But if they get a hit or two they will potentially make billions. That's what they use to do during PS3 era... Wipe out the losses of all there flop games with their mega hits and reinvest.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike.
But if they get a hit or two they will potentially make billions. That's what they use to do during PS3 era... Wipe out the losses of all there flop games with their mega hits and reinvest.
Those live service games will cost as much if not more, require ongoing high costs, and have to capture hundreds of thousands of recurring players to be successful. Most live service games (think destiny, cod, etc) fail miserably.
Sony may very well be throwing money out the window.
this was debunked long time ago. by sony it self.Now you know why Sony is porting stuff to PC. PC ports will fund new releases and keep the wheel moving. Virtuous cycle.
Yeah, I'm sure Sony has already accounted for that.Square Enix and some of these other publishers wouldn’t even be in business right now if they didn’t have a major Live Service game to keep them afloat. The potential risks of live service don’t compare to the risks of not having one but there is also plenty of risks in having to invest well over 100 million dollars in single player games with short legs.
A game like Genshin or Apex makes TLOU money every 6 months, the cost of development is continually decreased and the money it continues to bring in continues to increase.
Sony being a major platform holder only having MLB and now Destiny, is money left on the table. They are the biggest platform holder with the most influence. If sony can’t drive an audience to at least one of their multiplayer games they are failing, especially with Bungie in their corner.
Yeah, I'm sure Sony has already accounted for that.
For example, a very simplistic version, Sony is investing 10 live-service games at $100 million each and a total cost of $1 billion. They expect 8 of those games to fail, but 2 of those games to be successful. Game #1 is expected to earn $1 billion, while Game #2 is expected to earn $500 million. So the total project revenue is expected to be $1.5 billion at a cost of $1 billion.
I believe that's their approach. And if game #3 also becomes a hit contrary to expectation, or game #1 or #2 becomes a bigger hit than initially projected, then PlayStation becomes extremely profitable.
Lol, the puny sales from PC ain't going to save any game that doesn't make it's money back on consoles.Now you know why Sony is porting stuff to PC. PC ports will fund new releases and keep the wheel moving. Virtuous cycle.
The thing is the most likely scenario is all 10 failing or having moderate success at best. Now they are stuck with a bunch of studios following up a failed game or supporting a dud. The GaaS strategy comes directly from the MS playbook.Yeah, I'm sure Sony has already accounted for that.
For example, a very simplistic version, Sony is investing 10 live-service games at $100 million each and a total cost of $1 billion. They expect 8 of those games to fail, but 2 of those games to be successful. Game #1 is expected to earn $1 billion, while Game #2 is expected to earn $500 million. So the total project revenue is expected to be $1.5 billion at a cost of $1 billion.
I believe that's their approach. And if game #3 also becomes a hit contrary to expectation, or game #1 or #2 becomes a bigger hit than initially projected, then PlayStation becomes extremely profitable.
And what you rather isn't smart business wise. They still need a few games that will continously be bringing in profit every quarter instead of waiting on solely AAA games that are having longer and longer dev times.Lol, the puny sales from PC ain't going to save any game that doesn't make it's money back on consoles.
The Sony games that didn't do great on PS5 did drastically worse on PC.
The thing is the most likely scenario is all 10 failing or having moderate success at best. Now they are stuck with a bunch of studios following up a failed game or supporting a dud. The GaaS strategy comes directly from the MS playbook.
Do you actually want PlayStation to have a bunch of Goundeds, Sea of Thieves, Redfall and Bleeding Edges? I rather have a single Days Gone over all that.
We'll see what happens, pretty much every publisher has spent the last few years going all in on GaaS trying to create hits and very few succeeded in finding that type of success.[
And what you rather isn't smart business wise. They still need a few games that will continously be bringing in profit every quarter instead of waiting on solely AAA games that are having longer and longer dev times.
The price of a GaaS doesn't drop over time like Single Player games.
Is this sattire?It was forgotten within a month. If not at the box office its certainly been forgotten in games discussion. And Call of the Mountain fared no better.
We haven't even seen FairGame$... I probably won't like it but we really didn't see anything.We'll see what happens, pretty much every publisher has spent the last few years going all in on GaaS trying to create hits and very few succeeded in finding that type of success.
Games like Fairgame$ is precisely the type of game that misses completely.
I've seen enough.We haven't even seen FairGame$... I probably won't like it but we really didn't see anything.
I don't play multiplayer GaaS games (except Rocket League), so this GaaS push does not necessarily benefit me. However, I understand the need for chasing this trend.Lol, the puny sales from PC ain't going to save any game that doesn't make it's money back on consoles.
The Sony games that didn't do great on PS5 did drastically worse on PC.
The thing is the most likely scenario is all 10 failing or having moderate success at best. Now they are stuck with a bunch of studios following up a failed game or supporting a dud. The GaaS strategy comes directly from the MS playbook.
Do you actually want PlayStation to have a bunch of Goundeds, Sea of Thieves, Redfall and Bleeding Edges? I rather have a single Days Gone over all that.