• 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.

Jim Ryan says PlayStation Plus’s new games library will have ‘all the big names present’ (VGC)

Copy sold slows down at certain point, while gamepass numbers keeps increasing. Keep in mind that your list is from July.
The game was still available on gamepass until March this year. That is a long time to get more users.
Why would Gamepass numbers keep increasing? As the game gets older, fewer people are expected to play it -- especially with newer games joining the service.

There isn't any evidence as of now that Xbox had more players for MLB 21 than PS, despite offering the game for "free" to ~20 million players.
 

kingfey

Banned
Why would Gamepass numbers keep increasing? As the game gets older, fewer people are expected to play it -- especially with newer games joining the service.

There isn't any evidence as of now that Xbox had more players for MLB 21 than PS, despite offering the game for "free" to ~20 million players.
Because the game is visible for those users. And curious people will play the game. They don't have to spend money to get it.
It might not get 5m players, but 3m-4m is somewhat achievable, especially when the game is there for entire year.
 
As I remember in recent years MLB was in the top 10-20 best selling games of the year of NPD. To convince them to put such AAA game on GP day one can't be cheap, it means they have to compensate a lot of copies.

I assume that part of the idea is to reduce the revenue from copies sold but in exchange to have more users so to increase the revenue from mtxs. But baseball is only popular in USA and a handful other countries that are pretty minor for gaming/Xbox. So I highly doubt mtx cut and GP growth (if it exist) that it could have generated compensates it.


PS Now had over 900 games, seems that they are changing the list of PS2, PS3, PS4 games available instead of only adding PS1, PSP, PS5 games on top.

PS+ Premium -which will use the same PS Now technology- will have up to 400 PS4+PS5 games plus up to 340 PS1+PS2+PS3+PSP games. So up to 740 games. These are less than the over 900 games they had before.

So they removed games. Not only these 160+ missing ones, we know they are adding PS1, PSP, PS5 games plus PS4 games that weren't available there. So they are adding new games but also removed like maybe around 200 games. Seems they are reworking their PS Now catalog.

But again, PS+ Premium will have up to 740 games (in addition to the monthly games and PS Plus Collection ones), up to 400 of them from PS4+PS5 (almost all of them PS4 ones at least at launch) and up to 340 of them from PS1, PS2, PS3, PSP. All these 740 downloadable or streameable (PS3 games not downloadable, at launch PS5 games won't be stremeable).

PS+ Extra tier gets the downloading part of these PS4+PS5 games.

The PS+ Extra and Premium tiers are described as curated. So I would imagine all of the games will be fan favourites or have reached a high score, critically.

One thing I’ve not seen discussion on is developer royalties. Take for example GOTG, for every milestone sold, developers would get some of the revenue as a bonus or royalty. If Microsoft paid $5-10 million for that game, and say 15 million people played it on GamePass but say, 2 million would have bought it at some point, surely the developers get a lot less royalty/bonus.
How does it work?
 
Last edited:

ToadMan

Member
I agree, I thought Sony was going to have some deal with MLB to have it on PS+ too. But seeing that it isn't the case, then it's because MS prefers to lose money with that game paying for having it on their service, while Sony prefers to profit from it instead by selling it.
I’ll just make an observation here - I was a purchaser of The Show from back in the ps3 days. At that time I needed to import it because it never got an official European release. Suffice to say I was quite an enthusiastic player…

Until last year when it appeared on GP while was still full price on PS. I didn’t buy it - first time in about 10 years. Last November I got an xsex and of course did the $1 GPU thing, and finally played a bit of MLB 21. Late to the party but whatever.

And here we are at the launch of MLB 22 and I still haven’t bought it... I’m away from my xsex right now but I do have PS5 here - but in a sense the simple presence of The Show on GP has stolen a sale from Sony. I wouldn’t buy it whether I had GP or not just out of principle.

The same is also true for CK3 that just released - I really would love to play that on console rather than my laptop, but I can’t justify paying full price when it’s in a GP subscription.

Companies need to be wary of this affect - the presence of a game on a subscription implies it’s lower value. I noticed in particular with CK3 all of the marketing and content is focused on PS5 despite its presence on xsex/GP. Evidently paradox realise that they don’t make any additional money from GP players but do from PS5 purchasers… all the reviews and early access were PS5 focused and the larger influencers are streaming the PS5 version - it’s like they want people to forget the Xbox/GP version exists.

Anyway that’s a long way to say there is an impact of putting a game on something like GP beyond the simple fact of it being available to the subscribers. It has the side effect of the diminishing the value of the product and perhaps discouraging sales elsewhere. That‘s what I felt both before getting GPU and now with it.
 

kingfey

Banned
I’ll just make an observation here - I was a purchaser of The Show from back in the ps3 days. At that time I needed to import it because it never got an official European release. Suffice to say I was quite an enthusiastic player…

Until last year when it appeared on GP while was still full price on PS. I didn’t buy it - first time in about 10 years. Last November I got an xsex and of course did the $1 GPU thing, and finally played a bit of MLB 21. Late to the party but whatever.

And here we are at the launch of MLB 22 and I still haven’t bought it... I’m away from my xsex right now but I do have PS5 here - but in a sense the simple presence of The Show on GP has stolen a sale from Sony. I wouldn’t buy it whether I had GP or not just out of principle.

The same is also true for CK3 that just released - I really would love to play that on console rather than my laptop, but I can’t justify paying full price when it’s in a GP subscription.

Companies need to be wary of this affect - the presence of a game on a subscription implies it’s lower value. I noticed in particular with CK3 all of the marketing and content is focused on PS5 despite its presence on xsex/GP. Evidently paradox realise that they don’t make any additional money from GP players but do from PS5 purchasers… all the reviews and early access were PS5 focused and the larger influencers are streaming the PS5 version - it’s like they want people to forget the Xbox/GP version exists.

Anyway that’s a long way to say there is an impact of putting a game on something like GP beyond the simple fact of it being available to the subscribers. It has the side effect of the diminishing the value of the product and perhaps discouraging sales elsewhere. That‘s what I felt both before getting GPU and now with it.
I think you have a fear mongering.
The mere presence of the game, being on gamepass, changed your mind of buying them, because you are afraid, that your bought is worthless.

Maybe you need to hold on that thought, for every game that you bought.

If you like something you buy it. This mentality of a product being on a subscription service, which automatically makes it bad, reeks of higher class act, which is shit.
These companies don't give a shit about your opinion. They want to maximize their sales. That is why they make games. To make as much money as possible.
 

yurinka

Member
I’ll just make an observation here - I was a purchaser of The Show from back in the ps3 days. At that time I needed to import it because it never got an official European release. Suffice to say I was quite an enthusiastic player…

Until last year when it appeared on GP while was still full price on PS. I didn’t buy it - first time in about 10 years. Last November I got an xsex and of course did the $1 GPU thing, and finally played a bit of MLB 21. Late to the party but whatever.

And here we are at the launch of MLB 22 and I still haven’t bought it... I’m away from my xsex right now but I do have PS5 here - but in a sense the simple presence of The Show on GP has stolen a sale from Sony. I wouldn’t buy it whether I had GP or not just out of principle.

The same is also true for CK3 that just released - I really would love to play that on console rather than my laptop, but I can’t justify paying full price when it’s in a GP subscription.

Companies need to be wary of this affect - the presence of a game on a subscription implies it’s lower value. I noticed in particular with CK3 all of the marketing and content is focused on PS5 despite its presence on xsex/GP. Evidently paradox realise that they don’t make any additional money from GP players but do from PS5 purchasers… all the reviews and early access were PS5 focused and the larger influencers are streaming the PS5 version - it’s like they want people to forget the Xbox/GP version exists.

Anyway that’s a long way to say there is an impact of putting a game on something like GP beyond the simple fact of it being available to the subscribers. It has the side effect of the diminishing the value of the product and perhaps discouraging sales elsewhere. That‘s what I felt both before getting GPU and now with it.
Yes, I think MLB and Sony count with that and don't care where do you buy and play the game, or if it's you or MS who paid for it or if it was via sub or sold copy. The important thing for them is that they got more money from MLB21 than ever before in the seires, so they are happy with releasing it on Xbox and GP. And decided to repeat this year, and even to release it on Switch too.

In this case it was an exclusive game, and went multi to get more revenue and profit and that is what they got, so they are happy.

I think it may have been different for a case where the game already been in previous entries for Xbox but for sale only. In that case they would have to see if the extra mtx plus MS money compensated the lost sales. Or with a game without mtx or dlcs, if the MS money compensated the lost sales.

I assume for each dev and publisher will depend on each case and specially depending how much money MS pays them for each game and if the game features mtx and how well is oriented to get money from them. As an example, we know FIFA makes way more money from mtx than by selling games, and they sell a shit ton of games. I think FIFA could be benefited of being day one there (well maybe not the best case because FIFA is more EU oriented and Xbox is more USA oriented but that's the idea).
 

ToadMan

Member
I think you have a fear mongering.
The mere presence of the game, being on gamepass, changed your mind of buying them, because you are afraid, that your bought is worthless.

Maybe you need to hold on that thought, for every game that you bought.

If you like something you buy it. This mentality of a product being on a subscription service, which automatically makes it bad, reeks of higher class act, which is shit.
These companies don't give a shit about your opinion. They want to maximize their sales. That is why they make games. To make as much money as possible.

Your English isn’t quite correct - fear mongering is the wrong term here - but I get your point and it is correct.

When someone puts something in a bargain bin, the value of that is reduced. Same as people used to say about straight to dvd movies. Gamepass is the bargain bin - it’s that subscription’s main selling point.

Products that get this treatment have a poorer market value. CK3 is a good recent example where all the mainstream review copies were PS5 presumably because paradox makes more money from PS5 sales going forward.
 
Last edited:

BeardGawd

Gold Member
No Day 1 games means I will subscribe for a month here and there when a game I want is on there and then cancel. If It had Day 1 first party I could more easily justify the monthly expense.
 

CHEROKEEE

Neo Member
No Day 1 games means I will subscribe for a month here and there when a game I want is on there and then cancel. If It had Day 1 first party I could more easily justify the monthly expense.
Huh ? your reasoning is higly subjective... :messenger_confused: I´m sure IF Day 1 games would be on the Sub, most ppl would do EXACTLY the same... just waiting till a preferred 1st Party Game is released and getting to play it for just the price of a monthly sub... not sticking around any longer unless it features a longlasting MP component in order to maximize their ´Bargain´. And since 1st Party titles will come around much rarer 1-2 months of that premium subscription per year should be MORE than enough for most gamers that are only in it for that 1st day feature. SONY probably did the same math before deciding against the DAY1 feature since sadly only a few ppl have your commendable loyal stance of staying on the service longer than needed because its kinda ´justifiable´.
 
Why would Gamepass numbers keep increasing? As the game gets older, fewer people are expected to play it -- especially with newer games joining the service.

There isn't any evidence as of now that Xbox had more players for MLB 21 than PS, despite offering the game for "free" to ~20 million players.
In the TV world there a few shows like Seinfeld, Star Trek or Friends that still attract viewers after decades but with videogames it doesn't quite work that way.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Will all first party games that appear on the service stay there permanently or are they going to keep taking them away like they do now?
 

T-Cake

Member
Will all first party games that appear on the service stay there permanently or are they going to keep taking them away like they do now?

That's a good question and to be honest, it probably makes more sense to leave them there. Games sell most during their initial launch period so it's not like Sony is going to make huge amounts after the first twelve months.
 

CHEROKEEE

Neo Member
That's a good question and to be honest, it probably makes more sense to leave them there. Games sell most during their initial launch period so it's not like Sony is going to make huge amounts after the first twelve months.
...IMO it´ll be even more interesting IF we can still ´claim´ currently available titles and have them downloadable from our library ´forever´ as long as we have an active subscription running - just like they used to do it with current PS+
 
I wish you can get it fast. There are alot of fun, that is waiting for you.
And most importantly, no fucking 1m-2m loading times. It's almost instant.

I am currently holding on my Xbox games, once I get the xsx. Don't want to go back to those atrocious loading times.
and dont forget the sound, last gen consoles sound like a jetplane
 

Chukhopops

Member
...IMO it´ll be even more interesting IF we can still ´claim´ currently available titles and have them downloadable from our library ´forever´ as long as we have an active subscription running - just like they used to do it with current PS+
That’s now how PSNow (or GP) works today though, once a game rotates it doesn’t matter if you played it before or not (there’s no claim). I think it will remain that way since the contract with the publisher determines for how long the game is available on the sub.
 

engstra

Member
I'll be interested to see how often games will be added but this sounds promising. There's quite a few games I've yet to play that are in the right time frame to be added like Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding, Miles, Sackboy and Ratchet & Clank.
 
I like Playstation and all but I don't want them to buy FromSoftware from Kadokawa. Firstly, how much would Kadokawa ask Sony to buy FromSoftware? Kadokawa is no small company (with total assets around 26~ billion US$), so I imagine they wouldn't let From out of the hook for just a few 2 or 3 billion, especially with their lastest track record of Sekiro and Elden Ring. Secondly, From games sell like hot cakes on Steam, so I don't feel like going the exclusive route would benefit Playstation as a brand, unless they release From's games on PC 1 or 2 year after their Playstation debut.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No Day 1 games means I will subscribe for a month here and there when a game I want is on there and then cancel. If It had Day 1 first party I could more easily justify the monthly expense.

Yeah, no day 1 means basically you're there for legacy games only, many of which many of us have already bought or played over the PS4's long tenure.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
But why would Sony bother with trying to attract all the big names if they don't believe in subscription services like GamePass and the new PS Plus? Which is it Jim?

They said they dont believe in day 1 sales of 1st party games on there service. They have 3rd party games on PSNow already.

TBH, if they thought it would make more money to put 1st party games on PSNOW day 1, they would have done it, so would Nintendo
 
Last edited:

John Wick

Member
I like Playstation and all but I don't want them to buy FromSoftware from Kadokawa. Firstly, how much would Kadokawa ask Sony to buy FromSoftware? Kadokawa is no small company (with total assets around 26~ billion US$), so I imagine they wouldn't let From out of the hook for just a few 2 or 3 billion, especially with their lastest track record of Sekiro and Elden Ring. Secondly, From games sell like hot cakes on Steam, so I don't feel like going the exclusive route would benefit Playstation as a brand, unless they release From's games on PC 1 or 2 year after their Playstation debut.
The deal can easily be done. It all depends on what Sony offer to Kadokawa. Kadokawa don't publish games and aren't really a gaming company so owning FS isn't a massive priority for them. Sony would continue to release FS games on PC. It's free money they would leave on the table if they didn't.
 

kingfey

Banned
Your English isn’t quite correct - fear lingering is the wrong term here - but I get your point and it is correct.

When someone puts something in a bargain bin, the value of that is reduced. Same as people used to say about straight to dvd movies. Gamepass is the bargain bin - it’s that subscription’s main selling point.

Products that get this treatment have a poorer market value. CK3 is a good recent example where all the mainstream review copies were PS5 presumably because paradox makes more money from PS5 sales going forward.
Happy Cracking Up GIF by Regal

"Value is reduced, because it's on subscription service"
That is funny line friend.

I guess all Sony 1st party games, that went to ps+ collection, psnow are all garbage bin right? Since subscription service devalue games.

As for the review, most of the got the ps5 copy. That doesn't mean the xbox one is bad. It just means, the reviewers got it on the system, they have.

As for sales, PS has more users than Xbox. It's normal the console that has more users, will sell alot, because that is how math work.

All you listed, are just the typical console warring.

"Gamepass bad" "Xbox gets the low reviews because of gamepass".

Have it ever occurred to you, that you can buy the game on xbox?
I mean you won't. All you see is gamepass day1, and you will attack it. Because gamepass is bad for games and devs. Just like your friends.
 
Last edited:
I guess that all depends on what Jim deems "big names"

Interested in seeing this list of games, especially on PS1/PS2/PSP... cause let's be honest here, that PS1 classic thing they released was not that great. I don't know how they're going to work out all the licensing. Seems like a nightmare to sift through. Imagine trying to track down who still owns the rights to games from the PS1 days :messenger_dizzy:
 
The deal can easily be done. It all depends on what Sony offer to Kadokawa. Kadokawa don't publish games and aren't really a gaming company so owning FS isn't a massive priority for them. Sony would continue to release FS games on PC. It's free money they would leave on the table if they didn't.
It is as you say. It can be done, and it's all speculation on our part. It all comes down to how negotiations go. It certainly would be somewhat of a surprise, but still in the realm of possibility, especially with how close relations Sony and From had since their PS1 days.
 

BeardGawd

Gold Member
Huh ? your reasoning is higly subjective... :messenger_confused: I´m sure IF Day 1 games would be on the Sub, most ppl would do EXACTLY the same... just waiting till a preferred 1st Party Game is released and getting to play it for just the price of a monthly sub... not sticking around any longer unless it features a longlasting MP component in order to maximize their ´Bargain´. And since 1st Party titles will come around much rarer 1-2 months of that premium subscription per year should be MORE than enough for most gamers that are only in it for that 1st day feature. SONY probably did the same math before deciding against the DAY1 feature since sadly only a few ppl have your commendable loyal stance of staying on the service longer than needed because its kinda ´justifiable´.
Sure some will take advantage. But I also feel far more will feel appreciated with the Day 1 games and continue to support the service because of that. It makes the service feel more Premium and you don't feel like you're missing out by being a subscriber.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
I agree, I thought Sony was going to have some deal with MLB to have it on PS+ too. But seeing that it isn't the case, then it's because MS prefers to lose money with that game paying for having it on their service, while Sony prefers to profit from it instead by selling it.
They lost so much money on last years MLB, that they decided to do it again.

The nonsense that runs through the heads of the megafanboy is truly something to behold
 

yurinka

Member
They lost so much money on last years MLB, that they decided to do it again.

The nonsense that runs through the heads of the megafanboy is truly something to behold
Yes, mr Putin.

They did lose money paying millions to this AAA publisher to put this game there day one. Around 2M users played it on GP + Xbox and (99.99% likely) MS paid millions for it. And was released on a period where the number of GP subs was stagnant, so didn't seem to generate at least a noticiable amount of new subs. MS is fine losing money because gave them good PR and pretty likely had 1M+ subbers engaged during maybe a few weeks and some of them paid some mtx and MS got 30% of them.

Because xbox more than likely has language in the contract with mlb to prevent it from being on other sub services
Yep. And even if it wouldn't be the case, Sony makes more money from selling the game than by putting it on a sub. And their game subs already make them a ton of money and profit so they don't have the need of putting their games there day one.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Looking forward to seeing the list... we've probably all got a few old faves we'd love to be able to play easily on current gen.

For me, I'd like...



You know this would be the first time I'd subscribe to a service for EA product - but yea I'd do it.
 

EDMIX

Member
Its hard to understand this in the context of PR.

Look....he is saying they will have good things in store for PSN Plus, I don't expect him to say something like "ok, look....last year was shit and this year we got da BIG NAMES", he might have made the same statement every year if you asked him.

Unless he is saying something out of the ordinary is happening, I think this is just a normal PR statement to hype up PS Plus and nothing more. I mean look, how many times have we heard of a State Of Play and the marketing department is like "CAN'T MISS THIS ONE", the fuck are they suppose to say? Its going to be shit, nothing huge announced, stay in bed? They will do their job by hyping up those 3rd party partners, indies etc as they fucking partnered with PS for a reason.

Imagine you are working with Sony to get the word out on your title and they are like "ok, State Of Play will be just ok this fall, nothing big tbh broz" lol so...fuck me huh? fuck my team and shit? lol So I sorta expect this type of PR stuff where they say great things to come for PS Plus or PS Now or State Of Play dates or anything in general.
 

yurinka

Member
The PS+ Extra and Premium tiers are described as curated. So I would imagine all of the games will be fan favourites or have reached a high score, critically.

One thing I’ve not seen discussion on is developer royalties. Take for example GOTG, for every milestone sold, developers would get some of the revenue as a bonus or royalty. If Microsoft paid $5-10 million for that game, and say 15 million people played it on GamePass but say, 2 million would have bought it at some point, surely the developers get a lot less royalty/bonus.
How does it work?
As I remember while ago they had a policy for PS+ games that to be included there they needed to have a minimum MC score. Not sure which one but I bet was 70 or 75. Who knows if they brought that policy back to use it as filter. Maybe they use it and even incresed the score.

I have no idea regarding the current PS Now / future PS+ royalties. Regarding MS, the 5-10M number is a rumor for a AAA game (Guardians of the Galaxy) some months after launch. that payment amount and method depends on the game on a per case basis. Obviously they don't pay the same for a big AAA game than for an unknown indie, and don't pay the same for an old game than for a day one game, etc. Some cases also are paid upfront even before finishing the game, other ones depending on how much it gets played, etc.

I like Playstation and all but I don't want them to buy FromSoftware from Kadokawa. Firstly, how much would Kadokawa ask Sony to buy FromSoftware? Kadokawa is no small company (with total assets around 26~ billion US$), so I imagine they wouldn't let From out of the hook for just a few 2 or 3 billion, especially with their lastest track record of Sekiro and Elden Ring. Secondly, From games sell like hot cakes on Steam, so I don't feel like going the exclusive route would benefit Playstation as a brand, unless they release From's games on PC 1 or 2 year after their Playstation debut.
The deal can easily be done. It all depends on what Sony offer to Kadokawa. Kadokawa don't publish games and aren't really a gaming company so owning FS isn't a massive priority for them. Sony would continue to release FS games on PC. It's free money they would leave on the table if they didn't.
Kadokawa published a tons of games since decades ago for multiple platforms, and have a history of dozens of PS exclusive games that goes back tto PS1. I mean outside FromSoft, who also has a long history of many PS exclusives since the early days. Kadokawa not only owns FromSoft, they also own some other game publishers and game development studios: Kadokawa Games, Spike Chunsoft, ASCII Media Works, Kadokawa Shoten, Enterbrain...

Kadokawa signed a 3 ways deal witth Cygames and Sony where Kadokawa gave 2% of their stocks to Sony and 2% to CyGames to help them give their games a global appeal and help them reach a global market. And in the particular case of Sony, same with Kadokawa's anime. Later Tencent bought ~6% of Kadokawa and made a deal to help their anime and games enter China. In addittion to their game stuff, Kadokawa has a lot of anime, manga (with tons of popular IPs) and also publishes magazines or books (including gaming magazines like Famitsu or Dengeki Online and published many guides), and have some other random business. Kadokawa is worth ~26B Yen, not USD. That is $2.2B.

Kadokawa has an insane catalog of games, anime, manga, game guides and game magazines. And also music labels. Tons of IPs and creative teams behind them. But I think the main issue it's that it's a corporation split into a gazillion different companies, many of which work in different areas. I think that it would be interesting for them if Sony would buy the entire corporation and split their teams to place the gaming ones under SIE, the music ones under Sony Music, the tv and film stuff under Sony Pictures and so on. And they could even open a new Sony division to put all Kadokawa's book, manga and magazines publishing labels there, which I think could have big potential for cross colaborating with Sony Music, gaming, anime, film etc areas beyond the ones they already do inside Kadokawa. Even more if they open it to the world and localize a lot of Japanese only stuff they have.

The restructuring to integrate it properly would require a lot of work, time and money to do it properly but would give Sony a lot of value for a relatively cheap pricing. But well, knowing Sony they could simply put Kadokawa under SIE and to keep all the Kadokawa companies working as they do but working for each Sony division when required.

To join Sony would benefit Kadokawa in all their areas, basically to open it to the world having top partners for most of their areas: PlayStation / SIE and PS Studios for gaming, Sony Music for music, Sony Pictures and Crunchyroll for anime/film/tv etc.
 
Last edited:

Lupin25

Member
No “Day one games” aren’t a dealbreaker for casual gamers, though..
I’ll try to speak objectively (not as a user of an enthusiast-board)…

Most people have backlogs, games they simply have not played because they have not bought or have the means to buy it.
Most people haven’t been able to secure a PS5 in time for those games, while others want to purchase the console simply for one game they’ve seen.

There’s tons of value in this service if they leverage all the IP they exclusively own, regardless of new day one games.
That’s like saying no one buys a game week 4, week 24 (when the game could appear on the service), or week 48.

These games don’t automatically lose their relevance to the service, because they’re not THE “newest”.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
These games don’t automatically lose their relevance to the service, because they’re not THE “newest”.
Any game that isn't 3 month old, is called old game. 1 year old, and people will frown on that game, because it's old.

That is the stigma of old games, on forums, reddit, and Twitter. People look down on those games, yet they keep talking about their favorite games, and how they will like to get a port, remaster or remake.

Its hard to understand people sometimes.
 
Yes, I think MLB and Sony count with that and don't care where do you buy and play the game, or if it's you or MS who paid for it or if it was via sub or sold copy. The important thing for them is that they got more money from MLB21 than ever before in the seires, so they are happy with releasing it on Xbox and GP. And decided to repeat this year, and even to release it on Switch too.

In this case it was an exclusive game, and went multi to get more revenue and profit and that is what they got, so they are happy.

I think it may have been different for a case where the game already been in previous entries for Xbox but for sale only. In that case they would have to see if the extra mtx plus MS money compensated the lost sales. Or with a game without mtx or dlcs, if the MS money compensated the lost sales.

I assume for each dev and publisher will depend on each case and specially depending how much money MS pays them for each game and if the game features mtx and how well is oriented to get money from them. As an example, we know FIFA makes way more money from mtx than by selling games, and they sell a shit ton of games. I think FIFA could be benefited of being day one there (well maybe not the best case because FIFA is more EU oriented and Xbox is more USA oriented but that's the idea).
I think your opinions here are based on a false premise. You assume that Sony one day simply decided to make MLB The Show multiplat, when the evidence suggests that Sony really had little choice in the matter.

I think you're assuming Sony has much more say on the matter, and are making much more revenue than is really the case. You're painting a picture here where largely it was Sony who decided to make The Show multiplat. And that they did so because of the increased money they would make from doing so.

If I'm not mistaken, when Sony and MLB were negotiating the licensing deal. It was MLB who decided that they wanted to get better exposure, and were therefore going to make any MLB game multiplat. Sony could've either continued to make The Show for all consoles, or go do something else. Where you got the narrative that Sony was largely steering that decision, as well as doing it so Sony could make "more revenue and profit" is anyone's guess.
 

yurinka

Member
I think your opinions here are based on a false premise. You assume that Sony one day simply decided to make MLB The Show multiplat, when the evidence suggests that Sony really had little choice in the matter.

I think you're assuming Sony has much more say on the matter, and are making much more revenue than is really the case. You're painting a picture here where largely it was Sony who decided to make The Show multiplat. And that they did so because of the increased money they would make from doing so.

If I'm not mistaken, when Sony and MLB were negotiating the licensing deal. It was MLB who decided that they wanted to get better exposure, and were therefore going to make any MLB game multiplat. Sony could've either continued to make The Show for all consoles, or go do something else. Where you got the narrative that Sony was largely steering that decision, as well as doing it so Sony could make "more revenue and profit" is anyone's guess.
I never said that.

As you say MLB wanted to make the game muliplat. When renewing their license to Sony, MLB required the game to become multiplat if Sony wanted to continue using it. Sony accepted it.

Their deal is that Sony publishes it on PS and develops the game. Sony doesn't publish the game on Xbox or Switch, MLB publishes it there. As publisher for Xbox, it was MLB who decided to put the game on GP. But as the dev of the original game and the ports, Sony gets a cut of the revenue generated by the ports.

Sony could have said they didn't want to make multiplatform, which would have meant to stop the collaboration between Sony and MLB. MLB would have found some other dev to make future entries multiplaform, and Sony San Diego would have made other games without MLB. Who knows, maybe other sport or maybe a baseball game without this license if it makes sense, or a tottally different genre.

But no, Sony decided (by themselves, MLB is nobody to force Sony to do something) to accept the deal and continue with MLB and make the game multiplatform because I assume they studied it and thought it was good for their interests. Later Sony reported that MLB 21, their first multiplatform entry in the series, became (obviously) the fastest-selling title in the franchise's history.

If Sony wouldn't have accepted the deal, some other dev would have developed it. I assume EA, 2K Sports or -less likely- some random dev, who probably would have needed a year or two to have their first baseball game ready.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Its hard to understand this in the context of PR.

Look....he is saying they will have good things in store for PSN Plus, I don't expect him to say something like "ok, look....last year was shit and this year we got da BIG NAMES", he might have made the same statement every year if you asked him.

Unless he is saying something out of the ordinary is happening, I think this is just a normal PR statement to hype up PS Plus and nothing more. I mean look, how many times have we heard of a State Of Play and the marketing department is like "CAN'T MISS THIS ONE", the fuck are they suppose to say? Its going to be shit, nothing huge announced, stay in bed? They will do their job by hyping up those 3rd party partners, indies etc as they fucking partnered with PS for a reason.

Imagine you are working with Sony to get the word out on your title and they are like "ok, State Of Play will be just ok this fall, nothing big tbh broz" lol so...fuck me huh? fuck my team and shit? lol So I sorta expect this type of PR stuff where they say great things to come for PS Plus or PS Now or State Of Play dates or anything in general.
Yes, it's the context PR. He obviously say that these over 200 partners who will include their games on his service are great partners, "big names". He won't say "well, we could only sign some crappy games from mostly b tier unkown people".
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Yes, mr Putin.

They did lose money paying millions to this AAA publisher to put this game there day one. Around 2M users played it on GP + Xbox and (99.99% likely) MS paid millions for it. And was released on a period where the number of GP subs was stagnant, so didn't seem to generate at least a noticiable amount of new subs. MS is fine losing money because gave them good PR and pretty likely had 1M+ subbers engaged during maybe a few weeks and some of them paid some mtx and MS got 30% of them.


Yep. And even if it wouldn't be the case, Sony makes more money from selling the game than by putting it on a sub. And their game subs already make them a ton of money and profit so they don't have the need of putting their games there day one.
What do they say about when people assume? You know nothing and writing walls of text doesn’t change anything
 
Top Bottom