful. Mlb sold 2.1m copies. Being on xbox and PlayStation. They also got 2m users from gamepass. The 2018 mlb sold 1.06m copies. How many copies do you think they will need to hit that $200m without gamepass?
2m user from gamepass? pffft, of course not. Very often the number of users excel copies sold, because a single copy of a game is played by more than one user. Also physical games get sold used and bought once again, hence another user playing the same copy. But it's not like you have any data to support 2 million gamepass users played the game, anyway, but they're definitely not near 2 million lmao
 

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
An easier (and more accurate) way to calculate is to just see the revenue of the division. For instance, PlayStation broke even at $22 billion last year.

If they were putting every game day one on PS Now, their retail sales would be neglible (so let's not count that). Moreover, assuming that they earned $7B from third-party revenue (we can get a more accurate number by looking at their financial reports), that leaves us a $15B revenue to earn from PS Now.

In that case, Sony would need 250 million subscribers, paying at $60 per year, to break even. For reference, they earned $3.1 billion in profits with their current strategy.

To put things into perspective, PlayStation's total userbase is ~120 million. PS+ (the best-performing gaming subscription in the industry) hasn't reached 50 million subscribers yet. With that strategy, PlayStation would need 5x the number of PS+ subscribers subscribed to PS Now. Moreover, they'd need 2x the number of total PlayStation users subscribed to a paid service.

That sounds ridiculous and absolutely unattainable, let alone sustainable.
That $22b was from 30% cut of all games in their service, plus 1st party games. There is thousand of games, which gets sold on PlayStation system.

If they do in gamepass way, Sony would earn 180$ a year from 80m people paying 15$ a month from subs alone, to hit that milestone. OR 240$ from 62.5m players paying at 20$ a month.

Playstation has a bad management with their users. Their communication is turd. Its why psnow has 3.1m users. Their lack on investing in their system, not making ps+ more appealing, is why their subs model is bad.

Psnow will get 20m users, if those games, were download, past 4+ year 1st party games were available on the service. That would have been $1.2b profit from just 20m users at a 60$. They just dont care.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Sep 26, 2019
4,561
5,680
485
Because people still buy a 8 year old game of theres. Of course it doesnt work for them
 

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
2m user from gamepass? pffft, of course not. Very often the number of users excel copies sold, because a single copy of a game is played by more than one user. Also physical games get sold used and bought once again, hence another user playing the same copy. But it's not like you have any data to support 2 million gamepass users played the game, anyway, but they're definitely not near 2 million lmao
4 million players

In the US, MLB The Show 21 was the best-selling digital game across PlayStation and Xbox platforms for the month of April 2021. By July 18, 2021, the game had surpassed 2 million sales across all platforms, with the game reaching 4 million players.

2m is from gamepass. since the game did 2m sales, and the game being on gamepass, helped with those extra 2m.
 

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
Devs? They got around 5% of the revenue.
But that is not a Dev concern but Publisher one that takes 30 to 40%.
You are missing the 30% cut the store owners take. for a $200m sales, xbox/steam/playstation/nintendo will take 30$ cut for each copy sold on their platform. The game would have 70% of sales of that copy. For a $200m sales, that would be $140m sales for the game.

After that, the game would go for the publisher, and their devs. That money is their business, since I have no clue how much devs and publishers agree on it, plus the marketing and the cost of the game would be included in that money.

The game would still need to hit a successful status to make that money. Any lower sales would mean huge loss.
 

Dash Man 3D

Banned
Jul 12, 2021
45
42
110
I think they would rather want that 70$ income from GTA6 first before putting it on any subscription service.

What I do see is them having some sort of subscription for the online portion of the game.
You pay $100 for the sub to get $10 off GTA6. Creates the perception value when there is none and makes much more profit than $70.

Dont forget Gamepass Ultimate isn't just free games
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
42,968
46,404
1,310
39
Brazil
You are missing the 30% cut the store owners take. for a $200m sales, xbox/steam/playstation/nintendo will take 30$ cut for each copy sold on their platform. The game would have 70% of sales of that copy. For a $200m sales, that would be $140m sales for the game.

After that, the game would go for the publisher, and their devs. That money is their business, since I have no clue how much devs and publishers agree on it, plus the marketing and the cost of the game would be included in that money.

The game would still need to hit a successful status to make that money. Any lower sales would mean huge loss.
That is the cut the average cut from parts.



Publisher: ~40%
Developer: ~5%
Platform: ~10%

Retail or Digital Store: ~30% (the retail is not fixed but the digital store is fixed... that is why Phisical games are cheaper... the Retail choose it own margin).
 
Last edited:
May 28, 2013
1,302
2,311
715
4 million players

In the US, MLB The Show 21 was the best-selling digital game across PlayStation and Xbox platforms for the month of April 2021. By July 18, 2021, the game had surpassed 2 million sales across all platforms, with the game reaching 4 million players.

2m is from gamepass. since the game did 2m sales, and the game being on gamepass, helped with those extra 2m.
False. Read my post. It's laughable to expect only a single PSN user logged in for each copy sold (digital or physical) on PlayStation. That NEVER happens. Not to mention used copies sold and rentals
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
That is the cut the average cut from parts.



Publisher: ~40%
Developer: ~5%
Platform: ~10%

Retail or Digital Store: ~30% (the retail is not fixed but the digital store is fixed... that is why Phisical games are cheaper... the Retail choose it own margin).
Now do this math on a $200m sale. Include average game cost too. And tell me how much profit are they making?
 

Helghan

Member
Apr 15, 2021
192
249
225
Microsoft has day-1 titles in their portfolio that are also able to generate 500mil in the first week (Halo 5), and they still choose to launch it day 1 on Game Pass.

So maybe, just maybe, Microsoft thought it through, made all the calculations necessary and realised they can make more money through game pass compared to just retail selling their games. Or some people here are apparently smarter than the industry experts who know ALL the costs setting up a service like this.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
9,588
17,522
660
That is the cut the average cut from parts.



Publisher: ~40%
Developer: ~5%
Platform: ~10%

Retail or Digital Store: ~30% (the retail is not fixed but the digital store is fixed... that is why Phisical games are cheaper... the Retail choose it own margin).
Bro how old is this?
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
False. Read my post. It's laughable to expect only a single PSN user logged in for each copy sold (digital or physical) on PlayStation. That NEVER happens. Not to mention used copies sold and rentals
Your point would be false. For the physical, it has a code. Once that code is used, it becomes 1 user. You can share 1 game, but that would still be 1 user code.

Even if we follow your point, that would mean 500k physical copy would need be played 4x to hit 2 million. That would be impossible. As long as these Physical copy has 1 license code, those users after that wont be counted. They are all sharing 1 licensed game.
 
May 28, 2013
1,302
2,311
715
Your point would be false. For the physical, it has a code. Once that code is used, it becomes 1 user. You can share 1 game, but that would still be 1 user code.

Even if we follow your point, that would mean 500k physical copy would need be played 4x to hit 2 million. That would be impossible. As long as these Physical copy has 1 license code, those users after that wont be counted. They are all sharing 1 licensed game.
I don't know why you're talking about codes here...it's very simple. One PS4/PS5 owner buys 1 copy of the game and that same copy gets played by the owner and whoever else in his/her household logs in the game on that PlayStation. They log in, they are counted as a new different user, they get their trophies, they play the game. That's one example. Copies sold =/= users. It doesn't matter if the license belongs to one of the users, they are all accounted for.
 
Last edited:

Pallas

Member
May 9, 2018
3,620
4,433
625
Tennessee
Says the guy who is remastering GTAV remaster.

On a serious note, no one is force into subbing for Gamepass or PSNow, the services work for some, but not all and that’s ok.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: Magnific0giganticus

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
27,358
44,898
1,995
Microsoft has day-1 titles in their portfolio that are also able to generate 500mil in the first week (Halo 5), and they still choose to out it day 1 on Game Pass.

So maybe, just maybe, Microsoft thought it through, made all the calculations necessary and realised they can make more money through game pass compared to just retail selling their games. Or some people here are apparently smarter than the industry experts who know ALL the costs setting up a service like this.

I'll go ahead and say this, if not for Gamepass it's quite possible that Xbox wouldn't exist anymore. Since Satya arrived at Microsoft he's been focused on ensuring their revenue streams come from recurring subscriptions, any business area that has failed to transition over to that model has been on the chopping block.



Xbox now have the full backing of the business because of the fact that gamepass exists, deals like the Bethesda one don't get done without it. So basically, come profit or loss, rain or shine, they have no choice since this is the only way forward for the business as long as it's a division of current day Microsoft.
 

TheGrat1

Member
Jun 2, 2020
726
1,359
405
I left Sony out because their offerings, while undoubtedly high in quality, are games that give players very little incentive to return once the credits role. Also, Sony is lacking in the variety of genres that they dabble in. Most of their games now are over the shoulder action.

I assume by "very little incentive to return once the credits role" you are implying Sony makes almost all single player titles. What if I told you that of the 15 games SIE has published in the past 2 calendar years (2020-Present) 9 of them (Dreams, Nioh 2, Sackboy Adventure, MLB The Show 20 & 21), Predator: Hunting Grounds, Ghost of Tsushima, Demon's Souls Remake, Destruction All-Stars) have multiplayer? More than half. And of those 15 games 10 different genres (super-hero, action (Ghost), platformer, sports, shooter, survival horror, game creation, bullet hell/roguelike, car combat/arena, Soulsborne) are represented. Third-person perspective does not make all games the same. If Sony is lacking in genre diversity then who is not?

These "Sony only does single player" and "Sony games are all the same" narratives are incongruent with reality and honestly baffle me when I see them iterated.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
27,358
44,898
1,995
Take two don’t have enough games for a subscription service

That's not necessarily a bad thing. They have a highly concentrated portfolio that is focused on quality over quantity which ensures sales and engagement numbers that most other publishers could only dream of. They've found something that works for them so they are sticking with it.
 

kingfey

Banned
Jul 6, 2021
3,510
4,562
480
I don't know why you're talking about codes here...it's very simple. One PS4/PS5 owner buys 1 copy of the game and that same copy gets played by the owner and whoever else in his/her household logs in the game on that PlayStation. They log in, they are counted as a new different user, they get their trophies, they play the game. That's one example. Copies sold =/= users. It doesn't matter if the license belongs to one of the users, they are all accounted for.
Then how come there is extra 2m users? Does anyone who bought the game, have another user on their system, which plays the game? Where do gamepass players be situated? Considering the game have been on a platform, where 20m+ users can access the game.