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).
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24062777/STK138_Stream_Kradtke_02.jpg)
www.theverge.com
