• 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.

Xbox boss speaks on rumored PlayStation service tiers/consolidation

Papacheeks

Banned
So what your saying is MS cloud infrastructure isn't secure? You can imagine the lawsuits can't you?
I'm not going to butt in either way on you guys' argument, just wanted to say that for what it's worth after a loose search "Youtube" says that Hellblade was developed by a team of 20 people (not necessarily all employees engaged of course). Google search says Ninja Theory has currently has 120 employees (2020), linkedin says 135. Ninja Theory website says 50-200 employees. Didn't find actual number in the HB2's team, but it kinda seems like it's safe to say it's more than 3x HB1 during crunch.

This windows central article which talks about their other projects like Mara says 40 people working on hellblade 2?

So…..
 
Hm...

What if.... 1st party, day one exclusives are included in the highest/most expensive tier?
Season 7 Reaction GIF by The Office
 

sainraja

Member
We can all keep guessing as to what Sony's version of a subscription service will look like but this was coming — most people could see that. I don't know if Sony will be able to replicate the exact business model that Microsoft has implemented (MS's core business isn't Xbox while Sony's core or the more successful side of the business is PlayStation).

I think to start, Sony will consolidate all the subscription options they currently have into separate tiers which will build upon the other; on the more expensive tier they could possibly offer early access to first party (for purchase) or day 1 first party games. Anything can happen but I am not looking forward to the cringy behavior some "passionate' fans have already started to show.

Can't wait to see some fanboys downplay what Sony announces citing reasons 1, 2, 3. I do think some Xbox fans here are a little too sensitive, who couldn't handle any conversation about Game Pass that attempted to dive a little deeper into the overall business outside of simple praise.
 

ChiefDada

Member
Those aqusitions just fall under Microsoft's balance sheet as a capitalised cost. Nothing to do with Xbox
Haha, $1 bet says you're in finance for you to reference such a reporting technicality. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't matter how you want to record that acquisition; at the end of the day, $7.5 billion of real money went out the door and Microsoft is looking to recoup that money via game pass and any other sources of revenue that come with it - MTX? NFTs? Future looks bright indeed! /s
 

Chukhopops

Member
Hm...

What if.... 1st party, day one exclusives are included in the highest/most expensive tier?
Then it’s pretty good and I might sub to it for a bit.
Haha, $1 bet says you're in finance for you to reference such a reporting technicality. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't matter how you want to record that acquisition; at the end of the day, $7.5 billion of real money went out the door and Microsoft is looking to recoup that money via game pass and any other sources of revenue that come with it - MTX? NFTs? Future looks bright indeed! /s

MS paid 16 billion for a company that reported 7M net income on the year they bought it, so they paid the equivalent of 2,285 years of their current income. It’s about strategic positioning, not trying to recover the money ASAP.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
100% agree with you here. Microsoft has a vision of where the gaming industry is headed. Their strategy is a bold one and imo very risky; I don't care how how rich Microsoft is, the idea is to keep making money, not invest in ultimate failures.

Personally, I just don't agree with their vision. I think mandating that 1st party titles be on gamepass day 1 is a huge mistake and to a lesser extent believe their emphasis on Series S is unfortunate. A subscription model for 1st party games will inevitably limit the developer's ambition in some form or fashion. Either that or see a flood of microtransactions polluting your games. No other way to circle that square. I would have loved for them to push day 1 release of 3rd party games as the game pass incentive. I think that would have been enough of an incentive while also avoiding placing limitations upon Xbox first party studios. I see many (not all) Xbox gamers complain about not having AAA superhero franchises available on their console. You can thank the game pass model for that.

See this is a realistic perspective that I can completely disagree with but respect.

Like I said, I disagree with everything here, but I'll highlight just my biggest problems with it.

1). Powering GP with day 1 third party releases. This will just be much more expensive and make profits harder to come by, because the more subscribers you get, the more the publishers of these titles will want. Making the mistake of relying too heavily on third party content was what made the road to profitability for Netflix almost impossible until they changed course. Some of the numbers that get thrown around regarding money hats make me think you could quickly reach a point where these third party additions would be costing more than just developing games from scratch. I think MS is on the right track here, where the backbone of the service as far as day one releases will be built on their own content and additional day one content from third-parties will happen when the numbers work for both sides. It helps MS maintain an element of control that they would lose in the reverse scenario (third party publishers would realize that MS really needed their content in an extreme way in your scenario and would leverage that, which is just what was happening to Netflix).

2). First party titles being on GP will alter or limit the ambitions of a game. This I don't see at all, and several developers have voiced just the opposite opinion. If GP grows to a point where all the development costs for MS studios are just there with no sales pressure (all the sales on Xbox and PC would be pure profit/gravy), with the caveat being that needing to keep GP subscribers happy and on the hook is the primary pressure, I can see that being very liberating for both the devs and MS as a publisher. Todd Howard has even talked about how they loved the idea of GP even before they were part of MS, and how this type of arrangement can democratize content more and open the door for projects that just weren't happening otherwise. It's hard to think that the industry could get any more risk adverse than it currently is anyway. There will always be measures for success, GP won't remove that. If a game gets no sales on Xbox/PC and no engagement on GP, a sequel would be unlikely, etc. Or if a particular studio had a string of titles like that, something would be done there just as it would be in the traditional model.

3). I'm playing GoTG now, I've played Batman, I've played Superman in the past, I'll probably play Wonder Woman. I'm not sure what you are saying with this one. Spiderman is great and it's not on Xbox, that's the way the ball bounces, XGS will have a ton of great games that won't be on PS. That's the way it goes.
 
MS actually brings in more $ per console than Sony, if you want to look at it that way. Sony has twice the consoles but doesn't have twice the revenue. I'm not sure what you are going for here. 2021 was 15b for MS gaming and 25b for PS/Sony gaming.
Sony is just about double the money and of course when you have over twice as many consoles sold you will have more casual owners as well. You are going to go by the year of a console launch with limited availability? in 2019 PlayStation's profits were twice that of Xbox.

There is NO reason for Sony to put their 1st party games on any kind of sub service day one, most of their PS4 1st party games sold near 10 million copies with many going over, up until this past year MS had only released 3 AAA games since GP launched, no Sea of Thieves and CD3 were not AAA, SoT is a GaaS that had virtually no content at launch. It doesn't look like MS are going to have anything until Starfield for the rest of this year while Sony has 3 AAA games launching for sure.
 
Last edited:

Riky

Banned
Haha, $1 bet says you're in finance for you to reference such a reporting technicality. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't matter how you want to record that acquisition; at the end of the day, $7.5 billion of real money went out the door and Microsoft is looking to recoup that money via game pass and any other sources of revenue that come with it - MTX? NFTs? Future looks bright indeed! /s

It's not a "technicality" it's a fact of life. You don't invest in an asset to instantly try to recoup the money you spent on it, that's not how real life or accounting works in any business.
They have purchased and asset that is worth a value, it will then increase revenues with its output and the increase in costs is the cost of running the studio.
It's very basic accounting, MS will not be trying to recover $7.5 billion. You think cash at hand is important to them? I think you'll find it's the least of their concerns.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
MS paid 16 billion for a company that reported 7M net income on the year they bought it, so they paid the equivalent of 2,285 years of their current income. It’s about strategic positioning, not trying to recover the money ASAP.

This. These types of purchases are built on the idea that what was purchased is of real value.
 

ChiefDada

Member
Then it’s pretty good and I might sub to it for a bit.


MS paid 16 billion for a company that reported 7M net income on the year they bought it. It’s about strategic positioning, not trying to recover the money ASAP.
I never said it was. Gamepass is a long play, as many subscription services are. That is what the commenter you were replying to was getting at.

You made a technical comment on how acquisitions are reported on financial statements in an effort to undermine the points of the person you were responding to and I'm explaining to you how referencing such a technicality is deeply flawed in this context.

You also claimed that the deal has "nothing to do with Xbox". This is objectively false.
 

Stuart360

Member
We can all keep guessing as to what Sony's version of a subscription service will look like but this was coming — most people could see that. I don't know if Sony will be able to replicate the exact business model that Microsoft has implemented (MS's core business isn't Xbox while Sony's core or the more successful side of the business is PlayStation).

I think to start, Sony will consolidate all the subscription options they currently have into separate tiers which will build upon the other; on the more expensive tier they could possibly offer early access to first party (for purchase) or day 1 first party games. Anything can happen but I am not looking forward to the cringy behavior some "passionate' fans have already started to show.

Can't wait to see some fanboys downplay what Sony announces citing reasons 1, 2, 3. I do think some Xbox fans here are a little too sensitive, who couldn't handle any conversation about Game Pass that attempted to dive a little deeper into the overall business outside of simple praise.
In other words you're worried about the retaliation after certain sections have trolled Gamepass for years, told the world how bad it is for gaming, and for Microsoft, and now Sony is going to be doing a similar service and now you know those same people will be praising the Sony version.

Yes i agree.
 

ChiefDada

Member
It's not a "technicality" it's a fact of life. You don't invest in an asset to instantly try to recoup the money you spent on it, that's not how real life or accounting works in any business.
They have purchased and asset that is worth a value, it will then increase revenues with its output and the increase in costs is the cost of running the studio.
It's very basic accounting, MS will not be trying to recover $7.5 billion. You think cash at hand is important to them? I think you'll find it's the least of their concerns.
Can you direct me to where I ever stated that Microsoft wants to immediately recoup investment? And yes, the financial reporting that the commenter was referring to is indeed a technicality.
 
I'm from the UK so maybe it's a little different here. We did have blockbusters here but I never really missed returning a video, good times 😄. In terms of ISPs and TV providers we have minimum contracts like 12 months, 18 months etc. They require credit checks like you are taking out a loan and they get the money for early contract termination if you stop paying. They don't really shrug it off. The non contract ones are paying upfront for a set time period.

Maybe what you describe with a non legally binding service for installments is doable and it can police itself but otherwise it makes it kind of difficult if it's not upfront payments for set time periods without a contract. let's see what they do.

Hmm, well the credit check part would be something to tackle; I don't know if that would be doable as a requirement for a contract-based model as described here since it would also require them to use credit checks for just subscribing to PSN or PS Now (or whatever Spartacus ends up being).

Would like to think there's a way they can forego the credit check, but still enforce a contract-based monthly payment system (over a period of 12 months, basically), and use a point-based infraction system plus tying their account and digital subscriptions/purchases. I don't know what they would require from them in terms of account-level information, or if that would need to be paired with certain credit card information (but if people can make those installment payments with things other than credit cards then tying it specifically to account info derived only from the credit card won't do much), but there has to be something they could do to make it work.

At the very least, if you have an account with too many infractions due to skipped payments, and that account and contents belonging to it get locked (this would also lock access to that content by other accounts the content is shared with but with which didn't actually purchase the content), the typical user isn't going to want to repurchase all of those games again, re-earn all of those trophies again etc. It's a psychological thing and they'll almost 100% make good on whatever terms are in place to regain access to the account and content tied to the account.
 

Riky

Banned
Can you direct me to where I ever stated that Microsoft wants to immediately recoup investment? And yes, the financial reporting that the commenter was referring to is indeed a technicality.

You said they are trying to "recoup" the money, they are not, they are trying to increase revenue and make more profit, the cost of Zenimax is not a profit and loss item, that's not a "technicality" it's real world accounting.
 

sainraja

Member
In other words you're worried about the retaliation after certain sections have trolled Gamepass for years, told the world how bad it is for gaming, and for Microsoft, and now Sony is going to be doing a similar service and now you know those same people will be praising the Sony version.

Yes i agree.

lol see. That is exactly what's funny about this whole thing — people saying anything that wasn't pure positivity was considered trolling Game Pass; that is why I said "sensitive" because it was hard NOT to troll it because they'd label everything as trolling. I expect the same is going to happen now because "retaliation" and somehow most of you will think it's justified (some already are) because we're all children here and you know it wouldn't be fair.
 
Last edited:
Can you direct me to where I ever stated that Microsoft wants to immediately recoup investment? And yes, the financial reporting that the commenter was referring to is indeed a technicality.


You're basically saying that Bethesda was some loss of money, do you think Microsoft doesn't still view Bethesda as an asset worth 7.5 billion dollars? There is no need to recoup the money because they didn't lose any money. If you buy a house you didn't "lose money" you traded that money for an equivalent asset. Turning money into an asset is not in any way, shape, or form, a loss that needs to be recouped
 

Stuart360

Member
lol see. That is exactly what's funny about this whole thing — people saying anything that wasn't pure positivity was considered trolling Game Pass; that is why I said "sensitive" because it was hard NOT to troll it because they'd label everything as trolling. I expect the same is going to happen now because "retaliation" and somehow most of you will think it's justified (some already are) because we're all children here and you know it wouldn't be fair.
So its a 'yes' then. Got you.

But alas, as long as we see the same 'discussions' and 'arguments' against whatever Sony brings out, it should be all good.
 

ChiefDada

Member
See this is a realistic perspective that I can completely disagree with but respect.

Like I said, I disagree with everything here, but I'll highlight just my biggest problems with it.

1). Powering GP with day 1 third party releases. This will just be much more expensive and make profits harder to come by, because the more subscribers you get, the more the publishers of these titles will want. Making the mistake of relying too heavily on third party content was what made the road to profitability for Netflix almost impossible until they changed course. Some of the numbers that get thrown around regarding money hats make me think you could quickly reach a point where these third party additions would be costing more than just developing games from scratch. I think MS is on the right track here, where the backbone of the service as far as day one releases will be built on their own content and additional day one content from third-parties will happen when the numbers work for both sides. It helps MS maintain an element of control that they would lose in the reverse scenario (third party publishers would realize that MS really needed their content in an extreme way in your scenario and would leverage that, which is just what was happening to Netflix).

2). First party titles being on GP will alter or limit the ambitions of a game. This I don't see at all, and several developers have voiced just the opposite opinion. If GP grows to a point where all the development costs for MS studios are just there with no sales pressure (all the sales on Xbox and PC would be pure profit/gravy), with the caveat being that needing to keep GP subscribers happy and on the hook is the primary pressure, I can see that being very liberating for both the devs and MS as a publisher. Todd Howard has even talked about how they loved the idea of GP even before they were part of MS, and how this type of arrangement can democratize content more and open the door for projects that just weren't happening otherwise. It's hard to think that the industry could get any more risk adverse than it currently is anyway. There will always be measures for success, GP won't remove that. If a game gets no sales on Xbox/PC and no engagement on GP, a sequel would be unlikely, etc. Or if a particular studio had a string of titles like that, something would be done there just as it would be in the traditional model.

3). I'm playing GoTG now, I've played Batman, I've played Superman in the past, I'll probably play Wonder Woman. I'm not sure what you are saying with this one. Spiderman is great and it's not on Xbox, that's the way the ball bounces, XGS will have a ton of great games that won't be on PS. That's the way it goes.
1. Fair points all around. But as long as Sony remains on course with the premium pricing model, I think you will see a distinct divergence in how AAA titles are defined between the two platforms. For better or worse.

2. Yes, but you have to get there first I think. Did Todd Howard say this before or after acquisition? I have no proof to back this up, but I have a gut feeling that money was left on the table for Forza Horizon 5. I think most Xbox players would have paid full price.

3. Was Guardians on game pass day 1? If so, then yeah I will stand corrected on that one because from what I hear it was an amazing story driven AAA experience with no compromises. Like Forza, i believe upfront money could possibly have been left on the table in such a scenario. Although I'm sure these game pass deals are unique for every title so who knows? It's hard to guess the specifics of each deal between Microsoft and developers.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
1. Fair points all around. But as long as Sony remains on course with the premium pricing model, I think you will see a distinct divergence in how AAA titles are defined between the two platforms. For better or worse.

2. Yes, but you have to get there first I think. Did Todd Howard say this before or after acquisition? I have no proof to back this up, but I have a gut feeling that money was left on the table for Forza Horizon 5. I think most Xbox players would have paid full price.

3. Was Guardians on game pass day 1? If so, then yeah I will stand corrected on that one because from what I hear it was an amazing story driven AAA experience with no compromises. Like Forza, i believe upfront money could possibly have been left on the table in such a scenario. Although I'm sure these game pass deals are unique for every title so who knows? It's hard to guess the specifics of each deal between Microsoft and developers.

Zenimax was supporting GP before the acquisition. I have no idea if they were making public statements or not. Regarding FH5, that would be hard to say. Without GP, would more people have purchased FH5 outright? Maybe. That would be hard to quantify without detailed access to all the numbers regarding GP, because the steady revenue from the GP subscribers is of great value as well, those users are contributing just in a different way. Plus, all the noise about the player counts and the early engagement may have boosted sales in a way as well. FH5 definitely felt like a higher profile launch than FH4 for example.

And you didn't seem to tie the superhero thing to being day one on GP, seemed to just be more of a statement about the lack of superhero games on Xbox in general. :messenger_beaming:
 

ChiefDada

Member
You said they are trying to "recoup" the money, they are not, they are trying to increase revenue and make more profit, the cost of Zenimax is not a profit and loss item, that's not a "technicality" it's real world accounting.
Which comes first, recouping investment or making profit? Can you have the latter without the former?

I work in finance. Financial reporting is literally filled with technicalities.

You're basically saying that Bethesda was some loss of money, do you think Microsoft doesn't still view Bethesda as an asset worth 7.5 billion dollars? There is no need to recoup the money because they didn't lose any money. If you buy a house you didn't "lose money" you traded that money for an equivalent asset. Turning money into an asset is not in any way, shape, or form, a loss that needs to be recouped

We can argue to eternity how much Bethesda is worth. What can't be argued is that 7.5 billion in cash did leave Microsoft and went to the owners of Bethesda. And Microsoft intends to recoup and profit from the investment in large part via game pass. This has not happened yet.

Do you now understand why I'm labeling the financial reporting of Bethesda acquisition a technicality?
 

sainraja

Member
It's going to suck if this becomes a race between the two companies to start locking out content from one another (for their subs).
 
Last edited:
Honestly unless it’s putting the same amount of first and third party titles there day and date I don’t view it as a direct competitor. Sony will wake up and do it eventually though so it’s good that Xbox saw that inevitable future.

Also Xbox didn’t buy zenimax, Microsoft did and they made that money spent the very next quarter. More than that.
 
Last edited:

Chukhopops

Member
It's going to suck if this becomes a race between the two companies to start locking out content from one another (for their subs).
It’s a bit late to worry about that when there were moneyhats 25 years ago:
In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000, a deal that would prove very beneficial to Sony both in terms of revenue and also in further cementing the PlayStation's growing reputation as the go-to system for must-have exclusive titles.[20][21]
Nothing has changed really and everyone does it.
 

kingfey

Banned
Which comes first, recouping investment or making profit? Can you have the latter without the former?

I work in finance. Financial reporting is literally filled with technicalities.

We can argue to eternity how much Bethesda is worth. What can't be argued is that 7.5 billion in cash did leave Microsoft and went to the owners of Bethesda. And Microsoft intends to recoup and profit from the investment in large part via game pass. This has not happened yet.
Do you now understand why I'm labeling the financial reporting of Bethesda acquisition a technicality?
Reporting the loss comes first. MS lost $7.5b. That wont change anything. It can take to recoup that loss, but that is still money lost.

Still, MS has an asset that is worth $7.5b. If they want to sell bethesda in the future, they can gain their money back. Asset is an asset. As long as you have it, you didnt lose money.

Bethesda being an asset, means MS didnt lose money. Still, they spent $7.5b hard cash money. They wont see that money. But they have an asset now. And that asset can print them money. And later, they get their $7.5b when they sell bethesda.
 

kingfey

Banned
It's going to suck if this becomes a race between the two companies to start locking out content from one another (for their subs).
That is how its going to be in the next gen. MS wont shut gamepass anyway. They are locked on. They have 7 years with that service, and unlimited money to get any games on that service.

Either both companies decide to fight it. Or 3rd party publisher decide to have their own subs.
 

sainraja

Member
It’s a bit late to worry about that when there were moneyhats 25 years ago:

Nothing has changed really and everyone does it.
I was saying it could get uglier because 1.) we already have that — what you are pointing out and 2.) now it's going to be that + sub lock outs.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
That is how its going to be in the next gen. MS wont shut gamepass anyway. They are locked on. They have 7 years with that service, and unlimited money to get any games on that service.

Either both companies decide to fight it. Or 3rd party publisher decide to have their own subs.
Well, they already have their own subs — EA/Ubisoft+ etc. It's going to be subscriptions galore. Subscribe to the Xbox channel for $ and subscribe to the PlayStation channel for $ and add Ubisoft+ or EA Play to yours for an extra $. I know EA Play is part of Game Pass right now but they are still figuring out how subscriptions work in the gaming sphere....they might look to TV/movies for ideas.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Well, they already have their own subs — EA/Ubisoft+ etc. It's going to subscriptions galore. Subscribe to the Xbox channel for $ and subscription to the PlayStation channel for $ and add Ubisoft+ or EA Play to yours for an extra $.
I would like this one, instead of paying 70$ for day1. Test it for 1 month, and throw it away, if I dont like it.
 
Those that think Sony is doing just fine doing what they are doing are going to realise pretty quick in the next 2 years why it’s better to be forward facing instead of being a reactionary based company.

Being a reactionary based company will not help with the sheer volume of games and content that are going to be landing in the next 2 years as they should of already be landing their own services now instead of talking about it

Ms are already 3 years ahead in cloud and game pass
 

Goalus

Member
We can argue to eternity how much Bethesda is worth. What can't be argued is that 7.5 billion in cash did leave Microsoft and went to the owners of Bethesda. And Microsoft intends to recoup and profit from the investment in large part via game pass. This has not happened yet.

Do you now understand why I'm labeling the financial reporting of Bethesda acquisition a technicality?
Negative cashflow isn't the same as loss.
That's why there is usually
- profit/loss account
- a balance sheet
- a cashflow statement
All three are necessary to get the full picture.

If cash went out, but an asset of equal value came in, there is no loss that needs to be recouped.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
I would like this one, instead of paying 70$ for day1. Test it for 1 month, and throw it away, if I dont like it.
I guess to each his own. I prefer buying games that I am interested in — speaking of series that I have already invested time and interest into.
 

sainraja

Member
So its a 'yes' then. Got you.

But alas, as long as we see the same 'discussions' and 'arguments' against whatever Sony brings out, it should be all good.
Not exactly but I didn't realize the upside of this.....we might actually be able to have proper conversations good or bad about sub based services; now that Sony will have their own version of it.
 
Last edited:
That is their main problem. MS hit them with multiple angles. Hardware market, Pc market, cloud market, and gamepass market. Sony cant focus on all these 4. They dont have the resources to do that.
If they get in to gamepass territory, they will need to do day1. Practically draining Sony slowly.
If they get in to cloud market, they will need the infrastructure for that. They will have to pay MS, Amazon or Google. That is giving money to your competitor.
If they get in to pc market day1, they will need to have more studios. God of war took 2 years for pc port. If they do day1, their console release will take time, because of that.

And you know what happens if they try to do all four of them. That is end game for Sony.

Now I see it this way, this is more like the 80s-90s MS. Sony in this way, has no chance of wining against MS.

Of course they have the resources, but that's the besides the point. Again, the end goal is cloud gaming, which is interwined in all those areas. They have PSNow, which is both a "gamepass" service and a cloud streaming platform. This is available on both console and windows. They're just missing the mobile platform. They've already partnered with Microsoft to expand on cloud gaming. Looking at it from the POV that their "giving money to their competitor" is just console war mantra. Competing business investing in each other isn't new.

The PC ports are honestly insignificant compared to the cloud gaming strategy. It's just penny pinching. Means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:

zaanan

Banned
Ok…but what is the point you are trying to make? Do you think Amazon can’t see your activity on its own network? Really not following your train of thought here.
lastmessiah: Hello Amazon? I’d like to pay you to securely store my files on your servers.

Amazon: Sure! But we will hack into each and every file to see what you’re up to, and use what we find any way we want to!

lastmessiah: Cool, that sounds secure!
 

Rivet

Gold Member
Those that think Sony is doing just fine doing what they are doing are going to realise pretty quick in the next 2 years why it’s better to be forward facing instead of being a reactionary based company.

Being a reactionary based company will not help with the sheer volume of games and content that are going to be landing in the next 2 years as they should of already be landing their own services now instead of talking about it

Ms are already 3 years ahead in cloud and game pass

Why would Sony would try to follow this model ? They're the ones leading right here. Profits have never been as good as now and they sell every PS5 they can produce instantly. Sure, Gamepass is great for us gamers, but that's also because MS is partly paying for it right now.

I don't think such a model is possible with Sony high budget / high quality AAA games anyway. Subscription models are first and foremost about quantity. Otherwise subscription becomes too pricey pretty fast. Or you need an absolutely massive numbers of subscribers to make it work.

I just don't see it. At least not with AAA Sony games day 1, because it would be a very expensive tier...
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Hats off to Phill on his response. Personally, I have a mixed opinion over the subscription future, but I do like them as "option/choice". Gamepass is undoubtedly the major selling point for Xbox and I would like for Sony to compete in this area too.

I don't care who is leading and who will be the winner. There are still a lot of money to be made in the gaming space, so many gamers (potential customers) out there.

Just like in the video streaming space, Netflix is the leader in terms of subscriber numbers. But that doesn't mean their competitors like HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+ etc cannot offer better value to their consumers. They offered different catalog, sub plan, release model that is different compare to Netflix.

I like Netflix for its vast catalog, but Disney+ has some nice Marvel tv series that I care about. Disney doesn't offer its AAA theatrical movies into the service "day one" (not until 45-90 days from the release date in theaters), Netflix do have their own movie production that released day one on the service. I subscribed to both.

You could make an analogy that XBOX Gamepass is like Netflix, and Sony "PS plus+" is like Disney plus. Both offer different models and catalog of games, and both could still appealing to many users.
Yup. Options are great.

Just about any movie or tv show can be watched as follows:

- Theatre release (movie)
- TV (tv show)
- Sub stream (one or more of many plans out there)
- Buy a disc copy
- Buy a digital copy
- Rent it from a digital store for $5
- There's probably more options I'm forgetting

Funny how movies and tv shows, everyone loves options. Some buy discs, some stream, some are eager beavers and watch it day one in theatres or tv etc... I'm sure some options are more profitable than others, but for sake of variety and access the companies offer lots of choice.

I have never seen one person say let's limit options or gut streaming so that everyone has to either buy a ticket or buy a BR disc.

But with gaming, some reason you got gamers turned armchair accountants thinking they know everything about finance and know everything about channel and distribution strategy. Amazing.
 

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Subscription services are a race to the bottom and have capital intensive requirements.

He would love nothing more than for every other console manufacturer to get fully invested in this subscription "race" since it would mean they could extinguish them through financial means alone.

They are the only ones who can afford to embark on this endeavor with the level of aggression they are at the moment and he knows it. People laughed when he mentioned the likes of Amazon and Google as their competitors but when you look at it from that context it fully makes sense.
They are not a race to the bottom. GamePass makes sense for a lot of developers who are trying to secure a portion of the lifetime revenue of their game. The developer contracts are very flexible and often allow for experimentation.


I am confident that Sony will be able to compete with GamePass while maintaining their 1st party AAA pedigree. Microsoft not being able to compete in terms of AAA's is due to a lack of studio quality, not the fact they have to cut development expenses to justify GamePass.

When you think about it, even Nintendo is slowly competing in this scene with Switch Online that is essentially a subscription for retro games. I am confident they will offer GC and Wii games with their subscription in due time.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
They are not a race to the bottom. GamePass makes sense for a lot of developers who are trying to secure a portion of the lifetime revenue of their game. The developer contracts are very flexible and often allow for experimentation.


I am confident that Sony will be able to compete with GamePass while maintaining their 1st party AAA pedigree. Microsoft not being able to compete in terms of AAA's is due to a lack of studio quality, not the fact they have to cut development expenses to justify GamePass.

When you think about it, even Nintendo is slowly competing in this scene with Switch Online that is essentially a subscription for retro games. I am confident they will offer GC and Wii games with their subscription in due time.
Regarding your last point, yeah that is true about Nintendo but Sony is also already there with PSNow. It just hasn't been their "main" talking point or focus. Sony is now seemingly trying to come up with some "upgraded" version of that, which hopefully simplifies pricing structures and is competitive in nature.
 
Last edited:

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
They don't make the big chunk money off first party games.

I will get the % for you but its in theory largely 3rd party game sales and more importantly dlc/mtx. There could be a point and a calculation that pc and Xbox is cutting into dlc/mtx more than the loss from sacrificing first party sales.
err no, they DO.

You forgot about the bloomberg article whereby Sony obsessed with blockbuster?

Because they sells.

Of course this only applies to certain first party games. Not all games were capable of selling several million copies during launch.
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Member
I am confident that Sony will be able to compete with GamePass while maintaining their 1st party AAA pedigree. Microsoft not being able to compete in terms of AAA's is due to a lack of studio quality, not the fact they have to cut development expenses to justify GamePass.
Agreed with the first sentence but I take the exact opposite position on second sentence. Microsoft has world class studios that will be limited by 1st party/day one game pass policy. This does NOT mean they can't produce great games, but I firmly believe Sony's AAA titles will be a couple steps above in terms of production value and polish.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
"...and being transparent with them about what our plans are in terms of our PC initiatives and our cross-gen initiatives and other things."

Sick burn.
 
I really doubt Sony will allow day one first party games on their subscription service, at least for a very long time. So instead of potentially selling millions of copies of Spider-Man 2 for $70 a pop on PS5 and PS4, they are going to give it away on a presumably fairly cheap subscription service? Microsoft had to do that because most of their games weren’t selling as well or as popular as they wanted I’m assuming. Sony first party games usually sell really well. In the millions easily.

What sense does that make financially if Sony wants to maximize profits on their games? Sony is putting games on PC and PS4 for more money, so wouldn’t this be counterintuitive? I’m sure Gamepass is already further damaging XBOX software sales. I guess you never know, but I don’t think Sony would ever go this route unless they really, really needed to.
 
Top Bottom