Matt Damon explains how all you can stream effect types of movies made - are there gaming parallels?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Heisenberg007

Veteran
21 Jun 2022
1,255
2,567
Streaming was a consumer demand.. not some choice by the industry.

He's talking about how the DVD boom didn't last.. that's really it. It was only a brief time in film history where "buying a movie" really was that popular anyways.

And actors and many in the industry are incredibly biased against streaming.. as they historically have had contracts on the backend for ticket sales.. and nobody has replicated that in streaming well. The reality is there is an INSANE amount of films being made across a ton of genres.. like people need to branch out from Netflix or something.. it's far from the only game in town.

Film industry for decades now has been competing against a much wider variety of entertainment available to consumers.. including GAMING lol... # of ticket sales going down, so prices went up.. this all happened before streaming was a thing.

Either way trying to directly relate this to gaming is silly.. different industries, different consumer demands, different ways of making money.
It's not that different though. In the end, they are all competitors, and it is all part of the larger entertainment industry.

PlayStation and Xbox are also competing with Netflix and Disney+ because they want people to play games, not watch movies and shows on those services. The business principles of the model apply to everyone in broadly the same ways.
 

Remember_Spinal

Ah, my back!
23 Jun 2022
3,716
5,702
If we kill streaming can we get comedies back? They used to release like multiple comedies a year in the 80's and 90's, can anyone name any big successful comedies made in like the past 5 years?

Yeah, comedies are pretty much dead
 
  • sad
Reactions: Nym

IntentionalPun

Veteran
Founder
22 Jun 2022
863
678
Urf
onlyfans.com
It's not that different though. In the end, they are all competitors, and it is all part of the larger entertainment industry.

PlayStation and Xbox are also competing with Netflix and Disney+ because they want people to play games, not watch movies and shows on those services. The business principles of the model apply to everyone in broadly the same ways.
The only thing that PERFECTLY relates is the economy of scale of sub services.

You have the same content costs to create a service for 100 people as you do 100 million. That's the model/business principle.

Beyond that, 2 different industries.. that sure, compete with each other for time.. but the price of the products, the revenue streams.. so different. Sub services are just another revenue stream.. a choice for a developer at launch, or later down the road... to go along with MTX, DLC and all the other ways games make money.
 
P

peter42O

Guest
No, it's an entirely different business model. The premise in the OP is wrong, imo. Jim Ryan doesn't make AAA blockbusters to make money off of them. He's making them to lure people into the Playstation ecosystem, so they will spend money on Fortnite/Fifa/CoD MTX in that ecosystem and so that Jimbo can get his 30% cut. That's the real business model of both Playstation and Xbox. Nintendo is still old-school, of course.

Pretty much this. Exclusives are meant to get you into the eco-system so you spend more money on other stuff and it works. This is why Sony fears losing COD. It's not because of this or that. It's because of all the money they will end up losing, plain and simple.

Exclusives get you in and you buy other shit. Simple but yet very effective.
 

Alabtrosmyster

Veteran
26 Jun 2022
3,351
2,905
Also, there is no chance of having a giant payoff, which means no risk is to be taken.

As for movies, low budget indie movies from the 90s without much special effects are the best movies ever made.
 

Heisenberg007

Veteran
21 Jun 2022
1,255
2,567
No, it's an entirely different business model. The premise in the OP is wrong, imo. Jim Ryan doesn't make AAA blockbusters to make money off of them. He's making them to lure people into the Playstation ecosystem, so they will spend money on Fortnite/Fifa/CoD MTX in that ecosystem and so that Jimbo can get his 30% cut. That's the real business model of both Playstation and Xbox. Nintendo is still old-school, of course.
Pretty much this. Exclusives are meant to get you into the eco-system so you spend more money on other stuff and it works. This is why Sony fears losing COD. It's not because of this or that. It's because of all the money they will end up losing, plain and simple.

Exclusives get you in and you buy other shit. Simple but yet very effective.
You're implying the two things are mutually exclusive, but they are not. You can and do make serious money from first-party games. If that wasn't the case, no first-party studio would ever shut down because ROI wouldn't even be in the picture.

God of War, Spider-Man, Miles Morales, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLOU, Ghost of Tsushima sold more than 100 million copies combined. 6 AAA blockbuster games; 100+ million copies.

Those 6 games would cost less than $1 billion to develop and publish and likely returned at least $4 billion in revenue, even at an average price of just $40. That's nearly $3 billion of profit.

That business model may not be for Xbox because their games do not sell as much. But that doesn't apply to Sony.
 
Last edited:
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: PropellerEar

Bernd Lauert

Veteran
16 Jul 2022
550
460
119
You're implying the two things are mutually exclusive, but they are not. You can and do make serious money from first-party games. If that wasn't the case, no first-party studio would ever shut down because ROI wouldn't even be in the picture.

God of War, Spider-Man, Miles Morales, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLOU, Ghost of Tsushima sold more than 100 million copies combined. 6 AAA blockbuster games; 100+ million copies.

Those 6 games would cost less than $1 billion to develop and publish and likely returned at least $4 billion in revenue, even at an average price of just $40. That's nearly $3 billion of profit.

That business model may not be for Xbox because their games do not sell as much. But that doesn't apply to Sony.
The maths don't sound very realistic. Not even Nintendo gets 4 billion in revenue off 100m games sold, and Sony loves bundles and deep sales.
 

Heisenberg007

Veteran
21 Jun 2022
1,255
2,567
The maths don't sound very realistic. Not even Nintendo gets 4 billion in revenue off 100m games sold, and Sony loves bundles and deep sales.
I've already accounted for those sales by bringing the average price down to $40, also completely ignored pre-orders at full price, deluxe editions, collectors edition, retail sales at full price, etc.

Many of these games set new records for pre-orders.
 
P

peter42O

Guest
You're implying the two things are mutually exclusive, but they are not. You can and do make serious money from first-party games. If that wasn't the case, no first-party studio would ever shut down because ROI wouldn't even be in the picture.

God of War, Spider-Man, Miles Morales, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLOU, Ghost of Tsushima sold more than 100 million copies combined. 6 AAA blockbuster games; 100+ million copies.

Those 6 games would cost less than $1 billion to develop and publish and likely returned at least $4 billion in revenue, even at an average price of just $40. That's nearly $3 billion of profit.

That business model may not be for Xbox because their games do not sell as much. But that doesn't apply to Sony.

I never said that their first party games don't make Sony profit. They do but third party games make them much more profit.

Microsoft's games haven't sold since Xbox 360 and I don't think they've ever had a single game hit 10m+ as far as I know so their direction is completely different than Sony's. I do believe that the direction that each company is going makes sense for them respectively but in time (my prediction is a decade based on 2013), I do believe that Microsoft's direction is simply going to be the far more profitable and successful simply because it's the direction that 95% of gamers/casuals will eventually go because at the end of the day, it's better to keep extra money in your own pocket as opposed to giving it to a billion or trillion dollar company.

Of course, this is just my own personal opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heisenberg007

Alabtrosmyster

Veteran
26 Jun 2022
3,351
2,905
it's better to keep extra money in your own pocket as opposed to giving it to a billion or trillion dollar company.
This is the problem, you are not paying for the same thing. Also, MS would not make more money with it if it was a better deal for you with streaming.

You can see them moving away from the day and date already with sneaky paid "pre release" access to their games, putting a lot of emphasis on Indie Games, sometimes old ones at that (I love indie games, but they're not the same thing as AAA, better or worse is another discussion).

Just there the cost benefit changes a lot, it's no longer about being able to play a decent number of tent pole titles on release with access to the other games as fillers during the down periods. It's about having a number of cheapo games on rotation with some relevant AAA games in release from time to time.

When I buy a game, on any platform, I get something because I think that I will care for it, enjoy it while I play, I don't care about the other games at that time.... If I paid a monthly fee most of the money would go to waste, simply because I buy a few games that I positively know will be meaningful to me and I spent significant time on them .

How many games will you play in a year? After two years how much money spent on GP + games you had to buy anyway? Put that over 5 years and tell me who gives you the best deal, assume you buy most games on sales with a few day one because sometimes you get on the hype train.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heisenberg007
P

peter42O

Guest
This is the problem, you are not paying for the same thing. Also, MS would not make more money with it if it was a better deal for you with streaming.

You can see them moving away from the day and date already with sneaky paid "pre release" access to their games, putting a lot of emphasis on Indie Games, sometimes old ones at that (I love indie games, but they're not the same thing as AAA, better or worse is another discussion).

Just there the cost benefit changes a lot, it's no longer about being able to play a decent number of tent pole titles on release with access to the other games as fillers during the down periods. It's about having a number of cheapo games on rotation with some relevant AAA games in release from time to time.

When I buy a game, on any platform, I get something because I think that I will care for it, enjoy it while I play, I don't care about the other games at that time.... If I paid a monthly fee most of the money would go to waste, simply because I buy a few games that I positively know will be meaningful to me and I spent significant time on them .

How many games will you play in a year? After two years how much money spent on GP + games you had to buy anyway? Put that over 5 years and tell me who gives you the best deal, assume you buy most games on sales with a few day one because sometimes you get on the hype train.

Pre-release? You mean the four days early access for Forza Horizon 5 which im pretty sure was the only game that Microsoft has done this with for this generation and even then, it's the higher editions of the game which you don't get in Game Pass anyway. You only get the base edition in Game Pass. If you're someone who's going to play Forza Horizon 5 daily or even weekly and stay with it for months/years, it does make much more sense for that individual to buy the more expensive edition to get all the extra content as well as four days early access. Microsoft goes after Indies because they're cheaper but also at the moment, way more of them than AAA or even AA titles on a weekly/monthly basis especially over the last few years.

Cost benefit will change a lot based on what's actual releasing. If there's more Indies releasing than say AAA/AA games, not much they can do about it.

When I buy a game, it's because I want to play it and because for me, it's worth playing. I don't pay a fee every month. I only pay when there's a game I want to play that's available day one and once that game is completed, I cancel but the vast majority of those who pay for subscriptions aren't me and don't do what I do. They stay subscribed. I'm in the vast minority. But I do get what you mean though.

The amount of games I play in a year is all based on if the games I want to play get released. I had 5 games for XSX/PS5 launch in 2020, 10 games for 2021 and I have 10 games for 2022. For 2023 though, im expecting an easy 20+ games year especially since a lot of 2022 games were delayed into 2023.

Your scenario of 2 years of Game Pass plus games I bought anyway doesn't apply to me though as like I said earlier, I only subscribe for the month. The best deal FOR ME is Game Pass due to how I use it to my benefit. I do buy nearly every game that I want to play day one. I rarely wait simply because im someone that has no interest in having a backlog due to the fact that in past generations, if I ended up not playing a game, it simply gets dropped/eliminated and I move on. I do like to play games in their respective release year and rarely go back to previous years.

Thus far, I have saved $100 on Gears Tactics and Halo Infinite. This will increase to $150 once I play and complete A Plague Tale Requiem. As of now, I have at least 4 games for 2023 that I want to play which will be on Game Pass day one which will save me at least $200. This does NOT include Microsoft's first party exclusives like Redfall and Starfield which increases my savings.

Of course, im not someone who stays subscribed to subscriptions if im not using them on a daily basis and unlike most average people who have kids and far more expenses than I do, it's actually tough to use me as an example because I don't do what an average person would do in this situation where they would just stay subscribed and that's it. I'm simply in the vast minority in this regard because of how I buy/play games and how I use Game Pass to my benefit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.