Fortnite Bundaru and €75 price drop for PS5 on Black Friday! - Billbil_kun

[Gods&Monsters]

If you were even REMOTELY right, we would see some sign of decrease in PSN MAUs. Can you explain why we haven't? The people you are convinced are moving to PC in droves for Sony games whether they're buying them or pirating them, should be decreasing Sony's MAUs. The MAUs are combined PS4 and PS5 owners. If a PS4 owner stops using their PS4 and goes to PC, that number drops off. It's the best metric to gauge the health of PlayStation.

What about the new people coming from PC? That was the whole point of their failed PC strategy. To bring new customers. Converting PS4 owners to PS5 is not growth. It's the same people, they didn't need PC to get them.

The mega growth coming from PC should offset any people that stayed on PS4 or moved on to something else but the MAUs barely changed or decreased. Full failure.

Microsoft has largely read the tea leaves correctly, they've just executed poorly or taking misguided gambles like GamePass, and part of that poor execution comes from their poor market position.

Streaming is most likely the future though and if you think it isn't I encourage you to try out Geforce Now with a strong broadband connection. It's already a viable product. The biggest thing holding them back is the game library.

Like Pachter, you believe Phil had the right strategy but he just didn't execute it properly. Sony needs to follow on his footsteps and tweak some stuff to find gold.

It's not gonna happen. They will just lose themselves in the process. A zombie brand like Xbox. Nobody actually knows their purpose but it sounds good on paper for disconnected business analysts that don't understand the customers perspective.

 

[arvfab]

yet Resident Evil 0 did not release on PS2 and Resident Evil Code Veronica did not launch on PS2. Why do you think that was?

Great examples of

1) Staying dominant in spite of losing access to big games

2) Big games returning with their tails between their legs after flopping elsewhere

Sony doesn't have a single game that sells more than 25 million units on PS5. They never have. People come to PlayStation because of 3rd party games, without those games, those customers are leaving, that's a reality that you don't want to accept. Those subs would also dry up.

They don't NEED a single game selling that much. PlayStation's strength has always been a portfolio of (mostly) high-class games in different genres, having something for everyone.

If the 3rd party leave and you fail because you have nothing to keep your customers, you deserve to fail.

If only there was another successful big gaming platform holder with less 3rd party support....

My argument is Sony needs to make as much money as they can in the short term to shore up their first party studios to ensure that no matter the direction of the industry, they can compete on their own merits. Something they're unable to do today.

Then stop saying others are shortsighted if your argument is the epitome of shortsightedness.

You look at what Sony has done with PS+ vs GamePass and you can see similar strategy with different types of execution. One successful and the other damaging.

Unfortunately we don't have absolute data, but aren't we hearing more and more how games aren't selling as much as previously?

Have you thought about how PS+ Extra and Premium might have negatively changed spending behavior in a similar way to GP on Xbox?

If you were even REMOTELY right, we would see some sign of decrease in PSN MAUs. Can you explain why we haven't? The people you are convinced are moving to PC in droves for Sony games whether they're buying them or pirating them, should be decreasing Sony's MAUs. The MAUs are combined PS4 and PS5 owners. If a PS4 owner stops using their PS4 and goes to PC, that number drops off. It's the best metric to gauge the health of PlayStation.

Again, that's the shortsighted view. No doomer said the current strategy would have an IMMEDIATE negative impact.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Growth as a company requires operating income. The reason why Sony never grew substantially after dominating two generations in a row with the PS1-PS2 era is because their operating income was limited.

Now Sony is in an existential crisis with the looming threat of big tech hanging over head. More units aren't important, especially if those same players are buying and playing games on PS4 as evidenced by consistent MAUs.

Sony probably has until the end of this generation if that to stake their claim as a major player in gaming for the future.




You fundamentally don't know what you're talking about. I'm not agreeing with you doomers. Missing a forecast isn't great but it's not necessarily the end of the world. It is perhaps reflective of a global economy that is reeling from inflation and wars.

Like I mentioned above, Sony need only maintain their MAUs. If their MAUs fall, that would actually be a sign that they're losing mindshare.



That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is the promos were part of their forecast...

Well written post.

They still don't know that games are the platform. They still think it's the plastic box. Gamers are always the last to know.

 

[mibu no ookami]

What about the new people coming from PC? That was the whole point of their failed PC strategy. To bring new customers. Converting PS4 owners to PS5 is not growth. It's the same people, they didn't need PC to get them.

The mega growth coming from PC should offset any people that stayed on PS4 or moved on to something else but the MAUs barely changed or decreased. Full failure.

Inherently part of your problem. By nature you're hyperbolic.

Somehow you think PC has to lead to mega growth otherwise it is a failure. PC is a growth vector, but more importantly, it is a way to mitigate rising operational costs. It's certainly been successful in do that. What it has clearly done is offset any potential growth in PC at the expense of PlayStation.

Maintaining MAUs in an environment of increased BOM and global inflation is really quite good. They've been able to maintain MAU while still growing their operating income rather than having to maintain MAUs by increasing costs (i.e. cutting prices).

Like Pachter, you believe Phil had the right strategy but he just didn't execute it properly. Sony needs to follow on his footsteps and tweak some stuff to find gold.

It's not gonna happen. They will just lose themselves in the process. A zombie brand like Xbox. Nobody actually knows their purpose but it sounds good on paper for disconnected business analysts that don't understand the customers perspective.

Fundamentally, Phil understood exactly what Nintendo understood, which is that they were ill-equipped to go head to head with Sony with nearly identical products.

Anyone who follows businesses can see the difference.

Why did MoviePass fail? Was it because a subscription based theater experience was unworkable? Then how do you explain AMC A-List and Regal Unlimited? Were they following in MoviePass' doomed footsteps or did they tweak it to workable strategy?

What was the difference between MoviePass and AMC? Break it down for us.

 

[mibu no ookami]

Great examples of

1) Staying dominant in spite of losing access to big games

2) Big games returning with their tails between their legs after flopping elsewhere

That's a fallacy. They were able to stay dominant because they didn't have mass exodus at the same time, which would happen if 3rd parties became aligned with Big Tech on their own platforms.

Capcom couldn't absorb the lost revenue from going to Gamecube, nor could Nintendo continue to subsidize... Apple and others in big tech absolutely can.

Why is The Office not on Netflix? Why hasn't NBC come running with their tails between their legs?

Why is Friends only on Max? Why hasn't HBO come running with their tails between their legs?

They don't NEED a single game selling that much. PlayStation's strength has always been a portfolio of (mostly) high-class games in different genres, having something for everyone.

If the 3rd party leave and you fail because you have nothing to keep your customers, you deserve to fail.

If only there was another successful big gaming platform holder with less 3rd party support....

Another fallacy to compare them to Nintendo. Nintendo has been generating IP since the 80s. They have more than 20 years on Sony in the IP generation department.

Sony's success has largely been a 3rd party portfolio, without that, they're in trouble, and so is gaming as we know it. So yeah, I'll reiterate, Sony needs to be in a position where they can self sustain having essentially no 3rd party support and they need to get to that position as quickly as they feasibly can.

Then stop saying others are shortsighted if your argument is the epitome of shortsightedness.

See above.

Unfortunately we don't have absolute data, but aren't we hearing more and more how games aren't selling as much as previously?

You're conflating a lot of things. Software sales are up significantly from pre-pandemic levels and are easily back on track on pre-pandemic growth projections. Sales did in fact dip from pandemic highs, but all at home entertainment is down from pandemic highs.

Have you thought about how PS+ Extra and Premium might have negatively changed spending behavior in a similar way to GP on Xbox?

Yeah, I have and so has Sony. It's why those are both catalog tiers rather than premier tiers. Sony has a full understanding of how much they generate from software sales/royalties and how much they're getting from subscription and their overall operating income has never been higher.

Again, that's the shortsighted view. No doomer said the current strategy would have an IMMEDIATE negative impact.

When will the negative impact start? Sony's been porting games to PC for 4 years now. When does the MAU drain start?

 

[BillyZ]

Say goodbye to that 18 million target

 

[arvfab]

They were able to stay dominant because they didn't have mass exodus at the same time,

They didn't have mass exodus because they were dominant

which would happen if 3rd parties became aligned with Big Tech on their own platforms.

I think we already played this game in the past, but let's do it again.

Let us suppose ALL 3rd party games are gone. Tencent, Apple, Amazon all enter the field with own platforms, leaving PlayStation with only their studios, but no exclusives.

Me, as a customer, why should I choose PlayStation if their games are elsewhere?

Why is The Office not on Netflix? Why hasn't NBC come running with their tails between their legs?

Why is Friends only on Max? Why hasn't HBO come running with their tails between their legs?

I don't understand where you are going with this, as both are on Netflix in different regions.

The examples are also lacking, as Capcom didn't go and try to launch their own platform.

Another fallacy to compare them to Nintendo. Nintendo has been generating IP since the 80s. They have more than 20 years on Sony in the IP generation department.

And? Could be said the same about SEGA or Atari before. The difference between Nintendo and Sony, is Nintendo knowing how to milk their IPs.

Sony, a cinema and movie company, only started recently using their popular IPs for other media. Shows how "smart" and forward-thinking they are....

Sony's success has largely been a 3rd party portfolio, without that, they're in trouble, and so is gaming as we know it. So yeah, I'll reiterate, Sony needs to be in a position where they can self sustain having essentially no 3rd party support and they need to get to that position as quickly as they feasibly can.

Funny thing that is exactly what was happening during the PS3 era and how did they turn it around? By putting focus on their 1st party exclusives.

Lessons learned? 0.

Sony has a full understanding of how much they generate from software sales/royalties and how much they're getting from subscription and their overall operating income has never been higher.

Of course you only see the short-term success. Are you sure you are not Phil Spencer in disguise?

People having paid (and not a low sum) for accessing this catalog, will think twice if they really want to spend the 80€ for the next newest game.

At least Sony has been a little bit smarter by not putting their own games day-1 on there, and probably felt the burn of H:FW.

When will the negative impact start? Sony's been porting games to PC for 4 years now.

My guess is during the PS6 gen. Xbox managed to have a discreet gen with XOne, even though they fucked up the launch and left a bad taste after the last years of the X360 gen. Then they started to release all their games on PC (reducing the quality and quantity of their output even more), and here we are, seeing Xbox going 3rd party a gen later.

Funnily enough, you also have your first big tech trying to buy up 3rd party with the intention of foreclosure.....

When does the MAU drain start?

Who said it hasn't started already? Why do you think PlayStation is enforcing a PSN account even for single player games on PC?

I doubt PC is able to offset the drainage in the long term, if they continue selling peanuts on there, though.

 

[Gods&Monsters]

Somehow you think PC has to lead to mega growth otherwise it is a failure. PC is a growth vector, but more importantly, it is a way to mitigate rising operational costs. It's certainly been successful in do that. What it has clearly done is offset any potential growth in PC at the expense of PlayStation.

Maintaining MAUs in an environment of increased BOM and global inflation is really quite good. They've been able to maintain MAU while still growing their operating income rather than having to maintain MAUs by increasing costs (i.e. cutting prices).

PS+ revamp did all of that and more. 10 times what the PC ports will ever do. They actually ruined the future growth of that service with the ports, there's way less value when you can get the same games cheaper (or free) elsewhere. Self-sabotage and short-sightedness, their new mantra.

Fundamentally, Phil understood exactly what Nintendo understood, which is that they were ill-equipped to go head to head with Sony with nearly identical products.

Anyone who follows businesses can see the difference.

Why did MoviePass fail? Was it because a subscription based theater experience was unworkable? Then how do you explain AMC A-List and Regal Unlimited? Were they following in MoviePass' doomed footsteps or did they tweak it to workable strategy?

What was the difference between MoviePass and AMC? Break it down for us.

Phil didn't do anything different, he literally copied what Sony did with PS Now and failed years before. Phil gave it another try and failed again. Luna is failing, Stadia failed, GeForce is irrelevant.

Assassin's Creed and Resident Evil sold 5 copies on iOs and you think that is the real threat for Sony but not Steam? Steam is fine but be careful Amazon streaming is the next threat. What a joke

Phil said the exact same thing about big bad Google/Amazon when MS bought Activision and now he's begging to sell Firesticks. You really don't think things through huh.

I never heard of that MoviePass stuff so I can't help you. Maybe I wasn't born

 

[Gods&Monsters]

I normally leave @arvfab on ignore, but I'd love to hear your argument refuting that big tech could take over the games industry.

Amazon bought MGM for nearly 10 billion dollars just 2 years ago to bolster Amazon Prime Video. What makes you think they won't buy a game publisher to bolster Amazon Games?

Netflix opened its salvo into gaming 2 years ago.

Nvidia's entire investment into Geforce Now suggests that they might make further investments into developing their own games.

Any reason to doubt Tencent getting more involved?

Like seriously, you're just a troll account at this point.

I'm just going back to your list and why not Valve? They could easily buy 1 or 2 publishers and keep everything exclusive because that's their MO.

It's like you're trying to find the next bogeyman like Netflix or Nvidia but Valve is already there with the platform, the users, infrastructure, the exclusives, the hardware. Somehow it doesn't register on your radar but fucking Netflix does

 

[BarrierIslandZilla]

How many brand new studios have emerged with the ability to create massive AAA games?

The last "new" studio of note that I can think of would probably be Respawn...who have been around for 14 years and I'd hardly call them a needle mover.

Many of these layoffs happen because of integration... and most of these big tech companies don't actually have development/publishing elements.

I also forgot to include in that Facebook/Meta.

I mean Concord just happened, it failed massively but it is the most recent example.

There are other studios out there but those games take time to make, Jayde Raymond and Fairgames is an example of that. Whatever Blundell is working on.

 

[Impulse]

You have to understand that most of these big corps think in decades, not in years. They want to stay ahead of any disruptive forces, meaning that a move that may seem illogical to you has a long-term logic that you are not necessarily aware of (said long-term logic is not infallible either, Microsoft thought they were ahead of the curve when they did the TV TV TV stuff).

Sony was largely able to survive Microsoft alone trying to spend it out of business, but they can't survive if Amazon, Meta, Apple and Google try to do so at once.

The reason Microsoft went on a massive shopping spree is to be able to use their limited gaming market position (which is still vastly better than what Amazon or Meta have right now, Google/Apple are only better off because of their dominant mobile gaming positions) to convince the best players (like Zenimax or Activision Blizzard King) to join forces with them before Google and Amazon come in with their offers and start a bidding war.

This is why Jim Ryan privately wasn't worried about the takeover in the console exclusivity sense (he knew that PS was too big to ignore, and MS found that out by the time they closed the deal, hence the 3P push), but still tried to fight the deal because it succeeding would drive more big tech investment into gaming publishers and devs.

Think about it.. There's a reason the CMA refused to grant the Activision merger until Microsoft gave away cloud rights to Ubisoft.. It's to keep the ladder there for other tech corps and not allow Microsoft to take the ladder up with them, establish an unassailable stronghold in Cloud streaming and start dictating the terms for how cloud gaming would be.

People ridiculed them back then (even people who were against the deal) but their logic was on-point throughout, they even predicted accurately that MS would have no real incentive to withhold games from PS and Nintendo (because they knew the real financials that MS Gaming was trying to bluff its way through).

------
@mibu no ookami One other thing I have to add here (which I mentioned in my thread a month or so back) is Sony did not manage to stay dominant after PS1/2 because physical games were entirely the norm, a gamer could sell his or her PS1/2 games and go buy an Xbox or Dreamcast or Gamecube instead, there was a lot of fluidity to things back then because of that (and times were better economically).

Now it's much harder to claw away an entrenched Sony or Xbox MAU because their digital footprint keeps them there. At best you get them to get your device as a secondary machine and draw some spending that way, or you publish some games there and get some extra revenue.

 

[ethomaz]

That's pretty aggressive discounting. If true, would be a major sign that Sony is far off from reaching their forecasted goals.

The actual higher price in Europe is being the biggest issue with PS5 sales worldwide.
Europe is the only place PS5 is behind PS4 and it is so behind that it offset the same being ahead PS4 in US, Japan and rest of the world to the point that worldwide PS5 is still behind PS4.

They need to improve in Europe and lower prices even if via promotions is the only way to deal with it.

 

[AnimePanda]

What is the threat from big tech?

Steaming?

Making stuff up seems to be the way lol these people always trying to find something sony at fault is funn yasf yet they breaking records left and right HAHAHAH

 

[mibu no ookami]

They didn't have mass exodus because they were dominant

What were the alternatives at the time?

I think we already played this game in the past, but let's do it again.

Let us suppose ALL 3rd party games are gone. Tencent, Apple, Amazon all enter the field with own platforms, leaving PlayStation with only their studios, but no exclusives.

Me, as a customer, why should I choose PlayStation if their games are elsewhere?

You personally? No. Others? Absolutely. The people who don't play Sony games at all? Gone.

I don't understand where you are going with this, as both are on Netflix in different regions.

Are they on Netflix in other regions because existing deals require that? But most importantly, are they on Netflix in big money regions? My point is clear, that foreclosure is a tactic even if it comes at a premium cost.

The examples are also lacking, as Capcom didn't go and try to launch their own platform.

Capcom did not have the capacity to launch their own platform. That's exactly my point. Everyone in big tech either has a platform or the ability to launch one.

And? Could be said the same about SEGA or Atari before. The difference between Nintendo and Sony, is Nintendo knowing how to milk their IPs.

Nintendo came out at the right time with the right quality IP. They've been doing it longer. Neither Sega nor Atari had IP as popular or as well groomed as Nintendo.

Sony, a cinema and movie company, only started recently using their popular IPs for other media. Shows how "smart" and forward-thinking they are....

I've always criticized Sony for not doing transmedia.

Funny thing that is exactly what was happening during the PS3 era and how did they turn it around? By putting focus on their 1st party exclusives.

Lessons learned? 0.

Most major 3rd party games were on PS3 as well. You have revisionist history. PS3 is their worst selling console of all time by far and the "turn around" didn't result in them having a profitable generation.

Of course you only see the short-term success. Are you sure you are not Phil Spencer in disguise?

People having paid (and not a low sum) for accessing this catalog, will think twice if they really want to spend the 80€ for the next newest game.

At least Sony has been a little bit smarter by not putting their own games day-1 on there, and probably felt the burn of H:FW.

You think it's about short term success, but what you don't realize is you need short term cash to reinvest in your company long term. I honestly don't know why I bother with you, you know zip about business... zero silch nada

Again, software sales are up kid.

My guess is during the PS6 gen. Xbox managed to have a discreet gen with XOne, even though they fucked up the launch and left a bad taste after the last years of the X360 gen. Then they started to release all their games on PC (reducing the quality and quantity of their output even more), and here we are, seeing Xbox going 3rd party a gen later.

Funnily enough, you also have your first big tech trying to buy up 3rd party with the intention of foreclosure.....



Who said it hasn't started already? Why do you think PlayStation is enforcing a PSN account even for single player games on PC?

I doubt PC is able to offset the drainage in the long term, if they continue selling peanuts on there, though.

They're requiring PSN accounts on PC so they can track player movement, allowing them to see if new PSN accounts are being created or if existing PSN accounts are buying on PC, whether players are double dipping or buying games for the first time on PC. It's called metrics.

So the drain is there but people aren't buying the games... makes sense... your bias is so ridiculous.

 

[mibu no ookami]

PS+ revamp did all of that and more. 10 times what the PC ports will ever do. They actually ruined the future growth of that service with the ports, there's way less value when you can get the same games cheaper (or free) elsewhere. Self-sabotage and short-sightedness, their new mantra.

Software sales are up subscription revenue is up. Why are you incapable of looking at data and then adjusting your mindset?

Phil didn't do anything different, he literally copied what Sony did with PS Now and failed years before. Phil gave it another try and failed again. Luna is failing, Stadia failed, GeForce is irrelevant.

Netflix was irrelevant until they weren't.

Assassin's Creed and Resident Evil sold 5 copies on iOs and you think that is the real threat for Sony but not Steam? Steam is fine but be careful Amazon streaming is the next threat. What a joke

Who do you think is playing AC or RE on their phone. You've missed my point entirely.

Phil said the exact same thing about big bad Google/Amazon when MS bought Activision and now he's begging to sell Firesticks. You really don't think things through huh.

I never heard of that MoviePass stuff so I can't help you. Maybe I wasn't born

Phil planned to buy ABK early and foreclosure on Sony to prop up Xbox sales, but by the time the deal closed and because of the 10 year CoD bargain, they were painted into a corner. If CoD was exclusive to Xbox, yes, it would have moved the needle.

What are you 5? MoviePass allowed you to go to the movie theater 3 times a week and see what ever movie you wanted for 10 dollars a month. It was massively popular but they were bleeding money.

Their hope was to create enough of a userbase that they could force movie theaters to give them a cut of concession revenue and target which theaters their userbase went to that continued to support MoviePass. The theaters held firm and MoviePass went under.

The theater chains created their own versions of MoviePass. Higher priced and only working at their own individual theaters. This has been a huge success for them.

I'm just going back to your list and why not Valve? They could easily buy 1 or 2 publishers and keep everything exclusive because that's their MO.

It's like you're trying to find the next bogeyman like Netflix or Nvidia but Valve is already there with the platform, the users, infrastructure, the exclusives, the hardware. Somehow it doesn't register on your radar but fucking Netflix does

Valve is a tiny company secluded to PC a format not every wants to be in. I'm not saying there isn't a vector of competition at all there, but the advent of cloud gaming on par with what Geforce Now offers is absolutely a bigger threat to console gaming.

For hardware, Apple is a bigger competitive threat.

Netflix is bigger than Valve and they are in the living room. They buy T2 end up with GTA7 and yes, people who already have Netflix will pay an extra 5 bucks a month to subscribe to the gaming edition with GTA7. It's not a difficult situation for them to jump into.

Valve can't afford T2 and they couldn't afford to foreclose GTA7 on consoles.

 

[CrackmanNL]

I don't get the doom posting either. They have consistent time limited sales in EU one during spring/summer and the other during the holidays, the digital going for 375 considering what the Series S (1tb) and Switch Oled go for that is great value.
Appealing to the mainstream and younger crowd with the Fortnite bundle of 35 euro worth of exclusive skins + 1000Vbucks (9euro).

Big tech coming into the space was more of a worry for Xbox since they are the weakest link. If hardware comes under threat they have set themselves up (Sony as well if that ever applies to them) as content providers.