• 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.

Sony’s PlayStation Game Pass Reveal Could be Imminent as PS Now Subscriptions Change to PS+

teezzy

Fantastik Tuna
I think the real value of Game Pass will be more obvious once Microsoft's studios start cranking out games. But yeah, right now there is a lot of filler stuff that I only ever fire up in xCloud for MS Rewards quests. I was happy to hear GoTG was coming to GP even though I already finished the game.

Yeah I'm a PC/Xbox guy and really appreciate GamePass for what it is

Lots of fun times already playing things like Golf With Friends, State of Decay 2, or even Gang Beasts online with friends

So much of it makes me feel like I'm navigating through someone else's Steam library though and I'm just not interested in it.

Excited for the future of it though. There's a lot of potential there. The industry headed in this direction is a good thing, whether the old-timers clinging to their physical discs want to admit it or not

Cheers
 

dvdvideo

Member
Wait. This is your source? I can see why you didn't want to post it earlier. You may want to brush up on your English. Sustainable isn't the same as breaking even right now. MS are prepared to pump in $$ in order for the future pay off they see. They are investing and are willing to spend to grow the service.

How long will be take for GP to recoup the money spent on acquisitions to fill out the games on the service? Many years.

I had no issue with posting it, it's common knowledge and didn't feel like searching for what you could find easily enough.

See my other response to dcmk7 regarding where gamepass is.

I also dont see why gamepass would be solely responsible for recovering aquisition costs considering there are still other large revenue lines from said acquisitions.
Also MS needed these studios to expand 1st party regardless of gamepass as well.
 

dvdvideo

Member
As much as I adore Xbox, the dirty secret about GamePass that nobody wants to admit is that the large majority of the games on there are indie garbage I wouldn't touch in a million years

Enjoy that, I guess, Sony fans

You sound like someone who either doesn't really play games or has never actually had gamepass.

There is even at a glance over a 100 games on gamepass right now with a metacritic score of 80% or higher, many of which are AAA titles.
 
Last edited:

teezzy

Fantastik Tuna
You sound like someone who either doesn't really play games or has never actually had gamepass.

There is even at a glance over a 100 games on gamepass right now with a metacritic score of 80% or higher, many of which are AAA titles.

Sorry, didnt realize you enjoyed Boyfriend Dungeon so much
 

Chukhopops

Member
As much as I adore Xbox, the dirty secret about GamePass that nobody wants to admit is that the large majority of the games on there are indie garbage I wouldn't touch in a million years

Enjoy that, I guess, Sony fans
Indie games were around 30% of GP games a year ago, I doubt it’s a large majority now. And the average MC of GP games is 78.5 which is faaar from garbage.

I think you’re thinking of the other sub service which has older, lower rated games but in higher quantity.
 

Pallas

Gold Member
I think it's so wrong that people keep calling it 'Gamepass competitor' when it's clearly not going to be. Even Sony isn't calling it a Gamepass competitor.

They are just going to improve the PS+ service. That's what it is. Why do everyone keep calling it a Gamepass competitor?
Probably because it’s the closest thing they can compare it to and some may think the restructuring and change is in response to Gamepass. Which it may or may not be regardless it’s a welcoming change for Sony and shows healthy competition is beneficial for all gamers.

I get the feeling that it's Xbox fans who need Sony to make a gamepass competitor to feel validated.

Instead of being a desperation move, it's now innovative.
Not everything is console warring nonsense, sheesh.
 

teezzy

Fantastik Tuna
Wasn't my intention to troll or strike a nerve through my initial comment.

I legit love Xbox and have been a GamePass subscriber since the One S days.

I still find there to be a lot of filler on the platform per my tastes. Find myself buying things more digitally via sales than anything else.

Xbox gets enough flack on this forum. I'd rather not add to the flames.
 
You said it was break-even as in its self-sustainable though?

I'm sure for Microsoft they can continue to sustain any losses, the Xbox division after all hasn't been synonymous with profitability, it's been sustained its entire existence as far as I can tell.

So no questions there, but is it really breakeven as you said? be interested to see a good source if you have one.
Phil Spencer literally says it's self-sustainable and not burning money. That's the best source you'll get.
 

Hezekiah

Member
Who's to say long term it doesn't make them more money and stabilize software cash flow.
And why wouldn't any company want to maintain market share if it's losing customers a little at a time?
The fact that Sony and Nintendo aren't doing it speaks volumes. As does Greenberg admitting that it doesn't make much money.

And Sony's demand and market share is only increasing. Makes much more sense to carry on selling games at full price only, then adding them to Playstation Plus/Collection a few years later.
 

dvdvideo

Member
The fact that Sony and Nintendo aren't doing it speaks volumes. As does Greenberg admitting that it doesn't make much money.

And Sony's demand and market share is only increasing. Makes much more sense to carry on selling games at full price only, then adding them to Playstation Plus/Collection a few years later.

Lots of movie companies and tv providers said the exact same thing 10 years ago, no sreaming, no subscription service needed, just look at our market share, what happened there?

The fact that Nintendo aren't doing it proves nothing, they still can't even get a basic online gaming system in place in 2022 and have constantly been behind on a lot of market shifts. Sony is seriously adusting thier online sub service ...that speaks volumes.
 
You're suggesting he should be believed when, literally in the post you quoted from me, it contains an example of when Phil Spencer made an outlandish claim that turned out to be pure nonsense? :messenger_grinning_smiling: ok then bud.

Hard facts win out over PR pieces.
I could put your shoes on and claim that PS Plus is losing money because there are no hard facts that prove otherwise, but they're several sizes too big and a bit too colorful for my taste, so I'll pass :messenger_smiling_with_eyes:
 

dcmk7

Member
I could put your shoes on and claim that PS Plus is losing money because there are no hard facts that prove otherwise, but they're several sizes too big and a bit too colorful for my taste, so I'll pass :messenger_smiling_with_eyes:
Season 1 Nbc GIF by The Good Place
 

Hezekiah

Member
Lots of movie companies and tv providers said the exact same thing 10 years ago, no sreaming, no subscription service needed, just look at our market share, what happened there?

The fact that Nintendo aren't doing it proves nothing, they still can't even get a basic online gaming system in place in 2022 and have constantly been behind on a lot of market shifts. Sony is seriously adusting thier online sub service ...that speaks volumes.
Total strawman.

At no point have I suggested 'a subscription service is not needed.' That would be total nonsense.

I think some people are going to be in for a real shock very soon. Seemingly many on here think playing new AAA games day one for £8 a month is some sustainable model.
 

Hezekiah

Member
Man, I had forgotten about that :messenger_grinning_smiling:

All of these top guys are very liberal with the truth. Makes it difficult to believe any big claims made until it can be verified.
Uncle Phil isn't just some coporate douche bag. He's your friend.

Clearly the PR charm offensive is working 😄
 

dvdvideo

Member
Total strawman.

At no point have I suggested 'a subscription service is not needed.' That would be total nonsense.

I think some people are going to be in for a real shock very soon. Seemingly many on here think playing new AAA games day one for £8 a month is some sustainable model.

Lol, every single time without fail if someone uses the term "strawman" they have the weakest arguement ever.

Your astounding lack of ability to add numbers together is amazing. Tell me, what's 15 x 12 x 50,000,000.00? (You know, the number of subs gamepass is headed towards.....)

Here's a hint, it's 9 billion dollars. (Per year in case your confused) plus regular sales and add on sales. Compare the market leader (sony) at 15 billion for 2021 and you can see its not only sustainable, it's very profitable.

There will be no shock if Sony doesn't do it though, it would be a shift in thier business model, I'm not sure they want to make the change right now. But they will eventually need to offer it. It takes time to aquire customers and to build up subs, they can't wait too long or they risk losing long term.

Or wait, I'm completely wrong and one of the most profitable and successful companies in the world is investing billions into a venture that by your incredible acumen is doomed to lose money. Right.......
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
Lol, every single time without fail if someone uses the term "strawman" they have the weakest arguement ever.

Your astounding lack of ability to add numbers together is amazing. Tell me, what's 15 x 12 x 50,000,000.00? (You know, the number of subs gamepass is headed towards.....)

Here's a hint, it's 9 billion dollars. (Per year in case your confused) plus regular sales and add on sales. Compare the market leader (sony) at 15 billion for 2021 and you can see its not only sustainable, it's very profitable.

There will be no shock if Sony doesn't do it though, it would be a shift in thier business model, I'm not sure they want to make the change right now. But they will eventually need to offer it. It takes time to aquire customers and to build up subs, they can't wait too long or they risk losing long term.

Or wait, I'm completely wrong and one of the most profitable and successful companies in the world is investing billions into a venture that by your incredible acumen is doomed to lose money. Right.......
There's so much reaching going on in this post, the stench of desperation is real. You're talking about numbers and making massive assumptions along the way.

Like GamePass heading toward 50m subs - which sounds like a number pulled straight out of your arse.

Also that in this hypothetical scenario all these subs are GamePass Ultimate subs.

And that people remain subbed all-year round, and never unsubscribe for months at a time. Because Phil.

And you're talking about my supposed lack of ability 😂😂
 

dvdvideo

Member
There's so much reaching going on in this post, the stench of desperation is real. You're talking about numbers and making massive assumptions along the way.

Like GamePass heading toward 50m subs - which sounds like a number pulled straight out of your arse.

Also that in this hypothetical scenario all these subs are GamePass Ultimate subs.

And that people remain subbed all-year round, and never unsubscribe for months at a time. Because Phil.

And you're talking about my supposed lack of ability 😂😂

Some serious denial you live in there. Of course the goal is 50 million (or more). We know for a fact they are already at 25, by now more likely at 30. The amount of subs that actually bother subscribing for portions of a year are minimal, straight up people are too lazy and busy to change this. They sub and they stay subbed for the most part. You would know this if you understood the basics of a subscription model - but clearly you don't.
 

Hezekiah

Member
Some serious denial you live in there. Of course the goal is 50 million (or more). We know for a fact they are already at 25, by now more likely at 30. The amount of subs that actually bother subscribing for portions of a year are minimal, straight up people are too lazy and busy to change this. They sub and they stay subbed for the most part. You would know this if you understood the basics of a subscription model - but clearly you don't.
Basically make up some numbers, think of a best scenario and...



Astounding.
 

dvdvideo

Member
Basically make up some numbers, think of a best scenario and...



Astounding.

You still had zero answer for my point that ms knows the numbers and is charging full speed ahead. Tends to lend credence to the numbers I have vs "the model is not sustainable" nonsense you are spewing backed up by.......... nothing........
 

Brofist

Member
The fact that Sony and Nintendo aren't doing it speaks volumes. As does Greenberg admitting that it doesn't make much money.

And Sony's demand and market share is only increasing. Makes much more sense to carry on selling games at full price only, then adding them to Playstation Plus/Collection a few years later.
I wouldn’t really count what Sony and Nintendo are doing about services as some kind of forward thinking on the topic. Japanese companies are very slow to adapt to these kind of services. Even the music and movie industries there would be still selling 3000 yen music CDs and 5000 yen movies on disc rather allow people to use Netflix or Spotify if they could.
 

Hezekiah

Member
You still had zero answer for my point that ms knows the numbers and is charging full speed ahead. Tends to lend credence to the numbers I have vs "the model is not sustainable" nonsense you are spewing backed up by.......... nothing........
You clearly understand subscription models, that's me convinced. I reckon MS will have 50m GamePass subs by the end of the year, and make $9bn (per year).

This thread is remarkably insightful.
 

MScarpa

Member
In my subsequent comment, I mentioned: third-party support, total gaming revenue, most current console units sold. PS comes on top on all those metrics. Nintendo does come on top in terms of ROI though.

You're a little late to the conversation; I explained earlier by Gold shouldn't count anymore as a separate sub. My reason being that a large majority of Gold subs would have been converted to GP by now. Just like PS Now subs shouldn't count once they are merged with PS+. Otherwise, we run into the issue of duplication.

Also, Gold DOES NOT have 50 million subs. Microsoft never actually released that number. When people say 50 million subs, they are confusing Xbox Live Gold with Xbox Live (which refers to the free Xbox account or MAU). XLG numbers would be like ~20 million last gen, as per my estimation.

Source 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/531063/xbox-live-mau-number/
Source 2:
So much wrong with this I don't have the time or care to even reply. Good luck man, you should try out Xbox sometime, don't be so biased, you could just enjoy games for games instead of battling.
 

dvdvideo

Member
You clearly understand subscription models, that's me convinced. I reckon MS will have 50m GamePass subs by the end of the year, and make $9bn (per year).

This thread is remarkably insightful.

Please quote where I said they would be 50 million by the end of 2022. Also please quote reliable sources as to the break even point for gamepass, since your convinced it loses money.
 

Hezekiah

Member
Please quote where I said they would be 50 million by the end of 2022. Also please quote reliable sources as to the break even point for gamepass, since your convinced it loses money.

Tell me, what's 15 x 12 x 50,000,000.00? (You know, the number of subs gamepass is headed towards.....)

The amount of subs that actually bother subscribing for portions of a year are minimal, straight up people are too lazy and busy to change this.

Who needs reliable sources 😄😄
 
So wait, will this service offer Sony first party games as soon as they're released? If not, how is it comparable to gamepass? It's one, if not the most important, part of gamepass.
 
So much wrong with this I don't have the time or care to even reply. Good luck man, you should try out Xbox sometime, don't be so biased, you could just enjoy games for games instead of battling.
I do love some of the XGS games. Ori is one of my all-time favorite games, as I have openly expressed it many times on this forum.

And nothing wrong my statement; I only corrected the incorrect information you shared earlier.

And did you forget Xbox Gold cause that has more than 50mil subs. Just not sure what you're getting at?
Since you're saying I'm wrong about this. Can you share an official source for this data that shows XLG has more than 50 million subs?
 
It won't. And Sony hasn't said it will either.
Yep, and as a matter of fact, Sony has explicitly mentioned it a couple of times that this tactic of releasing day-one games on a subscription service will not work for them, as their games releases are big events, have super high production value and cost a lot, and their games sell tens of millions of copies.
"We have had this conversation before -- we are not going to go down the road of putting new releases titles into a subscription model. These games cost many millions of dollars, well over $100 million, to develop. We just don't see that as sustainable.

"We want to make the games bigger and better, and hopefully at some stage more persistent. So putting those into a subscription model on day one, for us, just doesn't make any sense. For others in a different situation, it might well make sense, but for us it doesn't. We want to expand and grow our existing ecosystem, and putting new games into a subscription model just doesn't sit with that." -- Jim Ryan.

I can see Sony partnering with other publishers and studios to bring some of their games day one on PS+ (e.g., Shadow Warrior 3 launching on PS Now), but I personally think even that isn't sustainable at a macro level -- especially for bigger games. I can see certain games from Annapurna Interactive and Devolver Digital launching on PS+ in the future.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty clear he's saying it's not losing money. It's revenue is near 4 billion a year, if the average AAA title costs 100 million to develop, that's a lot of games it can cover each year. It stands to reason adding more subs from this point costs them very little vs fixed costs since they own most of the content. Also very possible games like guardians of the galaxy are brought over at a fixed cost vs revenue sharing, so again there adding more subs is gravy.

Assume it's doing amazing things for them, would it be smart for him to come out publicly and let Sony know it's doing well for them?
He has to tow a line.
Source that the revenue is 4B a year? I assume you are taking $15/mnth * 20M subs+. How many are actually paying $15/mnth and haven't taken the deal of $1/month and extended that for 3 years. Pretty much everyone I know on GP used this method. Anecdotal I know but I'm not claiming everyone is using the $1 deal. But it's not 15/mth*20M

You mentioned the cost of AAA titles. What about acquisitions to feed more games into GP? Is that factored in as part of GP costs? I suppose if Netflix removed the costs associated with buying content and parked them elsewhere Netflix could look very profitable.

Finally how does it's currently sustainable mean it's not losing money? If MS understands it will take X number of years for them to get where they want to be ... and know it will lose money to start with, once those loses are within expectations it is very much sustainable.

Edit: Sorry I just saw your follow up reply. Yes, those acquisitions do have some % to recoup elsewhere, like standalone sales on PS, PC and to a lesser extent Xbox. But, logicially some % should be attributed to GP ya? It sounds from your view that % is 0. Right.

I do agree with you they can reach 50M subs and be profitable. In the future. They are not breaking even now.
 
Last edited:

saintjules

Member
I think it's pretty clear he's saying it's not losing money. It's revenue is near 4 billion a year, if the average AAA title costs 100 million to develop, that's a lot of games it can cover each year. It stands to reason adding more subs from this point costs them very little vs fixed costs since they own most of the content. Also very possible games like guardians of the galaxy are brought over at a fixed cost vs revenue sharing, so again there adding more subs is gravy.

Assume it's doing amazing things for them, would it be smart for him to come out publicly and let Sony know it's doing well for them?
He has to tow a line.

Source that it's $4 billion a year in revenue?
 
Actually he said it is sustainable which is different to self-sustainable. He's pretty clever with his wording I'll give him that.
No, he said it's self-sustainable.

"It's not the only focus of the organization, and it, as a standalone thing, is very sustainable as it sits today, like just today. It's sustainable."

He also said they're not burning money to sustain it, which further confirms that it is in fact self-sustainable.

"I know there's a lot of people that like to write, we're burning cash right now for some future pot of gold at the end. No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now as it sits and it continues to grow."
 
He exactly said:
“I know there's a lot of people that like to write [that] we're burning cash right now for some future pot of gold at the end,” Spencer said. “No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now as it sits. And it continues to grow.”

He didn't say 'self' and didn't say profitable. Meaning that maybe it generate loses but they cover them by far with other profit sources (very likely from non-gaming business), or that they are ok with having these loses but are covering them with the profit with the other divisions and hope to turn in the future these loses into profit.
You posted the quote and then your interpretation of the quote is the exact opposite of what the quote says. Impressive :messenger_beaming:

Here's another quote:

"It's not the only focus of the organization, and it, as a standalone thing, is very sustainable as it sits today, like just today. It's sustainable."

That quote probably also means the exact opposite of what it says, you just have to believe it hard enough.
 
No, he said it's self-sustainable.

"It's not the only focus of the organization, and it, as a standalone thing, is very sustainable as it sits today, like just today. It's sustainable."

He also said they're not burning money to sustain it, which further confirms that it is in fact self-sustainable.

"I know there's a lot of people that like to write, we're burning cash right now for some future pot of gold at the end. No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now as it sits and it continues to grow."

Fair enough. He didn't say it directly but did imply it. I can buy that.

Now ... show me where sustainable = they have broken even, just like today.

Even MS watchers like Paul Thurrott and Tom Warren say it is not profitable. And this is before including any of the recent acquisition costs.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. He didn't say it directly but did imply it. I can buy that.

Now ... show me where sustainable = they have broken even, just like today.

Even MS watchers like Paul Thurrott and Tom Warren say it is not profitable.
The MS watchers are just speculating, they have no clue about the numbers.

I also don't quite see the difference between sustainability and breaking even. Sustainability means they're making at least as much money as they're spending on 3rd party deals and 1st party game development.

Of course if you include acquisitions, it will likely never "break even", but that's not how you do accounting anyway. Buying an asset for 70 billion dollars doesn't mean that you are 70 billion dollars in the red, after all. It means you spent 70 billion in cash and (ideally) gained at least 70 billion worth of assets.
 

yurinka

Member
You posted the quote and then your interpretation of the quote is the exact opposite of what the quote says. Impressive :messenger_beaming:

Here's another quote:

"It's not the only focus of the organization, and it, as a standalone thing, is very sustainable as it sits today, like just today. It's sustainable."

That quote probably also means the exact opposite of what it says, you just have to believe it hard enough.
Yes, I made that interpretation because I did read the original article in Axios, where that extra quote doesn't appear:
https://www.axios.com/xbox-chief-ph...tm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgaming&stream=top

But after posting it here I saw that you also previously posted that same sentence plus the extra sentence, that doesn't appear in the Axios interview. I see it was added by Windows Central when they reported the Axios interview (or maybe was originally in the Axios interview but was removed later):
"I love to see it growing, because I see what it does to the diversity of games that people play and the games that we can fund to go create. And I think that's a very magical mix. But its growth is a part of Xbox. It's not the only thing that's growing in Xbox. It's not the only focus of the organization, and it, as a standalone thing, is very sustainable as it sits today, like just today. It's sustainable."

Edit: now I see the extra sentence reported in wccftech.com. Did Axios posted the whole interview, full transcript elsewhere?
 
Top Bottom