Xbox boss speaks on rumored PlayStation service tiers/consolidation

nice drive by baiting.

They released some good games, but yes Microsoft in 2021 had a great year. Just like 2022 Is going to be a great year for Sony.



Kid has no clue. You are wasting your time.

How in the hell is that drive by baiting. I responded to his comment. He said games have taken a quality hit because of gamepass and that shows with the games Microsoft have released.

All stated was the games released this year alone... all well regarded, highly rated and critically acclaimed. Sorry if that fact triggers you, but to say quality has taken a hit is a lie. The quality of MS games have been much worse in the past . I'm not saying quality of games have improved because of Gamepass here.... I'm saying that Gamepass has no effect at all if the games have been quality or not.
 

John Wick

Member
I understand you have your bias. But there is no way, Sony can offer a value that is bigger than gamepass.

Gamepass has ultimate, which includes xcloud. Which you can play it anywhere you want to.

We know Sony 1st party games are fantastic. Everyone here agrees with that. But software wise, Sony has been bad at it. They wont be able to compete with gamepass at all. They will need Apple/google/amazon support to do that.
What are you going on about? Why do they Need Apple/Google/Amazon?
Sony have enough games published by themselves to populate their gamepass service. If done right they can bring their classic PS PS2 and 3 titles as well as PS4 and PS5.
 
Maybe, but as a whole cant be much more.

PS4 has 120 million systems. If you add up all the sales of GOW, LOU, Horizon, UC, Spiderman etc.... does it even hit 120M? If it does that means the average PS4 owner buys 1 first party exclusive. And not all those copies will even be at regular price as every publisher dumps off games for $40, $30 or $19.99.

The more gamers buying 2, 3, or 8 first party exclusives means a shit load of gamers buying zero exclusives.
Your post is odd. Except for Nintendo, Sony was always the main console for 3rd party games as well. Look at Fortnite and its 47% revenue being on Playstation, Fifa, COD, etc...
This isn't a sign of weakness in any way. It's a sign of dominance in the industry. Imagine being the one platform that's most used for every major 3rd party game...plus you still manage to have multiple games surpassing 20M copies sold, and all this while you have the biggest gaming subscription on the market: PS Plus.

About Sony's first party games, they don't cover just one specific market...unless you think that Gran Turismo, Spider-Man, The Last of Us, Bloodborne, Death Stranding, Concrete Genie, Rathet & Clank, The Last Guardian, Dreams are all for the same people. Some people will like a few of these, others won't so it's not weird that many audiences don't overlapse.
Also, a lot of people wait for these games to be a part of one of Sony's subscription services instead of buying the games before...something Nintendo doesn't do.

Wasn't it Spider-Man that had been completed by like 29M or 39M PS accounts before that Trophy tracker website was deleted, even if we never even got ana nnouncment for 20M copies sold? (i think)
What about games like Horizon that were literally given away for free with no subscription serviced attached to it?
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
No it won't. Is PS Plus dead?
Sony won't release new games day and date on the service. Maybe 3-6 months later.
I don't think thy will either at first, but it is what they need to do. Subscription model is the obvious future of gaming.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I'm trying to even picture something as Spider-Man 2 coming on PSPlus day one and i can only laugh.

These games sell millions on day one at full price. Not a chance in hell Sony is losing that.

Lucky for consumers in general the idea of group spends and subscriptions aren't this mystifying to businesses in general. If Sony could get enough of those PS+ subscribers to pay $10 extra per month, they would be willing to sacrifice some of those day one sales in trade. You'd never loose all your sales, just a piece of them. The math becomes whether or not steady subscription revenue adds up to more than what is lost. Given MS's revenue growth since GP has started to gain momentum, I'd say it's working fine for them.
 

John Wick

Member
They wont compete with gamepass, with that offering. Sony might have a bigger catalog, but that means shit, compared to day1.

Remember, MS is a trillion company. They bought $7.5b Bethesda. That is 1/3rd of what sony generated last year. They are able to afford more day1 games, and large catalog of 3rd party games. While Sony cant. They have around 16-20 games a month for gamepass. that is 192-240 games a year. Sony cant compete with those offerings.

Gamepass tells you that. If you have xbox or pc, you can see the leaving soon section.

Gamepass entire business model is day1. That is something Sony cant afford at AAA level.
Here we go........
MS is a trillion dollar company.....
Sounds like typical warrior talk.
So what happened to Windows Phone?
Your right Sony and Nintendo can't compete with MS. Pack it up guys no way you can compete.
 

kingfey

Banned
What they don't have tho is the studios, brand recognition, IPs, legacy library and proven track record. Like really, just Sony/Nintendo announcing a subscription service would already leave those big tech companies into dust, before even executing it, because people would know damn well what to expect, what are the IPs, the studios and so on, while Google with Stadia has shown more enough that deep pockets don't mean anything if you're releasing a gaming service... without games.
Money say brrrr.
All they need is to buy a publisher and that is it.
MS joined gaming business, while they were nobodies on that market. And look what they achieved.

As long as you have money, you can skip tons of stages fast.

Ubisoft and EA would help Amazon.

Google can buy embracer with 86 studios, and 250 ips. They are worth $10b.

That is how these companies can join the industry. With them having cloud market, they won't need a console at all. Since everyone in the world has internet, or is getting internet.

Cloud gaming is easy to access, and has low cost to these companies, compared to Sony and Nintendo which have hardware system. And these hardware have a limit, while cloud depends on the internet.

That is why MS is afraid of them joining the competition. They can change the landscape of gaming.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives

SLB1904

Banned
Haven't said goodbye to big games yet from MS so I am sure Sony would be able to keep it up as well.
yeah nah lol.
if you expect sony to give up the profits to create a service to lose money, i also would like to sell you sand in the desert.
the best you can hope is those multiplayer projects, which nowadays are all a bunch of money pits which makes sense put on service which otherwise would be free to play
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Your post is odd. Except for Nintendo, Sony was always the main console for 3rd party games as well. Look at Fortnite and its 47% revenue being on Playstation, Fifa, COD, etc...
This isn't a sign of weakness in any way. It's a sign of dominance in the industry. Imagine being the one platform that's most used for every major 3rd party game...plus you still manage to have multiple games surpassing 20M copies sold, and all this while you have the biggest gaming subscription on the market: PS Plus.

About Sony's first party games, they don't cover just one specific market...unless you think that Gran Turismo, Spider-Man, The Last of Us, Bloodborne, Death Stranding, Concrete Genie, Rathet & Clank, The Last Guardian, Dreams are all for the same people. Some people will like a few of these, others won't so it's not weird that many audiences don't overlapse.
Also, a lot of people wait for these games to be a part of one of Sony's subscription services instead of buying the games before...something Nintendo doesn't do.

Wasn't it Spider-Man that had been completed by like 29M or 39M PS accounts before that Trophy tracker website was deleted, even if we never even got ana nnouncment for 20M copies sold? (i think)
What about games like Horizon that were literally given away for free with no subscription serviced attached to it?
Why is it odd?

Roxkis says some gamers buy multiple first party games.

I agreed, but doing the math, it means there's also tons of gamers that wouldnt even buy one first party exclusive.

Not every gamer buys first party games.
 

kingfey

Banned
Here we go........
MS is a trillion dollar company.....
Sounds like typical warrior talk.
So what happened to Windows Phone?
Your right Sony and Nintendo can't compete with MS. Pack it up guys no way you can compete.
Money talks in business.
MS failed windows phone, because they couldn't capitalize the business.

We can simply ask Amazon and Walmart about those groceries in your area.
 
Last edited:
Why is it odd?

Roxkis says some gamers buy multiple first party games.

I agreed, but doing the math, it means there's also tons of gamers that wouldnt even buy one first party exclusive.

Not every gamer buys first party games.
The post is odd because not having a lot of people buying your exclusive content is not something weird in any way. I would bet most people that have a PS4 is for Fortnite and Fifa. Same stuff for Xbox.
Nintendo is the exception here, not the rule. It was always like that.
 

John Wick

Member
Money say brrrr.
All they need is to buy a publisher and that is it.
MS joined gaming business, while they were nobodies on that market. And look what they achieved.

As long as you have money, you can skip tons of stages fast.

Ubisoft and EA would help Amazon.

Google can buy embracer with 86 studios, and 250 ips. They are worth $10b.

That is how these companies can join the industry. With them having cloud market, they won't need a console at all. Since everyone in the world has internet, or is getting internet.

Cloud gaming is easy to access, and has low cost to these companies, compared to Sony and Nintendo which have hardware system. And these hardware have a limit, while cloud depends on the internet.

That is why MS is afraid of them joining the competition. They can change the landscape of gaming.
This sounds very familiar, let me correct it for you.

Sony joined gaming business, while they were nobodies on that market. And look what they achieved.
If money is what it takes to be a success then MS would be Kings of Mobile operating system, Search, and hardware.
 

Lupin25

Member
There's no telling what they'll do. Just a year ago people were laughing at the thought of pc ports yet now we have Horizon, GoW, and Uncharted collection going to pc. And with that we've already seen some opinions flip flop.

Will be no different if and when Sony does a gamepass competitor.

Those are 4+ year old games. We have no evidence of Day one anything yet. They’ve been the exact opposite of MS, in almost every aspect to start the new gen.

We do know PSNow has to be eliminated or rebranded after lagging behind for so many years tho…

I think if they did offer day one games on the service it would come at a high premium and if they’re not going to encourage their own day one games on PSNow, then they’ll at least promote the ones of third-parties by merging the service with PS Plus, so it changes the narrative (PS Plus offers new content sporadically).
 

SLB1904

Banned
Thank you Xbox ❤
Thank you Phil ❤

I'd subscribe day 0 and for life if such a PlayStation service were available.

Stop fucking around and make it happen JIMBO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Dr Bass

Member
Reading post here is really confusing.

So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?

From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????

Huh?
Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.

Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.

Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.

Yep, it's all really silly so far, and both of you are correct.

I have never seen a single explanation how paying less for theoretically more content works out for a business that wants to turn a profit. And it also disincentivizes purchasing, just like all the other streaming services have done to their industries. (music, tv, movies). If someone says the answer to this is "volume" ... :rolleyes:
 

Concern

Member
Those are 4+ year old games. We have no evidence of Day one anything yet. They’ve been the exact opposite of MS, in almost every aspect to start the new gen.

We do know PSNow has to be eliminated or rebranded after lagging behind for so many years tho…

I think if they did offer day one games on the service it would come at a high premium and if they’re not going to encourage their own day one games on PSNow, then they’ll at least promote the ones of third-parties by merging the service with PS Plus, so it changes the narrative (PS Plus offers new content sporadically).


Day one has nothing to do with it. People straight up denied it ever happening. But as it has, the goalposts keeps moving like you just did ( i didn't mention nothing about day one).

Ps Now being rebranded with no day one games might as well be Ps now. Its not going to move the needle as is.
 

kingfey

Banned
This sounds very familiar, let me correct it for you.

Sony joined gaming business, while they were nobodies on that market. And look what they achieved.
If money is what it takes to be a success then MS would be Kings of Mobile operating system, Search, and hardware.
Sony bought a studio, to join gaming market. They weren't nobodies.
The owned CDs. Their ps2 was a DVD player.
That is how they got big. They had to use their other business to have advantages. Not to mention, they were Japanese studio, which helped massively.


And you know who has the same thing? Google and Amazon.
Google and Amazon are using their infrastructures, like Sony did. Both companies have money to buy a big studio, to jump in to this market.

Amazon owns twitch. Google owns YouTube. 2 sources for gamers. They can monetize these 2 sources to their advantages.
 

John Wick

Member
Ps+ is for MP games.
Yes because that won't be a part of the subscription service will it?
I just understand why you people don't get that Sony can have day 1 sales and a gamepass service without day one releases? It's the best model for Sony.
 

laynelane

Member
Because Sony's model is a lot closer to MS's. And Nintendo sells tons of games still at regular price and still selling years later at full price. Nintendo's game selling strategy, port strategy and online are as 180 as you can get vs. Sony and MS.

Sony and MS have similarities:

- Lots of similar third party games
- Similar system power
- Paid online
- PS+/GWG
- PS Now/Game Pass, where these sub plans can play on PC
- PC ports for both

The key difference in services between them is GP has first party day one games, frequent third party and indie games day one (more B-tier) and more recent games. While Sony's sub services skew to older games.

So it's come down to whether gamers think day one games will show on Sony sub plans.

Third party games are similar across all platforms because they are the same games. System power would be more relevant if you hadn't brought up PC. Nintendo also has paid online which includes monthly games. Sony has had PSNow for years and we don't know what their future plans are for it. What some people think is that Sony should emulate GamePass and others think they should stick to their current, lucrative strategy. I'm of the mind that it is far more practical to simply wait for Sony to announce their plans. The idea being put forth by some is that Sony has to copy MS in order to compete and that is what my comment was referencing. There is no evidence of this, simply wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Yes because that won't be a part of the subscription service will it?
I just understand why you people don't get that Sony can have day 1 sales and a gamepass service without day one releases? It's the best model for Sony.
I think you missed the point.
People have ps+ for online gaming. Take that away, and you won't have 40m users.

Something for gamepass. It will struggle without that online charge.
 

John Wick

Member
Sony bought a studio, to join gaming market. They weren't nobodies.
The owned CDs. Their ps2 was a DVD player.
That is how they got big. They had to use their other business to have advantages. Not to mention, they were Japanese studio, which helped massively.


And you know who has the same thing? Google and Amazon.
Google and Amazon are using their infrastructures, like Sony did. Both companies have money to buy a big studio, to jump in to this market.

Amazon owns twitch. Google owns YouTube. 2 sources for gamers. They can monetize these 2 sources to their advantages.
Sony entered the market with PS1. They had no previous experience or name in the games/console business.
MS have money so they should be far more successful?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yep, it's all really silly so far, and both of you are correct.

I have never seen a single explanation how paying less for theoretically more content works out for a business that wants to turn a profit. And it also disincentivizes purchasing, just like all the other streaming services have done to their industries. (music, tv, movies). If someone says the answer to this is "volume" ... :rolleyes:
Probably the reason is because there's going to be segments of different buyers who consume it in different ways.

Movies and TV have: theatre release, network or cable tv, BR disc for $20, digital copy for $10, streaming on sub plans, rent it digitally for $5 from Google or Apple.

Out of all those options, there's going to be one of them that is the best. But that doesn't mean you funnel everything to only one option. Every game on Game Pass can be bought day one too since not everyone cares about GP.

The whole sub plan day one thing isn't even that big anyway because not everyone even has Game Pass, nor care about even playing it. I think GP is at about 20 million subs (give or take a mill). If MS released a games played list, every game on GP should have at least 20 million players + all the people who bought it digitally or on disc. Wont even come close.
 

John Wick

Member
I think you missed the point.
People have ps+ for online gaming. Take that away, and you won't have 40m users.

Something for gamepass. It will struggle without that online charge.
That's why they are combining PS Plus and PSnow to make sure they don't lose those numbers. They will also add more games to the library.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Yep, it's all really silly so far, and both of you are correct.

I have never seen a single explanation how paying less for theoretically more content works out for a business that wants to turn a profit. And it also disincentivizes purchasing, just like all the other streaming services have done to their industries. (music, tv, movies). If someone says the answer to this is "volume" ... :rolleyes:

LOL

Let me give you an example. On average, each person with a PS4 bought about 14 games (for the sake of argument let's say 15). Now let's completely ignore sales of any kind and say that every user bought each game at $70. Or $1,050 each on software over a 6 year period (we'll shorten this down from seven just because i"m setting these numbers against myself at every turn here). In dollars that is only $14.58 per month. If we said that only 8 of the games were $70, 4 of them were $40 and 3 were only $20 (or $780) the price of the sub could be as low as $10/mo.

The rub is that if every PS4 users opted to pay the $14.58 a month instead of buying the 15 games, you would have just as much revenue generated from these users in total in comparison to every sale ever on PS4. And every user would get access to every game released and not just the 15 they picked. That's how group spends work. In reality, a service will never reach 100% of users nor will it include every single game, this is how these services can be so lucrative with even lower prices. It's the same thing with any type of insurance, or gym memberships, etc.
 
Last edited:
He's only saying this so when it doesn't happen the gullible will be disappointed. Sony 1st party games sell in the millions, they've said they need those big blockbuster numbers to fund future game development there is NO way they put games on any kind of subscription service day one. Sony focuses mostly on story driven single player games that's not the kind of game that fits well on a subscription service, sign up for a single month and pay $10-$15 to play a game and finish it then cancel vs spending $70? it makes NO sense for them.
 

yurinka

Member
Gamepass does day1. If sony wants to compete with, they will need to do day1.

Its that simple.
Spartacus will have the double of subscribers than GamePass at release without sacrificing day one sales. So Sony will continue making way more revenue and profit than MS both from game sales and game subscriptions than MS.

If someone has to do something to compete is MS, not Sony. Sony dominates MS in many areas and game subscriptions is one of them. Doesn't make sense to see a market leader destroying their successful strategy to adopt a worse performing one.

It's that simple.

LOL

Let me give you an example. On average, each person with a PS4 bought about 14 games (for the sake of argument let's say 15). Now let's completely ignore sales of any kind and say that every user bought each game at $70. Or spend $1,050 each on software over a 6 year period (we'll shorten this down from seven just because i"m setting these numbers against myself at every turn here). In dollars that is only $14.58 per month.

The run is that if every PS4 users opted to pay the $14.58 a month instead of buying the 15 games, you would have just as much revenue generated from these users in total in comparison to every sale ever on PS4. And every user would get access to every game released and not just the 15 they picked. That's how group spends work. In reality, a service will never reach 100% of users nor will it include every single game, this is how these services can be so lucrative with even lower prices. It's the same thing with any type of insurance, or gym memberships, etc.
Sony already has something more profitable than them only buying these over a dozen games or to replace them with a subscripiton: to have them both buyint these over a dozen games while also paying the subscription (PS Plus/Now).

A subscription that btw is way cheaper for them since they invest way less money on the games included on it since they don't include there top games day 1.

I think you don’t understand how cloud infrastructure works. It would be inevitable that MS could see exactly what Sony has in development on their own infrastructure. Get real.
MS didn't need to spy them.

Sony publicly announced their PS Now long term plans back in 2014, when they announced PS Now. Back then they mentioned their goal was going to include there games from all PS generations to play them via the cloud not only in the console, but also in the other platforms like PC, mobile, tablets, tvs.

And I think it was a couple of years ago Sony publicly said to their investors that they were preparing a big next gen improvement for PS Now that would include PS5 games, release on smartphones, tablets and smart tvs an more. And more recently they publicly said to their investors that one of their goals for this year will be to push PS Now and other services.

And well, Sony and MS recently partnered to share cloud gaming R&D, so in addition to see the related patents that Sony has been publicly published like their 5G related optimizations for game streaming and other stuff to reduce input latency or improve image quality, pretty likely they got the details from there directly before publishing the patent.
 
Last edited:
LOL

Let me give you an example. On average, each person with a PS4 bought about 14 games (for the sake of argument let's say 15). Now let's completely ignore sales of any kind and say that every user bought each game at $70. Or spend $1,050 each on software over a 6 year period (we'll shorten this down from seven just because i"m setting these numbers against myself at every turn here). In dollars that is only $14.58 per month.

The run is that if every PS4 users opted to pay the $14.58 a month instead of buying the 15 games, you would have just as much revenue generated from these users in total in comparison to every sale ever on PS4. And every user would get access to every game released and not just the 15 they picked. That's how group spends work. In reality, a service will never reach 100% of users nor will it include every single game, this is how these services can be so lucrative with even lower prices. It's the same thing with any type of insurance, or gym memberships, etc.
PS4 games weren't $70 plus any kind of subscription service is going to have to include 3rd party content that has to be paid for as well, there is a reason PlayStation brings in roughly twice as much money to Sony as Xbox does to MS and it's not just the larger installed base.
 

Dr Bass

Member
There's no telling what they'll do. Just a year ago people were laughing at the thought of pc ports yet now we have Horizon, GoW, and Uncharted collection going to pc. And with that we've already seen some opinions flip flop.

Will be no different if and when Sony does a gamepass competitor.
Wrong. Who was laughing at PC ports other than a select few? And according to developers, they were the ones begging to be allowed to release on PC, it wasn't Sony's idea. And Sony said ok.

Do you think developers are begging to not sell their games? Selling to a broader audience is a good business move. Giving away ALL your software for less money is a bad business move. It doesn't matter who is doing it. So if Sony makes a GP competitor and includes ALL of their first party titles on day of release, yeah they will be making an incredibly stupid move. Obviously the same goes for Nintendo given their sales. The only company this makes sense for is someone who doesn't sell a lot of software anyway, and is trying to get their users on a constant hook.

That's why music subscriptions came into play. People were NOT buying music, they were stealing it. Sales had tanked. So the music industry decided to go ahead and go all in on a sub service. Make it super easy to get just about everything out there and make it really cheap and easy to use. I used to spend 50-100 dollars buying music every month in the past, but since Spotify/Apple Music came into play it's basically destroyed that habit over time. I buy almost nothing now on a yearly basis. This is the direction that GP takes game software in.

It is totally bizarre how confident a certain contingent on this board is considering the company they are confident is consistently last in every single metric that matters. Then they go around suggesting the two industry leaders have to follow in their footsteps?

It's complete lunacy sustained by ignorance and bias. I still can't get over how incredibly stupid some of these arguments are.
 

ChiefDada

Member
Flight Sim, Forza, Halo infinite, psychonauts 2, plus released this year was Deathloop, which would have gone on gamepass had it not been for pre existing contracts. All that in one year. And they were all quality titles which received much praise.

No need for your concern. What quality titles did sony release last year? That's concerning.
Flight Simulator and Psychonauts are not blockbuster titles. Deathloop is a terrible example for your case because its development was not predicated on Gamepass revenue model.

Halo is a blockbuster and by most accounts a great game but has so many technical issues and is quite frankly unbecoming as a Microsoft's flagship title for the Series X. These are the type of production quality losses I'm referring to.
 

John Wick

Member
I don't think thy will either at first, but it is what they need to do. Subscription model is the obvious future of gaming.
Sony want a balance of both. They want that big day one revenue from games like Spiderman but they also want the monthly revenue of gamepass. If they can get the balance right 50 million is doable by Sony.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
LOL

Let me give you an example. On average, each person with a PS4 bought about 14 games (for the sake of argument let's say 15). Now let's completely ignore sales of any kind and say that every user bought each game at $70. Or spend $1,050 each on software over a 6 year period (we'll shorten this down from seven just because i"m setting these numbers against myself at every turn here). In dollars that is only $14.58 per month.

The run is that if every PS4 users opted to pay the $14.58 a month instead of buying the 15 games, you would have just as much revenue generated from these users in total in comparison to every sale ever on PS4. And every user would get access to every game released and not just the 15 they picked. That's how group spends work. In reality, a service will never reach 100% of users nor will it include every single game, this is how these services can be so lucrative with even lower prices. It's the same thing with any type of insurance, or gym memberships, etc.
And your example of 15 games assumes Sony took in the entire $70/game at full pop. So no bargain binning, no third party games, no discs from Amazon where they get a cut. All first party games digitally at full pop.

Even if that was true (definitely not), if you got people swarming all kinds of games on a sub plan, not only can you get some gamers buying the game after its off the service, but you got tons of exposure for mtx from 50 or 100 games. Not just mtx opportunities from 15 games.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Sony entered the market with PS1. They had no previous experience or name in the games/console business.
MS have money so they should be far more successful?
They bought in to the market. They were in the Japanese market, which boosted their sales.

You take that away from Sony, and they won't have that much success.

MS basically bought their success for this gen. They bought bethesda to cover their lack of certain IPs. And feed gamepass.

Different between them is, 1 is Japanese, who benefited from Japanese studio. While the other is American company, who had to fight their way in to gaming market.

MS had great success with x360, before they blew it up with xbox one. If Xbox one didn't happen, we wouldn't have this conversation right now.

Only reason people are praising sony now, is because MS fucked up xbox one, and basically gave lead to Sony.

People were massive x360 fan. Where are those people now?

And now, people are praising xbox, because MS opened the wallet, which they should have done during x360. They bought bethesda, which they should have done during x360. They had marrowind as xbox exclusive.

We can say IF, but past is past.

Now days money rules. Big companies can spend $7.5b to buy studios like bethesda.
Sony or Nintendo can't compete with those F you money.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
PS4 games weren't $70 plus any kind of subscription service is going to have to include 3rd party content that has to be paid for as well, there is a reason PlayStation brings in roughly twice as much money to Sony as Xbox does to MS and it's not just the larger installed base.

I included the revenue equivalent to every piece of software ever sold on PS4, LOL. And with all the 80% off sales I was more than generous. The money is there, that was my point.
 

Dr Bass

Member
LOL

Let me give you an example. On average, each person with a PS4 bought about 14 games (for the sake of argument let's say 15). Now let's completely ignore sales of any kind and say that every user bought each game at $70. Or spend $1,050 each on software over a 6 year period (we'll shorten this down from seven just because i"m setting these numbers against myself at every turn here). In dollars that is only $14.58 per month.

The run is that if every PS4 users opted to pay the $14.58 a month instead of buying the 15 games, you would have just as much revenue generated from these users in total in comparison to every sale ever on PS4. And every user would get access to every game released and not just the 15 they picked. That's how group spends work. In reality, a service will never reach 100% of users nor will it include every single game, this is how these services can be so lucrative with even lower prices. It's the same thing with any type of insurance, or gym memberships, etc.
"LOL" indeed.

You're ignoring one KEY THING about your stupid calculation. Those 14 games go to support only those games and studios. It's a clear 1 to 1 relationship for consumers and businesses. That's what makes games profitable.

Game Pass needs to support all of Microsoft's "23 Studios" people keep harping on about, including all of the deals they make with 3rd parties.

Don't give me a "LOL" when you have zero idea what you're talking about and can't even figure out basic things like this. And no one spends close to 15 dollars on GP. Its a ten dollar a month service that has to cover all of the above. Its 15 if you want to have let cover Xbox Live as well, which makes it even tougher for Xbox since now 20 dollars in services are covered by a 15 dollar charge. In effect, your example and math are completely ridiculous.

Again, no good explanation for how spending less and getting more is better for business for Sony or Nintendo.

I included the revenue equivalent to every piece of software ever sold on PS4, LOL. And with all the 80% off sales I was more than generous. The money is there, that was my point.

As I just explained, your "back of the napkin" math is totally and utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
And your example of 15 games assumes Sony took in the entire $70/game at full pop. So no bargain binning, no third party games, no discs from Amazon where they get a cut. All first party games digitally at full pop.

Even if that was true (definitely not), if you got people swarming all kinds of games on a sub plan, not only can you get some gamers buying the game after its off the service, but you got tons of exposure for mtx from 50 or 100 games. Not just mtx opportunities from 15 games.

I'm glad someone got what I was alluding to there. The real monthly cost to cover every $ spent on PS4 over its lifetime would be significantly lower since 80% off sales happen every year at holidays, etc.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
Maybe, but as a whole cant be much more.

PS4 has 120 million systems. If you add up all the sales of GOW, LOU, Horizon, UC, Spiderman etc.... does it even hit 120M? If it does that means the average PS4 owner buys 1 first party exclusive. And not all those copies will even be at regular price as every publisher dumps off games for $40, $30 or $19.99.

The more gamers buying 2, 3, or 8 first party exclusives means a shit load of gamers buying zero exclusives.

You'd be surprised how many console gamers have a stack of 15-20 games on the shelf but only one, maybe two are platform exclusives, while the rest is just Fifa, CoD, Assasin, GTA5 etc. It's funny to read this on the internet but actually sad when you see it on your own eyes.

Money say brrrr.
All they need is to buy a publisher and that is it.
MS joined gaming business, while they were nobodies on that market. And look what they achieved.

As long as you have money, you can skip tons of stages fast.

Ubisoft and EA would help Amazon.

Google can buy embracer with 86 studios, and 250 ips. They are worth $10b.

That is how these companies can join the industry. With them having cloud market, they won't need a console at all. Since everyone in the world has internet, or is getting internet.

Cloud gaming is easy to access, and has low cost to these companies, compared to Sony and Nintendo which have hardware system. And these hardware have a limit, while cloud depends on the internet.

That is why MS is afraid of them joining the competition. They can change the landscape of gaming.

Easier said than done. MS initially wanted to buy out Nintendo when joining the console market, and didn't work out, Nintend cut them off right away. Sometimes deep pockets is simply not enough.

And MS being afraid of them, well let's say I'm having deja vu, and MS might yet again misread the market - remember then they said they're not aiming for 30M users but 300, because their biggest competition is not the other consoles but actually the TV that sits in the living room? Well we all know the end result don't we? They were actually close to those 30M... And now they say they aim for 3B users and Google and Amazon are their biggest competition just because they tend to offer various cloud services over their own infrastructure, but it seems like the two aren't as interested in gaming as Spencer paints it. And MS has already put a bet by sending some of the XSX APU's to power the xCloud servers instead of the consoles, the ratio vs PS5 is probably something like 1:1.5-2, and as it's been already proven to death. people will always go where their friends already are. So they better hope this bet pays off.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
I doubt it.
Sony makes a killing on 1st party sales

Why would they go from an already successful model to something like gamepass which hasnt proven how successful and profitable is?
Why go from number 1‘s strategy to number 3?

So people want Sony to do gamepass on playstation and then have sales on Steam? Lol
 

kingfey

Banned
Spartacus will have the double of subscribers than GamePass at release without sacrificing day one sales. So Sony will continue making way more revenue and profit than MS both from game sales and game subscriptions than MS.

If someone has to do something to compete is MS, not Sony. Sony dominates MS in many areas and game subscriptions is one of them. Doesn't make sense to see a market leader destroying their successful strategy to adopt a worse performing one.

It's that simple.
We're are you getting these numbers?

If you are adding ps+ with Spartacus, then Gampass has more numbers due to xbox live.

And for the last time, MS dominates the subscription space.

MS has xbox live. If that service is 25m-30m users, and gamepass is 20m+, that is more than Sony numbers.

Only way Sony dominates is Console numbers. MS has pc market. They have their own pc market, in addition to steam, which they release their games day1.

Sony has great games. And great catalog. No one can ignore that. MS needs to do somework on their IPs.

Other than that, Sony doesn't do day1 pc. Sony doesn't do day1 on subscription. Sony doesn't have cloud streaming for browser or phones. These are areas where MS dominates them.

We are getting in to the future. Just this year alone, we had chip shortages. If that shortages continues for 5 years, MS cloud system, and their day1 pc will come in handy. While Sony is stuck with whatever consoles they have.

This is future business. And if you aren't prepared for it, then good luck. Cuz you will become sears, if you can't get with time.
 
Flight Simulator and Psychonauts are not blockbuster titles. Deathloop is a terrible example for your case because its development was not predicated on Gamepass revenue model.

Halo is a blockbuster and by most accounts a great game but has so many technical issues and is quite frankly unbecoming as a Microsoft's flagship title for the Series X. These are the type of production quality losses I'm referring to.

Aka - if you exclude these MS games than the quality of titles have been bad.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
"LOL" indeed.

You're ignoring one KEY THING about your stupid calculation. Those 14 games go to support only those games and studios. It's a clear 1 to 1 relationship for consumers and businesses. That's what makes games profitable.

Game Pass needs to support all of Microsoft's "23 Studios" people keep harping on about, including all of the deals they make with 3rd parties.

Don't give me a "LOL" when you have zero idea what you're talking about and can't even figure out basic things like this. And no one spends close to 15 dollars on GP. Its a ten dollar a month service that has to cover all of the above. Its 15 if you want to have let cover Xbox Live as well, which makes it even tougher for Xbox since now 20 dollars in services are covered by a 15 dollar charge. In effect, your example and math are completely ridiculous.

Again, no good explanation for how spending less and getting more is better for business for Sony or Nintendo.



As I just explained, your "back of the napkin" math is totally and utter nonsense.

Yikes you're a thick one. The subscriptions aren't free. MS has expenses for GP, which are equivalent to their development costs and the cost of the 3rd party content they include. There is a certain amount of revenue needed to break even and each additional subscriber after that is profit, the more subscribers past the break even point the more profit. It's literally unbelievable that this could be a new concept in 2021.

My example was in $$$ only. I even pointed out that the idea of having ever game and every user was unrealistic. Not from a financial standpoint (the $$ would easily be there and then some), the issue would be how is this money divided between developers, what distinguishes a hit from a flop financially etc. These aren't issue that MS has with GP because the library is limited to just their own content (where they still have traditional sales and player counts to tell them what IPs should get sequels and which ones just didn't hit) and known third party properties where sales outside of GP and player engagement can be used to decide whether they paid too much for game XYZ, which would inform future decisions.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom