PlayStation 1st party games $60 on PC and $70 on PS5.

[Killer_Sakoman]

You do notice the trend though, right? The windows are shrinking. You go from 10 years to 6, to 5, to 4, to 3, now it's 2 years for traditional 1P AAA games, 1 year to a few months for some 1P GaaS titles and Day 1 for select 1P GaaS games.

How long do you think the 2 year window for 1P traditional AAA games will hold? Even at 2 years, that sets a dangerous precedent because enough enthusiasts may just drop their FOMO and can stand to wait to play more of these games, wait to get them on PC, find themselves doing more of their 3P purchases on PC and eventually using PC for their gaming needs instead of a PlayStation.

This is already a problem we've seen occur with Xbox in real-time over the past 5-8 years; it's not a sudden onset, it takes time to gradually occur. What we don't want is to see PlayStation follow this same fate, because unlike Microsoft, Sony has no vested interests in the PC space (no dominant PC OS, no dominant API suite for game development on PC, no lucrative OEM licensing deals for a dominant PC OS on OEM PCs, etc.), and their console gaming revenue actually constitutes a major portion of their corporate revenue, unlike Xbox does for Microsoft.

So, in the case that ends up happening, Sony has much more to lose. It would be somewhat mitigated by having a launcher and storefront of their own on PC that they prioritize and push heavily, but it'd have to be a real effort, considering how entrenched Steam is. But they can never get as good a deal with Valve on Steam, as they can with their own storefront & launcher.



The reported profits Sony made from their PC ports in FY '22 would not be enough to cover even two 1P traditional AAA games development. That's how little those PC profits actually were, go look back at the numbers.

There are much better ways to reign in costs of AAA game development than potentially cheapening and debasing the value proposition of your own gaming console by training an audience to get PC ports in shorter and shorter windows. AI implementation into the development pipeline is one example (though this needs to be regulated). Maybe not always hiring the biggest costs-demanding VAs and Hollywood script writers would also help; if Kojima wants to hire a bunch of big actors, directors and musicians for his game okay but he's either got some really advantageous financial deal with them or that's other investors willing to foot the big bill due to Kojima's industry status. But that should be the exception, not the rule.

Also, like Nintendo, Sony could equally just train their customer base to buy the games at full price or near-full price via slower movement to sales and less sales as a whole, or do a pay-installment program for new releases where people can pay in monthly installments the cost of the game, while still getting it Day 1. There are a good deal of ways they can manage costs for AAA game development without relinquishing vertical integration within their own full ecosystem (the one where they have the most input and control of frontend & backend). Taking a few more lessons from Nintendo in that regard wouldn't hurt, it'd help.

They should integrate licensed BNPL providers for buying games in installments.

 

[Yurinka]

You do notice the trend though, right? The windows are shrinking. You go from 10 years to 6, to 5, to 4, to 3, now it's 2 years for traditional 1P AAA games, 1 year to a few months for some 1P GaaS titles and Day 1 for select 1P GaaS games.

I don't get why you keep lying. No, the window isn't shrinking.

The trend always has been that the PC ports of the AAA Sony games that we started to see in 2020 get released around 2 years or more after its original PS release. Being Predator the exception, but it's a AA 2nd party game.

If we sort by PC port release date looks like this:

2015/12/07 Helldivers: day one
2016/04/14 Everybody's Gone to the Rapture: 8 months
2018/02/05 Guns Up: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
...
2020/08/07 Horizon: 3 years and a half
2021/05/18 Days Gone: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
2021/04/29 Predator Hunting Grounds: 1 year
2022/01/14 GoW: almost 4 years
2022/08/12 Spider-Man: 4 years
2022/10/19 Uncharted 4: 6 years and a half
2022/10/19 Uncharted Lost Legacy: 5 years and a couple months
2022/10/27 Sackboy A big Adventure: 2 years(+/- 1 month)
2022/11/18 Spider-Man Miles Morales: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
2023/02/15 Returnal: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
2023/03/28 TLOU: on PC 10 years
2023/07/26 Ratchet Rift Apart: 2 years(+/- 1 month)

How long do you think the 2 year window for 1P traditional AAA games will hold? Even at 2 years, that sets a dangerous precedent because enough enthusiasts may just drop their FOMO and can stand to wait to play more of these games, wait to get them on PC, find themselves doing more of their 3P purchases on PC and eventually using PC for their gaming needs instead of a PlayStation.

I have no idea how long it will continue to be 2+ years, but Hermen said they are happy with it.

Numbers say there's no dangerous signs at all: PS5 hardware and softare sales, plus 1P sales on PS5 continue being more than great and there's absolutely nothing that lead to thing that PC ports may have any negative effect on PS. On the opposite, PC keeps getting them extra revenue and profit plus allows them reach new fans.

PS5 only sequels -sometimes of games ported to PC- like GoWR, HFW or GT7 got record sales numbers for the studios who made them.

So they will continue pumping pc ports.

This is already a problem we've seen occur with Xbox in real-time over the past 5-8 years; it's not a sudden onset, it takes time to gradually occur. What we don't want is to see PlayStation follow this same fate, because unlike Microsoft, Sony has no vested interests in the PC space (no dominant PC OS, no dominant API suite for game development on PC, no lucrative OEM licensing deals for a dominant PC OS on OEM PCs, etc.), and their console gaming revenue actually constitutes a major portion of their corporate revenue, unlike Xbox does for Microsoft.

So, in the case that ends up happening, Sony has much more to lose. It would be somewhat mitigated by having a launcher and storefront of their own on PC that they prioritize and push heavily, but it'd have to be a real effort, considering how entrenched Steam is. But they can never get as good a deal with Valve on Steam, as they can with their own storefront & launcher.

Sony SP games won't be released day one on PC, nothing leads to think it would be the case. In fact, several Sony GaaS and SP games will never be released on PC.

Some GaaS will be on PC sooner, even day one: Helldivers will continue releasing day one on PC and the Bungie games will continue being day one on PC. Maybe a handful GaaS title more will be day one on PC. That's all.

The only change will be that Sony will make more money. Sony won't release all their games on PC day one and Sony won't put all their games day one on a subscription. Forget it.

The reported profits Sony made from their PC ports in FY '22 would not be enough to cover even two 1P traditional AAA games development. That's how little those PC profits actually were, go look back at the numbers.

Most investors would kill for getting almost half a billion in yearly revenue in 4 years, or to get a 133% CAGR from their investments. PC is a great business for Sony.

There are much better ways to reign in costs of AAA game development than potentially cheapening and debasing the value proposition of your own gaming console by training an audience to get PC ports in shorter and shorter windows.

As proven above these "shorter and shorter windows" are a fantasy, they don't exist.

All AAA SP Sony games that get ported to PC (not all of them get ported) are released on PC around 2 years or more after their original PS release.

It only would get shorter if instead of counting from the PS release of the game you count from a newer PS5 patch/update/remaster/remake pretty likely made along the PC port, instead of countring from the original release.

AI implementation into the development pipeline is one example (though this needs to be regulated). Maybe not always hiring the biggest costs-demanding VAs and Hollywood script writers would also help; if Kojima wants to hire a bunch of big actors, directors and musicians for his game okay but he's either got some really advantageous financial deal with them or that's other investors willing to foot the big bill due to Kojima's industry status. But that should be the exception, not the rule.

AI is only another one of many other gamedev tools/techs that will help devs. I doesn't do magic, it only helps a little in some areas. People is getting too dramatic regarding AI because they have no idea about its real current usage and potential and the amount of work it needs to properly use it.

Also, like Nintendo, Sony could equally just train their customer base to buy the games at full price or near-full price via slower movement to sales and less sales as a whole, or do a pay-installment program for new releases where people can pay in monthly installments the cost of the game, while still getting it Day 1. There are a good deal of ways they can manage costs for AAA game development without relinquishing vertical integration within their own full ecosystem (the one where they have the most input and control of frontend & backend). Taking a few more lessons from Nintendo in that regard wouldn't hurt, it'd help.

Nintendo makes AA games, and has no important competition in the portables market and even inside their own console. Their games keep getting good sales numbers during year because there's only a few big selling games released on their console and since their users don't see good new releases they go to buy older good games even if overpriced.

Sony makes much more expensive AAA games. The budget AAA games skyrocket every generation, but they compete against a lot of AAA publishers even inside their own console. There's a shit ton of great releases on PS every year, so they have to compete with prices. Even more in PC, where there are way more games. The only alternative has been release DLC/GaaS stuff and PC ports, plus to raise a bit the price of the games.

But that price increase had more to do with the price of the games not being rised to match inflation or budget increases during decades in gaming more than with Sony particularly.

 

[KickNamesTakeAss]

How long do you think the 2 year window for 1P traditional AAA games will hold? Even at 2 years, that sets a dangerous precedent because enough enthusiasts may just drop their FOMO and can stand to wait to play more of these games, wait to get them on PC, find themselves doing more of their 3P purchases on PC and eventually using PC for their gaming needs instead of a PlayStation.


The reported profits Sony made from their PC ports in FY '22 would not be enough to cover even two 1P traditional AAA games development. That's how little those PC profits actually were, go look back at the numbers.

There are much better ways to reign in costs of AAA game development than potentially cheapening and debasing the value proposition of your own gaming console by training an audience to get PC ports in shorter and shorter windows.

It’s not about how long the 2 year window will hold, the length of the window is what makes the business model work. A hypothetical reduction to the window makes no sense unless it had zero harm to hardware sales. Which it could so they won’t obviously. The suggestion that Sony would jeopardise their own business model like that isn’t worth conversing over to be honest as it makes so little sense.

The devs at PlayStation wanted this btw. The ability to sell their software to a bigger audience was revealed in a gamesindustry.biz Jim Ryan interview about increasing software sales. They created a business model and bought Nixxes to achieve this goal and it’s working.

Also I don’t understand your stance to downplay hundreds of millions in extra income to PlayStation for old games. New money they never had before from a business model that works and people are unhappy it’s crazy to me.

 

[JAHGamer]

In PC they found that with cheap ports of old games made in a few months with a few people they can make hundreds or millions of dollars in revenue and profit, reaching to millions of new players with zero negative effect for their console busines. It would be retarded to stop their PC business, they won't do it.

A new president -or the current one in several years from now- will try to find new markets to grow instead of trying to exit for no reason very profitable markets where they already are.

Why do you keep posting this graph ? As if it helps any of your points.....? You know it just shows that they missed their goals right? Projected to make 250M from ports, not even including Destiny profits, and they only made $200M total from PC, and half of that is from Destiny.....so it just shows that their strategy was a huge failure. And they wasted 3.7 billion on Bungie, so they'll be in the red for a while.

Also I don’t understand your stance to downplay hundreds of millions in extra income to PlayStation for old games. New money they never had before from a business model that works and people are unhappy it’s crazy to me.

You have a very wrong and myopic view of business, just like Jim Ryan. Porting 6 massive marquee IP to a competing platform to make a measly $100m over the course of an entire year will never be good. PlayStation makes around $25B in yearly revenue, and you want to throw all of that away just for $100m~ in revenue ? That's not even a 1% boost, it's objectively idiotic, they traded away their most powerful bargaining chip for a few pennies that don't even cover the cost of developing a single game. No it's not free money at all, because they're making the PS5 useless which will hurt everyone more in the long run.

The reported profits Sony made from their PC ports in FY '22 would not be enough to cover even two 1P traditional AAA games development. That's how little those PC profits actually were, go look back at the numbers.

Also, like Nintendo, Sony could equally just train their customer base to buy the games at full price or near-full price via slower movement to sales and less sales as a whole, or do a pay-installment program for new releases where people can pay in monthly installments the cost of the game, while still getting it Day 1. There are a good deal of ways they can manage costs for AAA game development without relinquishing vertical integration within their own full ecosystem (the one where they have the most input and control of frontend & backend). Taking a few more lessons from Nintendo in that regard wouldn't hurt, it'd help.

Exactly, Jim has already essentially destroyed the value of every Sony IP. He's trained gamers to either wait for a PC port to pirate it or wait for it to land on PS Plus Premium like HFW did. Nintendo is the only company that seems to value their games and it's why they're doing so well, and it's also why the Switch 2 will take A LOT of market share from PlayStation in the coming years.

But I guess people like @Yurinka @KickNamesTakeAss and @shrike0fth0rns couldn't care less if PlayStation died off tomorrow. They're applauding all the same stupid mistakes that Xbox has been making for the last 10 years, except Sony doesn't have a trillion dollar parent company that can constantly bail them out like Xbox does.

 

[KickNamesTakeAss]

You have a very wrong and myopic view of business, just like Jim Ryan. Porting 6 massive marquee IP to a competing platform to make a measly $100m over the course of an entire year will never be good. PlayStation makes around $25B in yearly revenue, and you want to throw all of that away just for $100m~ in revenue ? That's not even a 1% boost, it's objectively idiotic, they traded away their most powerful bargaining chip for a few pennies that don't even cover the cost of developing a single game. No it's not free money at all, because they're making the PS5 useless which will hurt everyone more in the long run.

Exactly, Jim has already essentially destroyed the value of every Sony IP. He's trained gamers to either wait for a PC port to pirate it or wait for it to land on PS Plus Premium like HFW did. Nintendo is the only company that seems to value their games and it's why they're doing so well, and it's also why the Switch 2 will take A LOT of market share from PlayStation in the coming years.

I have a myopic view and don’t understand business

So do tell, what metric are you using to quantify that they’re making the PS5 useless? There must be some real world data you can show to back up your augment.

Also anything to back up how it destroyed the value of every Sony IP would be a delightful read too. Thanks.

No more theories or conjecture.

 

[Darth Vader]

I guess Sony should just start porting games to the Series Consoles, after all its more revenue and helps to cover the risky investment in AAA games. I'm sure a certain someone would say that's an incredible decision. Their name starts with Y and ends in urinka.

 

[JAHGamer]

I have a myopic view and don’t understand business

So do tell, what metric are you using to quantify that they’re making the PS5 useless? There must be some real world data you can show to back up your augment.

Also anything to back up how it destroyed the value of every Sony IP would be a delightful read too. Thanks.

No more theories or conjecture.

Did you not read my last message? In its entirety ?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I don't get why you keep lying. No, the window isn't shrinking.

The trend always has been that the PC ports of the AAA Sony games that we started to see in 2020 get released around 2 years or more after its original PS release. Being Predator the exception, but it's a AA 2nd party game.

That's the trend right now. But in light of missing their PC revenue forecast, Sony could take one of two lessons:

Right Lesson: Increase the window for traditional AAA ports to PC (4-5 years, basically within a year or so of a new sequel's console-exclusive launch), keep the 2-year or shorter window for GaaS/live-service games that get ported. Some GaaS/live-service games being Day 1 between PS5 and PC (Sony still has to address the free online vs. paid online dilemma).

Wrong Lesson: Push for sub-2 year windows for traditional AAA ports to PC, Day 1 ports for certain games.

If we sort by PC port release date looks like this:

2015/12/07 Helldivers: day one
2016/04/14 Everybody's Gone to the Rapture: 8 months
2018/02/05 Guns Up: 2 years (+/- 1 month)

These were either non-AAA games or GaaS/live-service titles. I'm not talking about those when it comes to the window getting shorter.

...
2020/08/07 Horizon: 3 years and a half
2021/05/18 Days Gone: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
2021/04/29 Predator Hunting Grounds: 1 year
2022/01/14 GoW: almost 4 years
2022/08/12 Spider-Man: 4 years
2022/10/19 Uncharted 4: 6 years and a half
2022/10/19 Uncharted Lost Legacy: 5 years and a couple months
2022/10/27 Sackboy A big Adventure: 2 years(+/- 1 month)
2022/11/18 Spider-Man Miles Morales: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
2023/02/15 Returnal: 2 years (+/- 1 month)
2023/03/28 TLOU: on PC 10 years
2023/07/26 Ratchet Rift Apart: 2 years(+/- 1 month)

Games like Horizon ZD, GoW 2018, Spiderman, and especially Uncharted 4 released either well before Sony ramped up significantly on the PC porting initiative, or released before a cadence of porting patterns began to show itself. When Spiderman 2 launches, you will already have some people expecting a PC port by mid 2025, or maybe even late 2024.

Why? Because a pattern has already been shown of the window getting smaller, not larger or staying at the gap it was when, say, Uncharted 4 released. I know Jim Ryan has said the window would stay at something "at least 2 years if not longer", but anything can change. I mean none of us were expecting PS+ prices to go up by 33% with only a week's notice, but that happened just recently :/

I have no idea how long it will continue to be 2+ years, but Hermen said they are happy with it.

People say a lot of things, but suddenly Sony may not be happy with it for whatever reason, and decide to shorten that window. Which IMO would be a big mistake.

There is already the problem of creating the expectation now due to a cadence formed in a pattern of releases getting ported. If they had at least stuck with a 4-5 year window like with Uncharted 4, I feel that'd of struck the best balance of prioritizing and respecting the enthusiasts on the console side, and giving enough time to add substantial upgrades for a PC port, maybe a preview of the sequel, and having the sequel ready for the console within a year or two's time.

Numbers say there's no dangerous signs at all: PS5 hardware and softare sales, plus 1P sales on PS5 continue being more than great and there's absolutely nothing that lead to thing that PC ports may have any negative effect on PS. On the opposite, PC keeps getting them extra revenue and profit plus allows them reach new fans.

PS5 hardware sales missed their recent fiscal projections. That could be due to any number of reasons but the fact remains, they missed them. Did they plan to miss them, or project they had a good chance of missing them but made the shot for that target anyway? Most likely.

But, if some of the revenue targets are missed going forward, and we see in specific areas where they come up short, after a couple years or so we can start to figure if things like the PC strategy (or the seemingly out-of-nowhere massive price increases of certain features on the console side) have anything to do with that.

PS5 only sequels -sometimes of games ported to PC- like GoWR, HFW or GT7 got record sales numbers for the studios who made them.

We haven't gotten a sales update for any of those games, FWIW. Not that such means anything bad in and of itself, but the last numbers for GT7 for example, we had to extrapolate from other data.

What I'm more worried about is if Sony's change in subscription reporting (dropping MAU numbers) spills over to the software. Where we only get software revenue figures, instead of that and unit sales. Or that we only get unit sales counts from the launch and nothing thereafter.

It'd be obfuscation creep and the only reason companies do it, seems to me, is to find the easiest areas to continue giving impression of massive growth to shareholders while not reporting areas where numbers show growth has slowed, stagnated, or regressed.

Sony SP games won't be released day one on PC, nothing leads to think it would be the case. In fact, several Sony GaaS and SP games will never be released on PC.

If you're talking about GaaS like Dreams, then yeah no duh those won't get a port. Even when I think they arguably should have, because those games have reached EOL support on console (at least in terms of new updates).

But, you keep saying SP/traditional games won't get Day 1 PC ports, were you so confident years ago to say they wouldn't be getting ports at all? See, I'm of the camp where I wouldn't write it off as happening, but IF it happens, Sony at least have an avenue to maybe make it work to their best benefit.

And that would be to have their own launcher & storefront on PC, where Day 1 is for said launcher/storefront, that provides some free ad-supported subscription tier but also has Essential/Extra/Premium-equivalent tiers with worthwhile features to them, and an option for linked sub accounts between PC and console for those with subs on both. That's the general idea; anything less than that which'd still net Day 1 for non-GaaS/live-service games is just Sony screwing themselves up their own ass.

The only change will be that Sony will make more money. Sony won't release all their games on PC day one and Sony won't put all their games day one on a subscription. Forget it.

This is literally one of the optimal scenarios (at least to mitigate any heavy losses) from Sony I've been bringing up here and there for months now. Is it the absolute preferred option? As someone who may prefer having maximum valuation to the console for justification that way, no it's not. But it at least still keeps vertical integration in Sony's own (expanded) ecosystem as much as possible.

Most investors would kill for getting almost half a billion in yearly revenue in 4 years, or to get a 133% CAGR from their investments. PC is a great business for Sony.

These are projections and you keep ignoring that Sony fell short of their FY '22 PC revenue fiscal targets :/

As proven above these "shorter and shorter windows" are a fantasy, they don't exist.

You didn't prove anything above in that respect :S

All AAA SP Sony games that get ported to PC (not all of them get ported) are released on PC around 2 years or more after their original PS release.

I feel like you are getting a tad repetitious when you keep bringing this up.

AI is only another one of many other gamedev tools/techs that will help devs. I doesn't do magic, it only helps a little in some areas. People is getting too dramatic regarding AI because they have no idea about its real current usage and potential and the amount of work it needs to properly use it.

It's also a fact that no one has actually developed a development pipeline maximized around (smart and ethical) AI implementation. So, you can't actually say how valuable or invaluable as a resource boost to game creation it can be until companies start doing that, and it's still very early days in that regard.

Nintendo makes AA games,

Actual . That's cope.

and has no important competition in the portables market and even inside their own console. Their games keep getting good sales numbers during year because there's only a few big selling games released on their console and since their users don't see good new releases they go to buy older good games even if overpriced.

You do realize many people with a Switch also have a PlayStation or PC, right? So, their buying habits aren't just focused on Switch games; their budget is spread about between two or three systems any given year. Meaning Nintendo's games still have to compete for their dollar against Sony's, against Ubisoft's, against Capcom's, against EA's, so on and so forth.

And Nintendo's price retention strategy is one Sony should have probably taken a page from on the console side, if they don't want situations where people feel they can just wait for a big price drop to finally buy the game later. If the price is known to stay the same months or a year later as at launch, then they're more likely to just buy it at launch.

And, Sony could one-up Nintendo (and Microsoft) in that department by making a monthly installment program for new releases. Let people spread out the payment over the course of some months or a year, but still get the game Day 1 in full as normal. The industry will probably have to eventually move to this model as an option anyway, Sony are arguably in the best position to kick it off. @Killer_Sakoman adds further on this in terms of how it could be done effectively.

Sony makes much more expensive AAA games. The budget AAA games skyrocket every generation, but they compete against a lot of AAA publishers even inside their own console. There's a shit ton of great releases on PS every year, so they have to compete with prices. Even more in PC, where there are way more games. The only alternative has been release DLC/GaaS stuff and PC ports, plus to raise a bit the price of the games.

But that price increase had more to do with the price of the games not being rised to match inflation or budget increases during decades in gaming more than with Sony particularly.

All the more reason for an implementation of a solution as an option mentioned right above

 

[ethomaz]

I have different opinions on the matter.

1) One side I think it should be $70 in PC too.
2) Looking in another way the games are so old that it should be sold at $40 on PC.

I still don’t know which is more fair imo.

 

[historia]

Why does ps has to do anything to counter starfield on steam? If ppl want to play starfield ps can’t really do anything to change their minds. Ps fans are getting to invested in talking about this trash ass mid fcking ugly dated game.

Yeah pc gamers are really first class citizens they wait 2-3 for ps exclusive. I’m not speaking up on sht. Jim Ryan is doing a great job and u guys keep crying over nothing.

Enjoy 80 US Dollars PS Plus though. Jimbo sucks

 

[JAHGamer]

I have different opinions on the matter.

1) One side I think it should be $70 in PC too.
2) Looking in another way the games are so old that it should be sold at $40 on PC.

I still don’t know which is more fair imo.

I think TLOU Part 1 remake definitely should've been $70 on PC since it released only a few months after the PS5 version, but maybe Sony knew it was in a terrible state and decided not to piss people off even more. Other games I can understand being only $60 since they usually come later. The day 1 live service games better not be $70 on PS5 and $60 on PC We'll see with Helldivers 2 if it doesn't get delayed.

 

[ksdixon]

They should integrate licensed BNPL providers for buying games in installments.

Did they already sell their insurance arm of Sony? One hand of Sony should be washing the other. The PS group should be drumming up business across from the other Sony branded bnpl/insurance/finance arm.

 

[Box]

We shouldn't be giving Premium first party games on PC, at best they should get a bunch of GAAS games.

 

[historia]

We shouldn't be giving Premium first party games on PC, at best they should get a bunch of GAAS games.

After Rift Apart, if Jimbo smart he will stop the porting SP games

The problem is he is not.

 

[Airbus]

JImbo trying everything he can to push playstation gamers migrate to PC with decision like this

Told you hes a fool

 

[FatKaz]

We shouldn't be giving Premium first party games on PC, at best they should get a bunch of GAAS games.

I think that will happen if the GAAS games take off.

Sony are only doing it for the extra revenue. If there GAAS games take off no reason to chase that extra revenue for non GAAS games on pc.

 

[KickNamesTakeAss]

Did you not read my last message? In its entirety ?

Thought as much. I give you the opportunity to actually back-up any of your claims and you choose to condescend. I get it. you and many on this forum that hold the same opinion are strongly opposed to the current direction at PS. Jim’s head should be on a tall spike rotting in the California sun directly outside the offices of SIE as a tribute to his naysayers. A sign to any would-be future leader that company expansion and growth will not be tolerated. PC ports shut down. Nixxes shut down. All gaas studios shut down. Support studios shut down. Mobile studios shut down. PS productions shut down. Increased studio investment shut down. No crunch for workers shut down. Basically undo anything Jim may have had a hand in as you’ve theorised he’ll bring the end of PS. Anyone against that view are completely in the wrong and should toe the line.

There’s no level headed conversation to be had. In the real world PS is doing better than it has in years currently on course for its biggest fiscal sales year in its history, many new initiatives started, plenty of room for future growth with plenty of games still to announce.

I've had every PS since PS1 (expect Vita, knew that was doa rip), old enough to remember when consoles were still seen as just for kids. PS wanted to reach a larger addressable market so tapped into the underground 90s club culture installing PS1 consoles in chillout rooms with Wipeout and other games, sponsoring music events, festivals etc. helping to attract a wider and older demographic, and thus expanding the market for everyone.

They're doing the same again now, but on a much bigger scale. They're expanding the addressable market with PC ports, IP expansion in TV, IP expansion in Film, IP expansion in mobile, soon Cloud gaming etc. The impetus to drive this expansion only comes with great diverse games and new IP. Which Jim has reiterated many times.

The PS brand and IPs have never been bigger and will continue to grow.

Reality doesn't sit well with some here. Just need to admit you want Jim to fail as proof you were right. For whatever reason (mainly ignorance) you just don't like the guy. So I say continue hating bud, spread the word, yell at the clouds, create an army, This is your day! Show arch enemy Jim Ryan what you're made of. Close your PSN account asap, grab a hammer and destroy your PS5, destroy your kids PS5, your family's PS5's, your friends' PS5's then their family's PS5's gather the remains then go to a large empty field and spell out the words "Say NO to ports" in really large letters. Then set it on fire making sure to document it on social media of your choice for the world to see, with a clear message that you'll destroy a further 5 PS5's every 5 minutes until Jim tyranny is brought to swift end.

 

[Systemshock2023]

It's all about list wars. Always was, always will be. The difference is that, as adults, many try to rationalize: Talk about high level corporate strategy, financials and so on and so forth. But at the end of the day, it all resorts to:

"I don't want to share my toys"

 

[shrike0fth0rns]

Why do you keep posting this graph ? As if it helps any of your points.....? You know it just shows that they missed their goals right? Projected to make 250M from ports, not even including Destiny profits, and they only made $200M total from PC, and half of that is from Destiny.....so it just shows that their strategy was a huge failure. And they wasted 3.7 billion on Bungie, so they'll be in the red for a while.

You have a very wrong and myopic view of business, just like Jim Ryan. Porting 6 massive marquee IP to a competing platform to make a measly $100m over the course of an entire year will never be good. PlayStation makes around $25B in yearly revenue, and you want to throw all of that away just for $100m~ in revenue ? That's not even a 1% boost, it's objectively idiotic, they traded away their most powerful bargaining chip for a few pennies that don't even cover the cost of developing a single game. No it's not free money at all, because they're making the PS5 useless which will hurt everyone more in the long run.

Exactly, Jim has already essentially destroyed the value of every Sony IP. He's trained gamers to either wait for a PC port to pirate it or wait for it to land on PS Plus Premium like HFW did. Nintendo is the only company that seems to value their games and it's why they're doing so well, and it's also why the Switch 2 will take A LOT of market share from PlayStation in the coming years.

But I guess people like @Yurinka @KickNamesTakeAss and @shrike0fth0rns couldn't care less if PlayStation died off tomorrow. They're applauding all the same stupid mistakes that Xbox has been making for the last 10 years, except Sony doesn't have a trillion dollar parent company that can constantly bail them out like Xbox does.

Excuses me I’ve been gaming on ps since year1 it’s pretty much the only platform I game on these days despite being a ps/pc guy for nearly 20yrs. I’m pretty sure I’m as hard core a ps fanboy as they come. I don’t see what pall the constant crying about ps game on pc is accomplishing. I honestly couldn’t give af doesn’t effect me I buy all ps 1st prty on pc day 1, no ps studio core studio has any main teaming working on ports so it’s not effect development. Jess Christ enough of the crying alrdy 99% of ppl gaming only ps don’t care, Sony doesn’t care, the shareholders don’t care.

 

[JAHGamer]

Thought as much. I give you the opportunity to actually back-up any of your claims and you choose to condescend. I get it. you and many on this forum that hold the same opinion are strongly opposed to the current direction at PS. Jim’s head should be on a tall spike rotting in the California sun directly outside the offices of SIE as a tribute to his naysayers. A sign to any would-be future leader that company expansion and growth will not be tolerated. PC ports shut down. Nixxes shut down. All gaas studios shut down. Support studios shut down. Mobile studios shut down. PS productions shut down. Increased studio investment shut down. No crunch for workers shut down. Basically undo anything Jim may have had a hand in as you’ve theorised he’ll bring the end of PS. Anyone against that view are completely in the wrong and should toe the line.

There’s no level headed conversation to be had. In the real world PS is doing better than it has in years currently on course for its biggest fiscal sales year in its history, many new initiatives started, plenty of room for future growth with plenty of games still to announce.

I've had every PS since PS1 (expect Vita, knew that was doa rip), old enough to remember when consoles were still seen as just for kids. PS wanted to reach a larger addressable market so tapped into the underground 90s club culture installing PS1 consoles in chillout rooms with Wipeout and other games, sponsoring music events, festivals etc. helping to attract a wider and older demographic, and thus expanding the market for everyone.

They're doing the same again now, but on a much bigger scale. They're expanding the addressable market with PC ports, IP expansion in TV, IP expansion in Film, IP expansion in mobile, soon Cloud gaming etc. The impetus to drive this expansion only comes with great diverse games and new IP. Which Jim has reiterated many times.

The PS brand and IPs have never been bigger and will continue to grow.

Reality doesn't sit well with some here. Just need to admit you want Jim to fail as proof you were right. For whatever reason (mainly ignorance) you just don't like the guy. So I say continue hating bud, spread the word, yell at the clouds, create an army, This is your day! Show arch enemy Jim Ryan what you're made of. Close your PSN account asap, grab a hammer and destroy your PS5, destroy your kids PS5, your family's PS5's, your friends' PS5's then their family's PS5's gather the remains then go to a large empty field and spell out the words "Say NO to ports" in really large letters. Then set it on fire making sure to document it on social media of your choice for the world to see, with a clear message that you'll destroy a further 5 PS5's every 5 minutes until Jim tyranny is brought to swift end.

I told you to read my initial comment, it had what you were looking for, not my fault you don't read.

Reality doesn't sit well with some here. Just need to admit you want Jim to fail as proof you were right. For whatever reason (mainly ignorance) you just don't like the guy.

I don't want him to fail, PlayStation is my favorite platform so why would I want that? Sadly though, he is failing and he's been a failure since he arrived. No, I don't like the guy, unlike you and some others on this forum I don't idolize CEOs.