• 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.

[VentureBeat] PlayStation’s strength is that it can do it all

3liteDragon

Member
When Microsoft announced last month that it is acquiring Call of Duty publisher Activision Blizzard for $69 billion, a lot of people wondered aloud how Sony could possibly compete. And to a point, that concern is fair. Microsoft is a $2-trillion company with a lot of cash to burn. Sony, meanwhile, is just your standard multibillion-dollar conglomerate. But in a world where Google, Tencent, Amazon, and other trillion-dollar companies are eying video games, Sony’s PlayStation is still well-positioned to compete, thrive, and even come out on top.

Sony’s strength is that it has the money, expertise, and properties to take on almost any idea. And the company has already shown a willingness to put a variety of strategic pieces into place for its future. The most important strategy for Sony is, of course, the core PlayStation business. PlayStation fans brought the company to the dance, and Sony is at no risk of abandoning them as its primary dance partner. Sony’s Games & Network Services division generated $25 billion in revenue last year along with $2.6 billion in profit. That makes it the second-largest gaming-focused business in the world behind only China’s incomprehensibly large Tencent.

But on top of that success, PlayStation boss Jim Ryan is sniffing out new pathways for growth. And unlike Microsoft’s Xbox, Ryan is considering a more all-encompassing strategy.

PlayStation is doing it all

Sony is going to keep making the games and consoles that it’s known for. PlayStation 5 will continue flying off shelves — if one ever ends up on a shelf — and PlayStation Studios will keep pumping out game of the year contenders. And that will lead to its own growth — although that is a slow-and-steady process. Games like The Last of Us Part 2 and Horizon Forbidden West are expensive to make and don’t have profit margins like a live-service juggernaut. But that leads directly into new ways to capitalize on the success of its games, and the company seems willing and capable of doing it all.

And by all, I mean that Sony’s investments look a lot like what would happen if you combined Xbox, Ubisoft, and Nintendo all into one.

Movies and television

Like Nintendo, Sony is looking at ways to increase the value of its PlayStation brands through other mediums like movies and television. What’s different for Sony is that it owns one of the biggest movie studios in Hollywood in Sony Pictures. So while Nintendo is partnering with Illumination and slowly rolling out a plan for more films after that, Sony is debuting Uncharted in theaters this week. The Last of Us series, meanwhile, is coming to HBO soon as well. Through nearly three decades of PlayStation, we haven’t seen Sony leverage this kind of synergy before. It is now because Sony Pictures, like the rest of Hollywood, wants to bet on familiar IP. The timing also makes sense because PlayStation is now Sony’s obvious crown jewel. Everything else is now working to support that business.

But this also, of course, the direction that the industry is moving as a whole.





Sony is simply one of the company best positioned to take advantage of these trends. And that is the overall point: PlayStation’s potential avenues for growth are diverse because the company is capable in so many different markets.

Live-service games

The thought that originally provoked this story for me is the contrast between Ubisoft and PlayStation. Both companies are looking toward a future with more live-service based games. But Ubisoft has left behind its old “blueprint” style of making games in favor of its new “mothership and satellite” approach. Up until 2018, Ubisoft would try to release games in the Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, and other franchise blueprints as frequently as possible. Since then, however, the company has decided to shift to a model where it publishes a massive live-service game in each franchise that last for years and then it would push out smaller satellite games in those franchises at a faster rate.

Ubisoft’s specific shift in strategy isn’t as important as the shifting itself. Sony is also pursuing live-service games. The company told investors when it announced its planned acquisition of Bungie that it is making 10 games-as-a-service products. The key point is that Sony is making those 10 live-service games in addition to the new God of War and Horizon games. While Ubisoft and a lot of other publishers have to pick and choose where to spend their budgets, PlayStation is profitable enough to do it all.

Subscription services

The most common comparison for PlayStation is to Xbox and its Xbox Game Pass service. Microsoft is working on creating a Netflix of games, and it has spent a approximately $100 billion to do so. To ensure the appeal of Game Pass, Microsoft even puts all of its own games into the service the first day they release. So instead of paying $60 or $70 (or more in other countries) for a new game, you can drop $10 or $15 per month instead. Microsoft’s strategy is a bold, long-term play that feels like an inevitability. So naturally, industry observers want to know how — or even if — Sony can respond. But again, while PlayStation competitors continue to niche down into specific strategies, Sony is fully capable of doing everything.

Sony is going to keep making its games with budgets north of $120 million, and as former PlayStation boss Shawn Layden said last year, those games won’t make financial sense in a $10-per-month service any time soon.

“You pencil it out, you’re going to have to have 500 million subscribers before you start to recoup your investment,” Layden told Gamesindustry.biz in July. “That’s why right now you need to take a loss-leading position to try to grow that base.”

But even without God of War Ragnarok coming into PS+ on day one, Sony has managed to attract 48 million subscribers to its PS+ membership program. And it has 111 million monthly active users who are spending money on games like Fortnite, Apex Legends, and more. So while it’s easy to look from the outside and wonder how Sony is going to respond to Xbox Game Pass, the reality is that on the inside, Sony is only wondering how to grow on the success it already has.

And that is how the company is building out its strategy with a more robust subscription offering under the codename Spartacus, according to a Bloomberg report.

PlayStation has too many strengths to get hung up on the weaknesses

None of this is to say that PlayStation doesn’t have weak points. Sony would love to have its first-party games sell more like Nintendo’s first-party. And the company would enjoy having a first-party multiplayer live-service game that could make enough money to offset the costs of making a new Last of Us. But the takeaway from current Sony is that it has sound fundamentals, and it has a plan for how to grow in all those key areas.

And anywhere that it is weak, it seems to already have a plan to address those concerns. PlayStation’s first-party has a growing list of games that have sold more than 15 million copies. And it is purchasing Bungie specifically to address its need for live-service expertise.

While Microsoft continues to insist that it is competing with Amazon and Tencent, and while Nintendo is off doing its own thing, Sony continues to make all the smart moves to ensure it is going to continue its dominance of this business for this console generation and beyond.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
steve cook muscles GIF by Gymshark
 
If I was Playstation, I would out all the First party multiplayer modes in the second tier or PS+.

Stuff like Factions, GOT Legends, Destruction All-Stars, Uncharted multiplayer, Destiny 3, etc. Alot of my friends just like to play the multiplayer modes of these games, but are not interested in the games. Ill allow all these multiplayer modes to thrive.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
I agree with Jeff on this. I actually have been saying exactly this for some time now.

The synergy that Jim Ryan is creating b/w different parts of the business will make his a super successful tenure. Late PC ports won't affect PlayStation console sales too much. Movie adaptations will bring in new people to the ecosystem that would more than offset the cost. They are making 10 live service games. Even if 2 out of 10 are successful, they can add $1 billion additional profit.

I can see PlayStation's operating FY profit jump up to $6 billion or even $7 billion in the next 4-5 years.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.

Fredrik

Member
For me it’s the first party quality that simply makes it impossible to not have a Playstation. It’s very much like with Nintendo consoles. You can main on whatever platform but I think most agree that you still also need a Nintendo console. And as things are going now you also need a Playstation. It’s just how it is.

Nintendo+Playstation
PC+Nintendo+Playstation
Xbox+Nintendo+Playstation
Whatever+Nintendo+Playstation

I absolutely think they need a serious Gamepass alternative though. Every time I buy a game on Playstation now I’m thinking about how expensive it is. It’s very similar to what happened when Spotify and Netflix started taking over how I consume music and movies:
”It’s kinda expensive… Do I really need this right now? Maybe there is a sale later? Maybe it’ll come to Spotify/Netflix?”
 

Dr Bass

Member
For me it’s the first party quality that simply makes it impossible to not have a Playstation. It’s very much like with Nintendo consoles. You can main on whatever platform but I think most agree that you still also need a Nintendo console. And as things are going now you also need a Playstation. It’s just how it is.

Nintendo+Playstation
PC+Nintendo+Playstation
Xbox+Nintendo+Playstation
Whatever+Nintendo+Playstation

I absolutely think they need a serious Gamepass alternative though. Every time I buy a game on Playstation now I’m thinking about how expensive it is. It’s very similar to what happened when Spotify and Netflix started taking over how I consume music and movies:
”It’s kinda expensive… Do I really need this right now? Maybe there is a sale later? Maybe it’ll come to Spotify/Netflix?”
The exact thing I’ve been saying is dangerous about Game Pass. Microsoft destroying the perceived value of software through a subsidized subscription service.

You know what else is expensive? Making games. If everyone adopts the attitude you describe above the industry is finished as we know it.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
For me it’s the first party quality that simply makes it impossible to not have a Playstation. It’s very much like with Nintendo consoles. You can main on whatever platform but I think most agree that you still also need a Nintendo console. And as things are going now you also need a Playstation. It’s just how it is.

Nintendo+Playstation
PC+Nintendo+Playstation
Xbox+Nintendo+Playstation
Whatever+Nintendo+Playstation

I absolutely think they need a serious Gamepass alternative though. Every time I buy a game on Playstation now I’m thinking about how expensive it is. It’s very similar to what happened when Spotify and Netflix started taking over how I consume music and movies:
”It’s kinda expensive… Do I really need this right now? Maybe there is a sale later? Maybe it’ll come to Spotify/Netflix?”
I pray for the future of our AAA games and studios in this industry

Subscriptions are bound to have an affect if they really take off
 

Fredrik

Member
The exact thing I’ve been saying is dangerous about Game Pass. Microsoft destroying the perceived value of software through a subsidized subscription service.

You know what else is expensive? Making games. If everyone adopts the attitude you describe above the industry is finished as we know it.
I played 30+ games on Xbox last year, payed $60.
I played 4 games on PS5 last year, payed $260.

It’s no point resisting this change. It’s the platform holders job to make sure that the developer can make money in this new world. I ain’t paying a cent more than I need in some weird attempt to save the industry. I would be there day 1 subscribing to a subscription service with Sony 1st party games day 1 and I wouldn’t feel bad about not buying their games anymore even for a second.
I haven’t bought a MS game in years. No regrets.
 

Dr Bass

Member
I played 30+ games on Xbox last year, payed $60.
I played 4 games on PS5 last year, payed $260.

It’s no point resisting this change. It’s the platform holders job to make sure that the developer can make money in this new world. I ain’t paying a cent more than I need in some weird attempt to save the industry. I would be there day 1 subscribing to a subscription service with Sony 1st party games day 1 and I wouldn’t feel bad about not buying their games anymore even for a second.
I haven’t bought a MS game in years. No regrets.
How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the divisions that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like DarkMage619 DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!" :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Some serous propaganda. Bioshock being made into a movie isn't thier property, it's multiplatform and has zero to do with sony. And ms is launching its own series in Halo, yet somehow that's not mentioned. And then the bs about gamepass needing 500 million subscribers to break even? They fail at even basic math. 90 billion dollars a year in gamepass revenue alone to break even, lol!!!!!

And then of course basically zero mention of the competitions massive studio growth and AAA games as well. Brutal.
 
Last edited:

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Playstation needs more smaller games and more genres

Like single player Fps, platformers, Rpgs

They're leaning too much into open-world games lately, imo
I think they're doing really good diversifying on the PS5. We have platformers, rogue shooters, fighters, racers, action rpgs, beat em ups

I think we'll have a good FPS game on PS5 either in 2023 or 2024
 
For me it’s the first party quality that simply makes it impossible to not have a Playstation. It’s very much like with Nintendo consoles. You can main on whatever platform but I think most agree that you still also need a Nintendo console. And as things are going now you also need a Playstation. It’s just how it is.

Nintendo+Playstation
PC+Nintendo+Playstation
Xbox+Nintendo+Playstation
Whatever+Nintendo+Playstation

I absolutely think they need a serious Gamepass alternative though. Every time I buy a game on Playstation now I’m thinking about how expensive it is. It’s very similar to what happened when Spotify and Netflix started taking over how I consume music and movies:
”It’s kinda expensive… Do I really need this right now? Maybe there is a sale later? Maybe it’ll come to Spotify/Netflix?”
GP is a buffet of mediocre.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the division that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like DarkMage619 DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!" :rolleyes:
Amazing comment!

Morgan Freeman Applause GIF by The Academy Awards
 

Klayzer

Member
Well written brother. Its hard to figure out where this "games is a disposable hobby" mindset comes from.

I guess its the price you pay, when your hobby becomes more mainstream than any other entertainment medium.

Im hoping not every dev/publishing studio falls into this mindset.
 
I played 30+ games on Xbox last year, payed $60.
I played 4 games on PS5 last year, payed $260.

It’s no point resisting this change. It’s the platform holders job to make sure that the developer can make money in this new world. I ain’t paying a cent more than I need in some weird attempt to save the industry. I would be there day 1 subscribing to a subscription service with Sony 1st party games day 1 and I wouldn’t feel bad about not buying their games anymore even for a second.
I haven’t bought a MS game in years. No regrets.
You were all about Nintendo in your last post, how much are you paying for Nintendo games per year?
 

Klayzer

Member
How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the divisions that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like DarkMage619 DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!" :rolleyes:
fRPD2Ku.gif
 
Some serous propaganda. Bioshock being made into a movie isn't thier property, it's multiplatform and has zero to do with sony. And ms is launching its own series in Halo, yet somehow that's not mentioned. And then the bs about gamepass needing 500 million subscribers to break even? They fail at even basic math. And then of course basically zero mention of the competitions massive studio growth and AAA games as well. Brutal.
youre saying a bunch of things.

Sony is a gaming and film company. And they are starting to take their gaming IP more seriously as a company, when in the PS1-PS3 era they were pretty much were embarrassed of remotely becoming a gaming company. They have the best ability to make this a success. It’s a argument the writer is making.

500 million number is coming from former Playstation head, Shawn. Since Sony games are high budget. Which is hyperbole. Disney’s subscriber amount should be more than enough to be profitable. Around 170 million subscribers. While offering 120 million in total budget games a month. Sony games tend to be higher budget than the average show or film released day one on Disney plus. Plus that type of content ages lesser quickly.

Anyways Sony seems like they are great at getting talent over IP.
 
How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the divisions that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like DarkMage619 DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!" :rolleyes:
MS doesn't lose money on Gamepass. The CEO of Microsoft gaming said that Gamepass is "already sustainable".
 

Soosa

Banned
Is that not Nintendo's title?
Legitimate question, not trolling. Maybe I'm not viewing a diverse enough range of software sales charts?

Depends how you view things. If you view it as "most sales/gamers = 1# in gaming", then 1# is mobile games/gamers. (and not nintendo, sony or ms)

Nintendo is weird case, because while they sell tons and do stuff others cant, like selling 5 year old games for full price, because they can.
They still do not seem to be universally popular brand and seen as "the gaming thing" like they used to be in the 80s/90s.

Playstation is just "the gaming thing" on global scale.

Like there are still people/countries which dont even know what xbox is, or some dont know nintendo systems. But playstation is almost like universal thing like the sky is blue.

In my country almost all console gamers I know own playstation, but only 2 own switch including myself and it is seen as kids system with simple non-serious games, kind of like mobile games. I know it have other kind of games too, but what would nintendo console be without colorful nintendo IPs?

Nintendo is just weird, statistics say that it sells so much, yet it is almost non excistent in culture*. Or at least not at here, even at stores they sell mostly playstation games and xbox/nintendo shares maybe 20% of the shelf space. But could be a different thing on areas where people play handhelds more. *seen playstation on many series/movies/news but cant remember seeing switch anywhere.

But anyway, while Nintendo can be really succesful, it is no really "the core gamer system with latests tech and games".

Playstation is just more universally popular, like they have everything from sports games to weird japanese games. While switch is mostly bought to play nintendo exclusives.

Both have their strenghts, but if I would ask 100 strangers "name a gaming console", I would guess that 80-90% would answer playstation. And there is nothing wrong that these companies do what they do best. Just saying that sales numbers arent the whole truth.
 
Top Bottom