Leak PlayStation Plus Strategy - Full Presentation From April 2023 (69 Slides)
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
They're already out in the ether sadly, I don't see the harm in discussing them. Us ignoring it isn't gonna make it magically go away nor does it mean we're complicit in the hack.
Surprised to see that the game trials actually result in decent sales, they should make it an extra perk instead of premium. And stick with trials over of putting the entire game on the service.
Trials don't devalue the game and provide a sizeable sales bump
Trials don't devalue the game and provide a sizeable sales bump
Very interesting data. Seems that demos have a positive impact, most Premium games don't give a fuck about classic games, sales canibalization for including games there doesn't seem to be a big issue (but HFW isn't shown there, a test they did with adding it 1 year after release).
Seems that 18-30% of the Premium subbers use cloud gaming, and Premium subs were 17% of the total in March 2023, a percentage that keeps growing every month.
So from 46.3M subbers, 7.87M are Premium, and 1.41M-2.36M use cloud gaming.
Seems that 18-30% of the Premium subbers use cloud gaming, and Premium subs were 17% of the total in March 2023, a percentage that keeps growing every month.
So from 46.3M subbers, 7.87M are Premium, and 1.41M-2.36M use cloud gaming.
We don't know if it's a positive impact or not. We'd have to do a/b testing or know the stats of the purchase rate of people who are interested enough in a game to play the demo vs people who are interested and don't get a demo. I'd bet the success of a demo is directly correlated to the quality of the first few hours. I want to see the ratio for FF16 which came out after these slides.
We do, one of the slides says trials have had a neutral or positive impact on sales, and for every game but Ragnarok, 20+% of players who completed trials went on to buy the game, MLB had 31%
One of the best moves Sony made this gen.
We know it's positive because Sony shown in the slides the results of such A/B tests: they show the percent of people who bought the games for each title, and for each title separating the players who completed a certain percentage of the demo. In all cases, the ones who completed the demo were the ones more likely to buy it, the more they completed it, the more more likely were to buy it.
And they also highlighted it.
But that's a sampling bias error. They didn't compare it to people who didn't try the demo at all. People who are playing the demo is oversampling the demographic of people who are already interested in the game.
They saw more interest, visibility -I assume means visits of the game pge in the store- and a neutral or positive interest on game sales, meaning the games had a sales peak when added a demo.
This means that without that demo the peak wouldn't exist, since the players with or without Premium had the same interest before and after including the game.
Ugh, these presentations just aren't easy for me to follow.
That's a scary amount of information there. Hopefully people with malicious intent (GP evangelists) don't twist these numbers to attack PS+ even more.
I'll just follow the conversation because I'm not reading any of it.
I'll just follow the conversation because I'm not reading any of it.
It's a marketing presentation with no supporting math, no word on who prepared it and whether they're qualified statisticians. At a minimum there are a bunch of red flags for this data: it's drawn from ps+ premium subscribers which are the most highly engaged and highest spend portion of the userbase, it's drawn from a pool of people who are interested enough in a game to download the demo, and there's no contrasting data to the same pool of people's buying habits before demos were introduced.They saw more interest, visibility -I assume means visits of the game pge in the store- and a neutral or positive interest on game sales, meaning the games had a sales peak when added a demo.
This means that without that demo the peak wouldn't exist, since the players with or without Premium had the same interest before and after including the game.
Trials aren't a new thing though, Sony had this during the PS3 gen
More following microsoft. What a sad state of affairs.
Nobody wants any of this
Nobody wants any of this
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
Out of all that business gibberish the good takeaway is that, you guess it, game trials (aka demo's) work, and it should be done a lot more, not just by PlayStation, but third party developers if they're business savvy enough. That we lost this for some years and it's still barely done is crazy.
All the other business gibberish is missing the forest from the trees....
PlayStation Plus subs declined:
Despite better library and catalog of games (including day and date for some titles and shorter withholding cycles of "exclusives" and other AAA third party games).
Despite "digital shift"
Despite hardware unit sales growth (meager as they're comparative speaking - hence the problem)
Despite partnerships
Despite the competition being in the gutter and in a death spiral. (Of course there are multiple competitors - hence the fallacy of super focus on Xbox being a massive blinder).
In sum despite significant allocation of business brain power, and resources, despite the opportunity cost and everything involved in order to push it down consumers throats the results are clear.
If even half of that opportunity cost were invested in moving console units, not just in natural markets where the operations are mature but in emerging markets where the operations are still rough as well as strengthening content differentiation to exhaust competitors (not watering it down vis a vis competitors) you would literally kill two birds with one stone. Of course that type of work is more hands-on, ergo more draining on your typical business suit hence strategies for maximizing profit with your existing base get more attention - cozy office room beats sweat every time. The problem, behavioral as it's, needs a proper whip at the very very top with a clear mandate and clear expectations. And when those expectations are not met, the whip comes out, and lashes hard. Bottomline, gotta move consoles. Can't escape that. If the internal goal is not reaching something like 150 million units sold this gen or some number close enough you're doing it wrong.
And btw it has backfired even worse for the competition that went all in on the sub strategy. In fact, the competition is hemorrhaging money on it - which is why they never show the numbers, obfuscate and mislead on everything about the true cost of Gamepass and the impact it has had on its overall gaming business as well as Xbox console sales (cratering as we speak). Call it "when taking a leap of faith on the extreme backfires" - thankfully for MS, they sell Windows, affording them to double down on stupid, seemingly, to no end and no bottom. If MS clearly also carries the competition with said idiocy along with them, it should be looked at as a strategy feature, not a coincidence - just the old triple EEE's at work. Embrace, extend, exterminate (extinguish).
And that's not even mentioning the other elephant in the room - online play behind a paywall. Look at that share of first tier PlayStation Plus subs....
Take the artificial paywall away and what are you left with? That hook works as long as the competition is not able to pound you on it (since MS is a co-op no biggie). The thing is, it's not just MS. Good luck with Valve, and they're coming - if you can't see the writing on the wall with the Deck... well well well, I'll leave it at that.
Anyway all that standard gibberish is so much fucking nonsense that Sony had to turn back to the old tried and true - the "keeping it simple" routine. Increase price, to increase margins per sub, in light of a declining bodycount (thus keeping revenue stable or slightly increasing it). Not only that but stop releasing PS Plus sub count numbers on financials, so as to avoid speculative trading when financials release - and of course it wasn't to stop positive speculation that increase the stock price (bonanza for the well connected - aka insider traders), but negative speculation on poor numbers that tank it. Add to that turning into a MS lite by cherry picking when to report sub info and most importantly, what to report.
The only leak and power-point strategy report that I'm waiting for that seems to be missing is the one titled: "How we get back to 150 million units sold this generation, it has been too fucking long". Absence of which is telling...
Still waiting for that strategy guide, instead of this simpleton report... "expanding" to the competition (PC) - talk about idiocy, even more so with the current approach. Bottomline, the leader of all stupid crazy strategies that exist about breaking away from the hardware - aka Microsoft, has failed, miserably. Somehow someway, a follow the loser in lite form is gonna work cause: "Shit, moving console sales past 100m is fucking hard, and the promise land is so green over there".
The conditions are maturing and evolving, ripe for the fall. Clearly not by the hands of MS, although that is inconsequential to the fact.
All the other business gibberish is missing the forest from the trees....
PlayStation Plus subs declined:
Despite better library and catalog of games (including day and date for some titles and shorter withholding cycles of "exclusives" and other AAA third party games).
Despite "digital shift"
Despite hardware unit sales growth (meager as they're comparative speaking - hence the problem)
Despite partnerships
Despite the competition being in the gutter and in a death spiral. (Of course there are multiple competitors - hence the fallacy of super focus on Xbox being a massive blinder).
In sum despite significant allocation of business brain power, and resources, despite the opportunity cost and everything involved in order to push it down consumers throats the results are clear.
If even half of that opportunity cost were invested in moving console units, not just in natural markets where the operations are mature but in emerging markets where the operations are still rough as well as strengthening content differentiation to exhaust competitors (not watering it down vis a vis competitors) you would literally kill two birds with one stone. Of course that type of work is more hands-on, ergo more draining on your typical business suit hence strategies for maximizing profit with your existing base get more attention - cozy office room beats sweat every time. The problem, behavioral as it's, needs a proper whip at the very very top with a clear mandate and clear expectations. And when those expectations are not met, the whip comes out, and lashes hard. Bottomline, gotta move consoles. Can't escape that. If the internal goal is not reaching something like 150 million units sold this gen or some number close enough you're doing it wrong.
And btw it has backfired even worse for the competition that went all in on the sub strategy. In fact, the competition is hemorrhaging money on it - which is why they never show the numbers, obfuscate and mislead on everything about the true cost of Gamepass and the impact it has had on its overall gaming business as well as Xbox console sales (cratering as we speak). Call it "when taking a leap of faith on the extreme backfires" - thankfully for MS, they sell Windows, affording them to double down on stupid, seemingly, to no end and no bottom. If MS clearly also carries the competition with said idiocy along with them, it should be looked at as a strategy feature, not a coincidence - just the old triple EEE's at work. Embrace, extend, exterminate (extinguish).
And that's not even mentioning the other elephant in the room - online play behind a paywall. Look at that share of first tier PlayStation Plus subs....
Take the artificial paywall away and what are you left with? That hook works as long as the competition is not able to pound you on it (since MS is a co-op no biggie). The thing is, it's not just MS. Good luck with Valve, and they're coming - if you can't see the writing on the wall with the Deck... well well well, I'll leave it at that.
Anyway all that standard gibberish is so much fucking nonsense that Sony had to turn back to the old tried and true - the "keeping it simple" routine. Increase price, to increase margins per sub, in light of a declining bodycount (thus keeping revenue stable or slightly increasing it). Not only that but stop releasing PS Plus sub count numbers on financials, so as to avoid speculative trading when financials release - and of course it wasn't to stop positive speculation that increase the stock price (bonanza for the well connected - aka insider traders), but negative speculation on poor numbers that tank it. Add to that turning into a MS lite by cherry picking when to report sub info and most importantly, what to report.
The only leak and power-point strategy report that I'm waiting for that seems to be missing is the one titled: "How we get back to 150 million units sold this generation, it has been too fucking long". Absence of which is telling...
Still waiting for that strategy guide, instead of this simpleton report... "expanding" to the competition (PC)
- talk about idiocy, even more so with the current approach. Bottomline, the leader of all stupid crazy strategies that exist about breaking away from the hardware - aka Microsoft, has failed, miserably. Somehow someway, a follow the loser in lite form is gonna work cause: "Shit, moving console sales past 100m is fucking hard, and the promise land is so green over there". The conditions are maturing and evolving, ripe for the fall. Clearly not by the hands of MS, although that is inconsequential to the fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything bad that's coming towards Playstation in the coming years they will deserve it. It's crazy how bad they simply kept PS+ in its original state things would actually be better for them now financially in some way
Fucking hell what is it with overreactions in here? The slides aren't as bad as you think they are. In fact, they show Sony's doing well?
The only issue people have here is Plus releases after a year, which they seem to be moving away from. Their cannibalisation slides are a bit too technical to read like this so it'd take time to go through them carefully.
Several key points.
1. The fact that they're no longer doing this is showing. Horizon seems to have been a test run and since Ragnarok is still not on there, it's safe to assume it didn't work out well.
2. The simple fact that all of these games that are already added to Plus have made millions of sales and by the time they were thrown on there, already made huge profits.
3. The constant comparison to xbox and how they're following them makes no sense. Sony's 1st party actually sells. By the millions. Before they even reach a sub service, they've already sold millions and made tens of millions in profit.
4. The simple fact that Sony simply can't do what xbox does and has no reason to. Why would they kill their profits and sales to follow the xbox strategy? None of these slides prove that's what they're doing. This is what companies do, they crunch data.
Have you ever wondered why Sony doesn't have a set date for both Plus and PC releases? It's because they're doing it on a case by case basis. They do research, they crunch numbers and they decide. If a game's sales have run their course, they're no longer making money on it. Putting a game like that on a sub service provides more value to it, while also providing extra revenue from mtx or DLC.
If there's one thing you can count on, it's a company's desire to earn money. That's the one constant that you can always rely on. Do you honestly think Sony would lose money on these things to, what, do what xbox does? Why, when their business model is actually making them billions? What company would give that up?
People get easily swept up in twitter trolls and their PR bullshit to think with a cool head.
The only issue people have here is Plus releases after a year, which they seem to be moving away from. Their cannibalisation slides are a bit too technical to read like this so it'd take time to go through them carefully.
Several key points.
1. The fact that they're no longer doing this is showing. Horizon seems to have been a test run and since Ragnarok is still not on there, it's safe to assume it didn't work out well.
2. The simple fact that all of these games that are already added to Plus have made millions of sales and by the time they were thrown on there, already made huge profits.
3. The constant comparison to xbox and how they're following them makes no sense. Sony's 1st party actually sells. By the millions. Before they even reach a sub service, they've already sold millions and made tens of millions in profit.
4. The simple fact that Sony simply can't do what xbox does and has no reason to. Why would they kill their profits and sales to follow the xbox strategy? None of these slides prove that's what they're doing. This is what companies do, they crunch data.
Have you ever wondered why Sony doesn't have a set date for both Plus and PC releases? It's because they're doing it on a case by case basis. They do research, they crunch numbers and they decide. If a game's sales have run their course, they're no longer making money on it. Putting a game like that on a sub service provides more value to it, while also providing extra revenue from mtx or DLC.
If there's one thing you can count on, it's a company's desire to earn money. That's the one constant that you can always rely on. Do you honestly think Sony would lose money on these things to, what, do what xbox does? Why, when their business model is actually making them billions? What company would give that up?
People get easily swept up in twitter trolls and their PR bullshit to think with a cool head.