Unknown?
Member
Not at the discounts they've had to do.
-
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.
Yahoo: Sony Admits Xbox Game Pass is ‘Far Ahead’ of PS Plus
- Thread starter Eddie-Griffin
- Start date
- Status
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
That doesn't prove it's not profitable, you don't know what else contributes to the bottom line.
Also with guys like IO who make Hitman saying the opposite, not every game pass release is eating into retail either.
Mr Moose
Member
This is also old news, btw.
gamerant.com
Xbox Game Pass is 'Considerably' Ahead of PS Plus, According to Sony
In a recent round of testimony, Sony admits that PlayStation Plus is lacking what Xbox Game Pass currently offers by a considerable margin.
gamerant.com
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
Even making $1 over operating costs is "profitable". Until MS gives up the actual numbers for revenue and profit, considering the service has stagnated in growth for a long time, best to assume "profitability" is just a term with little to prove it's substantial when MS brings it up in relation to Game Pass.
This is the first suggestion from pro-Game Pass people I've heard that's actually reasonable. A 10% discount for users with X amount of PS Rewards points who are subbed to any PS+ tier when they buy the game new from the PS Store between a certain period from launch, is actually a sound idea.
We'll have to see if Sony offers something like that. They probably should, but no telling if they will.
Then ban them both.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Why would Sony even care about COD for PS+. They never even do first party games at launch on sub plans on their system, never mind big third party games. So for them it makes zero difference.
Just because MS does it doesn't mean Sony has to. Sony hasnt copied MS doing first party games on their sub plans. Not even for their own MLB baseball game. So it's a bogus and moot point Sony stating they'd have to increase sub plan costs. Even right now, hardly any COD games are even on any sub plans for PS or Xbox anyway at whatever the current cost is.
Sony has big PS+ overall numbers, but lousy PS Extra/Premium numbers. You can tell since they never dissect it. And the last time they did when PS Now was around, they only had I think 3.2M users in 7 years. They stopped publicly telling a year before it transitioned to the 3 tier system. So it probably maxed out at 3.5M tops. 4M would be a stretch. And that was across 110-120M PS4 users.
MS has been putting first party games on GP for ages at dirt cheap $1 promo deals and it's not like it's moved the needle one bit for them.
I doubt COD would either. It'd swing the needle so small it'd barely do anything.
Just because MS does it doesn't mean Sony has to. Sony hasnt copied MS doing first party games on their sub plans. Not even for their own MLB baseball game. So it's a bogus and moot point Sony stating they'd have to increase sub plan costs. Even right now, hardly any COD games are even on any sub plans for PS or Xbox anyway at whatever the current cost is.
Sony has big PS+ overall numbers, but lousy PS Extra/Premium numbers. You can tell since they never dissect it. And the last time they did when PS Now was around, they only had I think 3.2M users in 7 years. They stopped publicly telling a year before it transitioned to the 3 tier system. So it probably maxed out at 3.5M tops. 4M would be a stretch. And that was across 110-120M PS4 users.
MS has been putting first party games on GP for ages at dirt cheap $1 promo deals and it's not like it's moved the needle one bit for them.
I doubt COD would either. It'd swing the needle so small it'd barely do anything.
Last edited:
It doesn't really anymore. Its now a tarted up Bing search website where MS tried to get what remained of Yahoos search engine marketshare in a deal. Getting boomers to use Bing without knowing it.
It lost its search engine to bing but was told it can keep its ads.
Then it lost its ads to bing too.
Last edited:
It being profitable is a response to the claim that it's being held afloat by Office, etc.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
do you believe Phill Spencer's words?
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
it was owned by Verizon, then ATT, and now I have no clue, I guess Discovery.
The same with AOL, Verizon and ATT both owned the two other (not Gmail) biggest Email providers and didn't know what to do with them for money. Crazy.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I'm not sure why FP development is a factor here. FP development has little to nothing to do with game pass's revenue, those FP games are sold on multiple storefronts at retail as well.
![[Sigma]](/data/avatars/m/701/701747.jpg?1685439978){kind=avatar}
I think it's still Verizon, It was never owned by MS. It had a 10yr deal (MS seems to love those) to use Bing for its search engine but keep its own ad network. Then 10 years later lost those to Bing too.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
Both statements can simultaneously be true. It definitely can be in parts supported/have costs offset by revenue from the main pillars of the company, and also be marginally profitable as a service. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Captain Toad
Banned
This whole thing has become humorous. Both sides are screaming how much they suck and how much better the other one is.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Not really.
SoloKingRobert
Banned
Does Sony expect Microsoft to release Call of Duty on PS Plus for Free?
Captain Toad
Banned
What do you mean? Xbox has been throwing out charts showing how PlayStation sales dwarf Xbox. And PlayStation is saying that they are already unable to compete with Xbox.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Not confirmed at all. But we can speculate that this is simply not the case given the disparity in revenue you'd receive from a typical GP sub vs. a full fledged retail title.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I thought Jim Ryan dismissed Game pass. Weird to now claim it's some sort of problem.
www.techtimes.com
PlayStation Boss Jim Ryan Dismisses Xbox Game Pass Subscriber Count
Here's what reportedly matters of the PlayStation boss.
www.techtimes.com
James Sawyer Ford
Member
FP is a factor because their games cost money to make. If GP eats into their retail revenue significantly to the point where it's insignificant - which HAS occurred with titles like Halo Infinite and Horizon selling significantly less at retail than predecessors - then the major revenue driver MUST be GamePass and Dev cost should, at some proportion, be considered a cost when analyzing profitability.
We simply don't have the receipts on any of this, but rest assured if GamePass was such a slam dunk business model Sony would be chomping at the bit to put ALL their retail games Day 1 on PS Plus Sub services. They don't. Why? Because their entire company depends on Playstation revenue and they are not willing to subsidize it through a Sub model. This should be blatantly obvious that Retail profit/revenue collectively >>>>>>> Sub Profit/Revenue
Tbf we don't know how profitable it is, so "marginally" may or may not be accurate.
Still though, his post looks a lot different if you know GP is profitable rather than bleeding money.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
When my kids were young they'd stamp their feet and attempt a tantrum to get what they want too. Funny stuff Sony, it's going to be a rougher road in the coming years for you. As a gamer on multiple platforms I prefer the Xbox, Nintendo and Valve conversations. The less Sony are the focal point for the gaming industry the better IMO.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Playstation sales do dwarf Xbox.
GHG
Member
You've previously written essays in response to me to try and convince me you were "unbiased". I actually prefer this.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Another reason so much hardware is sold via Playstation is movies and mods/piracy/bootlegs etc. There's a reason you don't see 50 million sales of one game from their 120+Million user base. It's the same when PS2/3 were around and the asian markets would eat up the hardware because Xbox enforced DVD/Bluray regions and Playstation did not, deliberately. Same goes for piracy in the eastern markets, it's not enforced like it is in US/UK etc. The industry has matured to the point it's not napster or limewire levels anymore but it's still prevalent in the profits vs install base.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sony are certainly getting close to it, they've just out out a marquee game, Horizon FW, on the service even though it is in the retail channels right now as well.
Playstation exists to get a cut of third party sales. 80-90 percent of games sold on the platform are third party games. Even if Gamepass was a slam dunk why would Sony want to start paying to license third party games when it is getting 30% of their revenue for free? Especially in a market where it is already the defacto leader.
GHG
Member
The way they are currently doing it gives them the best of both worlds without the well documented "buy to play" cannibalisation.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
I wouldn't say that's "close". The game released a year ago, and it's only one of their first party titles. They likely added it in order to capture more sales of the DLC coming out soon
Big difference IMHO between Day 1 and a Year plus.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
365 day difference.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
That's a pretty big difference, and it's only 1 game. For some, they may be willing to wait. For a lot of the hardcore fans? They won't.
Most sales of games occur within the first few months of release
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
You've previously written essays in response to me to try and convince me you were "unbiased". I actually prefer this.
I don't try to convince anyone, make up your own mind. I enjoy PC, Nintendo, Retro and currently Xbox the most. I dislike Sony itself and have for a long ass time, they always push their walled gardens and have not changed with the times. I also have fuck all interest in GoW or Uncharted etc. I tried them on PC and turned them off rather quick. Boring but very pretty to look at. I originally owned a PS1 and PS2 with playing PS3 pretty regularly, it's been downhill for me with Sony ever since. Similarly it's why I don't buy a Switch for myself when the Steamdeck is a better offering (when it gets to Australia). If you choose to call that bias, so be it. The ActiBliz and this thread content just continue to reinforce for this gamer why I don't like Sony, their respect is less each year for me.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Gold Member
It will catch up to them. Hardcore fans aren't served to buy for $70 and then pay to rent it. People will figure it out eventually.
Captain Toad
Banned
But you don't usually hear Xbox going out of their way to tell people that.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Its obvious. They're not going to broadcast they're last place. They are trying to compete.
Reality is they are 3rd place by a big margin. Obviously.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Figure what out exactly?
Them releasing games on premium subs isn't reliable at all. You cannot bank on EVERYTHING releasing only 365 days after initial release when we only have one example to go by, and it's very much aligned with the release of the DLC they want to push.
We can also speculate that many Xbox owners wouldn't have bought a console if it weren't for GP and therefore no chance they'd buy the retail games.
We do know they're making money from it though.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Well yeah, it's not there yet, Sony are far more reliant on direct sales to 'exist' than MS is for Xbox, so the exact same model doesn't work for both right now, even though they have gone on record to say Game Pass is profitable.
Sony are inching more towards it with time, even the 365 day is something none of us would have seen coming not too long ago.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Try to figure out what I'm saying to cut down on these replies. Im saying they are rapidly moving closer to the MS position. Day 1 sub games.
GHG
Member
At least the mask is off now, appreciate it in contrast to whatever this was:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
MS can be and will take more risks because of financial backing and not being a market #1 or #2 like Nintendo or Sony. Sony are also locked into their walled garden due to framework and dev targets etc; MS/Xbox/GP are not and have a far broader horizon going forward (pardon the pun).You are conflating your argument with something that isn't yet entirely proven, also GP is profitable so there goes that part.
Sony don't do because the risk is too unproven for them. Same goes for Nintendo. Xbox do it because just like Azure and their technical abilities they are enabling a wider audience and device set for them and developers alike.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Spin it all you want mate, I don't enjoy labels or ban baiting, as you're going for. Go through my post history, I've been up front about not liking Sony or their games longer than your ActiBliz attention on me., with the exception of Spidey for the most part. It's not hidden, nor do I wear a mask. I'll kindly ask the character assassination to fuck off thanks.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Yes they are making revenue (not necessarily robust profitability), and yes maybe that's the only way Xbox is able to compete as much as they are recently given their studio troubles. But what works for MS and their corporate mothership of cash resources does not necessarily work for Sony's business model that has to optimize for profits rather than sub growth.
"Rapidly moving closer" isn't really accurate in the sense that you are projecting that it will eventually converge to what MS is doing. They are trying differentiated higher tier sub models to create a balance of Sub vs Retail that works within their framework, and Horizon is perhaps a trial of that. It doesn't mean you're gonna be getting everything Day 1, let alone 1 year after retail.
GHG
Member
They are more reliant on direct sales to "exist" because they need to stay profitable as a division to continue to exist. It's not that complicated really, not every company has the luxury to be able to aggressively persue loss leader strategies.
If you think gamepass is profitable in the truest sense then I have a bridge to sell to you. All will be revealed soon enough.
I remembered it because that was a reply to me after I originally called you out on this. At that point you denied it but now you're being honest. Like I said, it's better this way. And no, for the record I'm not "ban baiting you".
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Gold Member
They changed from "never" to 365 days virtually overnight. I'm not nostradaumus. But they're obviously, obviously chasing the MS strategy. Just admit it. They may win just copying what MS is doing. But they're copying.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
No they didn't. Because you're falsely claiming that 365 days is the new norm. No evidence to suggest that. HFW has DLC, they want to promote it.
They are obviously introducing new tiers to compete with GamePass, but their intent is NOT to go for the GamePass model. Jim Ryan has explicitly stated that, and it should be abundantly obvious why that's the case, because they do not want to cannibalize day 1 sales.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Theyre cannibalizing that Tchaka Khan island game and the Mario Maker TPS thing. Im not trying to argue. Believe what you want.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
An indie game? They have done that before in the past Day 1 with plenty of titles, that's nothing new.
Sorry Miku, you're not getting Sony first party AAA bangers Day 1 or Day 365 in any predictable way, Bro.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
They most likely are and it will be proven when the sales numbers are pitiful.
For smaller scale games developers will typically accept payments that will cover whatever they project to be the initial period of sales. As a result those deals end up being much cheaper than if you attempted to get a AAA game on the service day one.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked