• 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.

Subscription services reportedly account for 4% of North American and European game markets (VGC)

poppabk

Gold Member
Doesn’t seems like.
Mobile alone is over $81b worldwide in 2021… $92b exactly.
Even if you guess the NA and EU only it doesn’t make sense to $81b include mobile.

It makes sense that it is console and PC games because these generated $85b in 2021… so only NA + EU can be closer to $81b that fits better than having mobile included.
I think we are just clutching at straws here, trying to wrangle a bunch of unsourced and unclear figures and match them with any real figures we know to get some kind of definitive numbers and it's just not going to happen.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
The thing is.... gaming subscriptions do not exist in a vacuum.

Most people have 1-3 TV/Film streaming subscriptions, spotify, office, youtube, twitch, news and other subscriptions..... we are at the point of subscription overload.

and frankly, how does turning your hobby into a monthly bill not feel like less fun? An obligation rather than a joy.....

Netflix numbers are going down, not up. All tastes can never be catered for in an economic way within a subscription and it would only limit choice and shrink the industry that way anyway because games are not really being rewarded on individual merit or innovation but collective value.
Pernille Harder Football GIF by VfL Wolfsburg
 

luffie

Member
Man, as a customer I really wish gamepass is the future. 15usd for all games, who doesn't want that?

But business revenue says otherwise. Not going to repeat all those cost and profit talk. Phil is right, gamepass is the not the end all be all strats.

Honestly, I haven't seen a single attraction that makes me want gamepass, not the games that matter to me anyway.

Elden Ring? MHW? Factorio? Baldurs Gate 3? It's great if game pass have the great games that you want. But currently these top games are just not feasible for the model yet.

Sony could absolutely destroy gamepass by doing HFW/Ragnarok day one, but they will also destroy their business. And both Xbox and Sony understand that.
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
4% might not seem much at first glance, but keep in mind within those 81BLM that make the total market, so consoles, mobile and PC combined, there are games like Candy Crush which alone generates 1BLN each year, Fortnie makes like 3BLN, LoL around 2BLN, and so on an so on, so without those kind of top 10-15 whales those 81BLN shrink dramatically. I mean, it's not a secret that PSN and XBL are one of the main contributors to Sony's/MS' yearly revenue despite games selling in 15-20M copies for 70$, and all those DLC, MTX Season Passes. The investment to return ration is just too damn good for them and it's obvious the publishers will want to go this route, same as with digital distribution where they removed the manufacturing and distribution cost and stores fee and took that to their own pocked instead of selling the games cheaper instead. The publishers will always go where they get more money and control.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
Netflix numbers are going down, not up. All tastes can never be catered for in an economic way within a subscription and it would only limit choice and shrink the industry that way anyway because games are not really being rewarded on individual merit or innovation but collective value.

News to me. Sources please.




Maybe a case of confusing slowing growth with regression?
 
Or perhaps the guesstimation used to achieve the top figure here is just not correct.
My estimates? Totally possible, because we don't know the exact numbers for each company.

Having said that, I believe my numbers are pretty close, because I'm basing everything off of the PS+ revenue numbers that Sony official shared in their financial reports. When we piggyback from that -- considering they make the bulk of that $3.7 billion revenue -- we will end up very, very close to the real numbers.
 

Bryank75

Banned
News to me. Sources please.




Maybe a case of confusing slowing growth with regression?


Netflix bleeds subscribers in US and Canada with no sign of recovery

Was this I was thinking of, was a big story a while back.
 
Last edited:

dvdvideo

Member
Doesn’t seems like.
Mobile alone is over $81b worldwide in 2021… $92b exactly.
Even if you guess the NA and EU only it doesn’t make sense to $81b include mobile.

It makes sense that it is console and PC games because these generated $85b in 2021… so only NA + EU can be closer to $81b that fits better than having mobile included.

Well if true, then it does represent an even larger percentage of the console market. Isn't tablet, etc, half the gaming market?
 

Bryank75

Banned
Netflix subcriber counts aren't going down. Subscriber growth is declining. They are not the same thing, Subscriptions are still going up, just at a slower rate than in previous years. The video streaming market is reaching a point of saturation where there are too many publishers hoarding and specializing In their own content so many subscribers move between services month to month chasing new shows. The growth is spreading across a lot of providers now.

This is nothing like the current gaming subscription model where there are only really 4 options and only one of the 4 has been serious about it as a real revenue model. MS, Sony, Nintendo and EA, where EA rides on the back of MS and Sony. Until the last couple of years these services were marketed as supplemental offerings to make money on back catalog games that were no longer selling much at retail. It's really only been the last two years that Microsoft has been pushing it as an alternative to the traditional gaming revenue model.

It's too early to know whether everything will be subscription going forward. But it's clear that's what both Microsoft, Sony and most major publishers want. If they can get you to pay for your games continually instead of just once they are going to do it. The investment in live service games is exactly that. Sony's already going down that road with GT7, confirmed in the statement where Polyphony said they were gicing you everyone a million in game credits to make up for the issues caused as they focus on turning it into live service.

The notion that video games are somehow immune to the changes that other entertainment media have gone through is naive, especially when it's already happened with MTX and other forms of ongoing monetization. Revenue from ongoing transactions is outpacing one time software sales. The allure and security of recurring revenue is changing and will continue to change video game distribution just like it has music, movies and TV. The only choice consumers have is pay or not pay and for every one of us who say we'll quit there are dozens more who will pay.


In US and Canada, they were losing subs....

In your response you conflate live services and subscriptions, they are two very different things and I believe that F2P and subscription games are more of a competition for things like Gamepass than the traditional model.

There are countless games, including Genshin Impact, Warframe, Destiny, Fortnite, Apex and recently COD Warzone that have ZERO barriers to play VS PSPlus / Gamepass that are charging a monthly fee to a few hundred random games that you may or may not have played or even have interest in.

People will always want to play a highly produced exclusive game that offers something new / different or even just something of incredible quality and they will be willing to pay for that if it excites them.

People said cinema was dead but Spider-man No Way Home really illustrated..... people will pay for a premium experience if the content excites them.

I also think Jim Ryan directly contradicts you in his last interview with Dring, he said putting the games in a subscription would hurt the quality and that alone shows that subs is just a small side-hustle for PlayStation. I would say for Nintendo...they are clearly focused on the traditional model. Both PS and Nintendo customers buy a lot of physical software still..... so I don't see subs being in any position to threaten the traditional model there.

I think this was Jims best move, he clearly understands that exclusives and the bar of quality matter very much to the PS customers. Every exclusive launch is a celebration for us and we value the experience and choices of buying physical or digital or special or collectors etc...

The games can always go to a subscription after a few years and I don't see why people that don't even play on PlayStation or have very limited interest in PS are so upset about Sony taking a different approach to Gamepass. Let them be their own thing, let them cater to their audience...
 

poppabk

Gold Member

In US and Canada, they were losing subs....

In your response you conflate live services and subscriptions, they are two very different things and I believe that F2P and subscription games are more of a competition for things like Gamepass than the traditional model.

There are countless games, including Genshin Impact, Warframe, Destiny, Fortnite, Apex and recently COD Warzone that have ZERO barriers to play VS PSPlus / Gamepass that are charging a monthly fee to a few hundred random games that you may or may not have played or even have interest in.

People will always want to play a highly produced exclusive game that offers something new / different or even just something of incredible quality and they will be willing to pay for that if it excites them.

People said cinema was dead but Spider-man No Way Home really illustrated..... people will pay for a premium experience if the content excites them.

I also think Jim Ryan directly contradicts you in his last interview with Dring, he said putting the games in a subscription would hurt the quality and that alone shows that subs is just a small side-hustle for PlayStation. I would say for Nintendo...they are clearly focused on the traditional model. Both PS and Nintendo customers buy a lot of physical software still..... so I don't see subs being in any position to threaten the traditional model there.

I think this was Jims best move, he clearly understands that exclusives and the bar of quality matter very much to the PS customers. Every exclusive launch is a celebration for us and we value the experience and choices of buying physical or digital or special or collectors etc...

The games can always go to a subscription after a few years and I don't see why people that don't even play on PlayStation or have very limited interest in PS are so upset about Sony taking a different approach to Gamepass. Let them be their own thing, let them cater to their audience...
Yeah honestly I am surprised that MS are going with day 1 for their first party instead of a theater style one month or so delay to get $ from the must see/play immediately crowd. I guess the Mtx and add-ons might be a big money maker there, I know there were something like 1 million plus playing FH5 during the 'premium' only week. I expect to see more of this staggering going forward.
 
Lots of Blockbuster takes in here.

4%, sure, but growing rapidly, while the industry itself is growing modestly (covid years aside). Meaning, subscriptions are likely to be one of the main drivers of growth in the next few years, with a much higher growth ceiling and many more potential customers if cloud gaming takes off, particularly in the developing world where traditional sales models face impediments like lower incomes and higher regional prices.

There's a whole lot of "it could take off" going on here, yes, but pointing at the right now and proclaiming the future is peak Blockbuster.

This is a story from 2012, five years after Netflix launched its streaming service. At the time, streaming was only 38% of the rental market. Now, of course, it's nearly all of it. Things change fast, and Game Pass and other services are still finding their footing and their audience. But few people try out Game Pass and walk away. It's compelling, and PS+ will be compelling, and yeah, I think this is the future.
 

IDKFA

Member
bUt itS tHe FutUrE!!

Now seriously...when i mentioned the bubble videogame forums live in, this was what i meant.

It is the future.

By the end of this generation, the only way you'll be able to play any game is via subscription and streaming. There won't even be an option to buy games individually via disc or digital download. Streaming via a subscription service will be the only option.

Not taking the piss or trolling either. I'm deadly serious about this prediction.
 

Bryank75

Banned
Lots of Blockbuster takes in here.

4%, sure, but growing rapidly, while the industry itself is growing modestly (covid years aside). Meaning, subscriptions are likely to be one of the main drivers of growth in the next few years, with a much higher growth ceiling and many more potential customers if cloud gaming takes off, particularly in the developing world where traditional sales models face impediments like lower incomes and higher regional prices.

There's a whole lot of "it could take off" going on here, yes, but pointing at the right now and proclaiming the future is peak Blockbuster.

This is a story from 2012, five years after Netflix launched its streaming service. At the time, streaming was only 38% of the rental market. Now, of course, it's nearly all of it. Things change fast, and Game Pass and other services are still finding their footing and their audience. But few people try out Game Pass and walk away. It's compelling, and PS+ will be compelling, and yeah, I think this is the future.

It's far more complicated than that in gaming.... much more of the audience is enthusiast level. A huge % play just one game.

Most of all F2P is massive and completely bypasses the subscriptions like GP and PSPlus.

Frankly the whole 'blockbuster' analogy is quite lazy and inaccurate.

Cinema has been quite resilient despite Netflix for instance.
 
It's far more complicated than that in gaming.... much more of the audience is enthusiast level. A huge % play just one game.

Most of all F2P is massive and completely bypasses the subscriptions like GP and PSPlus.

Frankly the whole 'blockbuster' analogy is quite lazy and inaccurate.

Cinema has been quite resilient despite Netflix for instance.

1. Cinema is in a decline, big films aside.
2. Theater resilience is due to offering a different product than home viewing. A night out, social viewing, etc. Video game subs offer much more of the same product. As long as games remain excellent in a sub (open question for sure), the format is much more appealing.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
1. Cinema is in a decline, big films aside.
So true.

Going to the theatre seems trended to either animated family fun movies or whiz bang CGI superhero or LotR kinds of films. And it makes sense. Theatres are big screens and THX sound blasting in your ears.

Go back decades ago and the biggest box office draws could be anything from action movies to Ghost or dramas. These kinds of movies you can wait and watch at home on NF.

 

Bryank75

Banned
1. Cinema is in a decline, big films aside.
2. Theater resilience is due to offering a different product than home viewing. A night out, social viewing, etc. Video game subs offer much more of the same product. As long as games remain excellent in a sub (open question for sure), the format is much more appealing.

Based on what? Numbers during the pandemic.... I wouldn't say that is indicative.

If subs in gaming were so appealing I think GP numbers would be much higher, not just upsold XBL Gold customers, promotions and free trials.

The MASSIVE issue of F2P remains and absolutely crushes any value or potential that subscription gaming has.
 

ethomaz

Banned
I think we are just clutching at straws here, trying to wrangle a bunch of unsourced and unclear figures and match them with any real figures we know to get some kind of definitive numbers and it's just not going to happen.
Yeap but mobile included makes no sense because the difference is too big.
With mobile it is suppose to be around $177b worldwide... so $81b for NA & EU makes no sense with mobile included.
 
Last edited:
Based on what? Numbers during the pandemic.... I wouldn't say that is indicative.

If subs in gaming were so appealing I think GP numbers would be much higher, not just upsold XBL Gold customers, promotions and free trials.

The MASSIVE issue of F2P remains and absolutely crushes any value or potential that subscription gaming has.

Tickets sold have been declining for years. Money made went up due to increasing prices of tickets, even adjusted for inflation.

Meaning they're squeezing a smaller and smaller audience for more and more. Not a long-term growth strategy.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
So true.

Going to the theatre seems trended to either animated family fun movies or whiz bang CGI superhero or LotR kinds of films. And it makes sense. Theatres are big screens and THX sound blasting in your ears.

Go back decades ago and the biggest box office draws could be anything from action movies to Ghost or dramas. These kinds of movies you can wait and watch at home on NF.

These stats doesn't show what you are trying to say.
The number of smaller titles increased but the revenue increased too... it just that smaller titles add very small in revenue.
The biggest titles still accounts for over 90% of the revenue.

The exceptions are 2020 and 2021 due COVID restrictions.

From the data looks like 2022 will be a record year for Cinema... that matches the first post-COVID heavy restrictions year.
 
Last edited:
Meh, not as bad as I would have thought at all and box-office was still increasing overall until covid.

Money is what matters.

Not really. What matters is long-term growth. That's what shareholders care about. Not money, per se, but growth in money.

Now, squeezing your shrinking audience will grow your profits in the short term, but ticket sales were declining before streaming, online gaming going mainstream, and all the rest. Now, theaters are in a real fight for survival (hundreds permanently closed last year). So, the audience vs. profits will reach an inflection point where they can't grow long-term because the remaining audience is too small.

Blockbuster was a $6 billion dollar company at the beginning of the 2000s. By the end of the decade, they declared bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Tickets sold have been declining for years. Money made went up due to increasing prices of tickets, even adjusted for inflation.

Meaning they're squeezing a smaller and smaller audience for more and more. Not a long-term growth strategy.
Sorry to take you out of that bubble.
The ticket sold are very stable in that link.
You guys are using 2020 and 2021 where people could not go to Cinenma as an evidence of decline lol
Just look what just 3 month of 2022 to see what the weird take you guys are taking... that is the opposite of what the links shows.

BTW looks like 2022 will set records in all fronts on Cinema.
It is already near half of the peak years with just 3 months.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to take you out of that bubble.

The ticket sold are very stable in that link.

You guys are using 2020 and 2021 where people could not go to Cinenma as an evidence of decline lol

Just look what just 3 month of 2022 to see what the weird take you guys are taking.

Okay.

If you're looking at a 20% decline over 18 years, with fierce competition in the entertainment space, and you're a publicly traded company, you're not doing what your shareholders need.

Movies are in decline. Period.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Okay.

If you're looking at a 20% decline over 18 years, with fierce competition in the entertainment space, and you're a publicly traded company, you're not doing what your shareholders need.

Movies are in decline. Period.
The links you posted doesn't support your claim.
Since 1995 seems stable in both number of tickets and revenue.

BTW what 20% decline are you talking about? If you get the peak year (2002) and compared with the lowest year (1995) there is no 20% difference.... all the others years including recent ones are between these.

I was surprised how stable the Ciname business are for these near 30 years.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Member
There it is again, the 'defensive' line. Your go to in every topic.

Doth project too much

🤔




You know the future is subscription when even the ardent fanbase from either side is starting to say it.
I don’t know why you feel so necessary to keep this up but ok.

In US and Canada, they were losing subs....

In your response you conflate live services and subscriptions, they are two very different things and I believe that F2P and subscription games are more of a competition for things like Gamepass than the traditional model.

There are countless games, including Genshin Impact, Warframe, Destiny, Fortnite, Apex and recently COD Warzone that have ZERO barriers to play VS PSPlus / Gamepass that are charging a monthly fee to a few hundred random games that you may or may not have played or even have interest in.

People will always want to play a highly produced exclusive game that offers something new / different or even just something of incredible quality and they will be willing to pay for that if it excites them.

People said cinema was dead but Spider-man No Way Home really illustrated..... people will pay for a premium experience if the content excites them.

I also think Jim Ryan directly contradicts you in his last interview with Dring, he said putting the games in a subscription would hurt the quality and that alone shows that subs is just a small side-hustle for PlayStation. I would say for Nintendo...they are clearly focused on the traditional model. Both PS and Nintendo customers buy a lot of physical software still..... so I don't see subs being in any position to threaten the traditional model there.

I think this was Jims best move, he clearly understands that exclusives and the bar of quality matter very much to the PS customers. Every exclusive launch is a celebration for us and we value the experience and choices of buying physical or digital or special or collectors etc...

The games can always go to a subscription after a few years and I don't see why people that don't even play on PlayStation or have very limited interest in PS are so upset about Sony taking a different approach to Gamepass. Let them be their own thing, let them cater to their audience...
It’s simple, really, they’re looking for validation. If Sony ever did that, it would validate all the energy and money invested by them on gamepass and defending it.
 
Last edited:

Bryank75

Banned
Not really. What matters is long-term growth. That's what shareholders care about. Not money, per se, but growth in money.

Now, squeezing your shrinking audience will grow your profits in the short term, but ticket sales were declining before streaming, online gaming going mainstream, and all the rest. Now, theaters are in a real fight for survival (hundreds permanently closed last year). So, the audience vs. profits will reach an inflection point where they can't grow long-term because the remaining audience is too small.

Blockbuster was a $6 billion dollar company at the beginning of the 2000s. By the end of the decade, they declared bankruptcy.

You are ignoring all the differences and the fact that F2P completely undermines subscriptions....

But I suppose that is on purpose, since there is no actual answer to F2P from the perspective of a subscription seller.

Subscriptions are caught in a pincer between F2P / live service games that require a huge time investment.... and then on the other side the highest quality single player games such as PS exclusives, From soft games, Capcom, R*, some WB games, some Square games and several other releases from other developers....

A subscription cannot be all-encompassing. For instance, right now you have people constantly complaining that Xbox doesn't get enough Japanese games.... imagine the complaints when you cannot get From games or Capcom games or WB games...... because the publishers and developers that MSFT bought are meant to sustain the subscription in the future (not other 3rd parties).

The result of gaming going subscription based is less games, less genres, less developers and a worse industry, catering to less people.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
Fully expecting bathesda, Activision, etc games to come to all platforms within some considered timing window to keep revenue where it needs to be.

😂😂😂😂😂

Hope is truly the first step down the road to disappointment.


and frankly, how does turning your hobby into a monthly bill not feel like less fun? An obligation rather than a joy.....

Then pay for an annual plan. Problem solved.
Personally, I can’t relate. I’ve got GPU for the next 3 years.

This. So many people get all their gaming needs fulfilled by playing 1 to 3 games constantly. Then you have folks that will buy lengthy single player games that eat up a couple months of playtime thereby making a sub an unused expense. There’s a market for subs but they will hit a ceiling lower than some anticipate.

I remember when Call of Duty was one of the games often cited here as one of the key games off Gamepass that a lot of folks played exclusively.

I wonder if the tune will change when COD games start being heavily advertised as being part of Gamepass…or when there’s the push to play early with Gamepass ultimate subscription.

FIFA’s the other one…and that shows up on Gamepass 6 months after release.


Netflix numbers are going down, not up. All tastes can never be catered for in an economic way within a subscription and it would only limit choice and shrink the industry that way anyway because games are not really being rewarded on individual merit or innovation but collective value.

…Precisely why Spencer acknowledges they’ll always have and push a retail business. Options exist!
 
Well that's just a guess.
True, it's just an educated guess, because we don't have official data from MS that segregates GP userbase and XBLG userbase.

Having said that, I think, as per my calculation, ARPU for Gamepass is around $35 / year. If that is anywhere close to the actual data, it leads a lot of credence to the fact that the majority of XBLG users upgraded to GPU via the $1 upgrade bath.
 

poppabk

Gold Member
A subscription cannot be all-encompassing. For instance, right now you have people constantly complaining that Xbox doesn't get enough Japanese games.... imagine the complaints when you cannot get From games or Capcom games or WB games...... because the publishers and developers that MSFT bought are meant to sustain the subscription in the future (not other 3rd parties).

The result of gaming going subscription based is less games, less genres, less developers and a worse industry, catering to less people.
I don't think this is true at all. Gaming will never go subscription only, for precisely those reasons. Subscription services allow people to try a much larger range of games than they normally would and it spreads the risk for small and medium size developers, who can get wiped out if one game fails to catch light.
 
The thing is.... gaming subscriptions do not exist in a vacuum.

Most people have 1-3 TV/Film streaming subscriptions, spotify, office, youtube, twitch, news and other subscriptions..... we are at the point of subscription overload.

and frankly, how does turning your hobby into a monthly bill not feel like less fun? An obligation rather than a joy.....

Netflix numbers are going down, not up. All tastes can never be catered for in an economic way within a subscription and it would only limit choice and shrink the industry that way anyway because games are not really being rewarded on individual merit or innovation but collective value.

Freakin-A! Bryank75 Bryank75 . Well said.
 
Our numbers are close. Also the 25 million subs are overinflated in the calculation because that is global count while the $$$ value is NA/Europe only. Really it might be 23-24 million so the avg rev per user goes back up. Who knows.

Either way it doesnt matter who’s math is correct as we’re both in the ballpark. And that is the avg rev per user is way higher than the “GP users are $1 sign ups”.

All the users who are truly one and done $1 drop offs means the true core sub count will be less than 25 million but the revenue would barely drop. So that means the core GP user is paying a lot to get to ~$2 billion.

TBH I think we're both wrong because...

Even if that pie chart does not represent market share for # of subscribers, the problem persists.

The VGC article referred to this slide and data (which does not include PS+). The rest of the article talks about total revenue generated ($3.7 billion) by subscription services that includes PS+. That completely changes the equation -- which is why that 60% should not be taken into account at all while talking about that $3.7 billion.

...and re-reading it again they did include PS Plus in that $3.7 billion figure (which by relation means they also included XBL Gold). But like I was showing before, even that $3.7 billion is sus because they claim that is 4% of ~ $81 billion, when that is actually 4% of $92.5 billion. 4% of $81 billion would be closer to $3.24 billion

And if they already factored in PS Plus, there's statistically no way GamePass can account for 60% of that figure; you'd have to remove whatever amount of that revenue is taken up by PS Plus (and NSO I suppose?) to figure what's left for services more in line with GamePass, such as itself, Stadia, Luna, and PS Now.

So you're right, the entire report is borked, they got their own percentages wrong, got numbers wrong (they could've said "close to 4%" in the article and that'd of correct so so much), then use a graph to show GamePass marketshare without providing a revenue quote of what that share would be if you remove more traditional sub services like PS Plus and XBL Gold.

How the hell do these people get jobs?
 

Lognor

Banned
Logic seems to be lost with some.

Sony announced the opposite business of Gamepass… but hey Sony is envy and copying MS.

Sony just expanded PS+… nothing changed for better and worst.
How is that the "opposite business of Game Pass"?

Sony used to only do streaming on PS Now. They copied Microsoft and added downloadable games. And we don't know if there will be day one (non Sony) games on PS+. If there is, that's another thing that Game Pass did first. Sony is expanding PS+ to be more like Game Pass :)
 

skit_data

Member
Logic seems to be lost with some.

Sony announced the opposite business of Gamepass… but hey Sony is envy and copying MS.

Sony just expanded PS+… nothing changed for better and worst.
Yeah, to some it seem like they offer a competitor to Gamepass while at the same time missing the essential part of what makes Gamepass what it is.
Can’t have the cake and eat it.

Sony can’t be poor enough to take on the relatively large expenses MS can while at the same time be stupid enough not to knowingly adopt their allegedly profitable business model. Something has gotta give.

I think it’s pretty easy:
MS has money to burn that they can use to offset negative balance when it comes to Gamepass in order to grow Xbox as a brand. Potential profit are spent to grow the money by investing it back in to a weaker branch of the company.
Sony can’t do the same, which is what MS figured out, and use their best leverage in hope of achieving their long term goal of establishing a bigger, actually profitable Xbox division.

Edit: By this it’s pretty easy to conclude what’s best for the customer in the short term and long term. I’m pretty pessimistic when it comes to long term implications of Gamepass and its price point (doubling annual price of Gold comes to mind), hence my skepticism.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
How is that the "opposite business of Game Pass"?

Sony used to only do streaming on PS Now. They copied Microsoft and added downloadable games. And we don't know if there will be day one (non Sony) games on PS+. If there is, that's another thing that Game Pass did first. Sony is expanding PS+ to be more like Game Pass :)
Sony already had PS+ and PSNow that are different from Gamepass.

They now expanded PS+ with some plans that includes PSNow that are still different from Gamepass.

If you can’t see it the same business model since PS+ and/or PSNow were launched I can’t help you.

Gamepass do a different business with day one first-party releases and stuff that never existed in PS+ or PSNow… and that exactly why Jimbo said in a lot of interviews their business model is complete different from Gamepass or Netflix.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Banned
Sony already had PS+ and PSNow that are different from Gamepass.

They now expanded PS+ with some plans that includes PSNow that are still different from Gamepass.

If you can’t see it the same business model since PS+ and/or PSNow were launched I can’t help you.
But you didn't address the fact that Sony added downloadable games to emulate was Microsoft was doing with Game Pass. Remember, PS Now used to be streaming only.
 

killatopak

Gold Member
Difference between EV and this is that EV is government mandated in countries that are the home of some of the biggest car manufacturers. It's basically tied with the energy market and environment. Gas as a commodity is finite while games can be made indefinitely.
 

Swift_Star

Member
Yeah, to some it seem like they offer a competitor to Gamepass while at the same time missing the essential part of what makes Gamepass what it is.
Can’t have the cake and eat it.

Sony can’t be poor enough to take on the relatively large expenses MS can while at the same time be stupid enough not to knowingly adopt their allegedly profitable business model. Something has gotta give.

I think it’s pretty easy:
MS has money to burn that they can use to offset negative balance when it comes to Gamepass in order to grow Xbox as a brand. Potential profit are spent to grow the money by investing it back in to a weaker branch of the company.
Sony can’t do the same, which is what MS figured out, and use their best leverage in hope of achieving their long term goal of establishing a bigger, actually profitable Xbox division.

Edit: By this it’s pretty easy to conclude what’s best for the customer in the short term and long term. I’m pretty pessimistic when it comes to long term implications of Gamepass and its price point (doubling annual price of Gold comes to mind), hence my skepticism.
Sony actually can do the same, they just don't want to/don't need to/don't see it as profitable enough.
But they've positioned themselves to shift if needed.
 
...and re-reading it again they did include PS Plus in that $3.7 billion figure (which by relation means they also included XBL Gold). But like I was showing before, even that $3.7 billion is sus because they claim that is 4% of ~ $81 billion, when that is actually 4% of $92.5 billion. 4% of $81 billion would be closer to $3.24 billion
Exactly. They did get the number / percentages wrong, just like you highlighted.
And if they already factored in PS Plus, there's statistically no way GamePass can account for 60% of that figure; you'd have to remove whatever amount of that revenue is taken up by PS Plus (and NSO I suppose?) to figure what's left for services more in line with GamePass, such as itself, Stadia, Luna, and PS Now.
Yep. And since we know what PS+ generates for Sony (via their official public financial reports), we can get a fair bit of idea of the total revenue of Gamepass and ARPU. Not 100% accurate, of course, but directionally accurate. I did some calculations.
How the hell do these people get jobs?
Gaming journalism bro 😄
 
How is that the "opposite business of Game Pass"?

Sony used to only do streaming on PS Now. They copied Microsoft and added downloadable games. And we don't know if there will be day one (non Sony) games on PS+. If there is, that's another thing that Game Pass did first. Sony is expanding PS+ to be more like Game Pass :)
Wrong.

Sony has been launching select day-one first- and third-party games on PS+ even before Gamepass was a thing.

1. Resogun was launched on PS+ day one in 2013: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-13-ps4-launch-title-resogun-free-for-plus-subscribers
2. Rocket League was launched on PS+ day one in 2015: https://blog.playstation.com/2015/07/07/rocket-league-out-today-free-for-ps-plus-members/
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Top Bottom