• 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 Sony’s games ‘could suffer’ by adding them to PlayStation Plus on day one (VCG)

ethomaz

Banned
So there are a lot of different types of ways. Your whole thesis was based on only one of those cases. Obviously that doesn't make sense anymore then.
Man... "usage / monetization" is the model that gives more money and the only one sustainable in a long term.
If a big AAA studio take two them it is even worst than what I was talking.

It will be very similar. You give a budget to a studio which they have to manage.

But your explanation on why the model wouldn't work doesn't make sense anymore.
Naught Dogs doesn't have a budget defined by Sony.
They created projects with a budget in mind based in how much they target to sell (that will change if they need to put a game in subscriptin model losing full prices sales).
They are independent to choose what to do at least while they give profits in their finanacials.
 
Last edited:

FritzJ92

Member
I think you guys have no ideia how Gamepass revenue works.
Let's clear here.

When you put a game on Gamepass you expected to receive a parcel of the revenue subs based in how much people played your game (there is the very few exceptions that MS pays upfront but that is not how the actually works for 99% of the games there).
That is very little parcel but it come every month while the subscribers are playing your game.

To cover a $200m budget it can take months or even years... at the end the revenue from the subscription can even surpass the one of full priced sales if the game have continuous subscribers playing it for years.

But you invested $200m... you can't wait months or years to recover it... you have to already recovered and profit to invest in a new project.
So with full priced sales you have that... you pay your costs at launch windows and already accumulate funds to the next project.
You can set high budget because you know you will get it fast in the launch window (if not your made a failure).

With subscription having the game at day one you need to plan different.... you set lower budget target because you know it will take time to recover it.

If you kill decrease the number of full priced sales then you need to invest less in your games and so you have a different approach in development... the most time the subscriber keep playing your game more you will receive per month and you want them to play that game near forever... and that add mechanics that keep you playing it... that is why GAAS is better fit for subscription services with low investiment.

When you plan a big AAA budget game you target a number of sales at full price to cover all costs... it is a near term plan... you delivery, you recoup, you start to dev again, delivery, recoup, etc.
Subscription is a long term.... you need time waiting the game recoup.
We were talking about 1P games. First Party
 

JLB

Member
Dear Mr JLB,

Why are we now pivoting to Psychonauts? But to answer that one, mass appeal would fall under the "Blockbuster" definition.

I was specifically commenting on Flight Sim, because I know I am damned right about that one when people only bring it up to "pad a list." Most who hyped it, were never to be seen talking about it again post launch.

Great tech, always has been a competent sim, love the modding... Blockbuster by definition on Xbox, it is not.

B R U H

Who knows, I still think a 90+ in Meta is a masterpiece independent of player base, platform and religion, but maybe its just me.
 

JLB

Member
When did I ever say it wasn't a masterpiece or wasn't fantastic tech?

A console blockbuster, it is not.

alright alright thats fair. I think my understanding of blobkbuster as a non english native speaker was more like an "awesome" thing than, what I suspect now, only tied to sales.
 

sol_bad

Member
There is a difference between
- Microsoft has made no great games
and
- Microsoft has made games I dont like

MS made objectively great SP games last 5 years, from MS Flight Sim, Halo Infinite, Gears 4 and 5, Psychonauts 2, Wasteland 3, among many many many others.

And yet Microsoft supporters don't feel they are worth a $60 price tag.
 

JLB

Member
And yet Microsoft supporters don't feel they are worth a $60 price tag.

That sounds like an army of guys with ties

Star Wars Fun GIF by GIPHY CAM
 

Zeroing

Gold Member
We are not talking about narrative games, like people call it.

We are talking about other genre. There are tons of single player games, that focus on certain genre.

Forza is an example, which has 2 genre. The Sim racing like gt, which is called Motorsport. And racing game like need for speed, which is called horizon.

They had it before ps4.
We don’t know what the studios are doing for ps5
 

jigglet

Gold Member
They won’t see a large enough financial return, so they’d have to spend less on them, which would result in lower quality games.
Sony spend a lot more on average for their AAA games than Microsoft, and currently have fewer monetisation options.

I currently buy most of Sony’s output. They’d make a lot less money from me if I subscribed to Extra. I’d love to save hundreds, but that’s bad business for Sony, so I get it.
I barely buy any Sony exclusives but I agree with this. There’s a big market that just wants to own stuff. When I have subscription I feel compelled to finish stuff but if I own it I can finish it at my own pace.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
There is a difference between
- Microsoft has made no great games
and
- Microsoft has made games I dont like

MS made objectively great SP games last 5 years, from MS Flight Sim, Halo Infinite, Gears 4 and 5, Psychonauts 2, Wasteland 3, among many many many others.

It's funny how numerous users on this forum equate things like "I didn't like Halo" as the same thing as "Halo was a flop".

I think I've pointed out a fair share of those in various topics as well.

--

And yet Microsoft supporters don't feel they are worth a $60 price tag.

Anyone who has game pass already gets them at day 1.

For anyone who doesn't, the games still end up charting on NPDs at retail.

So, I'm not really sure which sect of people you're referring to here.


--


That sounds like an army of guys with ties

Star Wars Fun GIF by GIPHY CAM

*Sweating Balmer intensifies*
 
its a double edged sword really. If he puts day 1 exclusives on there they'd be called copycats of the ideas/methods for gamepass and if they don't they'll get the criticism they're getting now for not doing it.

It seems like everyone wants companies to do their own things in this industry until they actually do them...then the conversation turns into "Why didn't you do what your competitor was doing"

But then again I disagree with the notion that releasing big games day 1 on the service will somehow detract from them...can only speak for me personally but at minimum I've put 30-40 hours into the bigger games put on gamepass..Shit im at 90+ hours for Halo Infinite's Multiplayer and Forza Horizon. And I've beaten a shit load of games over the last 2 years that I probably wouldn't even have watched a trailer for lol.

Sony just needs to do what they plan to do and if you like it, subscribe to it. The same way MS just needs to do what they plan to do/are doing and if you like it - then subscribe to it. I've already got my summer playthrough of MGS4 Guns of the Patriots planned lol
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
We are talking about big AAA games so I'm really in the side they are splinting revenue based in "usage / monetization".
Makes no sense for games with big push of players to choose the other two options.
They are offering 2 business.
1 is subscribing the service to keep playing the game. If they cancel the service, they will lose the access for the game.

2nd one is what Sony makes money from. Retail/digital sale. These people are the people who aren't subscribed to the service.

Because the service is 25m (PC side, and Xbox side combined), we can deduct that tons of people buy the game.

Then you have FH5 early access buy out, we had here, despite the game being available in the service.

If MS losses one of these options, the other option increases their revenues.

Right now, the actual revenue gamepass pulls, without deductible is $200m, from 25m users paying $10 (average price).
This is without monetization, such as dlc and mtx.

This money will keep increasing, as more users join.

MS can generate $400m a month, if they push those users to 50m. That should give them $6b. $2b will go to 3rd party deductibles, and the rest is for their 1st party.

Downside for this method, is consistently keeping the users.

For those who will keep getting their neck to this point. 1$ only works on new users. You should know this, if you are a gamepass user. So stop responding the 1$ crap.
 

ethomaz

Banned
You think cyberpunk2077, battle field 2042.Vanguard, sport games, games with heavy MTX worth $60?

Because they don't. Not with the shit state they come out.
So you only knows these games?
FIFA and Vangard is worth of $60 imo... the others two you listed not.
MTX has nothing to do with with content you get from $60.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
How do MTX effect whether the content given for $60 is worth it?
You clearly haven't played sports games.
The only service, would need me to spend thousands of money, to get the best cards in the game. Then a new package comes out, and now you have to spend more money to get them.

They are basically mobile games, charging you $60-$70. Biggest scam.
 

ethomaz

Banned
You clearly haven't played sports games.
The only service, would need me to spend thousands of money, to get the best cards in the game. Then a new package comes out, and now you have to spend more money to get them.

They are basically mobile games, charging you $60-$70. Biggest scam.
What sport game?
We used to play FIFA in the work everyday and never needed to buy anything.
 

kingfey

Banned
So you only knows these games?
FIFA and Vangard is worth of $60 imo... the others two you listed not.
MTX has nothing to do with with content you get from $60.
MTX basically affects the online mode.

If I am paying $60, I am expecting to get that value, like elden ring, sekiro, rd2.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
You clearly haven't played sports games.
The only service, would need me to spend thousands of money, to get the best cards in the game. Then a new package comes out, and now you have to spend more money to get them.

They are basically mobile games, charging you $60-$70. Biggest scam.

It still doesn't really answer my question. Sports games can offer tons of entertainment to people w/o having to buy MTX. The base content is more than what I got as a teen back when I was into sports games more.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Do you play fut mode?
No. We play 1 x 1 or 2 x 2 mode that is the best.
2 x 2 is way more fun than 1 x 1.

You don't need to buy MTX to enjoy a $60 sport game.... I don't think I ever touched most of the features FIFA have.
 
Last edited:

Estocolmo

Member
Are you trying to convince us or yourself that Microsoft has good games?

I feel sad when I see someone post stuff like this, because as soon halo and Forza came out, they were forgotten like a fart in the wind. One would think if people where organically excited about games, they would still come up once in a while.

Like, we still see people talking about Horzion and GT7, but if you look in the halo thread, it's a sad situation. As for Forza, I only see people bring it up to show off its score. Real interesting.
Microsoft have different type of games than Sony.
Just because MS first party don’t have the same AAA budget as the Sony one, doesn’t make them worse. Most often Sony games are reviewed higher but MS is catching up and they are doing their own thing instead of copying Sony.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Most of games are worth $60.
Not to everyone. There are very few games that I would pay $60 for. I think most games are worth 40 bucks tops and there's enough to play out there that I'm good with waiting for a price drop. Most indies aren't worth more than 10 bucks.

Last games I felt were worth $60 day 1 were RDR2 and Super Mario Odyssey. I'll probably pay full price for the next Tekken so I can play online with friends.
 

kingfey

Banned
It still doesn't really answer my question. Sports games can offer tons of entertainment to people w/o having to buy MTX. The base content is more than what I got as a teen back when I was into sports games more.
If you are a person who wants to play the online mode for these sports games, you will basically have to grind the abysmal market. Especially with how poor and shit the reward is.

I play FUT fifa. During the launch, a single gold pack was 15k gold. 1 match grants you 500 gold. You had to play 30 matches, which takes around 10m-20m to finish it. Worst, is that these gold packs are loot boxes. And chances are so slim, that rare units is very hard to get.

Only way to really compete in those first 3 months, is to spend money. You can basically get 3 25k gold package for 350 points. 1150 points cost $10.

That is how mtx affects the game.
 

kingfey

Banned
No. We play 1 x 1 or 2 x 2 mode that is the best.
2 x 2 is way more fun than 1 x 1.

You don't need to buy MTX to enjoy a $60 sport game.... I don't think I ever touched most of the features FIFA have.
If you play the single mode, you can have fun with it. But the fut mode is basically a rich man's game.
The economic is much worse, that it makes gt7 economics before the new buff a generous game.
 
Are you trying to convince us or yourself that Microsoft has good games?

I feel sad when I see someone post stuff like this, because as soon halo and Forza came out, they were forgotten like a fart in the wind. One would think if people where organically excited about games, they would still come up once in a while.

Like, we still see people talking about Horzion and GT7, but if you look in the halo thread, it's a sad situation. As for Forza, I only see people bring it up to show off its score. Real interesting.
I can't tell if you're serious? Gt7, which I own and enjoy, is literally only talked about by the mainstream for its shit-tier monetization. Horizon being on gamepass day 1 vs GT7 being 70 bucks and having freemium level microtransactions on top of that tells you all you need to know. Horizon is a better game to boot. The metacritic is accurate. Not sure if troll or just salty.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
If you are a person who wants to play the online mode for these sports games, you will basically have to grind the abysmal market. Especially with how poor and shit the reward is.

For sure; doesn't mean that for many people the $60 is more than worth it for the value they get out of the single player.

Many people play the online w/o buying MTX as well.

I'm not saying you specifically have to consider it $60 worth of value, or that MTX can't effect a game.. just that having MTX doesn't mean the value of the non-MTX portions can't be high.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Not to everyone. There are very few games that I would pay $60 for. I think most games are worth 40 bucks tops and there's enough to play out there that I'm good with waiting for a price drop. Most indies aren't worth more than 10 bucks.

Last games I felt were worth $60 day 1 were RDR2 and Super Mario Odyssey. I'll probably pay full price for the next Tekken so I can play online with friends.
Most games I played if not all are wroth of $60.
I think The Order wasn't but I paid $5 I believe.

Last game I brought was GT7 at $70 and it was very worth of that money... I played around 20 fun hours and didn't even touched a skin of what the game has... I didn't now even finished the Cafe chapters.
 
Last edited:

GreatnessRD

Member
Jimmy said y'all not gonna fuck with his $69.99 price tag. You'll get the star AAA first party titles on the PSNow after 3 years and for a limited time.

But fuck all that, Jim, still waiting for MLB and Gran Turismo on PC. Let's fuckin' go!
 

Elder Legend

Yoir Aee Member
Jim Ryan is a sack of lying shit. His only saying that because they're leading in sales. Tunes will change really quickly once the Xbox will start getting their big exclusive title on Xbox Series X day 1 such as Starfield, Fable, State of Decay 3, and so on. They'll be forced to do it if they'll want to compete moving forward.
 

Maxwell Jacob Friedman

leads to fear. Fear leads to xbox.
Never understand sony obsession with following xbox gamepass model ( in sony case spartacus) which proven to to be a colosal failure

You can see it yourself on the latest elden ring sales chart ( some 40% on ps, 45% on pc and prob some 12%ish on xbox)

The diehard fanboy will deny this but the numbers dont lie

As these subs are proven to be training gamers not to buy games

Theres good reason why nintendo first party games always become a big sellers
Gamepass well "help" people on it but it absolutely cripples sales for games that arent on said service. Phil said gamepass helps people play more games, sure to a point, but you have a large majority of xbox fanbase not picking up a games in the "hopes" it comes to gamepass, this is welfare gaming at its best. And developers that see bad sales on xbox may next time just jot put their next game on it
 

Batiman

Member
Are you trying to convince us or yourself that Microsoft has good games?

I feel sad when I see someone post stuff like this, because as soon halo and Forza came out, they were forgotten like a fart in the wind. One would think if people where organically excited about games, they would still come up once in a while.

Like, we still see people talking about Horzion and GT7, but if you look in the halo thread, it's a sad situation. As for Forza, I only see people bring it up to show off its score. Real interesting.
Who the fucks talking about horizon? Elden Ring wiped that game from existence.
 
Maybe Jim is right. As others have said, while Microsoft games on Game Pass have not suffered, Microsoft is not Sony. Sony does not have the money that Microsoft has. Maybe Sony would need to cut corners and games on their subscription service would suffer. But that is not true for Game Pass.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Jim Ryan is a sack of lying shit. His only saying that because they're leading in sales. Tunes will change really quickly once the Xbox will start getting their big exclusive title on Xbox Series X day 1 such as Starfield, Fable, State of Decay 3, and so on. They'll be forced to do it if they'll want to compete moving forward.

Did you even read the article? Ryan himself said this could change.

Come On Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 

ethomaz

Banned
Did you even read the article? Ryan himself said this could change.

Come On Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
Of course it can.
You drop the budget for game development, made projects expecting to get back money in long terms, etc.
Space big releases from each other.
You basically needs to change how Sony delivery games nowdays.

And mostly important convince investors to give up on a good chunk of full priced sales.

That is why he says it could suffer.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Of course it can.
You drop the budget for game development, made projects expecting to get back money in long terms, etc.
Space big releases from each other.
You basically needs to change how Sony delivery games nowdays.

That is why he says it could suffer.

Yep. Which is why he references their current model as being incompatible.
 

Chronicle

Member
What type? Ps4, or ps5? Or you mean their games on steam?

I am not part of either tribe here. Since I don't like simping for a company.
Just wondering if you even own a playstation. I bet most dudes in this thread crying about sony 1st party day one dont even own playstations.
 

kingfey

Banned
Just wondering if you even own a playstation. I bet most dudes in this thread crying about sony 1st party day one dont even own playstations.
These are some of my games. Plus I bought steam version too.
If you think I am one of those fanboys between these 2 factions here, you are mistaken.
I have nothing with their war.
 
Last edited:

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
PlayStation is very comparable to Disney in this matter.

PlayStation are still making people "pay for tickets to see their movies in the cinema", cause they make a hell lot of money that way.
With PS Premium they can offer older first party stuff and new third party stuff.

Xbox is very comparable to Netflix.
No reason to go to the "movies" - cause everything are on the platform. Losing money every year, until enough are subscribed.
Risk of decline in content quality - based on numbers subscribed.
 

kingfey

Banned
PlayStation is very comparable to Disney in this matter.

PlayStation are still making people "pay for tickets to see their movies in the cinema", cause they make a hell lot of money that way.
With PS Premium they can offer older first party stuff and new third party stuff.

Xbox is very comparable to Netflix.
No reason to go to the "movies" - cause everything are on the platform. Losing money every year, until enough are subscribed.
Risk of decline in content quality - based on numbers subscribed.
Disney is still making shows for the service.
Movies have contract issues. Disney can't put them there for free.
They got sued for putting black widow on the service.
 
PlayStation is very comparable to Disney in this matter.

PlayStation are still making people "pay for tickets to see their movies in the cinema", cause they make a hell lot of money that way.
With PS Premium they can offer older first party stuff and new third party stuff.

Xbox is very comparable to Netflix.
No reason to go to the "movies" - cause everything are on the platform. Losing money every year, until enough are subscribed.
Risk of decline in content quality - based on numbers subscribed.
Not a good comparison. Disney is still putting certain movies day one on Disney Plus. I doubt Sony will do that. And that is not considering the tv shows made for Disney Plus. Sony is not comparable at all.

Disney is still making shows for the service.
Movies have contract issues. Disney can't put them there for free.
They got sued for putting black widow on the service.
They got sued because they didn't adjust the backend for their actors, I believe. Scarlett got a certain amount of money upfront and she had a backend deal for box office tickets, and putting it day one on Disney Plus seriously hurt its box office. WB avoided that on their films that went to HBO by negotiating with the filmmakers, or at least they did on Wonder Woman 2. Not sure on the other films. And I don't know how that suit Scarlett brought turned out. They probably settled it out of court.

But even still, we DO get movies day one on Disney Plus. Turning Red most recently. I think Raya and the Dragon movie was day one. Black Widow you mentioned. Probably others too.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
They got sued because they didn't adjust the backend for their actors, I believe. Scarlett got a certain amount of money upfront and she had a backend deal for box office tickets, and putting it day one on Disney Plus seriously hurt its box office. WB avoided that on their films that went to HBO by negotiating with the filmmakers, or at least they did on Wonder Woman 2. Not sure on the other films. And I don't know how that suit Scarlett brought turned out. They probably settled it out of court.

But even still, we DO get movies day one on Disney Plus. Turning Red most recently. I think Raya and the Dragon movie was day one. Black Widow you mentioned. Probably others too.
Its because, the contract didn't cover that. She was supposed to be paid for the theater cut. But Disney broke the contract by putting it on the service.

Its like MS making a timed exclusive contract, but decides to put the game on gamepass.

Its not just upfront money.
 
Top Bottom