Support NeoGAF

[BadBurger]

The evidence is that consumers at large really like subscription-served content. It's cheap from a month-to-month perspective and offers variety. As far as gaming is concerned, having a bunch of games at ones fingertips for $15-$20 a month sounds like a much better value proposition than does buying a single game every few months for $60 - $70.

Apple and Netflix are already in on the game. Netflix. It's just a matter of time until it explodes with a more casual audience.

 

[The_Mike]

I hate to be that guy but if/when a similar service launches on Sony platforms, it'll be interesting to see how many folks change their tunes and sub to that service happily

People here hated cross play
Until Sony allowed it.

People here hated online dem
Until the new GT had it

People here hated GaaS
Until Sony bought Bungie

People here hates game pass
Until Sony releases spartakus

People say shitty games devalues game pass
Utik Sony does it on spartakus that will revalue bad games.

Yup sounds about right

My unrealistic hope is that the whole thing fucks off and we can get back to a payment model that sustained a great industry for decades.

Yeah let's remove choices for the consumers so commie Jadsey can dictate how gamers should buy games, and glady eat up price hikes when Sony increases the price for games with 10 usd, and would gladly pay even more.

Good call.

Oh wait, you still can!

 

[6502]

I bought an X rather than S as I wanted a disk drive (1080p tv so no other major benefit).

But I have not bought a single disk game yet and have a ridiculous number of games to play - having a blast and just scratched the surface.

It is the future, the question is whether the industry can prosper like this in the long run without it affecting game numbers, quality or variety. I hope it can.

 

[Thirty7ven]

At the start of 2020 PS+ had 45 million subscribers. It now has 48 million subscribers 2 years later.

Game Pass started 2020 with 10 million subscribers. It now has 25 million+ subscribers 2 years later.

That's a 5 to 1 growth advantage in favor of Game Pass

Holy fuck, what a disingenuous take.

 

[DarkMage619]

Holy fuck, what a disingenuous take.

That's true the real comparison is between PS Now and Game pass. Should be able to tell which subscription service has had more growth then.

 

[SLB1904]

People here hated cross play
Until Sony allowed it.

People here hated online dem
Until the new GT had it

People here hated GaaS
Until Sony bought Bungie

People here hates game pass
Until Sony releases spartakus

People say shitty games devalues game pass
Utik Sony does it on spartakus that will revalue bad games.

Yup sounds about right

Yeah let's remove choices for the consumers so commie

 

[Thirty7ven]

That's true the real comparison is between PS Now and Game pass. Should be able to tell which subscription service has had more growth then.

Whatever makes your warrior spirit burn within, nobody cares about ps now.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Gamepass devaluing games, will just set up the service to start producing smartphone like games. The games will just be a wrapper to feed you into a store.

If games cost more to make then people are willing to pay, budgets get slashed, and mtx increases.

It's an amazing deal, until it's not.

 

[IFireflyl]

Say there are 200 million subscribers all paying $15/month. That comes out to $3 billion/month. That is $36 billion/year. The question becomes, is that enough to pay every developer/studio for their work without ripping them off while still making profit yourself. I don't think so since the 200 million users would be split across multiple platforms, and each platform is having to pay the developers their fair share (that was fun to say). I could be wrong, but there's also the added cost of infrastructure, and I just don't see this as a viable long-term solution unless prices go way up.

 

[reksveks]

Say there are 200 million subscribers all paying $15/month. That comes out to $3 billion/month. That is $36 billion/year. The question becomes, is that enough to pay every developer/studio for their work without ripping them off while still making profit yourself. I don't think so since the 200 million users would be split across multiple platforms, and each platform is having to pay the developers their fair share (that was fun to say). I could be wrong, but there's also the added cost of infrastructure, and I just don't see this as a viable long-term solution unless prices go way up.

For context,

Sony's Last 4 Q's full game software revenue including first party was 5.45Bn (and that includes publisher revenue for digital as far as I and others understand it)
Sony's Last 4 Q's network revenue was 3.42bn

So thats 25% of your total estimate number?

Are we assuming that DLC/MTX is going away?

 

[Thirty7ven]

Say there are 200 million subscribers all paying $15/month. That comes out to $3 billion/month. That is $36 billion/year. The question becomes, is that enough to pay every developer/studio for their work without ripping them off while still making profit yourself. I don't think so since the 200 million users would be split across multiple platforms, and each platform is having to pay the developers their fair share (that was fun to say). I could be wrong, but there's also the added cost of infrastructure, and I just don't see this as a viable long-term solution unless prices go way up.

Let’s be real for a moment, Netflix has 220 million subs. It’s video, it’s tv and movies and shows, it’s passive entertainment for the individual and the family. It will work the same on your tv, on your phone, on your tablet, and on your computer. There’s no learning process here, it’s as accessible as it gets. There’s no added cost, people aren’t going to be spending more money on MTX for example. There’s also the difference in the time it takes to watch a movie or a show, and the time it takes to learn a game, so time investment is just different.

Gamepass came out in 2017, MS biggest franchises in Halo and Forza have come out on in, 1$ deals, etc and it peaked at 25 million subs at the moment these big titles came out last year.

It takes a AAA game anywhere between 3 to 5 years to be made. You can’t trust release dates.

What I’m trying to say is that gamepass reaching 200 million subscribers is a pie in the sky. There’s also the aforementioned consequence that when you depend on MTX to make a subscription game financially viable, that you start making games around MTX.

Enter AB and their MTX machines. All this talk about 200 million subscribers and Netflix/Disney + hopes and dreams are a bunch of baloney.

What we’re getting instead is a couple of months where great games come out and then the majority of the year it falls on trash like cross fire x to carry the weight of subscription retention.

Gamepass like subscription aren’t the future of the industry, they are just a buffet option for the more price conscious.

 

[IFireflyl]

<snip>

I had not taken MTX/DLC into consideration. I was just providing a baseline of what they're roughly expecting consumer wise, and what base revenue would look like with an specific monthly cost per subscriber. Actual revenue would be greater. My problem is that I don't know how much developers/publishers expect to get paid when they aren't getting a specific amount per game sold as there wouldn't be game sales with a purely subscription-based service. That's why I don't see this as a viable long-term solution. Not every game sells DLC or MTX.

<snip>

I'm definitely on your side. See my comment to the other user in this post.

 

[reksveks]

I had not taken MTX/DLC into consideration. I was just providing a baseline of what they're roughly expecting consumer wise, and what base revenue would look like with an specific monthly cost per subscriber. Actual revenue would be greater. My problem is that I don't know how much developers/publishers expect to get paid when they aren't getting a specific amount per game sold as there wouldn't be game sales with a purely subscription-based service. That's why I don't see this as a viable long-term solution. Not every game sells DLC or MTX.

It would be upto platform holders or service provider to basically redistribute the money from games devs whom are bringing in mtx/dlc to devs that aren't. I don't think that buying single full games are going away but do think that gaming subs will increase in MAU and ARPU.

 

[yurinka]

That's true the real comparison is between PS Now and Game pass. Should be able to tell which subscription service has had more growth then.

If you want to compare PS Now to something, compare it to GPU even ignoring the $1 Gold to GPU upgrades. But we can't because MS doesn't release the numbers.

To compare Now to GP also isn't fair because in Now you don't get $1 Plus to Now upgrades, 3 free months of PS Now in many places. And PS Now, like GPU/xCloud is only available in a few countries, while Plus and base Gamepass is available worldwide.

If it's real that they will merge Plus and Now into Spartacus and that they'll add an additional tier that it would be like base gamepass (available worldwide, would have the downloadable content of PS Now), then Spartacus will be comparable to Gamepass.

The fair comparision now would be Gold+GP vs Plus+Now. But again, MS doesn't provide the Gold numbers. I assume because most of them migrated to GPU using the $1 upgrade. So as of now we can't get proper comparisions. Same goes with revenue, Sony provides the revenue of the SIE 'network services' (Plus+Now) but MS doesn't provide any revenue from Gold, GP or GPU.

What I’m trying to say is that gamepass reaching 200 million subscribers is a pie in the sky.

We also have to consider the size of the people who can be interested on gamepass, which would be a portiion of their fans. Let's say XBO sold 50-60M, being generous 60M. Let's assume they achieve the unrealistic assumption that all 100% XBO owners get GP. Let's assume they get some extra fans more from PC, mobile users that already weren't on XBO, and also coming from the teams they bought (Bethesda, ABK, etc) that already weren't in. I think that even bein unrealistically optimistic, they won't reach 100M. I think that being realistic, they have potential to peak at 50-60M with GP, and it would happen before the release of the next generation.

Meanwhile if it's true that Spartacus would be released this Spring and that it woud feature a base gamepass like tier available worldwide that would include the downloadable content of PSNow, and tthat the service would merge Plus, Now and would add extra content on top. I think that this same fiscal year they already will have these 50-60M plus unlike GP, this Spartacus service would be profitable because they won't be putting all their AAA games plus some 3rd party ones day one there.

And I think this Spartacus service would grow beyond these 50-60M because PS has 111MAU as of now and they are also supposed to open the streaming to mobile/tablets/smartvs soon. And even considering this, it will be continue being a secondary revenue source for Sony, whose main revenue source will be games and specially digital add-ons (mtx/dlc/season passes) being sold for their console.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That's true the real comparison is between PS Now and Game pass. Should be able to tell which subscription service has had more growth then.

GP at 25M and growing by millions every year. PS Now at about 4M, barely budges and has been available 3 years longer than GP. PS Now launched in 2014.

PS also has at least double the console base vs Xbox.

Add it up and PS Now "should" be higher count than GP, but it's barely alive at 4M. That goes to show you the value gamers see in each service.

(Google check says PS Now at 3.2M as of March 2021, so for sake of ease I just rounded it up to 4M flat).

 

[Brofist]

I hate to be that guy but if/when a similar service launches on Sony platforms, it'll be interesting to see how many folks change their tunes and sub to that service happily.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

People here hated cross play
Until Sony allowed it.

People here hated online dem
Until the new GT had it

People here hated GaaS
Until Sony bought Bungie

People here hates game pass
Until Sony releases spartakus

People say shitty games devalues game pass
Utik Sony does it on spartakus that will revalue bad games.

Yup sounds about right

Yeah let's remove choices for the consumers so commie Jadsey can dictate how gamers should buy games, and glady eat up price hikes when Sony increases the price for games with 10 usd, and would gladly pay even more.

Good call.

Oh wait, you still can!

Gamers who prefer playing PS and love to bash GP, notice how they never bring up PS Now. A sub plan service on their favourite platform that even came out earlier than GP.

 

[DarkMage619]

Whatever makes your warrior spirit burn within, nobody cares about ps now.

The idea of you of all people calling someone a warrior is pretty durn funny. Complete lack of self awareness. If no one cares about PS Now it's on Sony. They have the bigger brand after all.

If you want to compare PS Now to something, compare it to GPU even ignoring the $1 Gold to GPU upgrades. But we can't because MS doesn't release the numbers.

No need to try and spin a negative here. Bottom line is the Xbox brand is less popular than PlayStation. Despite that Game pass appears to be doing quite well contrary to whatever the OP was trying to insinuate. If Sony offered a decent value their service would perform better. Hopefully they'll offer better to their customers.

GP at 25M and growing by millions every year. PS Now at about 4M, barely budges and has been available 3 years longer than GP. PS Now launched in 2014.

PS also has at least double the console base vs Xbox.

Add it up and PS Now "should" be higher count than GP, but it's barely alive at 4M. That goes to show you the value gamers see in each service.

(Google check says PS Now at 3.2M as of March 2021, so for sake of ease I just rounded it up to 4M flat).

Ah some numbers. Pretty impressive seeing how Xbox is less popular. It just goes to show that if you offer a superior service people will use it. It will be interesting to compare the two services as time goes on.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Ah some numbers. Pretty impressive seeing how Xbox is less popular. It just goes to show that if you offer a superior service people will use it. It will be interesting to compare the two services as time goes on.

Just to show Sony doesn't even care about PS Now, they got rid of it in TVs and AV gear years ago. It used to be available in Sony and Samsung TVs and even BR players.

 

[Buggy Loop]

This is like Blockbuster vs Netflix. If you didn’t see it coming in early 2000’s, you probably won’t understand the race to subscription services either. Same for music.

It does not lower quality of the games in the library, that’s a load of bullshit. In fact, go and compare the eshop selection versus gamepass, it’s vomit inducing the crap you can find on a classic hardware store that is at 100 million units sold hardware wise. That game quality would take a hit is a boogeyman fear tactics. I know exactly when this forum will accept it.. it will only be accepted or be thought to be a revolution when a certain company that starts with an S does it.

 

[yurinka]

No need to try and spin a negative here. Bottom line is the Xbox brand is less popular than PlayStation. Despite that Game pass appears to be doing quite well contrary to whatever the OP was trying to insinuate. If Sony offered a decent value their service would perform better. Hopefully they'll offer better to their customers.

Sony's game subscriptions have ~2X the game subscribers than MS, and super likely they make way more revenue than MS from game subs and unlike MS their game subs must be profittable. And well, for Sony this is only a small, secondary part of their gaming business.

If there is someone here who should offer a 'more decent value' to perfom better is MS. Maybe this is why they have been spending over $80B on acquisitions.

GP at 25M and growing by millions every year. PS Now at about 4M, barely budges and has been available 3 years longer than GP. PS Now launched in 2014.

PS also has at least double the console base vs Xbox.

Add it up and PS Now "should" be higher count than GP, but it's barely alive at 4M. That goes to show you the value gamers see in each service.

(Google check says PS Now at 3.2M as of March 2021, so for sake of ease I just rounded it up to 4M flat).

If you want tot compare PS Now to something, compare it to GPU (even if it includes all the $1 upgrades) and not to GP. But you can't because MS didn't reveal its numbers.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Sony's game subscriptions have ~2X the game subscribers than MS, and super likely they make way more revenue than MS from game subs and unlike MS their game subs must be profittable. And well, for Sony this is only a small, secondary part of their gaming business.

If there is someone here who should offer a 'more decent value' to perfom better is MS. Maybe this is why they have been spending over $80B on acquisitions.

Playstation subs are double Xbox?

 

[The_Mike]

People who keep saying Microsoft loses a lot of money on GP:

Game Pass is the best subscription service for gamers right now. Instant access to a huge library of hundreds of games seems almost too good to be true for such a small fee, yet Xbox delivers and continues to improve the service.

As new AAA games retail for around $70, The real question is, how does Microsoft actually make money from Game Pass?

Luckily, Xbox boss Phil Spencer has revealed some of the secrets behind Game Pass in a new interview with IGN.


How Does Game Pass Make Money?
In the interview, Phil Spencer revealed that the way Game Pass makes money is very simple, from subscriptions. He confirmed that the service is making a profit right now, so the money coming in through subscriptions will be more than what Xbox pays to get games on Game Pass.

Source

some people's reaction on this probably

 

[ChiefDada]

This is like Blockbuster vs Netflix.

No, it's not. Blockbuster vs. Netflix centered around content delivery. What we're discussing here is pricing strategy and value proposition.

It does not lower quality of the games in the library, that’s a load of bullshit.

The GP strategy has the potential to incentivize Microsoft to fill their platform with mediocre content and falsely equate volume with value.

 

[yurinka]

Playstation subs are double Xbox?

Yes, only considering the Plus ones they have almost 50M which aprox. 2X the GP+GPU (which includes Gold) ones.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yes, only considering the Plus ones they have almost 50M which aprox. 2X the GP+GPU (which includes Gold) ones.

You're comparing PS+ sub count to GP sub count? How about compare PS+ vs Gold (there's Gold members which arent GP)? Or PS Now vs GP?

You sure have a knack for comparing numbers in skewed ways.