If the MS-ABK acquisition fails, do you see MS becoming a 3rd-party publisher?
- Thread starter alphachino
- Start date
It's okay for both of them to go different directions and both can be successful.
MSFT obviously want to leverage their cloud infrastructure and go global to maximize utility around the clock for their data centers.
Sony have no data centers, making it economically less viable...they have to pay others to accommodate such a move.....they would also be ignoring the massive demand they have and loyal userbase for their consoles and software..
A subscription can never cover every game, every publisher, every indie etc etc.... and consoles are needed by the industry to make AAA gaming viable, without day 1 sales the industry outside MSFT would simply collapse.
Technically cloud has many issues... yesterday cloud systems went down for Dublin Airport and they had to cancel over 50% of their flights for instance.
During the pandemic Netflix and others had to lower quality to sub 720p because of the burden on the internet infrastructure.
So if MSFT pushes into cloud, I think the system could only handle one company doing that..... and Sony could then expand in console production and try to reach 150-200+ million install base, which is incredible growth.
They just need to be happy in their speciality. Jim cant chase Xbox to the ends of the earth like captain Ahab.... cause we all know how that ended.
Amen to that. I've read all the reasons why people like Cloud, streaming, Game Pass, etc. ad nauseam. More power to them, but those are not my priorities or interests. And with each company differentiating themselves, it offers more choice to us which is a good thing.
That's all fine and dandy, but they still need quality games, something they've been severely lacking. Unless the strategy is to literally monopoly the whole gaming industry
P
peter42O
Guest
I never said to eliminate consoles but in general, I can easily see them being obsolete within the next 20+ years or so because at the end of the day, these companies want to make more money and consoles never make them money and even if they do, it's minimal to where it doesn't matter all that much. While it would cost Sony a shit ton of money to start up a streaming service, they did have Gaikai and if anything, should invested into it back then because they would be better off now. Instead, Sony ventures into cars and all this other shit and does any of it even make them any profits because if not, I don't see the point when that money could be invested into something far more valuable and for Sony, it's all about PlayStation. If PlayStation dies, Sony basically dies which is why they should be doing what so many PlayStation fans are against but yet would ensure their survival because head to head, they can't go up against Microsoft.
Their loyal user base needs to learn that they'll eventually have to adapt especially if they want their preferred platform and eco-system to not only survive but to thrive and become bigger. Sony dominated PS and PS2 eras and for the life of me will never understand how Sony hasn't become a trillion dollar company by now. It's almost as if Sony was happy to stay as is which makes no sense to me because companies no matter how rich always want more and always want to be ahead of every other company. The main reason why is because there could always be companies that are "rivals" and have more money than they do. Take now for example, Jim Ryan and Sony are crying over the eventual reality of losing COD not because they care about their loyal fan base but because they're going to lose a shit ton of money. Situations like now is why companies are always evolving, expanding, etc. because they know they can't just stay "as is" because they won't survive in the long term.
Subscriptions are just another option for gamers and consumers. It's not that every game would only be available via subscription. You would still be able to buy games like it is now with the only difference being that they're digital and/or via cloud streaming. Cloud streaming does have issues which is why I said 2035-2045. I didn't say tomorrow. Everything always has issues when in the early to mid years. Cloud streaming is still relatively new for gaming. But give it another 20 years and it will be dominant because the infrastructure will be in place where as now, it isn't.
As for Netflix, that had more to do with their server capacity, bandwidth and bitrate. There's a reason why all the gaming showcases are never past 1080p when live. It's because they don't want to pay the extra money required in order for them to have the bandwidth and bitrate available so consumers can watch them in 4K if they so choose. In 20 years, this shouldn't be a problem because it will be beyond 4K and companies will need to provide those options. Not every company can be like Nintendo and two generations behind all the time and somehow still succeed.
I see Microsoft pushing into cloud streaming like you said but still offering consoles as an option for as long as Sony is doing it because until cloud streaming explodes and just becomes the default way to consume games, Microsoft will always have consoles especially since the Series X consoles are basically their server blades. Since I don't see Microsoft ending consoles until the time is right and everything else is already in place which again, will probably be 20+ years from now, they'll be in a far better position than Sony simply because Sony refuses or takes forever to do what they should have already started doing which is adapt to what the present is and what the future will be.
For console sales, I don't see Sony ever coming close again to PS2 which was around 155m but what people don't seem to remember is that a lot of those sales were due to it also being a cheap $300 DVD player which at the time, was one of the cheapest models you could buy. I see consoles at being around 120m maximum. I don't see Sony or Microsoft ever going past that especially if the competition is strong which unlike last generation where PS4 ended at under 120m, this generation will be a lot closer despite so many people believing that it will be a repeat of last generation. It won't be due to the fact that it doesn't matter how you get consumers into your eco-system as long as you get them.
Too many people are still attached to their consoles and im a pure console gamer but I can't say that I would never play games via streaming because I once said that I would never go digital which I have for a lot of games and is much closer to a 50/50 ratio than it was last generation and im not even two years in. It's because shit changes and people can either adapt or get left behind. For example, think back to 9 years ago when Microsoft wanted to be always online and all digital. Like the vast majority of people, I was against that and went with Sony and PS4 but look at gaming now. Vast majority of people who play games do so while being connected online even if the game is pure single player and has no co-op/multi-player aspects to it at all. Vast majority also purchase their games digitally more than physically. Microsoft had it right but it wasn't the right time.
Microsoft is doing the same now but with one major difference - none of it is required or mandatory. They're simply all options and you choose how you want to play your games. They have physical discs that I can purchase, there's digital games that I can purchase and there's Game Pass that I can subscribe to. I use all three to my benefit and I would never be able to understand why anyone wouldn't do the same especially when it benefits themselves because why give a billion or trillion dollar company more money for the exact same shit when you can give that money to someone far more important - themselves.
Personally, I believe that AAA gaming would not only survive but thrive within a subscription service. I do think that publishers would have to have their own subscription service (like EA and Ubisoft) and really invest into it in order to make more money long term because with a subscription, once you build a big enough user install base, those companies would be able to take far more risks because they'll have the money from other more established games make up for them. It's not that this "model" wouldn't be successful for Sony, it's simply that they just don't want to do it. It's not because they can't.
Sony has 48m subscribers to PS+ which is at least $10 a month, maybe a little less for those who sign up a year but at $10, that's $480m a month. Even if each AAA title Sony does costs $200m including marketing, they're making double that plus they're not going to release an AAA game every month so they would make a killing. Even more so, they keep all the money in house because it's their shit. Why give money to retailers or to pay for manufacturing discs, cases, shipping, distribution, etc.? Digital makes more profits for companies because there's minimal expenses compared to physical which is a lot higher and includes a lot more moving parts which are all required to get paid.
Sony is simply stuck in their old ways and I get it. I was the same just a few years ago but when you research a lot of stuff and more importantly, realize that there's things that will actually benefit you much more than what it currently is, you tend to change your mind or at least become more open minded to it all. So many people think that Game Pass or subscription will fail. All these people are simply going to be wrong and before anyone looks at why, just look at history. Microsoft WAS right 9 years ago. People just weren't ready for that direction and they were trying to make it all mandatory. They learned from their mistakes.
Now, Microsoft is staying with what they believe the future of gaming will be but with one major difference - nothing is mandatory for the consumers. Want to buy games on disc or digital? Go ahead. Want to stream them? Go ahead. Want to play them on PC? Go ahead. Want to play them via a subscription? Go ahead. Nothing is required or mandatory which is the number one main difference between Microsoft staying on course with their direction compared to 9 years ago.
I know majority here believe that Game Pass will fail. It won't. They're at 25m subscribers minimum and they have NOTHING right now. Imagine once all their exclusives start hitting. Then imagine COD being on Game Pass day one and yes, it will be and those who believe that it won't be haven't been paying attention for the last almost 5 years. Reason why I believe Game Pass will succeed is simple. First, the vast majority of consumers value two things the most - money and time. Game Pass saves them a lot of money and time because you simply download or in some cases, stream the game that you want to play. No going to the store or waiting a few days for your game to get delivered. All without getting up from your couch. Second, there's no subscription service available that's doing what Microsoft is doing. I know majority here will argue PS+ but that's not the same thing. There's no first party games day one and there's outside of Stray, no day one third party games of any kind at all. Third and this is future wise, the subscription will be available on Smart TV's and whatnot in the near future of they aren't already and for those that don't have a Smart TV with the app pre-installed, Microsoft is working on that USB Flash Drive or Puck or whatever the hell it ends up being which means all they need is a controller which would probably be included and they're good to play.
Being happy in their specialty is not something that any company should strive to be as that would mean they would never adapt and in turn, would never grow. Can't just be happy with what you have. You have to always want more or what's even the point to begin with?
I know you're heavily against Sony putting their exclusives on PC day one or is it even in general? I forget which. I honestly don't know why you're against this as a PlayStation fan. Sony would make more money off the IP which is far more valuable than any console will ever be. Consoles have an expiration date. IP's do not. Growing an IP is far more valuable than getting a few extra console sales. Console gamers (like myself for example) will never jump to PC for various reasons (cost, digital only, etc.) so Sony has nothing to fear with them and PC gamers rarely if ever go to console because they want the best experience and to have as much control as possible, both of which can only be done on PC so these gamers aren't going to run out and buy a console just to play and exclusive here and there. But you give these PC gamers their exclusives day one via Steam and Epic Games Store and boom, you'll get far more people interested in your eco-system. You'll get more sales which in turn equals more revenue and in turn, higher profits which in turn will lead to more games from Sony and possibly, more acquisitions and more of them adapting because they can see it will help them grow beyond what they already are. You'll also get these gamers who most likely were never going to buy a PS5 anyway to now be interested in your games coming to PC which equals more revenue and again, more profits because without PC, that gamer doesn't exist to Sony and PlayStation's eco-system but now, that gamer does exist to their eco-system.
Jim can't chase Microsoft but he can still adapt and make moves that would make Sony more revenue and more profits like their games on PC day one. Imagine Spider Man 2 on PC day one. That could hit GTA level shit. Well, maybe not that high but you get the idea.
Either way, like I have said before in other topics, this generation is going to be very interesting and very entertaining as it continues to play out and to think, we're not even two years in yet.
P
peter42O
Guest
Microsoft has released quality games. But im sure people don't count Forza or Flight Sim right? I mean seriously, the quality isn't the issue. The quantity definitely is. I will give you that but quality, come on. Their lowest rated published game is As Dusk Falls at 77 which considering what that game is, I would say is pretty damn good.
Granted, maybe the games aren't for you which is fair but that doesn't change the quality of those games. I have zero interest in Forza or Flight Sim or Deathloop or Psychonauts 2 but I would never say that any of them aren't high quality because I know they are. They're just not for me which is two very different things.
You say near the end there that Jim can adapt to make more revenue and profits..... but if you look at PlayStation, a huge amount of their revenue is console sales.
Without consoles you are looking at 33-40% less revenue depending on the year and of course less profit. Then they have to pay for servers, that increases costs, it goes against what their consumer base want, so they may lose a lot of people to PC or other hardware. It also flies in the face of the high demand for consoles and finally you eliminate ANY profits from console... which can be high further into the generation,
Hardware will always be a long long way ahead of streaming in terms of tech and I think they should expand their hardware offering, have a Pro console updated twice per generation.... we have seen early adopters are willing to spend 700-900 on a base console if they need to pay scalpers, so why not lean into it? and again offer some type of contract for countries where these consoles are more expensive due to currency.
There will always be a large market for consoles and I truly believe PS4 was only limited by production and price..... if they could have produced more annually and got the price a bit lower, then they could have hit PS2 numbers IMO. There just seems to be some really conservative production going on.....
PS4 hit almost 120 with no DVD excuse.... 1 more year of 20 million and they are within spitting distance of PS2.
My only concern really is that Sony should focus on their platform, grow it, get more exclusives, more reasons to buy it and increase the sales gen after gen,
That should always be the aim IMO.
Yep. We've been hearing about "consoles are dead; cloud is the new future" for nearly a decade now.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/is-this-the-last-console-generation/1100-6418785/
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/console/why-the-next-generation-of-consoles-is-probably-the-last-one
Why Xbox One and PS4 may be the final generation of consoles
The war over specs and prices doesn't matter, because future game systems will be unrecognizable.
www.cnet.com
We've a terribly short memory that we keep forgetting this stuff. Every generation plays out the same way now, and a few things remain consistent:
- "This is the last console generation."
- "PlayStation is doomed. Xbox will win."
- "Cloud is the new future."
Some great replies so far. I personally don’t see them going 3rd party even if the ACTI deal is blocked so far PlayStation, Nintendo, apple, meta, Google and Amazon have shown zero interest in having Gamepass on their platform. They could publish Gamepass games individually to sell on all platforms making the subscription method look more enticing but seems they prefer exclusivity to encourage subscription numbers instead.
I think they’d just find another willing company wanting to sell.
I think they’d just find another willing company wanting to sell.
I think it’s good to see Sony speak out, and I think they should speak out more against this deal, and I’m not saying that they’re not doing this, but they need to plan accordingly as if it will go through. They need to hurry up and acquire deviation, assuming that they’re game could be a contender to cod. Square enix being a free agent as they are is a huge liability and vulnerability for PlayStation as well.
I’d rather see Sony lock down key partners than sit on their hands and try to lawfare this deal to fail. Hope that made sense.
I’d rather see Sony lock down key partners than sit on their hands and try to lawfare this deal to fail. Hope that made sense.
Looking at Sony's WRPG situation (and I know some people wont agree with me after CP2077) but I think CDPR should be a target.
It would also mean 4/5 of the games with most GOTY's ever belong to Sony.
I think cdpr is a good get, I think cyber punk is extremely under rated. To me cdpr is like, a cherry on top studio after key partners have been consolidated.
October-November will be where Sony announces acquisition of Square Enix. 100% it will happen this year. After recent events it will just encourage Sony to act. The days where Sony and MS tried to be friendly with each other are over. Consolewars is now on Corporate-Level (Phil Spencer vs Jim Ryan in press). Sony shareholder definitely would want Sony to do something. By the way did you knew, Sony and Square Enix have exactly the same shareholders?
Under rated? That shit show got rated AVG 86 on metacritic when it didn't deserve to be higher than 70, and I'm being nice.
P
peter42O
Guest
A huge amount of their revenue is from console sales but the profit margin is minimal as they have to account for the expenses of every console manufactured so that 33-40% less revenue would be offset by not having the expenses of the console in the first place. I never said for them to eliminate their console, I simply said to expand their platform and eco-system in addition to having their console. Instead of console and that's it, Sony should have console, PC, cloud streaming and subscription. Add in an eventual TV app for PlayStation Plus and whatnot and they would be expanding their platform and eco-system which is far more important than only having the console because the consoles all have an expiration date. The other stuff not so much if at all.
What the consumer base wants though is the minority. The hardcore fans who buy majority or every exclusive is the minority. It's about getting the majority of consumers because there's much more of them and are more casual which increases the chances of getting them into your platform and eco-system via other means.
Hardware is great and ahead of streaming now but I don't see it staying that way long term simply because streaming can be upgraded and updated without the need of selling hardware. I disagree with the mid-gen console idea simply because PS4 Pro sold around 10m which for that number while 107m stayed with the PS4 base or PS4 slim, it's just not worth the investment especially when you have to keep the original price tag of the base from launch ($500) or possibly increase it.
Instead of hardware revisions, I believe that both Microsoft and Sony should with next generation release a "modular" console which would keeps the core intact but makes more customizable like a PC. Want to get more SSD space, upgrade the SSD. Want 24GB of RAM instead of 16GB, upgrade it. Same with the CPU and GPU. Granted, this would probably be more expensive to pull off but having compatible components that can be upgraded if the user so chooses would be huge for those who want the best what prefer the console experience while those who don't can simply stay with the base console and not upgrade anything.
As for PS2, the life cycle was 13 years. PS4 was around 8+ years. I think they would have needed another 5 years to match or surpass PS2. The biggest issue would be the price. PS2 launched at $300. PS4 launched at $400 and PS5 launched at $500. I don't think that limiting production mattered for PS4 because at the end, it always made more sense for Sony to priortize PlayStation 5. Maybe if there was no pandemic and chip shortage, the PS4 would still exist but that's simply a "what if" scenario.
Sony does focus on their platform. They're simply expanding it into other areas in order to get more growth, more revenue and more profits. For example, I can see a lot of PC gamers who have no intention on buying a PS5 but yet, will buy Sony's exclusives on PC which is getting more consumers and users into their platform and eco-system where as without this, they never get those PC gamers. Increasing the consumer base via console or PC simply means more revenue and more profit for Sony which in turn equals more console exclusives for you and me.