Sony say inclusion of their first party onto PS+ has had a big (negative) effect on traditional sales

[anonpuffs]

GamePass was never ever a threat, it's been stagnant and unprofitable for almost 5 years. And a lot of those subs were $1 or microsoft rewards. The vast majority of people simply aren't interested in paying $17 a month just to play old games and mediocre 1st party. Just like how no one is interested in a crappy console no matter how cheap it is which is why the Series S has been retailing for $150 for weeks and still selling horribly.

The importance of value proposition in the gaming space has always been overblown. And that's only because of the constant GamePass propaganda that you mentioned. All of those shills and astroturfers haven't made a dent.

The best way Sony could've hedged against it was by making online free, casuals will see infinitely more value in that than they ever would in GamePass. But we all know that Sony would never do that, so their 2nd best option would be to just do nothing. Let Microsoft continue to burn money and make themselves less and less appealing, yes they can burn money for a long time, but not forever. Even more so now that they've spent $80 billion on publishers. Satya and shareholders are gonna want to see results eventually.

Bro what? Make online free? That makes absolutely no sense, they have consistently had 45-50m subs since covid, that's bare minimum $3 billion a year, likely more like $4-5b a year. Your hedge against them losing $85m on a single first party title is to...lose $4-5b a year?? The whole point is Sony should hedge in ways that don't lose them too much money.

Also anything to deal with prices is easily copied by MS as they have no problem losing money to achieve their goals. See how quickly they raised console prices after Sony raised prices, and how quickly they raised gamepass prices after Sony raised PS+ prices? The instant PS makes PS+ free the day after Xbox will make it free on their end. They can afford it and Sony can't.

 

[JAHGamer]

Bro what? Make online free? That makes absolutely no sense, they have consistently had 45-50m subs since covid, that's bare minimum $3 billion a year, likely more like $4-5b a year. Your hedge against them losing $85m on a single first party title is to...lose $4-5b a year?? The whole point is Sony should hedge in ways that don't lose them too much money.

Also anything to deal with prices is easily copied by MS as they have no problem losing money to achieve their goals. See how quickly they raised console prices after Sony raised prices, and how quickly they raised gamepass prices after Sony raised PS+ prices? The instant PS makes PS+ free the day after Xbox will make it free on their end. They can afford it and Sony can't.

Yes, I know, which is why I said Sony will never do it. My entire point was the value stuff is a total farce not even worth acknowledging. The only true value-add that consumers would appreciate is free online, nothing else is worth pursuing.

Look at Nintendo, selling 135m+ Switches, great first party game sales and their games NEVER go on sale. Gamers do not care about value one bit, because we all know this is a luxury hobby. Only a loud minority of Xbox fanboys harp on about value value value.

 

[anonpuffs]

Yes, I know, which is why I said Sony will never do it. My entire point was the value stuff is a total farce not even worth acknowledging. The only true value-add that consumers would appreciate is free online, nothing else is worth pursuing.

Look at Nintendo, selling 135m+ Switches, great first party game sales and their games NEVER go on sale. Gamers do not care about value one bit, because we all know this is a luxury hobby. Only a loud minority of Xbox fanboys harp on about value value value.

tbh i think nintendo people are a different breed... no matter how terrible the product is they still buy it. pretty sure the playstation crowd is more discerning

 

[JAHGamer]

tbh i think nintendo people are a different breed... no matter how terrible the product is they still buy it. pretty sure the playstation crowd is more discerning

That's definitely true, Nintendo has more dedicated followers because of the lack of 3rd party support. Regardless, it still shows that value is a non factor in gaming.

 

[Petekilla]

GamePass was never ever a threat, it's been stagnant and unprofitable for almost 5 years. And a lot of those subs were $1 or microsoft rewards. The vast majority of people simply aren't interested in paying $17 a month just to play old games and mediocre 1st party. Just like how no one is interested in a crappy console no matter how cheap it is which is why the Series S has been retailing for $150 for weeks and still selling horribly.

The importance of value proposition in the gaming space has always been overblown. And that's only because of the constant GamePass propaganda that you mentioned. All of those shills and astroturfers haven't made a dent.

The best way Sony could've hedged against it was by making online free, casuals will see infinitely more value in that than they ever would in GamePass. But we all know that Sony would never do that, so their 2nd best option would be to just do nothing. Let Microsoft continue to burn money and make themselves less and less appealing, yes they can burn money for a long time, but not forever. Even more so now that they've spent $80 billion on publishers. Satya and shareholders are gonna want to see results eventually.

Do you agree with this guy from Era?

I think Sony have correctly identified a lot of risks to doing a day 1 sub service, including revenue modelling and brand perception. However I think the key one is that they can't compete with MS' game pass content pipeline, especially in a post ABK world.

Without a consistent output to keep people subscribed - people will just drop in and out of the service around big first party releases, which is a nightmare scenario for Sony.

Sub service day 1 is also competing on MS's terms, and Sony won't want to risk having PS+ perceived as an inferior service due to content disparities, despite the fact Sony games are currently perceived as better quality.

I think the right strategy for Sony isn't to do day 1 sub games (yet), but to keep acquiring studios where possible to keep pace with MS on content output, and in the meantime, strengthen other business areas including figuring out their live service issues, doing day 1 PC asap, and growing into mobile. But they are behind the 8-ball in all of these areas - as per their leaked documents. I agree they are in a really tricky place with a lot of this stuff, despite dominating console sales. Success metrics are changing as game development costs keep increasing and profit margins get tighter. Sony is clearly looking at MS's business model of multiple entry-points into a gaming ecosystem as something they need to replicate to set themselves up for the future. Whether or not this includes day 1 games in a sub is yet to be seen, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I think PS+ is good enough in the sense it offers PS players a "game pass light" alternative, and can boost engagement for first party games around things like DLC launches and other paid content.

The risk that I think you're right to point out if Sony doesn't compete 1-1 with game pass, is MS winning gamers into their game pass ecosystem at the expense of engagement with the PlayStation platform. I might own a PS5, but if I barely use it because I'm spending all my time on game pass, that doesn't necessarily help Sony. I think the next few years will be very interesting to see this play out, following ABK.

 

[Dr Bass]

tbh i think nintendo people are a different breed... no matter how terrible the product is they still buy it. pretty sure the playstation crowd is more discerning

That's definitely true, Nintendo has more dedicated followers because of the lack of 3rd party support. Regardless, it still shows that value is a non factor in gaming.

These are silly takes.

 

[Impulse]

People need to remember that Sony doesn't give away PS+ Extra for pennies like Microsoft does with Gamepass lmao.

 

[anonpuffs]

These are silly takes.

have you seen the latest pokemon games?

 

[JAHGamer]

Do you agree with this guy from Era?

I think Sony have correctly identified a lot of risks to doing a day 1 sub service, including revenue modelling and brand perception. However I think the key one is that they can't compete with MS' game pass content pipeline, especially in a post ABK world.

Without a consistent output to keep people subscribed - people will just drop in and out of the service around big first party releases, which is a nightmare scenario for Sony.

Sub service day 1 is also competing on MS's terms, and Sony won't want to risk having PS+ perceived as an inferior service due to content disparities, despite the fact Sony games are currently perceived as better quality.

I think the right strategy for Sony isn't to do day 1 sub games (yet), but to keep acquiring studios where possible to keep pace with MS on content output, and in the meantime, strengthen other business areas including figuring out their live service issues, doing day 1 PC asap, and growing into mobile. But they are behind the 8-ball in all of these areas - as per their leaked documents. I agree they are in a really tricky place with a lot of this stuff, despite dominating console sales. Success metrics are changing as game development costs keep increasing and profit margins get tighter. Sony is clearly looking at MS's business model of multiple entry-points into a gaming ecosystem as something they need to replicate to set themselves up for the future. Whether or not this includes day 1 games in a sub is yet to be seen, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I think PS+ is good enough in the sense it offers PS players a "game pass light" alternative, and can boost engagement for first party games around things like DLC launches and other paid content.

The risk that I think you're right to point out if Sony doesn't compete 1-1 with game pass, is MS winning gamers into their game pass ecosystem at the expense of engagement with the PlayStation platform. I might own a PS5, but if I barely use it because I'm spending all my time on game pass, that doesn't necessarily help Sony. I think the next few years will be very interesting to see this play out, following ABK.

Hell no, whoever this person is, they're an idiot. No offense.

Day 1 sub games should be never, stay far away from live service junk, stay away from PC, and Sony doesn't need to keep acquiring, maybe 1 or 2 more small studios like Ember Labs but that's it. His entire premise is flawed, he's deep in the Xbox kool aid

 

[Killer_Sakoman]

Do you agree with this guy from Era?

I think Sony have correctly identified a lot of risks to doing a day 1 sub service, including revenue modelling and brand perception. However I think the key one is that they can't compete with MS' game pass content pipeline, especially in a post ABK world.

Without a consistent output to keep people subscribed - people will just drop in and out of the service around big first party releases, which is a nightmare scenario for Sony.

Sub service day 1 is also competing on MS's terms, and Sony won't want to risk having PS+ perceived as an inferior service due to content disparities, despite the fact Sony games are currently perceived as better quality.

I think the right strategy for Sony isn't to do day 1 sub games (yet), but to keep acquiring studios where possible to keep pace with MS on content output, and in the meantime, strengthen other business areas including figuring out their live service issues, doing day 1 PC asap, and growing into mobile. But they are behind the 8-ball in all of these areas - as per their leaked documents. I agree they are in a really tricky place with a lot of this stuff, despite dominating console sales. Success metrics are changing as game development costs keep increasing and profit margins get tighter. Sony is clearly looking at MS's business model of multiple entry-points into a gaming ecosystem as something they need to replicate to set themselves up for the future. Whether or not this includes day 1 games in a sub is yet to be seen, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I think PS+ is good enough in the sense it offers PS players a "game pass light" alternative, and can boost engagement for first party games around things like DLC launches and other paid content.

The risk that I think you're right to point out if Sony doesn't compete 1-1 with game pass, is MS winning gamers into their game pass ecosystem at the expense of engagement with the PlayStation platform. I might own a PS5, but if I barely use it because I'm spending all my time on game pass, that doesn't necessarily help Sony. I think the next few years will be very interesting to see this play out, following ABK.

Just push for some AA indie, 3rd party games, and GaaS bonuses to come day 1 on PS plus.
Keep 1st party single player away.

 

[sugarbetik]

tbh i think nintendo people are a different breed... no matter how terrible the product is they still buy it. pretty sure the playstation crowd is more discerning

The same crowd that keep purchasing these turds every year?

 

[arvfab]

I wonder if they used HFW, a sequel to a fairly successful game, as their guinea pig on purpose to check the implications of early PS+ inclusion/ PC port.

They now have a perfect example of how not to do things and data to prove it to investors in case they get pressured by them.

....or they are dumb and will continue to devalue their games.

 

[anonpuffs]

The same crowd that keep purchasing these turds every year?

to be fair a lot less people bought it this year since it was bad

 

[Yobo]

Well the question is is there more benefit in a sub over a reduce priced retail sale? I'd argue there probably is

Let's not forget Sony are big on bundling so essentially giving away the game has never been an issue

 

[Deleted member 223]

It's also worth mentioning this is an estimate projection and not real sales data, notice includes future 2024 estimated results and that HFW was released less than 2 years ago so they don't have 2 years of sales.

And beyond that, this is an even more incomplete picture: they sacrificed game sales to bump gamesub revenue.

This part only shows the estimated sacrificed sales, but there's the missing part of the bumped gamesub revenue to see if it compensated enough or not.

On top of this, another reason of including it on PS+ is to mazimize the amount of people who was able to buy the game's DLC. Because in fact, Insomniac posted there that they are working on a "booster content" (DLC?) that they want to have ready for the moment they include it in PS Plus:

SIE generating record revenue and profit.
PS hardware selling record numbers,
PS game sub generating record gevenue.
PS first party games getting sales records for their studios.
PS5 only sequels of games ported to PC break sales record.

There are no negative effects, if something there are positive effects on console. Plus PC provides them hundreds of millions of dollars in profit per year, a number that keeps growing year after year as they keep releasing games.

Ironic that a poster that argues dishonestly with data, with estimates, incomplete data, sliced data, mixed data or unverifiable data and poor data now has an issue with this data and shows full understanding of the need for proper context, verification and skepticism when it suits for a counter-narrative.

Intellectual dishonesty is not just a slur I throw about lightly.... but this is how you know if you were ever in doubt. And why you shouldn't take posters like this seriously ever, specially if you value your time.

--------
Anyways, if you "fast follow" to the bottom and meet Microsoft there, sure Microsoft will be at the bottom, but so will you. Which is the point for MS.

At least Sony has had more caution with their strategy but they're close to the precipice. I guess the positive is that they did catch the pattern. Now obviously what they do with the info is what is important.

Guerrilla's survival strategy is also at play here, which spills into PC releases etc as they were one of those studios with a rope around their neck after the Killzone franchise more or less failed, and was dead. In the search for all sort of revenue streams to justify and ensure the survival of the studio, and investments in the studio I think we've seen Hermen and crew in an underhanded manner throw caution away in desperation (in that mode, all of the sudden market fundamentals no longer matter - even selling on the competition gets a pitch). Bottomline tho... none of that happens if the head of SIE understands properly the situation so as not be naive to buy into whatever murmurs get to his ear - hence the hallmark of mediocre and in this specific regard, failed leadership. The buck stops at the top.

 

[Yurinka]

PlayStation is being successful because PlayStation & are breaking record profit because PS not because PC releases (even thoe it’s a bonus w caveat). There is negative effects of Sony releasing games on PC (it might not be noticeable short term) but from the data that we have when Xbox started releasing games on PC to now there’s been a massive negative effect in consoles. There will be a further noticeable negative effect of Sony releasing games on PC when Nintendo Switch 2 console is more inline w PS & Xbox in power & gets the mainline 3rd party

Yes, SIE/PS is successful mainly due to its console business, which is their main business.

They are also being successful at the movies/tv show adaptations or PC (they said to be top 20 publisher in PC during FY22 even if they only published a few ports so far, and are generating hundreds of millions of dollars with a few ports of old games), but these are secondary business for them to get extra revenue/profit and expand their fanbase, which should benefit their console business too.

I mainly play on PS but if they continue PC releases there will be a future where I’m no longer spending my time & money on PS (where Sony gets a bigger cut) & I play there games on PC (smaller cut) & make Nintendo consoles my prefer console to play on spending more time & money on Nintendo instead of PS where Nintendo has true exclusive that I can’t get anywhere else

I understand, but this is why they don't port all their games and for the ones they port they wait until the games generated all their revenue possible with game sales and PS plus on console before porting them.

Most people seems to don't care if later some of the games go to pc, they apparently want to play on a console, to have the complete catalog and day one. Sony sees PC business as something to mainly reach a new subset of players who probably never would have bought/can't buy a PS or console. And I assume also a tiny % of people who double dips.

 

[Yurinka]

Ironic that a poster that argues dishonestly with data, with estimates, incomplete data, sliced data, mixed data or unverifiable data and poor data now has an issue with this data and shows full understanding of the need for proper context, verification and skepticism when it suits for a counter-narrative.

Intellectual dishonesty is not just a slur I throw about lightly.... but this is how you know if you were ever in doubt. And why you shouldn't take posters like this seriously ever, specially if you value your time.

This is a bullshit abusive ad-hominem / name calling fallacy.

If you think some data I post is wrong or out of context, instead of attacking myself feel free to show another factual data that contradicts it, or that provides extra factual data that shows better the context and a more complete picture to see better the point, as I did in the post you quoted.

Because if the only thing you do is to attack the person you disagree with, you lose the debate and are seen as rude and unpolite who adds nothing useful to the conversation.

 

[Deleted member 223]

You didn't insert any factual data that contradicts it. You merely articulated a counter point with skepticism as a basis - and that illustrates the point. If you applied the same scrutiny and skepticism to all the graphs and garbage data you use to argue with other posters when pushing your narratives there would be no basis to argue with anyone here using said data, not to that degree, much less the conclusions you infer - for a great share at the very least. With that post you have shown you're well aware of that process, and you selectively chose when to engage in it and when to overlook it. You can't escape what's obvious now by simply replying to my post and crying victim. It's there, plain. Folks will make their own opinion.

As for the latter, I already wasted my time on that in that other "acquisitions" thread , a massive wall of text, with data and went through that very thing, not least of which were a fair share of strawmans. Amusing to cry victim when you use disingenuous and dishonest means to argue with posters who entertain your bs here on the daily. And it's daily. I ignore a lot of the nonsense, cause I should, that is not to say I won't drop a couple stingers once in a while, specially if the air becomes too polluted. You simply couldn't let this thread be - all about narrative management. Btw you provide your own rope, I merely twist it in places.

Just for illustration: it should be eye opening that you tied a specific metric of estimated performance for Horizon Forbidden West, and the relationship inferred with PlayStation's overall performance metrics that are a pool of an infinite number of parameters - again, intellectual dishonesty on display. You start the post with a scrutiny list, and then end the post contradicting the very essence of that in the urge to create a counter narrative - as opposed to just letting the skepticism part stand on its own. Simply not serious and taking folks in the low IQ intellectual ladder for a ride. Not to mention PS Plus subs declined, and will no longer be shared so as to avoid said metric becoming a strong investor pressure point. Also to avoid speculative trading frenzies affecting the stock ticker when financials are released. To off-set, a price increase for increased margins at a lower body count - hence the emphasis on revenue. Again...bs if you turn right, bs if you turn back, bs if you turn left. You do you, with that said, it's what it's.

 

[Vertigo]

Horizon was weird. I figured it was sacrificed just to help boost the service. It definitely went up way too early. Unless there was something showing sales flatlined at retail but I doubt it… they didn’t even get a chance to move it with sale prices; just straight to extra.

Returnal and demons souls remake are a bit more understandable. Returnal is sorta niche and demon souls was a launch game. Otherwise Extra and pc ports should only be post mortem after retail run on consoles.

They’re not treating other software like they did Horizon 2 with the extra release. I could see tlou1 remastered on it next tho but that’s about it for the short term.

 

[Systemshock2023]

Nintendo has the Asian salarymen that plays on train commute and western manchild audience locked. Can't compete against that. It's like Malibu Stacey vs Lisa Lionheart. They just put a new hat (switch 2) and the Smithers of the world will flock to it.