He is fine... while not use disrespectful and preconceptions speech.
Everybody has agendas imo... that is why it is right to people point the mistakes or false info too.
Sony Q1 FY2022 Results (2.4m PS5,
- Thread starter ethomaz
- Start date
- Status
Everybody has agendas imo... that is why it is right to people point the mistakes or false info too.
Don't sell me that highly. Trust me on this.
But anyway, what's the point of bringing up a general statement regarding the whole industry, unless there's something about Sony's strategy or your own prognosis about them you feel fits that statement? To me there's nothing in their current strategy that's going to create a domino effect dragging the entire business down, even if there are things they could likely be doing better.
Their business model's in no danger of collapse or making a move leading to a collapse so why even entertain them needing to jettison a 'sinking ship' or trying to salvage a brand that's a corpse of its former self?
@nominedomine @ethomaz Agreed on both points. Maybe putting Returnal in PS+ just a year or so later might've been too quick? Maybe. But it's a pretty small game and one of those games that might get a boost from being in a subscription service.
Sony's marquee games have pretty huge budgets and the costs have to be recouped one way or another. That's probably why they'll take this "tiered" approach in taking their games from PS5 physical/digital, to PS+ library adds, then finally (for some) do PC ports. I think the PC ports for the games selected should tie in with a notable expansion update they can roll into a single release there, but provide as separate purchasable content for PS owners.
And the live service games, most of those will probably be Day 1 PS5/PC, especially if they fit certain genres.
Yeah I noticed he's letting it loose here. Bernd-level trolling.
He's part of the protected class on GAF so I'm surprised he was holding back this whole time
Yeah I noticed he's letting it loose here. Bernd-level trolling.
He's part of the protected class on GAF so I'm surprised he was holding back this whole time
We all knew he was trying his hardest to hold back on GAF lol
He’s literally in every playstation thread harvesting energy, and now he’s in the epicenter growing even stronger.
I appreciate it. You guys can call me whatever you want, but you will never see me be disrespectful or make targeted jives at anyone. That's just not my style.
That being said, expect projections to drop more in further quarters.
like I told you guys when you were parrading the MS earnings results, everything is down
Protected class ? oh my
Xbox warriors might get 1-week bans every once in awhile but you're all still there. PS fans are permanently banned. It's only "warring" when Xbox is criticizedProtected class ? oh my
D
Deleted member 13
Guest
I know how you feel. I love having media that's in my shelf. BUT, those days are genuinely gone. Now I just look to buy things like strategy guides, art books, and memorabilia to have the physical "attachment" to the game that I crave.
D
Deleted member 13
Guest
@adamsapple is doing great! This is the kind of heated debates that we all crave to have without fear of ban.
It's a wonderful feeling! Carry on warriors!
He doesn't pretend to be neutral he is just passive aggressive, It's kind of fitting really because that's exactly how Xbox does it.
I really don't understand the moderation there. I knew I was going to get banned anyway so I wasn't walking on eggshells but they banned me for the last thing I could've expected, the reason was that I predicted that at some point there will be games that will run on the Series X and not on the Series S.
There is just something about that place, it always turns to shit no matter what.
They’re banning Sony guys while trash like Lognor and CatLady goes unchecked while trolling the whole forum.
If I said the exact things that got me banned about Sony instead of Xbox I woul've never gotten a warning. At least here we are all on a even playing field it's a lot more relaxing. Even trolls like ricky and adamsapple somehow manage to avoid a ban there, yet I got banned once for stating the fact that Phil Spencer was made the head of MS studios 14 years ago.
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
I'm not selling you too high, trust that the starting point is very low. First you interjected into a convo with Bryan, second you failed to read between the lines, and failed to grasp the basic flow of the convo and drew whatever conclusions to fit into your rebuttal response in a sort of straw man fashion. That is, not only were you incapable of following said discussion correctly without further elaboration on my part, you jumped the gun for a quick simplistic and misguided take. Biting at my heels, neither when I was on Gaf or here will solve your problem - that is the conclusion you should clearly draw - but that is clearly where the light starts to dim in your head.
Sony falls into the discussion by default as they were the ones that stamped the $70 price line, in cahoots with big third party publishers - without Sony it doesn't attain widespread consumer acceptance (for the reasons I described - mainly consumer divide and conquer). As the console market leader, owning a platform that comprises the majority of third party sales Sony's say is King, and final (in all practical purposes). They all share responsibility for the hike nonetheless. This wasn't expontanous but coordinated... worthy of a price fixing investigation but that has been a dead road for decades now, not just in the gaming industry.
The convo was about why the $70 price hike was ill-advised given the economic under currents of the consumer base in Western countries (at the time of the push - 2020), and that the advocates of this change, mainly big third party publishers of the EA/Activision/Take-Two kind pushed for it NOT out of a sound analytical assessment of the gaming consumer market, consumer being the key word but by greed, career pressure considerations and petty internal impulses and preoccupations as a result of the feedback loop that is imperative in the corporate world, "increasing shareholder value" . In this case, when revenue flattens and stagnates, with little room for expansion, the only choice left is to increase profit margins, which is where the extra $10 come into play. That extra $10 dollar however comes against a rather fixed, and non-increasing disposable income from the rather stagnant consumer base of premium games in the West (Covid boost notwistanding). Simple picture....$200 of disposable income in 2020 does not buy what $200 in 1996 bought you - obviously due to inflation. So the overlord assumes that $200 in 1996 somehow grew to $350 disposable in 2020 due to wage increases, except, it hasn't relative to inflation of other consumer goods and wage stagnation on top of it. This suit may have bought some polling/market research to the effect that tells him it has grown by that magnitude but it's all rubbish garbage. That disposable income has kept itself almost the same or worse, declined in real terms.... the only big change being consumer habit (that is, less recreational drugs being bought with that $200 and more of it being spent on gaming). Covid coinciding with the 2020/2021 price hike murks the real picture.... "everything is fine"...."record profits" except it's not fine.
Thus, the practice in effect is meant not only to squeeze consumer juice but also squeeze smaller players like indie devs by leaving less in the table for others. What also happens in practice is that instead of solving the problems that these big publishers hoped the price increase would solve, it only exacerbates them by creating even fewer winners, even among the big players themselves. After all the goal for the big publishers is to stay winners always, without little market correction for failures (single or plural) wherein, with a single/couple product wins they can accommodate any single loss or several losses. The assumptions of sustainability of the hike rest on many considerations... namely market enlargement and wage increases (and it helps that gaming is the alcohol and weed of millennials and gen z) but all of that goes the doodoo when economic recessions hit, on top of the wrong read of the market without the recession to begin with (that is, wages have been stagnant for ages and have not been corrected to inflation, and thus by extension disposable income is tight or worse in real terms, even if the effects on gaming industry are offset by market enlargement, and/or gaming consumer behavior. That's is why you're seeing big publishers looking to sell or merge, or off-load dead weight - Activision/EA/Ubisoft/Square.... the "recession" will only make consolidation worse. Sony as a console maker raking middle-man cuts is in a privileged position but they too will feel the effects. The exercise as a whole is a futile experiment borne out of the wish of big publishers to stay winners at all costs and grab a bigger share of the disposable income pie at the expense of any other sound consideration, failing to interpret the market fully and beyond just their spreadsheets, competitive pressure, shareholder pressure, and career dreams. That is to say, there is no way to avoid the winners/losers dilemma, and consolidation is but a manifestation of that failure, but so is the advent of subscription gaming that becomes tempting for consumers (price consciousness) as a direct result of this misread of the market... which has even worse implications for the nature of the market going forward (it won't be as we know it for sure ). The great reset - catchy.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13
Guest
This site was made from the people who are passionate about their opinions and we want to be able to express that. When you start getting into mods cherry picking your comments and putting ban hammers down because they particularly don't like you.. then you know it's a broken system. I don't care how many members GAF has. It's the number of 'quality' members that I'm concerned about here. We got some of the most passionate guys here and we want them to speak without fear of being banned for being too outspoken.
Im waiting for your thread on GAF. Have you give up on doing it?
This from the "Xbot"? A division that doesn't even make profit? A division that spent more than 70 billion dollars of its parent company's money, which makes it an ACTUAL money sink?
How is this money sink division profitable, Sony would be better off turning into a third party publisher.
By the way, you do realize that "money sink" and "profitable" are oxymorons right?
Dropping 37% in profit means you're still profitable. I didn't look at the numbers but if they went from 2 billion in profit to 1.3 billion in profit, or so, that's still pretty good given the current conditions.
Kinda funny how unhinged you and your buddy are being on this board, since you know we are trying to be more open. You're just showing your ass though.
Not sure what the solution is. Big games cost big money to make. Gamers demand more, yet it's a limited market by its nature. Nintendo warned of this ages ago. Sometimes situations are just not good.
How is that a bannable offense?
It's a good question; are some games (especially 1P) going to be so demanding later on that Series S won't be sufficient to run lower-end native versions of them? Will it get treated like the Switch does as a cloud-streaming solution instead? Very fair question when talking about 2026, 2027 1P & 3P Xbox releases, the big technical ones like TESVI anyway.
I haven't seen either of them post lately but I might just not read enough threads or posts to see them. Hope Catlady's enjoying her time with Stray....on PlayStation
Anyway does anyone think some of these results might convince Sony to reconsider certain strategic approaches? For example do you think they'll scale back on some of the planned PC ports if they think there's a correlation between those and decreased revenue from 1P software sales on console (where they make a ton more per sold copy)? Do you think they might even scale back on some of the planned live-service content, maybe instead of 10 games by FY 2025 they cut it down to 6 live-service games by FY 2025?
When I think back to PlayStation's FY2020 results and how they were the highest ever for 1P software revenue, there's a lot of big AAA single player story-driven games there as a part of it, but very little in the way of live service games. Maybe investors respond better to hearing the talk on expansion into live-service content and it's not like Sony are actually scaling down on the non live-service AAA games (they plan to increase those as well by a big margin), but maybe they'll push for a better balance of both types in public-facing spaces, and in how they rollout the live-service games in relation to the non live-service 1P titles.
Just a few thoughts.
He got permed before he could lol. Guess they were afraid of him.
- Status