• 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 CFO insists AAA game quality ‘will deteriorate’ if it adopts Game Pass-style strategy

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
All stars are aligned now. Nintendo, Sony, and MS are all working at 95% perfection at the moment.

I don't disagree overall; but I also don't think the PS3 did anything terrible. That gen was a gen of 2 good systems, w/ good exclusives and good features.

So if we have 2 good competitors this gen.. I don't think that's going to grow anything substantially, if at all. We'll just see a closer battle of companies fighting for the same ~150-170 million console unit ceiling between the 2 of them (if that.)

In the same token, Sony is going to have a battle to eclipse the ~50 million "number of users buying a sub service." They are just going to make more money off of those 50 million w/ more expensive tiers (IMO, but I don't think Sony expects a ton of overall userbase growth either). You'll note they LOST users this past quarter.. and you had the Sony CEO talking about "engagement" numbers staying the same w/ the new PS Plus tiers (a nudge nudge wink wink same engagement w/ much higher average sub price = more money.)

Nintendo as I was saying is just hard to include in the picture. They ditched home console gaming for a mobile device w/ a dock... it's a niche they've carved out and they are selling loads of units and games, but it's replacing a business that used to sell both a mobile console and a home console.. and we never considered "Gameboy"s as part of a console generation.. so IMO hard to consider Switch really a part of them... they also aren't releasing devices to compete w/ each other nearly launch aligned like MS/Sony are.
 
Last edited:
They don't currently care about the product because it's behind a $500 paywall called "buying a dedicated console". Eliminate that paywall and many more people suddenly become interested.
xCloud has been out for some time already included with Gamepass Ultimate as well, all over the world. Works on any mobile, browser or PC and even on Xbox One. I'm surprised you don't know that, this reminds me of Stadia where the people that were most exited about it were the people that knew the least about the details of the service.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Wait, I DO NOT WANT IT and would wish this insanity would end now rather then waiting for people finally realizing how fucked up it's going to be. But companies want it, that was my point.

If the consumer doesn't want it, it can't be our only future. The future is truly in the hands of the people.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The part that Sony is missing is that gamepass and studio competition together will erode thier user base over time. This won't happen overnight, it will happen over a decade.

Wouldn't you think Sony would take parts of what makes Gamepass good and incorporate that into their business model before their user base is eroded?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
xCloud has been out for some time already included with Gamepass Ultimate as well, all over the world. Works on any mobile, browser or PC and even on Xbox One. I'm surprised you don't know that, this reminds me of Stadia where the people that were most exited about it were the people that knew the least about the details of the service.

Xcloud does not work world wide. It only works in select countries for now, like PS Now.

Mate, your posts are fast reaching parody levels with the amount of inaccurate game pass stuff you talk about :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
They don't currently care about the product because it's behind a $500 paywall called "buying a dedicated console". Eliminate that paywall and many more people suddenly become interested.

Not sure I'm following this. Neither Game Pass or xCloud require a dedicated console.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
xCloud has been out for some time already included with Gamepass Ultimate as well, all over the world. Works on any mobile, browser or PC and even on Xbox One. I'm surprised you don't know that, this reminds me of Stadia where the people that were most exited about it were the people that knew the least about the details of the service.
This is an exaggeration on multiple fronts.. xCloud is neither available worldwide nor is it truly a standalone service. It's still built around being tied to a sub someone buys because they own an Xbox (or maybe a PC, but it is more console centric.)

If you don't own an Xbox? You can't actually buy games (well you can.. via the web interface.. and then.. not play them if they aren't earmarked for the cloud and part of GPU).. if you buy MTX for a gamepass game, good luck w/ throwing that money down the drain once the game leaves gamepass.

Despite both Sony and MS having cloud services for years.. we are pretty far from them actually being a standalone offering that provides a "console in the cloud."
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Nintendo as I was saying is just hard to include in the picture. They ditched home console gaming for a mobile device w/ a dock... it's a niche they've carved out and they are selling loads of units and games, but it's replacing a business that used to sell both a mobile console and a home console.. and we never considered "Gameboy"s as part of a console generation.. so IMO hard to consider Switch really a part of them... they also aren't releasing devices to compete w/ each other nearly launch aligned like MS/Sony are.

I don't think this is fair to do to Nintendo. It's kinda foul actually. Their business model should still be compared to the other big two. Just because they found a way to be a hybrid shouldn't mean we treat them like some 2nd class citizen.
 
This is an exaggeration on multiple fronts.. xCloud is neither available worldwide nor is it truly a standalone service. It's still built around being tied to a sub someone buys because they own an Xbox (or maybe a PC, but it is more console centric.)

If you don't own an Xbox? You can't actually buy games.. if you buy MTX for a gamepass game, good luck w/ throwing that money down the drain once the game leaves gamepass.
How is xCloud not availaible world wide? 26 countries already, including all the major markets.

Why do people that don't know the most basic stuff keep quoting me?

You argument makes no sense, it's tied to a sub someone buy because they play on Xbox? So what you are saying is that xCloud ain't worth $15 to people yet it's somehow still so disruptive it will change everything?
 
Last edited:

12Dannu123

Member
This is an exaggeration on multiple fronts.. xCloud is neither available worldwide nor is it truly a standalone service. It's still built around being tied to a sub someone buys because they own an Xbox (or maybe a PC, but it is more console centric.)

If you don't own an Xbox? You can't actually buy games (well you can.. via the web interface.. and then.. not play them if they aren't earmarked for the cloud and part of GPU).. if you buy MTX for a gamepass game, good luck w/ throwing that money down the drain once the game leaves gamepass.

Despite both Sony and MS having cloud services for years.. we are pretty far from them actually being a standalone offering that provides a "console in the cloud."

It's rumoured that within the next 12 months Microsoft will announce the ability for gamers to play games they've purchased. So I don't think 'console in the cloud' is far away at all.

The only major barrier is licensing agreements.
 
How is xCloud not availaible world wide?


Why do people that don't know the most basic stuff keep quoting me?

You argument makes no sense, it's tied to a sub someone buy because they play on Xbox? So what you are saying is that xCloud ain't worth $15 to people yet it's somehow still so disruptive it will change everything?
At this stage it isn't disruptive because internet infrastructure is not a the point where streaming can replace dedicated hardware. Microsoft doesn't currently market cloud gaming as a replacement to console gaming, they market it as a supplemental feature. However, once latency becomes a none issue in the years to come, the way it's marketed will change.
 
Last edited:
At this stage it isn't disruptive because internet infrastructure is not a the point where streaming can replace dedicated hardware. Microsoft doesn't currently market cloud gaming as a replacement to console gaming, they market it as a supplemental feature. However, once latency becomes a none issue in the years to come, the way it's marketed will change.
Come on... did you try it? It works already, well enough at least. Very few people care, usually people from places where hardware and game prices are fucked up like Brazil.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I don't think this is fair to do to Nintendo. It's kinda foul actually. Their business model should still be compared to the other big two. Just because they found a way to be a hybrid shouldn't mean we treat them like some 2nd class citizen.
None of that is any sort of knock on Nintendo at all.. there is zero negativity in those statements... there is no second class citizen.. if anything they have a huge benefit w/ what they do.

My point is their userbase doesn't effect Sony/MS much because of the direction they went. Really they never went any other direction than their own, meanwhile MS/Sony started trading blows out-competing each other to sell devices for people to play Call of Duty/Ass Creed/FIFA/etc. on. Those are games maybe / maybe not releases on Switch but more as an "and lets also make a few bucks over here" kinda deal not "people greatly interested in our games are going to choose the Switch" deal. Rather than take MS/Sony head on, Nintendo just created their own little market nobody is touching but them.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Indeed they do cost more and take longer to make. But, then the cost is spread out. I saw a lot of "sonys games cost 150m to make". If said 150m game takes three years to make, then it is costing 50m per year, or just over 4m per month. It is not 150m plus the 3yrs of studio running costs on top. The studios running costs are included in the cost and probably account for north of 80% of the price of said 150m game. Even if we added 100m on top for marketing taking the price tag to 250m, then it becomes 83.3m per year or 6.9m per month.


Looking at that link they have 18 studios, if we said that every studio was the same size and followed the example above (obviously that is not the case but for ease I will run with it), then we would get the following.

18 x 250m = 4.5bn. = 1.5bn per year or 125m per month. Not all studios or games are equal. Some games cost less to make and some more. Like I said, I went with the top end for every studio to get pretty big numbers. I have seen people writing that Sonys subs revenue (PS+ plus Now) was generating over 2bn per year. Even if they used half of that revenue to pay towards their content in this example, it would drastically cut their outlay (I'll let you or one of the laughing emojis do the maths on the rest). As they are still selling the games, then they would undoutedly be making bank from their games. With lost sales from subscribers being almost balanced out by said subcribers who have been helping to pay for these games to be made.

Halo infinite (lol I will use in this case) despite being game pass still debuted at #2 on NPD in December 2021 https://venturebeat.com/2022/01/18/...nfinite-has-strong-debut-on-the-sales-charts/

Sony has every right to do whatever the fuck they want and to defend their position with the wording of their choice. But I don't really believe that they would have to cut budgets if their games were available day one on their service if they had one premium priced tier.

Oh yeah, most of this post wasn't really directed at you or do I expect you to be my sparring partner here lol. You just got caught up in my take for this thread.

Now yurinka yurinka I know that you have all of the revenue figures wrote down ready for your posts, so would you like to post them please? We know that you know just how succesful sonys sub services are.
Regarding to the costs of a AAA game, that money you mention of 150, 200, 300M or so is their development budget. You have also to double it because they typically spend around the same money on marketing, PR and communications. Plus post launch content and so on.

Regarding the length of their development, they on average take from 4 to 6 years to be developed (add one more if they make a new engine for that game-as when it's the first game for a new generation-, it's a new IP, there's covid in the middle), and every generation gets longer.

You also have to remember that now at least many Sony games work in multiple games at the same time (Insomniac, ND, Guerrilla and Firesprite are working in minimum 3 games and pretty likely 4 at the same time). Remember Hermen said they had over 25 games under development at PS Studio, and that pretty likely didn't count games in preproduction, post launch support, PC ports or VR games.

I don't know what revenue figures are you talkin about, I'll post some for this FY:
-Sony game division: 2,739.8B Yen (doesn't include mobile) / $21,09B
-Sony game+addons sales: 1,424,459M Yen / $10,96B
-Sony PS subs: 409,355M Yen / $3,15B (if we divide this in 12 months would be $262.5M/month)

We also have to consider that there are also many additional costs involved, from the marketing, server and transaction/store/support related costs of the service, corportate costs, paying 3rd parties (MS recently said they paid indies $2B for that until now) for putting their games there and so on.

If they didn't have to pay cloud gaming, 3rd party games marketing for the service and their game & addon sales would drop to zero they could afford to fund around maybe 4 or 5 (6 being generous) average sized AAA games per year. PS Studios have over 25 games under development at PS Studios (not counting Bungie, they are working in Destiny 2 and minimum 2 new IPs), according to some who counted them well over 30 and if adding VR, ports/remasters/preproduction etc beyond 40.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying average internet speed and quality has not improved in the past 20 years? Do you believe progress in this regard will remain stagnant for the next 20 years?
Dude do you understand this tech? The tech is here already for basic gaming streaming, it works even on under developed countries, it will be refined but that isn't what is keeping people from jumping in, the reason people don't start playing over the cloud is because the people that care about traditional video games prefer to play on their own hardware and the people that don't care won't start caring because it's on the cloud now.

Do you play over the cloud? I'm surprised by how many people are so into this cloud thing but don't actually game on it.
 
Last edited:

Stooky

Member
I think quality depends on the devs themselves. While budget can give them the resources to make the game big. It still is possible to make smaller high quality titles with a low budget.
You have to pay to get quality devs/artist/talent. That’s how it works. It’s not magic.
 

rofif

Member
I prefer well done, creative, unique games like uc4, tlou2, gow, death stranding, last guardian and so on compared to gp shovelware.
Of course games that are ADOPTED to be added to gp are fine. But if game is made with GP exclusivity in mind, they don't have to worry about a lot of things because users are going "oh, there is no coop or forge but it's free so it's ok".
Nah.... I prefer qualtiy over quantity.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It's rumoured that within the next 12 months Microsoft will announce the ability for gamers to play games they've purchased. So I don't think 'console in the cloud' is far away at all.

The only major barrier is licensing agreements.

Yeah MS is trying to go that route we'll see how far they get due to licensing. Of course MS will gladly also license their tech to a pub who doesn't want their games on xCloud and make money that way too lol

But it's still going to have limited availability even w/ MS expanding. With a home console if they sell it in your region.. well there it is, and it works, the same as everyone else. Even if xCloud is in your region there's going to be a high percentage of homes that would have an unplayable experience.. and don't get me started on how people bought the 5G Kool-aid.

It's going to be a long time before we can look at any numbers of cloud users and go "this is the market, based on the demand" because it'll be a long time before truly "anyone" can just get the service and have it work. As it stands... we don't have much evidence of demand in the first place either tho lol

The experiments are going.. OK.. but we absolutely aren't seeing people wanting to ditch a console for a cloud experience.. it's an add on feature for them playing a game while taking a shit basically.
 
Last edited:
Dude do you understand this tech? The tech is here already for basic gaming streaming, it works even on under developed countries, it will be refined but that isn't what is keeping people from jumping in, the reason people don't start playing over the cloud is because the people that care about traditional video games prefer to play on their own hardware and the people that don't care won't start caring because it's on the cloud now.

Do you play over the cloud? I'm surprised by how many people are so into this cloud thing but don't actually game on it.
I personally don't game on the Cloud now because I don't like handheld gaming and at home nothing currently beats the quality of dedicated hardware. However, if 5 years from now streaming games was nearly imperceptible in quality to playing from a console, then I would forgo getting an Xbox or PlayStation altogether and just stream all my games.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Funniest part is people claiming this'll decrease the quality of big releases, while i'm here thinking their quality has already decreased from the ps360 era.
 
I personally don't game on the Cloud now because I don't like handheld gaming and at home nothing currently beats the quality of dedicated hardware. However, if 5 years from now streaming games was nearly imperceptible in quality to playing from a console, then I would forgo getting an Xbox or PlayStation altogether and just stream all my games.
Not happening in 5 years or anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Regarding to the costs of a AAA game, that money you mention of 150, 200, 300M or so is their development budget. You have also to double it because they typically spend around the same money on marketing, PR and communications. Plus post launch content and so on.

Regarding the length of their development, they on average take from 4 to 6 years to be developed (add one more if they make a new engine for that game-as when it's the first game for a new generation-, it's a new IP, there's covid in the middle), and every generation gets longer.

You also have to remember that now at least many Sony games work in multiple games at the same time (Insomniac, ND, Guerrilla and Firesprite are working in minimum 3 games and pretty likely 4 at the same time). Remember Hermen said they had over 25 games under development at PS Studio, and that pretty likely didn't count games in preproduction, post launch support, PC ports or VR games.

I don't know what revenue figures are you talkin about, I'll post some for this FY:
-Sony game division: 2,739.8B Yen (doesn't include mobile) / $21,09B
-Sony game+addons sales: 1,424,459M Yen / $10,96B
-Sony PS subs: 409,355M Yen / $3,15B (if we divide this in 12 months would be $262.5M/month)

We also have to consider that there are also many additional costs involved, from the marketing, server and transaction/store/support related costs of the service, corportate costs, paying 3rd parties (MS recently said they paid indies $2B for that until now) for putting their games there and so on.

If they didn't have to pay cloud gaming, 3rd party games marketing for the service and their game & addon sales would drop to zero they could afford to fund around maybe 4 or 5 (6 being generous) average sized AAA games per year. PS Studios have over 25 games under development at PS Studios (not counting Bungie, they are working in Destiny 2 and minimum 2 new IPs), according to some who counted them well over 30 and if adding VR, ports/remasters/preproduction etc beyond 40.

Of course my numbers were straight up rounded.

3, 4, 5 or 6 yrs, the costs are spread over them years. The bigger the studio, the more the game costs to make. Also, when you talk about some studios having 3 or 4 games in dev at the sametime. Would that mean that that Insomniac that accordiing to wiki has 400+ staff recruit massively to have three full teams or do they split their workforce depending on where they are in their projects? Because if they are just shifting people between projects then that doesn't increase the costs at the studio thus meaning that game costs are not increasing either.

Obviously there are additional costs.

Last thing, Sony are not funding the games, they are paying the running costs of their studios to make the games. Although even as I write that, I that people are going to miss my point... Going back to what I wrote above, say if insomniac is 450 employees (again rounded numbers) and the cost of everything included for running them worked out at 15k per employee per month, that would then be 6.75m per month everything in. So if they were just using their 450 employees to make their 3 games, the price still stays the same. The cost of the game goes up when they bring in extra staff or support studios. Meaning that with just half of that 262.5m per month that sonys subs make, they could run nearly 20 Insomniacs. Each one working on 3 games... They have most probably been doing just that for a few years already.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
How is xCloud not availaible world wide? 26 countries already, including all the major markets.
It's true it covers the main major (console) markets, but there are almost 200 countries. 26 isn't what I'd call a worldwide coverage. If other than console you also include mobile and PC there are some big markets missing there like China, Russia or India.

Both xCloud and PS Now (they cover 30 as of now) are still far from offering worldwide support.
 
It's true it covers the main major (console) markets, but there are almost 200 countries. 26 isn't what I'd call a worldwide coverage. If other than console you also include mobile and PC there are some big markets missing there like China, Russia or India.

Both xCloud and PS Now (they cover 30 as of now) are still far from offering worldwide support.
It should be more than enough to prove it's the future of gaming, it barely had any effect on Gamepass growth once it was released.

People are so adamant about cloud gaming being the future and are so skeptical about VR. Even with VR being a lot more expensive and less mature, yet having better numbers than cloud gaming already. VR is also a lot more appealing to the general public than cloud gaming.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
How is xCloud not availaible world wide? 26 countries already, including all the major markets.

Why do people that don't know the most basic stuff keep quoting me?

You argument makes no sense, it's tied to a sub someone buy because they play on Xbox? So what you are saying is that xCloud ain't worth $15 to people yet it's somehow still so disruptive it will change everything?

You serious w/ this shit? 26 countries isn't what "worldwide" means.. and either way, you can be in 26 countries all you want, you don't actually cover effectively the population of those 26 countries due to latency/distance from DCs.

Not even sure what the rest of your post is trying to say.. I never said xCloud was a disruptor, I suggested Gamepass was. Why are you combining my unrelated posts to make some weird point? This thread is about Gamepass, not xCloud.

xCloud is not available to everyone who can buy a console.. it really isn't.. it is available to people in 26 countries w/ a good enough internet connection to make it feasible. And it's not a product offering meant for non-console owners at this point.

We agree that cloud gaming doesn't have a ton of demand.. so drop the childish routine. I am not ignorant on this topic.
 
Last edited:
You serious w/ this shit? 26 countries isn't what "worldwide" means.. and either way, you can be in 26 countries all you want, you don't actually cover effectively the population of those 26 countries due to latency/distance from DCs.

Not even sure what the rest of your post is trying to say.. I never said xCloud was a disruptor, I suggested Gamepass was. Why are you combining my unrelated posts to make some weird point?

xCloud is not available to everyone who can buy a console.. it really isn't.. it is available to people in 26 countries w/ a good enough internet connection to make it feasible. And it's not a product offering meant for non-console owners at this point.

We agree that cloud gaming doesn't have a ton of demand.. so drop the childish routine. I am not ignorant on this topic.
It just happened to be released first in the 26 countries where people don't care about cloud gaming?

There is no shortage of excuses of why people never jump into cloud gaming. The reason is pretty obvious, people don't care about it.
 
Last edited:

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Sony will maintain their exclusive games, last time I checked there has been a steady flow of AAA games dating back to the ps1.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
None of that is any sort of knock on Nintendo at all.. there is zero negativity in those statements... there is no second class citizen.. if anything they have a huge benefit w/ what they do.

My point is their userbase doesn't effect Sony/MS much because of the direction they went. Really they never went any other direction than their own, meanwhile MS/Sony started trading blows out-competing each other to sell devices for people to play Call of Duty/Ass Creed/FIFA/etc. on. Those are games maybe / maybe not releases on Switch but more as an "and lets also make a few bucks over here" kinda deal not "people greatly interested in our games are going to choose the Switch" deal. Rather than take MS/Sony head on, Nintendo just created their own little market nobody is touching but them.

I guess at the end of the day, I want us to keep including Nintendo in all of these conversations because they matter. We can't have a "will streaming be the only future in gaming" without bringing up good ol' Nintendo. They matter more than most want to credit.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I personally don't game on the Cloud now because I don't like handheld gaming and at home nothing currently beats the quality of dedicated hardware. However, if 5 years from now streaming games was nearly imperceptible in quality to playing from a console, then I would forgo getting an Xbox or PlayStation altogether and just stream all my games.

And luckily at the moment, the far majority of gamers do NOT agree with you on this. Who knows how long it'll take before the majority will be willing to do this.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It just happened to be released first in the 26 countries where people don't care about cloud gaming?
xCloud offering a beta for a year and a half locked behind GPUw/ a product offering best suited for people who already own consoles is not enough to determine whether it's failure to make Gamepass subs skyrocket is an indication of a lack of demand for cloud, particularly since we aren't really there yet from a network infrastrucute.

I can both recognize that, as well as share your opinion that cloud gaming is not going to be something that takes over the market. I don't think it will and actually think it's possible the business model w/ fail completely.

It's still way too early to tell that.
 
xCloud offering a beta for a year and a half locked behind GPUw/ a product offering best suited for people who already own consoles is not enough to determine whether it's failure to make Gamepass subs skyrocket is an indication of a lack of demand for cloud, particularly since we aren't really there yet from a network infrastrucute.

I can both recognize that, as well as share your opinion that cloud gaming is not going to be something that takes over the market. I don't think it will and actually think it's possible the business model w/ fail completely.

It's still way too early to tell that.
How much you think xCloud is going to cost? Isn't $15 cheap enough?

After PSNow, Stadia and xCloud all failing to be disruptive I don't think it's too early to tell that cloud ain't it.

Do you want to play games over the cloud? Do you know anyone that does? Do you know anyone that is waiting for cloud gaming to start playing games?

I tried it, it was ok, I moved on 5 min later and never used it again.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
sam winchester yawn GIF


They should get this guy some new material. LOL

Basically Sony doesn't have the confidence to think that they can maintain monthly subscribers on a GP competitor, that's all the guy is really saying with this. There would be no limits to budgets on projects with a successful subscription. Using the tired Netflix example, they have billions to spend on content and can allocate that as they see fit. They have movie projects with budgets that rival Hollywood. A successful $10mo. sub can quickly generate quite a bit of revenue to work with on a yearly basis. They've already announced a catalog service that is being offered for basically $40 a year, that would leave quite a bit of that $120 sub revenue for first-party development.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Who is asking those questions? Why would MS close revenue sources and limit their audience by going streaming only? The only way Game pass is like Netflix is that it's a subscription. Even streaming isn't available to all their customers.

Going that mode exclusively would kill their console business because you wouldn't need a console to stream. It would also kill their retail model because no software would ever be sold. No serious game fan or business person thinks MS will go streaming only it makes absolutely no sense.

Look at this tweet below, made today. Some of these people are in the loony bin.

 
Top Bottom