• 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+

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.

Sustainability doesn't mean they are profitable. If that's what he meant, why didn't Phil say GP is profitable? I'm sure the shareholders would love to know. Why all the double speak.

They have a plan for the service, a specific growth which in the long term will be profitable. And they will most likely get there. Providing they are growing per plan, it's sustainable. It doesn't mean they are profitable now.

You know for sure it's profitable ('facts') and the other folks like Thurrott and Warren are just speculating, they have no clue about the numbers. Maybe they need to look to you for some quotes.

Edit: I just saw the AXIOS interview who are the ones that did the interview with Spencer. Even they sumarise it as Spencer says is “sustainable” right now. What's with the " ". LOL

Actually ... looking at the entire sentence from AXIOS "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."

That's sounds to me like he's saying the growth is sustainable ? I could be wrong. More weasel wording from Spencer.
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
Where exactly in that quote does it say we are at 50 million by the end of this year? What I said was that was the goal. Pointless to go back on forth with someone what lacks basic reading comprehension.

Also you avoided completely avoided the second half of that question, which just shows you have zero answer.
Even Zhuge says MS will want over 50m subcribers for it to be profitable.

You've just made some assumptions about it probably being at 30m, and that it's headed toward 50m.

And because you understand subscription services so well, you also know that every subscriber is going to subscribe at the Ultimate tier, and they're also going to remain subbed year-round because they're 'too lazy' to do otherwise.

I can't believe you acually typed all that lol.
 

yurinka

Member
Actually ... looking at the entire sentence from AXIOS "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."

That's sounds to me like he's saying the growth is sustainable ? I could be wrong. Most weasel wording from Spencer.
Depending how you read this paragraph, you could even understand he means that the 'standalone' thing that makes it sustainable is Xbox (could mean their gaming division, now renamed tot MS Gaming), not Gamepass.

In the original Axios website only appears a few sentences, it's weird but in other websites reporting the interview seem to have a more complete transcript. Here I found that part that seems more complete but still doesn't have the full interview transcript:
https://wccftech.com/game-pass-isnt...r-its-very-sustainable-and-continues-to-grow/
 
Depending how you read this paragraph, you could even understand he means that the 'standalone' thing that makes it sustainable is Xbox (could mean their gaming division, now renamed tot MS Gaming), not Gamepass.

To be honest it's a master class of PR speak. Hats off to Phil.
 
Last edited:

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
Not everything is console warring nonsense, sheesh.
It's the only reason I could think of that someone would want a business to go out against their own best interests and emulate an unsuccessful strategy. (Success being measured by profit)

No one who isn't on a MS payroll or hasn't sipped too much of the Koolaid would suggest such a thing.
 

Ozrimandias

Member
With "native" I meant not through streaming. :messenger_neutral:
But that section always appeared, or im I wrong? What concerned me the most is that this new service could be available worldwide, and the possibility of playing all of those games from past generations without the necessity of a "cloud service". Im hoping nothing less than the catalog that is already available in the PS3 Store for those classic games.
 
Sustainability doesn't mean they are profitable.
No, it means they're making at least as much money as they spend.
They have a plan for the service, a specific growth which in the long term will be profitable. And they will most likely get there. Providing they are growing per plan, it's sustainable. It doesn't mean they are profitable now.
Should I post the quote again? Spencer specifically says it's sustainable right now, not after they've grown to some arbitrary number in the future.
You know for sure it's profitable ('facts') and the other folks like Thurrott and Warren are just speculating, they have no clue about the numbers. Maybe they need to look to you for some quotes.
They were speculating before Spencer made these statements. Spencer is one of the few guys who actually know the numbers, so he can tell us some facts. Speculators like Warren can't. Weird how people trust the guys who have no clue, but don't trust the guy who literally knows.
Edit: I just saw the AXIOS interview who are the ones that did the interview with Spencer. Even they sumarise it as Spencer says is “sustainable” right now. What's with the " ". LOL
Not sure what's funny, that's how quoting someone works.
Actually ... looking at the entire sentence from AXIOS "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."

That's sounds to me like he's saying the growth is sustainable ? I could be wrong. More weasel wording from Spencer.
It's very clear what he's saying. He explicitly says today, as in not dependent on future growth. He just also happens to love to see it growing (kinky).
 
They were speculating before Spencer made these statements. Spencer is one of the few guys who actually know the numbers, so he can tell us some facts. Speculators like Warren can't. Weird how people trust the guys who have no clue, but don't trust the guy who literally knows.

Not sure what's funny, that's how quoting someone works.

It's very clear what he's saying. He explicitly says today, as in not dependent on future growth. He just also happens to love to see it growing (kinky).
Brend Lauert says that's how quoting someone "works". Look up scare quotes.

Warren had posted since this interview that GP was revenue positive, not that it was profitable. Because it isn't. Yet.

It's as clear as mud. As he intended. If he wanted it to be clear ... GP is profitable. Simple. What's with all the double speak?
 
Brend Lauert says that's how quoting someone "works". Look up scare quotes.
You think they used scare quotes? No, that's just how quoting works when you write an article. A forum post works differently, yeah.
Warren had posted since this interview that GP was revenue positive, not that it was profitable. Because it isn't. Yet.
Warren is still speculating and has no clue about the numbers. Also what is "revenue positive" even supposed to mean?
It's as clear as mud. As he intended. If he wanted it to be clear ... GP is profitable. Simple. What's with all the double speak?
Microsoft generally doesn't talk about the profitability of its subdivisions. Idk why but it's company policy.
 

DJ12

Member
You think they used scare quotes? No, that's just how quoting works when you write an article. A forum post works differently, yeah.

Warren is still speculating and has no clue about the numbers. Also what is "revenue positive" even supposed to mean?

Microsoft generally doesn't talk about the profitability of its subdivisions. Idk why but it's company policy.
Still waiting for you to post the quote of it being self sustainable, but here you are still chatting rubbish.
 
Microsoft generally doesn't talk about the profitability of its subdivisions. Idk why but it's company policy.
Even with revenue they tend to alter the grouping of subdivisions to prevent YoY comparisons specifically when the number either isn't as good as expected, or isn't as good as the competitors.

Revenue positive has as much meaning as sustainable. That was the reason I mentioned it.
 
Last edited:

Smoke6

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........
No, they have all their eggs in this one basket! They’re gonna ride it til the wheels fall off so at the end of the day, they’ll end up just one of the biggest publishers in gaming and that’s how they’re gonna recoup these massive losses for this service that hasn’t done anything worthwhile in a while now!

The world is watching and there’s basically no games worth mentioning for the system or service until holiday at best! Yes you have activision and all that but we won’t see the fruits of that for years to come as Bethesda takes forever to make games as oblivion is still a few years out and it would be a major wait if starfield doesnt succeed in which case it prolly will seeing as all these Xbox guys been review bombing Sony first party games out of jealousy
 

Smoke6

Member
You think they used scare quotes? No, that's just how quoting works when you write an article. A forum post works differently, yeah.

Warren is still speculating and has no clue about the numbers. Also what is "revenue positive" even supposed to mean?

Microsoft generally doesn't talk about the profitability of its subdivisions. Idk why but it's company policy.
It only became company policy when it was related to their Xbox division!

Who could forget them shouting from the rooftops of how much money and sales games like Gears and Halo made compared to blockbuster movies over a week or weekend?

C’mon now man, it’s cool to have a favorite system and all but you’re really being delusional about thsi information from this company who keeps stepping on there own toes!
 
Still waiting for you to post the quote of it being self sustainable, but here you are still chatting rubbish.
I posted it twice, just read the thread.
Even with revenue they tend to alter the grouping of subdivisions to prevent YoY comparisons specifically when the number either isn't as good as expected, or isn't as good as the competitors.

Revenue positive has as much meaning as sustainable. That was the reason I mentioned it.
Revenue YoY comparisons have been possible every year. You just have to go back and do some maths, it's not 100% straightforward but people are doing it.

Sustainable means it makes at least as much money as it costs. Revenue positive means basically nothing, I never heard that term before.
It only became company policy when it was related to their Xbox division!
Nope, they don't share profits for any of their subdivisions, even wildly profitable ones like Azure. There's no Xbox conspiracy going on here.
 
Sustainable means the company can afford to keep it running. That is all. It does not imply or can be taken to mean it's profitable, if it's being subsidized from another part of the business.
We already went over that. Spencer says the exact opposite of what you're claiming, quite explicitly so.
 
Whatever makes you sleep at night. The statement is crystal clear.
Game Pass is profitable. <- Crystal clear statement. We don't have that at all.

IGN Phil June 2021 (11 mins on)

This is as close as we got. We got the P word in relation to GP ... but he weaseled out with "our business continues to grow and continues to be profitable" by adding "at xbox" to the end of the statement. Shame.

Nothing changed from end of June to Nov. Any question on GP talks about growth in the subscriber base, and then links it back to Xbox as a whole.
 
Last edited:

DJ12

Member
I posted it twice, just read the thread.
Well there's 2 minutes I'm not getting back.

He doesn't say its self sustainable at all, that's the interviewers own take. If it was Phil would say.

Sustainable in this context could mean its within the budget he's been set to spend to get it going.

You are just reading into it what you want and are wrong.

So STFU with this nonsense.
 
He doesn't say its self sustainable at all, that's the interviewers own take,
But he does, you've seen the quotes.
Sustainable in this context could mean its within the budget he's been set to spend to get it going.
Nope, it can't mean that unless you have a ton of imagination.
You are just reading into it what you want and are wrong.
That'd be you.
So STFU with this nonsense.
Same, same.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Weird how a topic about a Sony subscription service inevitably derails into a discussion about GP being sustainable or not. It’s like the expectations on Spartacus are so low that the only thing some people hope for is for GP to become worse instead of PSNow to become better. And that’s beyond retarded in my opinion.

Sustainable in this context could mean its within the budget he's been set to spend to get it going.

You are just reading into it what you want and are wrong.
You don’t sense any irony here when you try to find new definitions of the word to accommodate your own preconception?
 

DJ12

Member
You don’t sense any irony here when you try to find new definitions of the word to accommodate your own preconception?
Right a managed forest is sustainable if I keep planting trees and nuture them, if its self sustaining it plants it own trees.

I'm not sure why you think this is somehow a new definition.

Not sure what definition you are using to convince yourself MS isn't making a loss on the project.

If it wasn't, he would've said plain and simple.
 

Smoke6

Member
Spartacus was planned well before PS5 and is not a direct competitor to gamepass! I feel it’s a Trojan horse to get BC through subs rather than ala cart or other means. It’s a smart business move by Sony and I can’t be mad at them as I know there’s a good chance somethings not gonna be the way we all feel it should be.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
Sony subscription thread derailed into a gamepass sustainability thread. Who would have thought it?

Same people on both sides arguing about stuff that they know fuck all about. As nobody but Microsoft knows what they are doing with the revenue, it is just another pointless argument that ruins another thread.

Give yourselves a pat on the back
 

THEAP99

reposts tweets from kids about console wars
Sony needs this service to be competitive considering recent game releases have been underperforming.
 

On Demand

Member
Really need to stop calling this a gamepass rival.

Sony is doing their own thing and has been in the subscription/steaming business since forever. They even had PSnow in their Sony Bravia TV’s




Then later brought it to Samsung TV’s



They removed the app from all TV’s for whatever reason.


Sony isn’t doing anything new. They’re just making what they’re already been doing better. I bet they’ll bring it back their TV’s. Or whatever this new service will end up being.

Sony has a history of being ahead of everyone and creating new technology first. In both electronics and gaming. The disadvantage to being so early is the tech isn’t fully developed.
 
Last edited:

laynelane

Gold Member
Weird how a topic about a Sony subscription service inevitably derails into a discussion about GP being sustainable or not. It’s like the expectations on Spartacus are so low that the only thing some people hope for is for GP to become worse instead of PSNow to become better. And that’s beyond retarded in my opinion.


You don’t sense any irony here when you try to find new definitions of the word to accommodate your own preconception?

Not so weird considering GamePass is right in the title for some reason. I'm not sure who wants GamePass to become worse or not, but I figure the people who want it already have it or at least know where to go to get it. But so long as it's brought up whenever sub services are discussed, whether it's applicable or not, these conversation offshoots will continue.
 
No, the rumor is:
-Tier A: PS Plus $10/montth (same content as of now: monthly games, PS Plus Collection, onlline MP, cloud storage, discounts...)
-Tier B: PS Plus + PS Now (only downloadable games, no cloud gaming) $13/montth *
-Tier C: PS Plus + PS Now (complete, both dowloadable and cloud gaming)+extended demos of new games $16/month *

*= They would add hundreds of games more to the almost a thousand games that PS Now already has from PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, PS4 and in a near future PS5. They would include newer games, but won't include all their 1st party games there day one. Day one would only feature some indie or AA game from time to time, something they already do.

The demos stuff isn't clear but seems to be similar to EA Play, to play pretty likely full new games but time limited to a few hours.


Because it this Spartacus stuff is real, both Plus and Now would be merged becoming a single multi tiered service. And since GPU also includes Gold and there is a $1 upgrade to migrate from Gold to GPU, people assume most active Gold subs migrated to GPU because it's an awesome deal very hard to miss.
Game pass ultimate already is merged with XBL. I haven’t paid for Gold since 10/14/2021 yet im still online because Ult expires next month
 

VAVA Mk2

Member
Meme Reaction GIF
LOL Ok sure
 

yurinka

Member
Game pass ultimate already is merged with XBL. I haven’t paid for Gold since 10/14/2021 yet im still online because Ult expires next month
Well, theorically you can still buy separatedly Gold. I don't understand why a player could think that isn't worth to pay an extra $1 to upgrade it to Game Pass Ultimate, so the possibility is there even if I think most active Gold subbers have upgraded to GPU because it's an awesome deal.

I think Sony's strategy with Spartacus -if it exists and if the pricing Grubb said it's real- is a similar strategy but charging a bit more for the upgrade: in this case to pay $3/$5 per month to upgrade to the other tiers if you get spare months, or maybe the half if you get a full year and even less if you get it twhile discounted or via a CD keys store.

To a big portion of these 50M of Plus subs, to pay an extra of around $1 or $1.5 per month to get hundreds of downloadable games on top of the PS Plus games and benefits, or to pay an extra of $2 or $3 per month to their current Plus sub to add these hundreds of downloadable games plus hundreds of games more via streaming plus the demos of new games will be appealing. Specially if as Bloomberg say they plan to add hundreds of games more to the ones they already have on Now and they focus more on newer games without putting all their games there and without doing it day one.

Sony already earns around a Billion per quarter from subs, so that would help them to earn way more even if don't grow a lot in terms of subs, and even if the % of subs who upgrade is smaller than in MS.

They removed the app from all TV’s for whatever reason.
Yep, while ago PS Now was on a few tvs and phones but only on a few brands/models. A couple of years ago Sony said they plan to bring it to phones, tablets and smart tvs. I assume that in the past they had a per device implementation that would require to update each separate version of the client, and now they are working on a diferent global implementation that would be common for all the devices, like and Android version or a browser based version.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom