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

[Yurinka]

How much are the ps+ subs worth?

Sony G&NS Network Servies, basically PS Plus subs, had $3,27B in revenue during the previous fiscal year. During the first half of the current FY23 it had aprox. 16% increase YoY.

We also have to consider that people who play it on PS+ also can buy the DLC that was going to be released a bit later, so probably they wanted to test if it maximized the DLC sales, and also how it does affect to the sales of a game to include it 1 year after launch.

When adding that, behind there's a comment regarding Rift Apart mentioning that after seeing that projection for HFW they were going to wait more before including it on PS+.

 

[Cool hand luke]

They aren’t really making a big deal of ps games on ps plus anymore they really promote the fact of 3rd stuff in psplus. Also not releasing games on pc is going to make them any money and a full remake cost way more than just a port and would take a lot longer mean while all nixxies porting work have to stop. Porting to pc isn’t just about immediate profit it’s about establishing a presence and building a community on another platform. Ppl go “oh no ps pc ports r all a failure” yeah well it’s been just a few yrs what do u expect takes time to build momentum and a presence. Microsoft has been trying for 23 yrs u guys want ps to run away just after 3?

There is no reason to establish a presence and build a community on the PC. They are a competitor and their users steal games.

 

[Yurinka]

There is no reason to establish a presence and build a community on the PC. They are a competitor and their users steal games.

Yes, there's an important reason: to increase their user reach, revenue and profitability.

 

[flaccidsnake]

Yes, there's an important reason: to increase their user reach and revenue.

Shawn Layden agrees 100%

 

[Cool hand luke]

Yes, there's an important reason: to increase their user reach and revenue.

The opportunity cost of that revenue is larger, so it's a poor decision.

I don't know how many times I can explain this concept to you people.

 

[Darth Vader]

Yes, there's an important reason: to increase their user reach and revenue.

Put it on Xbox then.

 

[Yurinka]

Shawn Layden agrees 100%

And anybody sane who knows that the AAA budgets skyrocket every new generation and that add-ons revenue is replacing game sales revenue, so that they need to find new players and revenue sources to keep being profitable in the long term.

And well, that even if they improve their console market share and ARPU (something Jimbo achieved very well) they had to grow beyond the console to keep having a healthy business in the long term. This is why they are investing to grow in GaaS, PC, mobile China, India or Korea or even movies & tv shows.

And this goes for any AAA publisher who already isn't big in these markets, no only Sony.

The opportunity cost of that revenue is larger, so it's a poor decision.

I don't know how many times I can explain this concept to you people.

A late PC port costs them a couple millions and generates dozens or even over a hundred millions. No negative efect at all in console, instead the console sales keep growing better than before and the PS5 only sequel of that game sells even better than the previous game.

If there is any effect of the PC ports on the console is increasing its sales and the sales of its exclusives because of new fans they made on PC. Even if I think this may be marginal, like the amount of people who left PS wrongly thinking that some day PC will get all PS games (only a part of the exclusives will be ported) and day one (this only will happen with some GaaS, specially the Bungie ones).

Late PC ports are basically free money with almost no risk.

 

[Cool hand luke]

A late PC port costs them a couple millions and generates dozens or even over a hundred millions. No negative efect at all in console, instead the console sales keep growing better than before and the PS5 only sequel of that game sells even better than the previous game.

If there is any effect of the PC ports on the console is increasing its sales and the sales of its exclusives because of new fans they made on PC. Even if I think this may be marginal, like the amount of people who left PS wrongly thinking that some day PC will get all PS games (only a part of the exclusives will be ported) and day one (this only will happen with some GaaS, specially the Bungie ones).

Late PC ports are basically free money with almost no risk.

So release them on Xbox too as late ports. Everything you've said applies in principle to that kind of port, too, but somehow we all understand that's not a good idea.

 

[Nhomnhom]

So release them on Xbox too as late ports. Everything you've said applies in principle to that kind of port, too, but somehow we all understand that's not a good idea.

PC at this point is a far bigger threat to PlayStation than Xbox ever was.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sony G&NS Network Servies, basically PS Plus subs, had $3,27B in revenue during the previous fiscal year. During the first half of the current FY23 it had aprox. 16% increase YoY.

We also have to consider that people who play it on PS+ also can buy the DLC that was going to be released a bit later, so probably they wanted to test if it maximized the DLC sales, and also how it does affect to the sales of a game to include it 1 year after launch.

When adding that, behind there's a comment regarding Rift Apart mentioning that after seeing that projection for HFW they were going to wait more before including it on PS+.

That's revenue tho; what's the profit like? Remember, Sony have to pay 3P for their games to be in PS+, and PS+ has a lot more games than Game Pass. It doesn't get nearly as many Day 1 releases, so that would mitigate costs, but that is also partially offset by the total amount of games in the service itself.

We know now that Microsoft spend at least $1 billion a year for content in Game Pass, between Day 1 releases and licensing for 3P content. I wouldn't assume the costs are that different for Sony and Microsoft on the latter point; in fact it might cost Sony more for certain games because they have more users/subscribers so that means potentially more people not buying the game if it's in the service. If the consoles are the major drivers for these subs, and PS is selling way more console than Xbox, that means it potentially has more room to grow with its subscription install base, which 3P will possibly factor into the costs they want Sony to pay in order to put their games into PS+.

Though, this might be partially offset by the rate of that 3P's software sales on PlayStation, something Xbox doesn't benefit from because as we know, 3P games on average sell much less there vs. PlayStation. Still though, I can see costs for all that 3P licensing of all those PS+ games costing Sony a cool $1 billion or so annually, just about. Like I said, they don't do Day 1 releases as much as Game Pass and they can prob leverage high sales ratio for 3P games on the platform to curb licensing costs (I'm also sure marketing deals tied to certain games, which factor in subscription services, also help reduce PS+ inclusion amounts). But they have a lot more games than Game Pass so that might put their amounts for payouts somewhat similar to Microsoft's.

 

[Alabtrosmyster]

So release them on Xbox too as late ports. Everything you've said applies in principle to that kind of port, too, but somehow we all understand that's not a good idea.

Xbox is direct competition, PC is kind but kind of not really.

PC at this point is a far bigger threat to PlayStation than Xbox ever was.

Kind of, we have been there before, consoles being called "dead" because of computers and phones.

It may happen one day, but as long as MS does not offer an "xbox" 100% couch interface for windows and a way to use all software (games at least, including installers) from the couch this is not happening, at least not entirely.

Even then, Windows in and of itself is losing relevance because of Linux on servers, Adroid/ios on tablets/phones, Consoles and TVs that don't run some version of windows. They are being pushed out of every market where there are operating systems except desktop (even that may crumble at some point). Heck, even Office applications are in play now with the cloud based tools.

So, if we have a gaming PC from the couch that will come from Linux in the form of something akin the Steam OS (with Linux as a backbone).

 

[Yurinka]

So release them on Xbox too as late ports. Everything you've said applies in principle to that kind of port, too, but somehow we all understand that's not a good idea.

Unlike PC, Xbox is a console and PS's direct competitor that fights for the same group of players, so it could affect their sales. PS and Xbox fight for the same pool of around 200M home console players. The majority PC players instead never would -or can- buy a console.

But yes, to release games in rival consoles also gives them money. This is why MS or Sony bought 3P or invested in some publishers/studios and kept them as multi, to get money from there (but kept their original 1P teams console exclusive).

 

[Yurinka]

That's revenue tho; what's the profit like? Remember, Sony have to pay 3P for their games to be in PS+, and PS+ has a lot more games than Game Pass. It doesn't get nearly as many Day 1 releases, so that would mitigate costs, but that is also partially offset by the total amount of games in the service itself. We know now that Microsoft spend at least $1 billion a year for content in Game Pass, between Day 1 releases and licensing for 3P content. I wouldn't assume the costs are that different for Sony and Microsoft on the latter point; in fact it might cost Sony more for certain games because they have more users/subscribers so that means potentially more people not buying the game if it's in the service. If the consoles are the major drivers for these subs, and PS is selling way more console than Xbox, that means it potentially has more room to grow with its subscription install base, which 3P will possibly factor into the costs they want Sony to pay in order to put their games into PS+.

We know its revenue, but we don't know its profit or costs. But yes, they have to pay 3P games (+ server costs for online MP, streaming and its store/website) and yes, the cost of putting an old game in a subscription is lower than to put that same game there day.

Meaning, Sony must pay way less for putting games on PS+ than MS. But even if they pay $1B/year like MS since PS+ generates over $3B/year PS+ must be profitable.

We also have to remember that people can buy DLC/IAP/etc for these rented games, meaning that MS and Sony would recoup a part of the money they spend to sign games. Since Sony has twice the userbase, Sony should recoup twice the money. This also benefits the publishers, so 3P would prefer to put their old game that no longer sells new units on PS+ than in GP because having twice the subs it means they could sell twice the DLCs.

At least some time ago the price of putting a game in these two game subs was a per case basis: they estimated the amount of game sales that were going to be lost and also the potential revenue it could do with dlcs to decide the price. The amount of time that the game was going to be there also changed case by case, and also the conditions to renew it to keep it there for extra months. I heard different things from different teams, and in some cases having he dev or publisher having different options to choose, and also being able to negotiate the renewal.

 

[Nhomnhom]

Xbox is direct competition, PC is kind but kind of not really.

PC is pretty direct competition, the most popular console like Fortnite, Apex, etc, are equality as popular on PC.

The US, UK and Japan are not the entire world, the rest of Asia, Europe, China, Latin America, people in these place are pretty comfortable with the idea of gaming on PC.

Kind of, we have been there before, consoles being called "dead" because of computers and phones.

People claimed PC gaming was dead multiple time and it made impressive comebacks.

I don't think Sony should underestimate PC gaming, it's the platform with the most momentum:
- It didn't use to get ports of all third party games, now it does.
- It didn't use to get ports from Xbox, now it does.
- It didn't use to get ports from PlayStation, now it does.
- It was always strong at GaaS, F2P, multiplayer games.
- Valve has by far the best storefront and pretty much has been ahead of everyone else for decades.
- Great portable options that didn't use to exists.

Sony operates with the assumption they'll never miss and see themselves in a WiiU/PS3 situation again. Big mistake.

 

[Cool hand luke]

Unlike PC, Xbox is a console and PS's direct competitor that fights for the same group of players, so it could affect their sales. PS and Xbox fight for the same pool of around 200M home console players. The majority PC players instead never would -or can- buy a console.

But yes, to release games in rival consoles also gives them money. This is why MS or Sony bought 3P or invested in some publishers/studios and kept them as multi, to get money from there (but kept their original 1P teams console exclusive).

Study: 47% of gamers play on multiple platforms

Newzoo today released results from its Global Gamer Study, detailing play habits collected from online surveys of more …

www.gamesindustry.biz

4% of gamers play games on both a PC and a console. What that means is that, given gamers on both platforms consume largely the same (multiplatform) games, the markets are in direct competition, with users almost exclusively going one way or the other.

Giving more people the incentive to stick with PC or go to PC by releasing attractive, formerly exclusive content there, means a console will lose that user to PC in most cases.

The misinterpretation of this 4% stat is where you get wrongheaded claims like:
"The majority PC players instead never would -or can- buy a console."

There's no need to buy one if their needs are satisfied. Creating compelling exclusive content would attract them, as it has in 4% of cases.

 

[Yurinka]

Study: 47% of gamers play on multiple platforms

Newzoo today released results from its Global Gamer Study, detailing play habits collected from online surveys of more …

www.gamesindustry.biz

4% of gamers play games on both a PC and a console. What that means is that, given gamers on both platforms consume largely the same (multiplatform) games, the markets are in direct competition, with users almost exclusively going one way or the other.

Giving more people the incentive to stick with PC or go to PC by releasing attractive, formerly exclusive content there, means a console will lose that user to PC in most cases.

The misinterpretation of this 4% stat is where you get wrongheaded claims like:
"The majority PC players instead never would -or can- buy a console."

There's no need to buy one if their needs are satisfied. Creating compelling exclusive content would attract them, as it has in 4% of cases.

4% means almost nothing. But adding the 15% of the ones who play on all 3, theres 19% of the market who plays on both console + PC. This is the overlap.

But there's also a 24% who plays only in PC, or not in console but in PC+mobile.

Sony targets these two groups, mostly the second one, who combined are a 43% of the gaming market. PS covers under half of the console market (console market is 41% of the total), meaning 20% or less of the total.

AAA budgets are skyrocketing and the console market continues with the around 200-300M players since decades ago, being part of them from portables. Sony can grow -and is growing- their marketshare in console, and also increasing their game sales and improving revenue sources like game subs or accesories, plus betting on GaaS. Specially growing in emerging markets for console, particularly Asia.

But this doesn't math the budget growth, so they need to find new markets. And there's PC and mobile, both bigger than the console market. So they will expand there, like any other big publisher. Plus also is expanding their IPs to movies and tv shows.

 

[Fenton]

 

[Darth Vader]

Study: 47% of gamers play on multiple platforms

Newzoo today released results from its Global Gamer Study, detailing play habits collected from online surveys of more …

www.gamesindustry.biz

4% of gamers play games on both a PC and a console. What that means is that, given gamers on both platforms consume largely the same (multiplatform) games, the markets are in direct competition, with users almost exclusively going one way or the other.

Giving more people the incentive to stick with PC or go to PC by releasing attractive, formerly exclusive content there, means a console will lose that user to PC in most cases.

The misinterpretation of this 4% stat is where you get wrongheaded claims like:
"The majority PC players instead never would -or can- buy a console."

There's no need to buy one if their needs are satisfied. Creating compelling exclusive content would attract them, as it has in 4% of cases.

I read that and immediately understood, but somehow he replied to you and missed the fucking point.

 

[Cool hand luke]

4% means almost nothing. But adding the 15% of the ones who play on all 3, theres 19% of the market who plays on both console + PC. This is the overlap.

But there's also a 24% who plays only in PC, or not in console but in PC+mobile.

Sony targets these two groups, mostly the second one, who combined are a 43% of the gaming market. PS covers under half of the console market (console market is 41% of the total), meaning 20% or less of the total.

Spectacularly wrong again. You're only driving more people into the 24% (or mobile+PC) group with a lower ROI.

The 19% who have a pc and a console are covered by Sony keeping exclusives exclusive - they'll play them on the console. If there's no need to own a console, they revert to console only or mobile+console gamers.

 

[Yurinka]

Spectacularly wrong again. You're only driving more people into the 24% (or mobile+PC) group with a lower ROI.

Bullshit. Are you going to be a flathearther with maths, too?

There are two groups of PC players who don't play on console:

• The ones who only play on PC only (8%)
• The ones who play on PC + mobile (16%)

To know the % of PC players who don't play on console you add them: 8% + 16% = 24%

This is what I said and meant. Tell me, what is wrong about this? Since when 8 + 16 isn't 24?

In addition to this, we saw the Sony late PC ports are extremely profitable, and mobile is the top grossing gaming market: why do you think they would be the group with lower ROI?

The 19% who have a pc and a console are covered by Sony keeping exclusives exclusive - they'll play them on the console. If there's no need to own a console, they revert to console only or mobile+console gamers.

No, this would be the case if PS would cover 100% of the console market, but they only have under half of it. Sony can only cover completely this group releasing on PC or in all the rival consoles (or getting 100% of the console market, which won't happen).

Consider that Switch is the only portable console, so many players maybe had PC+Switch because (pre PC handhelds) they want a portable as secondary console. And a PS5 can't replace this.