They're arguing that Playstation controls the market therefore, ABK should go through. I would argue that they don't control the market and a major enough screw up would put them back at PS3 level market share.
Sony - Quarter 3 Financial Results 2022
- Thread starter Bryank75
- Start date
No, Skyrim got a PSVR Re-release. The regular release for PS4 has no VR support.
She is fucking deranged
It shouldn't be a convincing argument, otherwise it'd basically be proponents of it saying "Punish Sony for their market success!!". Sony've said in the past that revenue from IP like COD help fund games like GOWR, HFW and so forth, and make the budgets & marketing for those games sustainable. Otherwise, were Sony to lose access to COD or being able to leverage deals for COD with ABK as they currently can, they may see a contraction in revenue and they'd have to take money from other divisions to make up for it.
But, unlike Microsoft, Sony isn't a company where the "other divisions" make up 90%+ of their revenue and profits. Just this quarter we've seen PS account for what, almost 50% of total Sony revenue? When has Xbox ever been that important to Microsoft, in terms of the bottom line? Never. And it probably never will be. And I think Sony could make a counter-argument stating, if MS feel having access to COD is not a requirement to help contribute in funding of big-budget AAA marquee games, why hasn't MS themselves funded more of them, and why have they made cuts to parts of the Xbox division?
The answer IMO would be obvious. MS sustains Xbox because it is almost a non-factor to their bottom line, therefore they don't need the division to operate in a healthy way where it is essentially self-sustaining without relying on other divisions to prop up weak financial ends. That is simply not the case for Sony, let alone Nintendo. For them, gaming is a massive part of their bottom line, so they rely on their gaming division (technically a subsidiary in PlayStation's case) to operate on its own merits financially. That's always been the case with PlayStation, in fact, and the one time Sony tried doing it more like the Microsoft way (with the PS3), they almost went out of business!
Which just goes to show how unique a company like Microsoft is in the market, where they can continuously tank losses in a gaming division that means very little to their bottom line, because of huge fiscal results in other divisions. But even with a company like Microsoft, there are limits, and it seems like for them if they want to really fund more AAA huge marquee games, in a way they can seemingly justify, they DO need more gaming revenue and that's why they're after companies like ABK and IP like COD.
It's not just that, though. Game Pass has had some effect on sales revenue of 3P games, that revenue drop is partly representative of it IMO.
Well put. Those supply shortages distorted the reality, we got a glimpse of that reality after June 2020 and up through the console launches, before the shortages kicked in. But it was enough to let narratives form, "Xbox the comeback kid" and all that sort of stuff.
Narratives that I would have liked to have been true, but the truth is, Xbox did little with the bubble of time where PS5 was most vulnerable. Game Pass didn't sustain whatever short-term gains it capitalized on due to lockdowns. Series X was arguably even more supply-constrained during that period than PS5, Series S did not build a value proposition that didn't rely on cheap pricing, and MS didn't release enough big 1P games and exclusives to feed into a long-term turning of the tide.
They had a golden opportunity between mid-2021 up through early Spring 2022 to build long-term momentum, and failed. Halo Infinite came and went. FH5 was just more of the same. Games like Flight Sim aren't appealing to the mass market. Most of the Game Pass launch exclusives like Medium were seemingly mid, or didn't have a big impact (Back4Blood, etc.). Once Sony started getting the supply situation sorted out better, and some of the big games like GT7 & HFW started releasing, in addition to them already getting all the same 3P games as Xbox anyway...that's exactly when a lot of the Xbox narratives started fizzling out.
I dunno if we can draw any conclusions quite yet about the PC porting strategy, tbh, or attribute GOWR's sales rate to the GOW 2018 sales on PC. I still believe that part of Xbox's decline in software revenue isn't just due to Game Pass, but also Day 1 on PC, because if even games like Skyrim or Fallout 4 are anything to go by, consoles still attributed more to overall sales than PC, and on PC the prices are lower not just because of Steam (and the fact they have to give Valve a 30% cut), but also because of 3P websites like CD Keys selling digital codes for even cheaper than MSRP on launch day, and are pretty easy to obtain in large quantities.
Then with Microsoft more specifically, having everything on Game Pass Day 1 has been driving down revenue from 1P games because the money from the service and whatever MTX sales are being made don't seem to be enough to offset the amount of people accessing the game (cheaply) through Game Pass, particularly on Xbox where the vast majority of Game Pass subscribers are at. I'd also say Game Pass has even affected 3P sales rates on Xbox, because a lot of people seem like they'd rather wait until a game's either in the service, or cheap enough to buy at a steep discount or sale, so the amount of Day 1 buyers for 3P software on Xbox is just much lower than on PlayStation, and I think Game Pass has somewhat conditioned that.
The thing is, we haven't been able to really see the results of the negative sides of those strategies until more recently, but what are any other logical excuses for why Microsoft saw double-digit drops in hardware revenue, software revenue AND services revenue while Sony (and very likely Nintendo) have not? Where MS's competition have in fact seen large growth in all of those same categories, in the exact same time frame? I don't think it's as simple as saying "lack of compelling 1P titles" because even for Sony 1P titles don't account for the majority of software revenue (although for this quarter I think they account for like a bit north 25%, right?). MS could have had a banger quarter of 1P titles and would have probably still seen a revenue drop, because there's less coming from 3P sales and I think Game Pass is a part of that.
All I'm saying is, one of the main reasons Sony stressed the need to do the PC ports was due to lack of sufficient PS5 supply. Well, that problem's been on its way to being solved now, and the demand is clearly there. We can't pretend that having marquee 1P exclusives being TRULY exclusive to a console doesn't matter anymore; not even just Sony, we can clearly see that it helps when we look at Nintendo's results. Microsoft rushed and abandoned that thinking in 2015 to try having a differentiating element in their brand, they did the same thing with Game Pass and pledging all 1P games Day 1 to the service, just two years later.
IMO the results we're seeing now, show me they overreacted on both fronts. I don't want Sony to overreact to what was a temporary problem for PS5, the supply constraints, and start developing a regular cadence of porting all the big marquee 1P AAA games to PC in short time windows, let alone Day 1, because I do think it'll eventually catch up to them like it has with Microsoft. Ideally, you'd think there's enough of a base on PS consoles to support the big AAA marquee games on their own, and then you can use PC & mobile for spreading out the live-service GaaS titles, and some of the smaller AA-style 1P titles (whether internally or externally developed), maybe even some of those (same with the live-service games) being Day 1 across all supported devices.
That said I do think there's a way Sony could maximize the porting strategy to PC for the GOWR/Spiderman/TLOU-style games in a way that doesn't run any risk to console adoption or software sales on console, actually. And it's pretty simple: just wait until a new entry in the IP is ready for console, say within a year's time, and then port the previous game to PC. By that point, sales on console will have probably been exhausted, so why not wait until then, until when you have a sequel geared up coming to the console within a year from that point, and port the game to PC with higher graphics/framerate options, display options, and pair that with some new DLC/expansion content that can bridge over into the upcoming sequel? At the same time, that's when you can, for example, throw in the base game to PS+ (any tier) for subscribers, offer the DLC/expansion content for a small upgrade fee ($10 - $20 depends on the content; they kind of did this with GoT's expansion content IIRC) and bring any of the framerate/resolution boosts from the PC version to console for free (the ones that can realistically work on console, anyway).
Yes that still establishes a predictable cadence but IMO it accounts for pretty much everything. People with FOMO would still buy the game when it's new, so they'd need a console to do it. Let the game have some evergreen sales for a few years after that, do some sales promotions if it's got a film or TV show coming along the way. If the sequel's not coming for another six years, then have a PC port out by the fifth year with some extra DLC/expansion content; at the same the game will have likely exhausted most of its sales on console so might as well put it in PS+ at that point. I doubt most buying it on PC would want to spend another few hundred dollars for the console and then money for a sub just to access it vs. $40/$50 whatever to get it on PC. But those same PC people might want to get the console to play the next game Day 1. Whether you lose them as a double-dipper or not at that point, doesn't really matter.
And true most of the marquee AAA games take quite a few years to make and by a certain point a game gets a sequel so late in the cycle the sequel is pretty much destined for the next console...but the strategy still works. You'll just get a likely convert to buy the newer console instead of the current one. Plus not all sequels take the same amount of time to make, or come out at the same time, all you really need is one such game to appeal to someone on PC in such a way they decide to buy a console to play a new version Day 1 and that opens them up to the other games already on the console, too.
That would be the optimal strategy for handling ports of the marquee AAA single-player games to PC if I were Sony, IMO. You can do a strategy with regular cadence, but make sure it doesn't have any weak points where it could end up negatively impacting your bread-and-butter console. For Microsoft, gaming in general has never been a big pillar of their revenue stream so I don't think the risks of driving down need for an Xbox really mattered to them, but it would have been nice if they slowed down a bit back in 2015 and reconsidered their PC porting strategy. At least, to the point where they could have used it to strengthen up the Windows Store and kept their ports locked to it, rather than ceding vertical integration away and handing Valve, effectively, more market share. I don't have a problem with Valve per se, but it's just so odd to see platform holders basically not try in terms of their own storefront on PC and hand Valve more market share, rather than provide some storefront competition. Because at that point, you're making your content beholden to another company's TOS and their ability to keep their end of the pipeline running smoothly.
I don't want Sony to repeat the same mistake so, IF they don't have plans for their own storefront & launcher on PC, and they don't have plans to monetize it for non-subs and subscribers, and they have no plans to try pushing that storefront with their own content, then I think they have to be very measured with how they handle ports to PC so as not to create an impression that "PlayStation isn't that important" among the hardcore/core gamers who might be inclined or tempted to go PC, because that can mean a lot of revenue leaving Sony's ecosystem (they're the type who tend to spend more on gaming than the mainstream and casuals per-user wise, even if mainstream & casuals make up the majority of console owners). However, if Sony DO have those plans in fact, well, that changes a lot of things I just said. They still have to be measured in what they do, but a decent chunk of the potential issues do go away. They just have to ensure they keep things focused very much on THEIR storefront PC-wise and, if it doesn't work out, then it just doesn't work out.
At least in that case, though, they won't have enabled a 3P platform ecosystem, and all of the content on Sony's storefront is still there on console, so storefront customers would naturally lean to the console itself. You can use Steam for the live-service games, smaller indie/AA-style ports and late-life ports of marquee AAA games when a sequel's coming console-side, though.
Holy shit man you wrote a whole dissertation.
Good. It's just lame and petty at this point, worst part being it enables some of the diehard crazies in the fanbase to do the exact same thing.
I get they want ABK but damn, have some class about it.
I'm amazed they are taking such a low ball. It's to the point where they're saying Sony having success in the market for simply providing the content & product customers want, and having good marketing and distribution, is reason enough for MS to buy a large publisher and consolidate the market.
They're relying on reasons dependent on a competitor's performance in order to argue to the public why they should buy one of the largest 3P publishers on the market. Why can't Microsoft rely on reasons that are independent of Sony? You know, like MS's own strengths in production pipeline, output flow, management and the such? Is it possibly because Microsoft know they don't have results in those areas good enough to rely on pitches to the public based on those metrics?
Dunno...maybe MS are trying to take the classic SEGA/Nintendo route here like those companies did in the 16-bit era. But SEGA wasn't out trying to buy up publishers, in fact they were an actual underdog during that era in terms of money and (more or less) 3P support. They relied on the exclusives they themselves made in order to push against Nintendo back then, and it was mostly playground antics. A lot of what Microsoft have been doing in fledging Sony's gaming successes & transmedia successes to garner favor among the public for the acquisition just seems petty and borderline sad.
And part of the reason why is because, none of it involves Microsoft admitting their own role in the predicament they have found themselves in gaming.
Be careful, man. You're gonna get people bringing up the "Sony killed SEGA!!" story again, and be serious about it.
I think it's still too early, but we already have the first two out of two cases of a PS only sequel released after a PC port of an older previous entry (Horizon and GoW) and the sequel broke the sales record for that series/studio. I assume the next one will be Spider-Man 2.
Obviously there are many factors affecting game sales. Like being a great game. But the fact is that after doing it, the results improved, so if it has some effect pretty likely it's positive.
Yes, but it's very different: Sony didn't put their games day one on PC or Plus. They did it after they sold basically all they could sell on PS. And Sony didn't put all their games on PC or Plus.
In Sony's case, they put some of their games on PC and Plus and then, which grows the fanbase of that IP, and later release their sequel exclusively sold for PS.
But again, there are many reasons that affect game sales. As an example, if MS almost doesn't release big GOTY candidate like exclusive games obviously they'll sell less hardware and software.
No, the idea was that to make AAA games is so fucking expensive, and every generation gets more fucking expensive, but game sales and prices don't grow proportionally to dev costs, so they have to search more revenue sources.
And one of them is late PC ports, which are super cheap to make and generates them millions of profits per game, plus also generate them new fans which in some cases never would/will buy a console. They'll to the same with mobile.
Yes, they are solving the chips issue but and even if PS5 sales are back they'll continue releasing PC ports and instead of stopping them they'll increase their output of yearly late PC ports a bit. And in fact in a year or two they may release a F2P/GaaS game day one on PC. But won't be common and won't do it for single player games. And won't even do it even for all GaaS.
PC ports strategy is totally unrelated to chips shortages, since Sony planned the PC ports strategy started years before Jimbo became CEO in 2019 when they had no idea that chips shortage was going to be a thing.
That's true, but in both cases the first games got ported many years later. And I bring that up because...
I'll say this: do you think TLOU Part 1 Remake exhausted all its sales on PS before the PC port comes next month? Do you think Returnal exhausted its sales on PS5 before the PC port comes later this month?
I get that. But the potential issue may be if they shorten the timing between PS and PC versions to where enough would-be Day 1 people decide they can wait for the PC version because it's, say, only 1 year later instead of 2 or 3, or 4. And if Sony do that enough, fans will pick up the pattern and adjust their future spending habits accordingly.
I agree with that.
But see, here's the thing. What if "late PC ports" stops being a thing and that time gap shortens? Returnal is a 2-year port from PS to PC; same with Sackboy and even Miles Morales. TLOU Part 1 Remake is a six-month port window. Now I know Returnal is a smaller-scale game, Sackboy even smaller scale still, and TLOU a remake of a 10-year old game a lot of PS into the IP have more or less already played in one form or another.
Miles Morales, though, I would consider is of the marquee caliber, and that was a 2-year port. What if Spiderman 2 is a 1-year port? That's what I think Sony has to be careful avoiding, with the marquee AAA single-player type games. I still think PS needs some genuine console exclusives to help give the hardware some identity; the budgets for those can be covered with a decent spread of PS/PC (and maybe in some cases mobile) live-service games. They just need 3-4 well-performing ones (they don't need to be COD or Fortnite-level, either) and the costs for the marquee AAA single-player games can be mostly accounted for.
If "late PC ports" for the marquee AAA games is something closer to what I was suggesting, though, then I think that's the best balance even while an obvious pattern/cadence is established.
Again if it's in pertains to the live-service games, I think that's expected and makes sense. If it's some of the smaller-scale 1P games, I also think that makes sense. But what if one of the next ports is Rift Apart? That makes two 2021 games with 2023 PC ports, that starts to look like a pattern.
The question becomes what happens if that two-year port window shrinks to one-year? Does that have ramifications on perception of the console brand? If so what kind?
I don't doubt that, but I do feel the chip shortages may have possibly accelerate ports for a couple of games that otherwise would have came later than they did.
I've seen people want or expect Gamepass to be on PS consoles. I don't see that ever happening and you've pinpointed exactly why. I think we're now seeing some of the negative impact of the service and although Phil has publicly said the price will increase in the future, I'm not sure that will be enough to offset all the issues that are occurring in terms of shaping buying habits and loss of sales for first and third party games. I said this in a previous discussion with you, but I really wonder when MS will realize that the Gamepass strategy is not working well for them. I'm not saying they should cancel it either. It's a service that is very much appreciated by those that subscribe to it, but some changes in how it functions may eventually be required.
I'm really getting the sense that Frank (Wat) doesn't actually know how competition works. There's quite a few comments that indicate many others don't too. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the FTC doing their job is quite the sight to see.
Internally, MS probably already have enough data to show that it isn't quite working. Notice they're doing the early access for RedFall same as they did with FH5? If the service revenue were enough to account for revenue projections of the software, why do early access for preorders? Granted, I think it's a good strategy to counter whatever revenue issues Game Pass itself has, but it's worth noting.
Game Pass changes are definitely coming this year. Maybe closer to the end; the ad-supported tier, probably higher tiers. A Family Plan. Maybe even stopping Day 1 for all games into the regular tiers & ad-based tier, but copying Sony's Game Trails concept to make up for that.
Absolutely. I think they have had enough data for a while, remember they did the same thing for Forza Horizon 5? I think at that time there might still have been some hope that the Halo Infinite launch would be enough to jump-start their momentum but we saw how that turned out. They already knew based on missing their growth targets by huge margins almost two years in a row, while still in a pandemic setting...now that people are going back to work and don't have time to play 10 different little games every month and are going back to the "buy 2-3 big games a year" mode gamepass is stalled tf out and they are desperate to show any signs of life. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to lean on the Xbox division to produce results.
Just need that damn showcase. They would gain so much momentum from it.
TLOU1 sold over 20M units on PS so yes, even if TLOUP1 and TLOU Remastered got bumped their sales due to the tv show -in an amount that I think even Sony didn't expect-, it sold pretty much all it could at PS. I think this bump will be over at the end of next month, when the TLOUP1 pc port will release on PC.
I think some of these games get a remaster/reboot to don't make them feel too old when released again for PC. So in this case, for some people instead of seeing a refurbished 10 years old game could see there a game released last year, when the reality is that it's a refurbished 10 years old game. Same happened with the Uncharted collection, some could see it was a game released almost a year before in PS5, but they really were refubished versions of games originally released in 2016 and 2017.
It's mostly a marketing trick to don't make the games look so old. Regarding single player games, I think those who can go in the 1 year or less window are refurbished versions (remasters, remakes) of games released originally many years before on PS.
Some of the brand new games are getting the 2+ years window like Days Gone, Morales, Sackboy or Returnal. Some others like GoW 2018 or Horizon, specially if you count their original release and not the refurbished version (Spider-Man, Uncharted 4, Legacy of Thieves, TLOU) go way beyond that.
But remember, not all games will be ported. Every year they'll release a few PC ports and a bigger amount of PS only releases, meaning that the number of PS only games will increase over time, instead of decreasing.
So who knows, maybe games like Spider-Man 2, Forbidden West, GT7, GoWR, Demon's Souls, Rift Apart, Tsushima or TLOU2 never get a pc release. Or if they do it I think they would get it around this 2 years timeframe or way later, as other ones did. I think Bloodborne maybe it's also being hold back to release it later refurbished (also in PS5), maybe some time before a potential sequel or tv show/movie adaptation.
As of now I think their strategy is to release on PC a 'first entry' before releasing a PS only sequel, movie or tv show. I think the next ports to be announced would be Tsushima (more or less tied with the movie, and released months before the PS only sequel), maybe TLOU2 -after a PS5 Director's Cut- probably a few monts before the season 2 and the release of the MP game.
If they aren't working on the GT7 PC port -as his creator said- I don't think they will release the port on time for the movie, so maybe they wait a few years if they ever release it. Or maybe they port GT Sport instead.
As Hermen said, they are testing different time frames. I assume they are checking out different months of the years for the releases, different price points, different distances between its original release, refurbishing or not the games, different genres etc.
And in addition to analize the results of the PC ports, they also analize effects of these ports on the game sales of these games, and their series, and other first party or 3rd party exclusive games on PS. Plus also their impact on hardware sales.
And I think they'll keep adjusting everything accordingly to what it's best for them: pricing of the ports, amount of work refurbishing older titles or effort adding extra PC stuff, distance between their original PS release getting the maximum PC sales without negatively affecting PS performance, amount of ports without affecting PS performance, part of the year where they release them, genres that work better on PC, etc.
They keep improving in all areas, growing their numbers and breaking gaming history records. They aren't dumb, they'll keep testing and iterating choosing the best option for them. So if their new -non refurbished- see their window reduced from the around 2+ years will be because they are very sure it doesn't hurt their main business: PS and it's worth it.
Now they are getting the TLOU show hype that is bumping the TLOU sales, GoWR keeps selling like crazy, PS5s are starting to get good shipments again and will release PSVR2 soon. Their focus now should be to ship enough consoles to match the accumulated the demand they had from the past plus to promote more PSVR2 and its games.
It wouldn't be smart to keep the marketing focus away from PSVR2 now, and wouldn't be smart to rise the hype more because it would cause PS5 stock issues again. They should wait until the stores have normal stock worldwide without selling out in at least a week or so.
They also have many great games coming during the first half of the year, so people will be happy eating good. I think around early summer, around E3 time, the PS5 stock will be stabilized, they'll have balanced supply and demand, the PSVR2 release window will be done and the H1 game releases and marketing too.
So then, around E3 time, will be time to make a showcase/big State of Play focused on exclusives to announce or show some of the main releases of H2 2023, the whole 2024 and maybe one or two from 2025. It will be the time to see the first Spider-Man 2, Wolverine and FFVII remake part 2 gameplay, maybe name/cinematic/release window of the TLOU MP game and some announcements as could be Helldivers 2 and a few of the new IPs being developed at Bungie, Firewalk, Deviation, Haven, London Studio. Or maybe we also get a cool surprise announcement from Team Asobi, Firesprite or Pixel Opus. Or maybe also some acquisition more, or the announcement of the main PSVR2 release for fall 2023 or 2024. Or maybe some cool top indie exclusive as were Kena, Stray or Sifu, or some announcement or update on big 3rd party exclusives as could be Stellar Blade, Dragon Quest XI or something like that.
Last edited:
There isn’t a single soul in any leadership position at Microsoft who understands what competition is, that’s ingrained in their corporate culture.
Same goes for innovation and especially quality!
Last edited:
MS should fire any of their employees who are using social media sites during work hours so they can do actual work.
What about a MS Division head playing 200+ hours of Vampire Survivors in a fortnight?
Yeah, the Game Pass model just isn't holding up under pressure and scrutiny. I think it works well as a backlog service, and maybe for some smaller indie & AA games that could use the boost a service brings to their profile, but that is realistically about the extent of it. And, this is something Sony already knows, they've known for a while, which is why they handle PS+ the way they do.
Microsoft simply didn't have the right games ready, when they should've been ready. Halo should have been an actual success, FH5 should've been more than what seemed like an expansion (at the end of the day). Bleeding Edge should have been salvaged. Everwild should've been ready for 2021 or at most 2022. Avowed or Hellblade II should've been ready for 2021, preferably both. If they did that alongside still getting the Game Pass deals they got, plus enough stuff through 2022 (Avowed or Hellblade II (whichever didn't release in 2021), Forza Motorsport (to have something up against GT7 sooner rather than later), some BIG expansion for Flight Sim like some Crimson Skies campaign & dogfight mode, etc.), they may have been able to take more of a lead over PlayStation in US & UK, and probably improve their percentage a bit in ROTW markets.
At the very least, they would have helped stave off losing market share to Sony in the US & UK markets and that'd of helped a lot. But IMO Microsoft had a window of opportunity to do that and they missed the window, completely. Now they have to amp it up to 11 just to try tracking at/above XBO again, let alone get near what 360 was doing once Kinect came out. And since they can't rely on a camera/motion gimmick (or VR for that matter), nor Game Pass really (on its own), they have to try recapturing that spirit with pure quality, mass-market appealing 1P titles & 3P exclusives.
When you put it that way, for remakes of essentially years-old games, I guess it does make sense to both remake the games in the first place, and keep the porting window to PC short, that way it still feels "new" to them if they are basically going by the initial release of the remake.
Rather than the actual original version which could be upwards 10 years old, or even more. I can see what you mean from that in a business sense.
Yeah but Morales, as an example, that might be a bit more a side-story to the 1st game but it has the same prestige and stature to it of the original game. So my thing is, what if that's established a 2-year window between Spiderman 2 on PS5 and it showing up on PC? Not an openly stated window, but just something of a timeline they keep internally?
My main concern for the console side is if that becomes standardized, whether officially stated (I doubt this ever happens unless it's with a PC storefront/launcher Sony owns themselves and has successfully monetized, in which case my "concern" more or less disappears for the console, although there may still be some logistical issues on the manufacturing side that have to be adjusted here and there), or where a group recognize the pattern and take it to heart going forward. I'm just curious how much of that "group" of gamers, how large do they even account for in the total install base and what percent of them are big spenders (subbed up, do all their 1P & 3P games shopping on PlayStation) who would then take their spending to PC instead?
Let's say the total percentage of such customers is like 3% of console owners. And say at least 50% of them are whales/big spenders. Say they buy 10 AAA games a year, they're subbed to PS+, they have the console (obviously) and PSVR2. Just on the games side alone, they account for $336 million in revenue. They also account for say at least $43.2 million a year in PS+ revenue (assume they have at least PS+ Extra; these are whales, they would prob want more than basic PS+), and $264 million in PSVR2 headset sales (these are probably the type that'd buy one Day 1). The only two out of this really worth focusing on are the software revenue & services revenue they'd account for, because on the software side say they buy 3 1P AAA games a year, that still means 7 games are 3P.
Theoretically, if they took their buying habits to PC in a storefront Sony doesn't control, Sony would lose $235.2 million a year in software revenue. That's less than 1%. That's within a margin of error, and I figure revenue from just a single decent-performing GaaS title or uptick (doesn't even have to be large) from a 1P non-GaaS title or two would cover that and still see growth. So ultimately you might be right; the customer type that would probably be most tempted to switch to PC if Sony did standardize smaller windows between console & PC releases, statistically don't account for any significant money lost that can't be made up for from other adjacent channels. I had to work that out myself just to see if the main concern on that front bore out in the numbers, and it doesn't.
Still, though, there are a lot of marketing and optics/perception benefits for keeping those windows staggered & irregular, obvious benefits to prioritize the console as much as possible especially if you can start turning a profit (however small or large) on the hardware itself with revisions, so on and so forth. And those things in turn would help encourage console owners to spend even more into the ecosystem, that increases revenue & profits. It helps them form a stronger connection with the console and the brand, and that leans them to spend more (we've seen this regularly with Nintendo's audience). I guess my concerns, in this respect, were to lead to this conclusion where the worry on a negative impact of the console fiscally is statistically improbable, but there are still inherent benefits to keep the windows for the more marquee or non-GaaS titles staggered, particularly the ones that carry the most prestige, and prioritize the console that way for an extended period, when we're talking about fully-new games (not remakes like TLOU Part 1 because as I said before you made a good point on why a smaller window in that game's case isn't a drawback; the game itself has been available on PS since the PS3, going back to its original release).
I also think Microsoft's declines in software revenue might've tripped me up a bit on this specific outlook with Sony, but in Microsoft's case I'm leaning more to Game Pass itself being the main cause of that and the purchasing mentality the service has shaped, probably driving even a lot of hardcore/core gamers in that ecosystem to wait for sales or discount before buying a game, if it's not Day 1 in the service. Which is a problem only Microsoft specifically have; Sony & Nintendo have wisely avoided that pitfall and it'll take a lot for Microsoft to de-condition gamers from buying en masse Day 1 (or when the game's full-priced).
Well in Bloodborne's case they'll probably give it a graphical touch-up and 4K/60 support, but at the end of the day it'll basically be a remaster/"soft" remake of an 8+ year-old game.
Yeah, this is the way of handling ports to PC of marquee AAA single-player centric games I feel would work best. Bring it to PC at most a year ahead of a console-only sequel.
Maybe the only exceptions being for remasters/remakes of games that technically came out for PS years ago. In that context, six months between the two can work.
I think a big reason GT7 would take so long to come to PC is because of the situation with cheaters online. In the context of that, bringing GT Sport over instead could potentially work, since it'd be GT7 as the one with the F1 license, not Sport. Therefore maintaining online leaderboard & score integrity isn't as much a priority for Sport (although it would be nice if still ensured, unlike what happened with Forza Horizon 5 and could potentially happen again with Forza Motorsport).
In that regard I'm curious what it informs them on say, Sackboy's Big Adventure. Do they think it's down to the type of game, or rather the timing of when they released it?
Because to me it seems like games such as it potentially have more traction on Steam than the more "regular" big AAA releases (at least the mature-themed ones).
Can see that point; I did some numbers earlier in the reply and assume any serious contingent of players who'd make such a platform switch (and negatively impact revenue) is probably within a margin of error. The potential revenue lost could be made up for through any number of other means, and still see revenue growth.
Personally I still think there are matters of optics & marketing where for the non-remakes/remaster stuff the window being larger is better for maximizing sales of the console and software on the console itself, but these are some of my own thoughts and not much more.
Maybe that's why they haven't done a PSVR2 State of Play showcase yet, then.
Goodness knows we've been waiting for a proper Showcase for a year by that point; the one coming up has all the ingredients to be really good.
Personally I'd be over the moon for a new UmJammer/Parappa and Tomba!, although the probability for either is low. But I still hold on to hope
PC ports have been in the works since before the PS5 was even released. They want more money, and their customers aren't going to leave their ecosystem.
A sony storefront on PC would be worse for them, as the hardcore sony crowd would then come to PC, and eventually that means they'll come to Steam.
