• 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)

adamsapple

Gold Member
There is but seeing as you would probably reject it what's the point?

Netflix has 222M subscribers x10 gamepass yet its biggest budget movies are nowhere near the big blockbusters that go to Cinema first.

Netflix is also not putting out movies at retail or cinemas, any movie that's made for netflix is exclusive to netflix.

That is not the case for Game Pass.

The same model does not translate 1 : 1 .
 

Kokoloko85

Member
The Irishman is a nearly 250 million dollars production.

Irishman, yeah name me 20 more movies that are at that quality.

As I said many times, I dont google for others for free. You can do it and get your answer.

Yeah sure, you cant name 20 lol its ok.

How many years has Netflix been around and they produced how many blockbuster movies?… 2008 lol?

If you cant name them or show any proof that Movie studios are gonna go straight to stream and not cinema because its better financially for them then maybe dont suggest thats what they are doing
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Disney hasnt released one Marvel or Star Wars movie apart from Black Widow and that was because of Covid. Where they charged a PPV.

There not giving up on billions in a weekend from their major films. That can coexist with the sub service and perfect to come to the sub service after a few months.
The was already articles about this. Like I said they have contracts with various companies and actors. They caught a lot of shit for black widow, cruella,and raya from those companies and actors.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
Have Disney gone there yet though? Have they released any Marvel or Star Wars movie day 1 on their service. Nooooo
Its ridiculous to think Disney is gonna give up making billions a weekend release of a movie…. When they are making plenty from the sub service separately.

So neither Netflix, Disney+ or Amazon are releasing Cinema movies day 1 on their service lol. So we in the year 2022 buddy and your vision from 2008 hasnt happened yet?

I loved it when Netflix Released The Batman day 1 on Netflix, Oh and dont forget when Amazon Prime released Dune on day 1…… Not happening

Irishman, yeah name me 20 more movies that are at that quality

Netflix beat Blockbuster, rental movies, not the movie and tv industry
The cinema industry touches investment sectors other than video games. They are starting to come out (in the form of a premium stand alone payment) films very close to the release date. The trade unions of the theater market and above all the history that theaters have are slowing down the process of change .. but there is no doubt that we will see more and more releases practically a week after the launch on some service (dune practically came out immediately after).
 

JLB

Member
Yeah sure, you cant name 20 lol its ok.

How many years has Netflix been around and they produced how many blockbuster movies?… 2008 lol?

If you cant name them or show any proof that Movie studios are gonna go straight to stream and not cinema because its better financially for them then maybe dont suggest thats what they are doing

See: https://www.glamour.com/gallery/best-netflix-original-movies

Please now reply with some more stupidity you are doing my morning.
 

DryvBy

Gold Member
No one wants the 6s and 7s that others serve. Even if they were on a system like that, if they were good I'd buy them anyway so the service isn't of any use for me.
 

JLB

Member
The cinema industry touches investment sectors other than video games. They are starting to come out (in the form of a premium stand alone payment) films very close to the release date. The trade unions of the theater market and above all the history that theaters have are slowing down the process of change .. but there is no doubt that we will see more and more releases practically a week after the launch on some service (dune practically came out immediately after).

Exactly this.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
See: https://www.glamour.com/gallery/best-netflix-original-movies

Please now reply with some more stupidity you are doing my morning.

Yeah I recognise like 5 of them…. There not exactly blockbuster movies.

If you actually think its financially better to not release cinema level movies and put them straight onto stream, your in your own world of stupidity for sure. Cause no1 streaming service is doing that.

Until Disney+ does it, and I see films like Dune go straight to stream it don’t mean shit
 

Kokoloko85

Member
The cinema industry touches investment sectors other than video games. They are starting to come out (in the form of a premium stand alone payment) films very close to the release date. The trade unions of the theater market and above all the history that theaters have are slowing down the process of change .. but there is no doubt that we will see more and more releases practically a week after the launch on some service (dune practically came out immediately after).

I dont see Dune on Amazon prime, Disney+ or Netflix. I can buy it on amazon though

Its something that hasnt happened yet, and we havent seen how financially better it is for games to release day 1 on stream. Let alone big movies Maybe in the future, but its not there yet
 

JLB

Member
Disney hasnt released one Marvel or Star Wars movie apart from Black Widow and that was because of Covid. Where they charged a PPV.

There not giving up on billions in a weekend from their major films. That can coexist with the sub service and perfect to come to the sub service after a few months.

At this point and with these arguments you are embarrassing yourself. "Because of Covid" JFC lol.
 

reksveks

Member
If you have 100m MAU users; with the following break down
First Party Full Game Per User: $3.33 - (2b/100/3)* 50%* = $1bn quarterly
Third Party Full Game Per User: $3.33 - (2b/100/3)* 50%* = $1bn quarterly
Third Party DLC Per User: $7.66 - (~2.3b/100/3) = $2.3bn quarterly
Network Rev Per User: $2.66 - (~800m/100/3) = $800mn quarterly

*Assuming 50/50 split between first party and third party sales which is very optimistic but might be good cause sony is making more profit per game sale on first party games (the unit split for first party gales is 12%)


The real question is whether new users can overcome the $1bn loss, if you do the maths:
(7.66+3.33+2.66)*new users*3 = $1bn so that's 24,420,024 new users
If I was using 12% first party game sales; it would be $250m quarterly revenue so that would be ~6m MAU needed

There are questions marks in the industry about the effect that GP or a sub service would have on the ARPU for the various categories so thats fair to thing about, i would also argue that a proper GP sub service would also increase the Network Rev per User.

These numbers are by no mean conclusive but this is the maths that MS and Sony is doing. I would argue MS is in a position where First Party Full Game per User was lower than Sony and so was the total MAU so it seemed more feasible to do.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Gold Member
I dont see Dune on Amazon prime, Disney+ or Netflix. I can buy it on amazon though

Its something that hasnt happened yet, and we havent seen how financially better it is for games to release day 1 on stream. Let alone big movies Maybe in the future, but its not there yet
It'll probably never be.
They'll either charge a premium for you to access the movies - Disney+ used to do that, the green rats are conveniently forgetting that Premier Access was a thing... which is no different than selling a game and later putting it on a service... like Sony will do going forward...
Or they'll put in the service a few months after releasing in the teathers.
In the end, Disney gave up on Premier Access and are doing the cinema followed by streaming because it's what brings more money to them... They get the sweet tickets money and them put the games on streaming. Anyone pretending this isn't what Disney does is lying to themselves trying to create a false narrative.
None of them, outside of netflix, will release blockbuster movies on subs without charging more for them.
 
Last edited:
I would consider Sony to be brave, if they can manage to make different type of games.
So far, Sony has worked on safe formula.
While MS despite people shitting on them, worked on broad range of games.
We have yet to see a shooter game, from Sony this generation, after kill zone.

You mean first-person shooters?

If so, then good because there are too many of the damn things from other publishers to the point where I'd argue that the market is saturated with very samey first-person shooters that all look and play virtually identical for the most part. So Sony do right in focusing on other genres of games for first-party releases, including third-person action-adventures / shooters such as Uncharted, The Last of Us and Ratchet & Clank!!!

Microsoft, in my opinion, have Forza, Halo and Gear of War and that is pretty much it for first-party releases bar the odd one such as Sea of Thieves (which I incidentally hated despite being a massive fan of Rare's games). That will change with the new studio acquisitions, thank goodness, but for years Microsoft were perfectly happy to rest on their laurels with their main annual franchises and that is one of the reasons why, in my honest opinion, they have never been a market leader in video games. They've always been second or third to Sony and Nintendo.
 

JLB

Member
Some people are really angry with the reality, it seems.
And they're getting angrier and angrier with each reply.
One should wonder why...

So you are saying that I have some personal issues and my natural reaction is to come to a Playstation related thread to throw my frustration?



haha, sorry just came to mind and coudnt avoid it.
okok, lets close this conversation here. Arguments are there and anyone can draw conclusions I guess.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
So you are saying that I have some personal issues and my natural reaction is to come to a Playstation related thread to throw my frustration?



haha, sorry just came to mind and coudnt avoid it.
okok, lets close this conversation here. Arguments are there and anyone can draw conclusions I guess.
Not interested in engaging in conversation with you, bud, bye.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
At this point and with these arguments you are embarrassing yourself. "Because of Covid" JFC lol.


Cinemas were closed you dummy…. how is that an excuse?

Maybe your genius mind can tell me how they could release black window in cinemas when so many cinema’s around the world were closed?
And Disney charged a PPV for Black Widow that, it wasnt straight to disney+ for the same price as subscription.

But your dumb ass see’s it as a step towards films releasing on stream day 1.

I Loved it when the recent Spiderman came straight to Disney+ day 1, or Eternals. Did you know Dr Strange 2 is coming straight Disney+ next month? No cinema release right? idiot

So still waiting to see the blockbuster films that came straight to stream since 2008…..:messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

JLB

Member
Cinemas were closed you dummy…. how is that an excuse?

Maybe your genius mind can tell me how they could release black window in cinemas when so many cinema’s around the world were closed?
And Disney charged a PPV for Black Widow that, it wasnt straight to disney+ for the same price as subscription.

But your dumb ass see’s it as a step towards films releasing on stream day 1.

I Loved it when the recent Spiderman came straight to Disney+ day 1, or Eternals. Did you know Dr Strange 2 is coming straight Disney+ next month? No cinema release right? idiot

So still waiting to see the blockbuster films that came straight to stream since 2008…..:messenger_tears_of_joy:
Oh, you know four different insults lol.
In perfect british accent: Brilliant!
 

MonarchJT

Banned
I dont see Dune on Amazon prime, Disney+ or Netflix. I can buy it on amazon though

Its something that hasnt happened yet, and we havent seen how financially better it is for games to release day 1 on stream. Let alone big movies Maybe in the future, but its not there yet
i saw it for free on skyq basically 1 week after i saw it at theater
 

FritzJ92

Member
I will show you an example.

Your game have a budget of $200 million.

Games at day one sells a lot at full price... for exemple 5 million units will give you at day one $350 million in revenue.
You covered your costs and already have margin to start to profit.
Your next game will have a budget or $200m or more again and you already can start to work on it.

You put in a subscription service on say one... you get a very little parcel per month of the revenue based in how your game is played on the program.
You basically did not covered your costs at day one... you still needs to see if it will cover it in the next months or even years.
Your next game will probably have a lower budget because you don't want to face that situation again.

That is the reality that you seem to go blind.
This is ignorant to the fact that subscription services aren’t the sole method of distribution. Sure you could sell zero copies then that makes sense. But not everyone wants to subscribe.

If you have $200m budget. You need to sell 3.4 million to break even. Afterwards it’s profit.

Or you can sell 1 million but have 20 million people paying $15 per month. That mean for this one month of launch you make a total of 360m. This business model is way more sustainable IMO once the user base is built. Not to forget next month you make another 300m each month after release. In 4 months you’ve net 1.2 billion. And you can drop another 200m budget game, you still net 1Billion.
(Feel free to correct my math, haven’t hard my dose of caffeine yet)

FYI GotG cost 5-10 million to put in GamePass. Easy to say they don’t spend that much to put game in there regularly.

Edit: stuff
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Yeah it doesn't hold any water, the publisher who does that won publisher of the year and the highest rated first party game of last year was on such a service.

Why so defensive? Sony has done quite well over the years with its more traditional approach. Obviously they are not becoming subscription centric like Microsoft so the "day one" thing isn't going to work for them. Taking that as some kind of slight towards MS is just silly.
 

reksveks

Member
I will show you an example.

Your game have a budget of $200 million.

Games at day one sells a lot at full price... for exemple 5 million units will give you at day one $350 million in revenue.
You covered your costs and already have margin to start to profit.
Your next game will have a budget or $200m or more again and you already can start to work on it.

You put in a subscription service on say one... you get a very little parcel per month of the revenue based in how your game is played on the program.
You basically did not covered your costs at day one... you still needs to see if it will cover it in the next months or even years.
Your next game will probably have a lower budget because you don't want to face that situation again.

That is the reality that you seem to go blind.
This is ignoring the differences between first party games and third party games and also ignores the fact that games are also being for with an upfront.

Sony is not a third party publisher on their own platform
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Why so defensive? Sony has done quite well over the years with its more traditional approach. Obviously they are not becoming subscription centric like Microsoft so the "day one" thing isn't going to work for them. Taking that as some kind of slight towards MS is just silly.

I'm talking about how it affects game quality, what I said proves it doesn't.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
Disney hasnt released one Marvel or Star Wars movie apart from Black Widow and that was because of Covid. Where they charged a PPV.

There not giving up on billions in a weekend from their major films. That can coexist with the sub service and perfect to come to the sub service after a few months.


Disney is the wrong example to compare.

Sure Disney isn't putting out Doctor Strange on D+ day 1 but Disney are creating a lot of exclusive content with equally impressive production values for D+.

Game Pass does not do exclusive content. Anything on Game Pass, you can buy at retail either on Xbox or on other platforms too in a lot of cases.

Bad analogy. Same as with Netflix which I posted about earlier on this page.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Disney is the wrong example to compare.

Sure Disney isn't putting out Doctor Strange on D+ day 1 but Disney are creating a lot of exclusive content with equally impressive production values for D+.

Game Pass does not do exclusive content. Anything on Game Pass, you can buy at retail either on Xbox or on other platforms too in a lot of cases.

Bad analogy. Same as with Netflix which I posted about earlier on this page.

I agree. Most likely the future changes How we play and purchase games
 

Topher

Gold Member
I'm talking about how it affects game quality, what I said proves it doesn't.

That's fine, but Microsoft is looking to generate more revenue from subscriptions than Sony is. Sony's approach to subscriptions more than likely isn't going to be able to fund development. So yeah, if they jacked up the price of PS+ tiers to Game Pass levels then maybe it would work, but that isn't the approach they are taking and so it won't.
 

ethomaz

Banned
This is ignorant to the fact that subscription services aren’t the sole method of distribution. Sure you could sell zero copies then that makes sense. But not everyone wants to subscribe.

If you have $200m budget. You need to sell 3.4 million to break even. Afterwards it’s profit.

Or you can sell 1 million but have 20 million people paying $15 per month. That mean for this one month of launch you make a total of 360m. This business model is way more sustainable IMO once the user base is built. Not to forget next month you make another 300m each month after release. In 4 months you’ve net 1.2 billion. And you can drop another 200m budget game, you still net 1Billion.
(Feel free to correct my math, haven’t hard my dose of caffeine yet)

FYI GotG cost 5-10 million to put in GamePass. Easy to say they don’t spend that much to put game in there regularly.

Edit: stuff
But the business you listed involves not having releases on day on subscription.
Because you want these million full priced day one sales to cover the budget costs.

It is a different story for smaller games that doesn’t sell million at launch.

My post was cleary talking about AAA budget.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
This is ignoring the differences between first party games and third party games and also ignores the fact that games are also being for with an upfront.

Sony is not a third party publisher on their own platform
That is reality.

Most ignorant issues in this thread That I saw was the comments like “MS get 100% of the revenue” or “MS doesn’t share revenue with the 3rd-party games” lol
 

reksveks

Member
That is reality.

Most ignorant issues in this thread That I saw was the comments like “MS get 100% of the revenue” or “MS doesn’t share revenue with the 3rd-party games” lol

What is the reality? That Sony's first party games are being budgeted for the same way that third party publishers? or that Platform holders games have to be?

Its a bit weird cause its all accounting and about SLA's and contracts and it depends on the deal but its not a automatic 5 quid goes to MS, 2 quid goes to SE, 2 quid goes to Sega, 1 quid goes to an indie. I could see someone saying that as a technicality but I wouldn't.
 

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
GT7 😂 Ya, we know why people are still talking about that trainwreck. I'm not a Forza or GT fan (GT2 I was) but talk about nickel and diming their customer base. If the future of Sony's games are like GT7, that scares me.

Devs making a change, listening to feedback and acting accordingly. How scary.
 

ethomaz

Banned
What is the reality? That Sony's first party games are being budgeted for the same way that third party publishers? or that Platform holders games have to be?

Its a bit weird cause its all accounting and about SLA's and contracts and it depends on the deal but its not a automatic 5 quid goes to MS, 2 quid goes to SE, 2 quid goes to Sega, 1 quid goes to an indie. I could see someone saying that as a technicality but I wouldn't.
What I explained and you quoted.

Day one sales recover the investimento faster so you can invest in big projects and start them early.

Subscriptions doesn’t allow that… you need to wait to recover what invested (costs) and after make plans with lower budget because you will want to recover the invested (costs) more faster.

People are saying Netflix but most if not all movies in Netflix has a budget way lower than cinema movies… and budget is direct related to quality.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
There is but seeing as you would probably reject it what's the point?

Netflix has 222M subscribers x10 gamepass yet its biggest budget movies are nowhere near the big blockbusters that go to Cinema first.

First off, Netflix is built as a replacement for cable television and not feature film, but even with that caveat they have some high budget projects.

 

MHubert

Member
michael jordan laughing GIF



Lol you have got it all arse about face backwards. It is the opposite. Each studios game next could well be make or break. Whereas if they are getting money during development from subscribers it alleviates a lot of the risks.

What do Sony fanboys think that they are going to be using this revenue for?
We are clearly talking way past each other, but ok ill entertain your notion:

It also alleviates any reward other than making ms satisfied. But yea if you think the dream scenario for a game studio is to strive to make the best of the best and the biggest reward is to keep living on monthly handouts from uncle phil I guess you should keep supporting that business model. We all know that any problems that could arise can be solved by ms opening up that big ol´ bag of infinite mammon.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Just a question, but where do you think that they are going to funnel the revenue that this is going to generate?

The same areas they have been "funneling" revenue for quite some time now. Not sure what you are asking. I'm not going to pretend to understand the inner workings of a corporation like Sony, but their financial reporting has been very positive for a while.
 

reksveks

Member
Day one sales recover the investimento faster so you can invest in big projects and start them early.

Subscriptions doesn’t allow that… you need to wait to recover what invested (costs) and after make plans with lower budget because you will want to recover the invested (costs) more faster.

Fundamentally that's not true especially since these companies have enough runway for months/years if needed.

Also platform holders have one more than one revenue stream (not just game sales), they could if they wanted to spend more of their MTX/Store profits towards games budgets or not. That does depend on their being a constant revenue stream of MTX/Store revenue.


I kinda want to leave it here for now cause someone on twitter doesn't understand Operating Income and its giving me a headache. There probably is a graph for this.
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Gold Member
I would consider Sony to be brave, if they can manage to make different type of games.
So far, Sony has worked on safe formula.
While MS despite people shitting on them, worked on broad range of games.
We have yet to see a shooter game, from Sony this generation, after kill zone.

It seems Sony is focus right now, is games You specifically want.

I have yet to see a game like the witcher 3, red dead redemption, skyrim type of games, without post apocalypse.
They do and done lots of different genres, some fail yet they keep trying.
It is your perception because of fanboy wars that keep the old “narrative driven games”

You got to understand that when “the formula” like you said, was created in a time where EA and other companies said single player games are dead! They were betting really hard on MP

Sony did the opposite, they keep making good single player games until some of their games got a lot of success.

If having a studio like guerrilla go from shooters to a new IP and different genre is not being brave then I have no clue what brave it is.

Since you talked about perception of studios. forza keeps being forza, halo keeps being halo, and so on. Yeah different genres but using a formula!
 

KungFucius

Member
So Microsoft can have all those games in gamepass and win publisher of the year and people are making a quality excuse for Sony as to why they can’t do the same? Wasn’t Mlb the show in gamepass didnt it chart and do very well on PlayStation and Xbox as well. Sony is just being greedy at this point at least just say you want people to just buy the games but not the quality or that their games will suffer we have clearly seen that is not true.
MS is well behind Sony in sales. They are spending cash to stack gamepass to win customers for the long term. Sony is ahead and don't feel that they have to compete directly with gamepass in the same way and don't want to lose revenue. Both are 'greedily' going after market share based on a strategy. The comment is specifically about how switching to an MS model would reduce their revenue and that would mean they would have less cash to put back into games to make them successful products, not that MS cannot be successful and still produce high quality AAA games. It really depends on the numbers. 10 bucks a month is a lot of money if you get that from a majority of users consistently. However it is also a lot of money if you get it from some in addition to the full 70 bucks for any first party game. They know how their customers buy games so they know that they would lose revenue today by putting games on the service day 1. Less revenue per product means you put less value into each product. In a few years, if MS wins significant market share, they might have to change. But for today they just want you to buy their 70 dollar games and 70/75 dollar controllers with shitty battery life.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
We are clearly talking way past each other, but ok ill entertain your notion:

It also alleviates any reward other than making ms satisfied. But yea if you think the dream scenario for a game studio is to strive to make the best of the best and the biggest reward is to keep living on monthly handouts from uncle phil I guess you should keep supporting that business model. We all know that any problems that could arise can be solved by ms opening up that big ol´ bag of infinite mammon.

Where do you think that the funding for Sonys first party studios comes from? It is from Sony. The studios probably get bonuses when their games are finished, but the running costs and everything else which equates to the cost of the game comes from Sony lol

Sonys warchest pays for everything, and everything is theirs.

The same areas they have been "funneling" revenue for quite some time now. Not sure what you are asking. I'm not going to pretend to understand the inner workings of a corporation like Sony, but their financial reporting has been very positive for a while.
That was a silly question and I should have removed it.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Fundamentally that's not true especially since these companies have enough runway for months/years if needed.

Also platform holders have one more than one revenue stream (not just game sales), they could if they wanted to spend more of their MTX/Store profits towards games budgets or not. That does depend on their being a constant revenue stream of MTX/Store revenue.


I kinda want to leave it here for now cause someone on twitter doesn't understand Operating Income and its giving me a headache. There probably is a graph for this.
Yeap... did you read everything?

"I can't really blame them for driving a higher margin model. That's HOW you make money. I get it."

;)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom