Phil Spencer admits F2P is future, not subscription model...
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
DragonNCM
Member
I don't play any F2P game because they are all scum. Normally you will pay 70$ for the game & you will play it as you like but in this F2P bullshit games actually you need to pay to win.
If you don't you will always be locked in progress or weapons or God knows what bullshit & you will end paying at least double of new game price + you will need to play all the time so you can catch up others. I don't wana play that bullshit.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Pretty sure millions of people have fun playing Warzone and have never paid a dime.
Paying $70 for a game is a risky purchase. The game might be bad and you just screwed up paying for a lousy game. Now, some gamers will force themselves to play to get some moneys worth out of it before finally throwing in the towel it's shit. We've all done that.
Playing a F2P game and not liking it costs gamers $0.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
FTP mobile model bullshit is the future?
Bye bye AAA.
Bye bye AAA.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I wouldn't say that. PS+ subs have been stagnant for several quarters now. It has been hovering around that 46-48 million mark since forever.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Thats probably because there's a saturation point. Just like selling console hardware has a saturation point. Also, sub plans for Sony probably leveled off lately after the covid boom where every tech company sold tons of stuff. Things are back to normal now. My company isnt even in tech and our sales boosted during covid too. Any company selling stuff people could sit home and hoard got a free covid sales boost. 2020 was a record year, but sales dropped 5% since then even though we pushed through price increases. Without them, we'd be down 10%. GP is still in growth mode as it's in a different spot compared to Sony's sub plans which are skewed to the normal plan. The 3 tier model just started in the summer.
Both Sony and MS have similar kinds of metrics. Sony is around 50M subs with 100M+ user base and MS has around 25M subs at 50M user base. Maybe the saturation point for subs is about 50% for gaming. No matter how hard companies try, edging up to 60 or 70% is a tough hill to climb.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yes. I agree. In fact, I've been saying the same thing for a long time now. From May 2022:
Earlier, I was just responding that PS+ numbers are not growing fine as you said; it's been stagnant. I suspect GP to follow the same trend now; there will be some growth because of more games and some PC penetration. But it won't explode as many initially thought it would.
Last edited:
The reason its not big deal is that its ancient history for MS. Their entire strategy a bit over 10 years ago was already to f2p/GaaS everything.
They messed it up(badly), but that wasn't the fault of the market or the business model, just their inability to execute with 1st party studios of that time.
It's too late for that now, they have the biggest game in the world at the moment, the valuation will be through the roof.
Ronin_7
Member
He never had any idea what he's been doing, he has a blank and that's it.
The only Xbox CEO that had an idea of what he was doing was Peter Moore, dude was laser focused.
Portugeezer
Member
dDoc
Member
Don't give them ideas LOL.
PS+ Extra/Premium and Gamepass is profitable and will be profitable. And it will stay to be not the main way to consume our games. That's a good thing. $70 games will continue to sell. Microsoft games will sell less because they release them day 1 on their subscription. But both subscription will have the effect of less games being sold over-all because subscribers will be less and less likely to buy games unless they really want the game.
Free to play model is the model that captures and will capture the mythical "2 billion gamers". Not gamepass, not streaming. Local rendering on phones, console and PCs.
Free to play model is the model that captures and will capture the mythical "2 billion gamers". Not gamepass, not streaming. Local rendering on phones, console and PCs.
Benniewise de Clown
Banned
This news in gonna go down well with the GamePass-fanatics...
They're gonna continue releasing mediocre games and grab cash? Quite surprising.
Good thing they're buying all those developers. Will be a blessing for the gaming-industry.
They're gonna continue releasing mediocre games and grab cash? Quite surprising.
Good thing they're buying all those developers. Will be a blessing for the gaming-industry.
samoilaaa
Member
just because f2p will make ( or makes ) the most money doesnt mean that good single player games will disappear , they will still exist , and there will still be millions of gamers that will play them
f2p games will never have the quality of storytelling as single player because their focus must be on addicting game mechanics to make the player come back every couple of months when a new expansions arrives with more stuff to farm
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Very true.
Also, I wouldn't even say "addicting game mechanics." That seems like such a good thing lol. It's more like a mix of grinding that leads to a false sense of progression, hoarding rarer and rarer elements in the game, and FOMO. That keeps people engaged and they keep coming back.
Little Chicken
Member
"ADMITS".... who needs marketing when volunteers will do the spin for you?
People are acting snarky towards Phil here, forgetting Jim Ryan has 11 GaaS games being developed for PS5...
People are acting snarky towards Phil here, forgetting Jim Ryan has 11 GaaS games being developed for PS5...
oldergamer
Member
I dont know what it is with sony fans always trying to interpret what spencer says incorrectly. F2p os indeed the future. That doenst mean they will abandon paid subscription or retail games.
They can do two things at once! Those is why they ALSO want to own mobile developers so they can get in on that revenue/market.
They can and will have traditional games, subscription and free to play. Them wanting to challenge apple and google in that space is a good thing.
They can do two things at once! Those is why they ALSO want to own mobile developers so they can get in on that revenue/market.
They can and will have traditional games, subscription and free to play. Them wanting to challenge apple and google in that space is a good thing.
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
For now…..Seems like Sony is heading in the same path as Microsoft despite their success such as subscription services and live service games. Question is, how much longer will the focus be on single player games from Sony if even a few live service games really take off?
oldergamer
Member
You guys have no idea which companies have considered going free to play. I can tell you that ea has thought about it with sports games. All the growth in sports games has come from micro transactions and not selling physical copies
oldergamer
Member
Sony isnt stupid and saw the revenue generated from genshin impact. They are just coming to the realization much later then others.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I said it once and I'll say it again. We are heading towards a dark future for gaming. Like with other industries, all these business suits see is money. Live service, F2P games, less risks and creativity, subscription services, streaming, digital only, price increases in games and consoles, etc. Sure, we should still get traditional gaming for awhile, but I think it might become an afterthought if F2P, subscriptions and live service really start making them a lot of money.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
That's definitely understandable, but I'm just concerned Sony will focus less on their single player offerings because of live service and F2P like they did with Japanese games because their Western games made more money. We'll see what happens.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Agreed on all of it, and I haven't seen anything to suggest Microsoft feels differently. Halo Infinite is a good example. Single player was $60, MP is F2P.
And yeah, story in F2P is typically doodoo. Look at Destiny 2
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I can't see EA ever making something like Madden F2P because they know millions will buy it just because it's the only NFL game. It's great to get lots of MTX money from MUT players but you know what's better? Lots of MUT revenue and millions of sales at $60-70 a pop.
Pelta88
Member
Too many of you take Phil Spencer's words and apply them unilaterally to PlayStation and gaming.
There is money to be made in the F2P genre. However, Playstation's core is always SP and innovation. I can't begrudge them for growing their business in any sector. When they signal that they're diverting resources and studios away from their SP core, we need to complain.
But thus far:
Andrew House
Yoshida
Hulst
Jim Ryan
Sean Layden
Have all been on record committing to their SP strength, first and foremost. Which means the narrative of PlayStation turning away from the strategy that has put them in a dominating position, kinda ridiculous. A gaming forum straw man that people make up to rage against. Because in reality, it doesn't actually exist.
Last edited:
Stare-Bear
Banned
Wait until he hears about mobile games 
samoilaaa
Member
this is what he said in 2020
"So for first-party, I would like us to kind of experiment with the different models, because I don't think we want to be beholden, as an industry, to one model to rule them all, if we were everything would be free-to-play, because free-to-play is clearly the biggest business model on the planet today, not even close. But I don't think we want one business model, I think we want gamers to have choice in how they engage and pay for the games that they're playing."
"We don't dictate at all the business model behind the games that are built, but I will say, I think that a healthy games industry, the more business models works for video games. So I think retail is an important part of video games, I mean I'm buying my games and I want that to continue to flourish. We've seen growth in subscriptions like Game Pass, free-to-play is obviously a huge business model for video games. I think there's other business models we could potentially bring into video games that could help, but the diversity of business models should be a strength for us as an industry.
"So for first-party, I would like us to kind of experiment with the different models, because I don't think we want to be beholden, as an industry, to one model to rule them all, if we were everything would be free-to-play, because free-to-play is clearly the biggest business model on the planet today, not even close. But I don't think we want one business model, I think we want gamers to have choice in how they engage and pay for the games that they're playing."
"We don't dictate at all the business model behind the games that are built, but I will say, I think that a healthy games industry, the more business models works for video games. So I think retail is an important part of video games, I mean I'm buying my games and I want that to continue to flourish. We've seen growth in subscriptions like Game Pass, free-to-play is obviously a huge business model for video games. I think there's other business models we could potentially bring into video games that could help, but the diversity of business models should be a strength for us as an industry.
Last edited:
Sports games have generally been well isolated cause licenses have generally been exclusive. Ea and the future of EA Football Club could be interesting if they were actually competed against. If you had a good T2 game, you may get a F2P out of the two.
protonion
Member
This guy should just stop talking.
All business models can generate billions.
-Awesome AAA single player games that sell 10+ millions.
-Awesome subscription services with incredible content and tens of millions of permanent full paying customers
-Awesome FTP games like Geshin impact that are made by investing money a full priced game would have trouble recuperating.
Everything works.
But it doesn't matter when you suck at everything.
I was a teen and I'm about to die hearing about the infinite money of Microsoft, the future they envision and all this bullshit. Every damn gen.
20+ plus years of third place and subpar content.
Deliver for one fucking time or STFU already.
All business models can generate billions.
-Awesome AAA single player games that sell 10+ millions.
-Awesome subscription services with incredible content and tens of millions of permanent full paying customers
-Awesome FTP games like Geshin impact that are made by investing money a full priced game would have trouble recuperating.
Everything works.
But it doesn't matter when you suck at everything.
I was a teen and I'm about to die hearing about the infinite money of Microsoft, the future they envision and all this bullshit. Every damn gen.
20+ plus years of third place and subpar content.
Deliver for one fucking time or STFU already.
The illusion of gamepass domination is crumbling. Many in the past predicting that the service will be niche have been mocked. Gamepass apologist would always equate game subscription to the likes of music, shows, and movie subscription not undertanding that video games are consumed differently.
Game subscription will continue to be small and not even streaming will save it. The GaaS-loving casuals have phones that can play their GaaS games with good enough graphics.
Game subscription will continue to be small and not even streaming will save it. The GaaS-loving casuals have phones that can play their GaaS games with good enough graphics.
BbMajor7th
Member
Not a big shocker. According to some, journalists and enthusiasts alike, GP has been on the verge of revolutionising the industry for about five years. If it was going to do it, it would have already happened.
They've already confirmed that they're diverting studios and resources away from single player games though. They have something like 10+ GAAS games in development...
Someone's in denial lol.
Eru Ilúvatar
Member
Exactly. I have been playing Fortnite for years and in total spend less than 15 bucks on it. Have been playing Overwatch when it launched for 3 years, for the original price of 40 dollars. Never then spend a single cent on lootboxes, just leveled and unlocked stuff ingame.
Currently playing Overwatch 2 for free, not spending money. I love the f2p model for the most part.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Accept for this...
And this...
Single player is just the scaffolding for building multiplayer behemoths.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
I suspect that it won't be long before EA goes that way if the sports leagues will allow it. I know the NFL took issue with the discount approach in the past (2k doing the $20 thing miffed them good), but times have changed. I'd just hope that they wouldn't remove the non-MTX based modes in the process. Even CoD might transition to F2P by introducing another F2P offering that more closely mimics the traditional modes of CoD. Leaving them with just the campaigns to sell, with maps, art, game mechanics and all that being introduced to the F2P games to Freshen them up with each campaign release.
Even games that historically sell a ton of copies aren't necessarily off the table for going F2P. I could see GTA going that way if they think rapidly increasing the userbase can offset the loss of sales.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
Myself and the rest of the thread needs receipts / links to where this was stated. I googled but came up with nothing to substantiate this claim.
I hope you're not trolling to better suit your argument.
crackajack
Member
Why not both? Or even better also aim at the triple whopper like Sony does. F2p, AAA cinematic SP games and subs with varying content. MS removed that second pillar without necessity, merged it with the third and the exchange, cheap day one for sub number growth has yet to really manifest.
SportsFan581
Member
They did release a graphic showing that they planned to invest more $ into GAAS than single player games by 2025.
Pelta88
Member
Lets not twist words here. I stated that when/if PS start diverting resources from their own SP to focus on F2P that'd be a problem. Investing more money into that space is an different proposition entirely.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Still, they are actively saying that the ratio of how they invest their funds is going to drastically change. When you switch from spending 90% of your available first-party budget on SP content and take that down to sub 40% there will be some consequences. It will also change how they look at future investments if they start to see a much higher return on every dollar invested in the GAAS space, depends on how it goes for them. Plus, then there's just the simple factor of time spent, every team working on the GAAS efforts are effectively bodies that would have been doing SP work previously.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
So basically you're fearmongering via hypotheticals?
Do you know how lucrative gaming trends have come and gone since PS got into the gaming business? There have been multiple business models that PS has explored without straying from its core business model. But you're here throwing hypotheticals around to make a very transparent argument. To be clear, it's financially prudent for any company to diversify revenue streams and explore new markets or in this case, genres.
Translating that basic business ethos into "We might lose single player" based on your thoughts rings juvenile. Also, Phil Spencer's musings change too fluently and have never applied to PlayStations strategy. I can bring receipts of Phil, dating back years, stating that "GP is the future" and then contrast that same PR with legally binding documents submitted to CMA. And you'd see the glaring difference. Admission like GP is stagnant or the recent admission that GP is only 15% of XBOX revenue and not expected to grow beyond that, to demonstrate how hollow PR (from all execs) really is.
If we're going to discuss something based on the facts and merits then lets do that. But you can't make up your own narrative to suit your own point of view.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
I'm not fearmongering or saying PS is going to quit doing SP. All I'm saying is from what they themselves have said to investors, SP isn't going to be as strong of a focus for them going forward.
You are free to read into that whatever you want, as am I.
Any fears I have regarding the health of SP content are more of an industry wide thing. I'm very much a single player focused gamer myself. Despite a personal preference for Xbox hardware and their approach to BC and my jokes about cracking the code to get a mythical job as a shill for Xbox, I don't have a problem with Sony. I've got a PS4 and will eventually upgrade to a PS5 (hopefully a slim model) and would gladly be a paid shill for them as well (hire me Jim). I'd work for anyone in the industry so hit me up MS, Sony, Steam, even Nintendo, I'm your guy.
I don't spend my time trying to fearmonger against PS. Except in the next-gen OT when it was too funny not to.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
If this is true you need to provide a link. Or receipts as we sometimes call them here. This has major implications which rightfully should be discussed.
The problem is, they have never stated this. Which is why you're going around in circles, unwilling to admit that this is a scenario you fear, as opposed to something that was actually said.
And don't bring me a chart, I/we need the actual statement.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Again, you can look at things however you want. But when a company is actively telling their investors that they are changing how they delegate their resources both financial and employed bodies, that is significant to me. Those 10 GAAS games by 2025 aren't going to run themselves and they aren't projects that they will finish and move on from either. You have a very black & white lens you are trying to fit things into, which creates this need to paint anyone questioning this shift as someone with a sandwich sign on the side of the street screaming about the end of days.
Also, I can have fears or be worried have concerns about the game industry moving away from my personal tastes without fearmongering about it, the two are not synonymous with each other.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
I keep asking for receipts and you refuse to provide them. While insisting that an actual statement was made "Depending on how you look into it."
You're being disingenuous to push a narrative. When PlayStation state that "Free 2 Play is the future." Let us know. Until then stop trying to push false equivalencies to counter Phil Spencer's U-Turn in PR and direction.
Last edited: