Only one userbase is shrinkingconsole userbases shrinking
I repeat what I've said about this before:All the untapped growth globally and in Asia will mostly be on PC also.
They aren't giving up on anything. PlayStation and PlayStation Store ain't going away. They'll keep getting their cut and sell dlc.Sony is in control of one of the main platforms for "traditional" (as in not mobile) gaming. They make a ton of money by just taking a cut from every game, DLC and microtransaction sold on their platform. The exclusives are the cerry on top, not their main income source.
Why would they give it up?
You think they'd make more money selling 2-3 AAA games a year on Steam?
Actually, their PC game sales dropped by at least 8% for the fiscal year and we can tell that there's a very short half life on the enthusiasm to pick up PS Studios games on PC with each port that releases.Why would they give it up?
You think they'd make more money selling 2-3 AAA games a year on Steam?
People are buying Xbox games instead of first party Playstation games. They're getting 30% instead of 100% and it's killing their profit margins because of all their live service failures. Astro Bot hasn't even sold 3 million yet. Forza sold 1.4 million in a month and will pass Astro Bot by Christmas. It's dire at PlayStation studios, hence why they kicked Ryan and Hulst to the curb and out of the decision making chair.
Since some Sony first party games now cost 200 to 300 million to develop and most Live Service games from Sony have failed (Except for Helldivers 2) Does it still make sense for Sony to produce consoles at all? Especially since they are getting even more expensive over time. I don't even want to see the Ps6 launch price.
They are also slowly making themselves comfortable on the PC. Live service games should probably cushion the immense costs of the single player games. But now that most of that has been dropped, does it make any sense for Sony to continue like this?
???
All of their games are on PC.
They aren't giving up on anything. PlayStation and PlayStation Store ain't going away. They'll keep getting their cut and sell dlc.
But they're a third party publisher on PC, and they've been that for awhile now, they have 26 games there at this moment.
I doubt that it's better if they make even less money on software when software is where they're making their money.Actually, their PC game sales dropped by at least 8% for the fiscal year and we can tell that there's a very short half life on the enthusiasm to pick up PS Studios games on PC with each port that releases.
But Sony has already ceded ground by putting their games on PC at all. You may have asked many of the same questions about Xbox, who at least had Windows to point to as an excuse with "Microsoft gets the money!!" and we can see where the slippery slope got them.
The only hope here is a new regime and a massive pivot. I'm talking about actually removing PS Studio games from Steam retroactively and gaslight like they were never there levels of extreme. But it's not looking good atm.
Well they are still a platform holder, but they have diversified their IP output on other platforms like Xbox, Xbox PC and Switch.So releasing games on PC makes you a 3rd party publisher?
Are you sure you want that to be the threshold for this definition?
Well they are still a platform holder, but they have diversified their IP output on other platforms like Xbox, Xbox PC and Switch.
Don't question me.That wasn't the question. Here it is again:
So releasing games on PC makes you a 3rd party publisher?
It's amusing reading their fan fiction.Man, Xbox going 3rd party and selling you out as customers really did a trick on many of you, it's literally projection after projection.
#sonytoo
But Nintendo is facing the same problems, it's industry-wide.Only really Nintendo remains, but they have significantly lower budgets + their IP sells more machines than the other 2.
Even if they dump the live-service stuff, Sony still needs to contend with their first-party games taking longer to make and increasing in budget. Spider-man 1 was around 100 million, but the sequel was 3x that.
Only way they stop porting to other platforms is if they drop budgets, otherwise they're likely to port to even more platforms.
Don't question me.
They bought Minecraft in 2014. Published Age of Empires on PS2 in 1999.Just trying to make you aware that if that's the definition you want to go with then Xbox have officially been a 3rd party publisher since 2015.
![]()
They bought Minecraft in 2014.
Yes they do. Where is the proof in this? What would make you say this in a generation where Switch has sold over 100 million units and PS5 is on it's way to 100 million units right after it's predecessor sold over 100 million units itself...Younger generations simply don't accept the premise of closed ecosystems that are made obsolete every couple years.
PC was mostly invisible to me as a platform back then. You can be both at once. If you have your own platform they are 1st party games on your platform, but you also are publishing it on other platforms as 3rd party games. If Nintendo put their console games on PC, it would be a huge deal and everyone would react accordingly. If anyone avoided calling out MS, its mostly because of Windows and because Sony is a lot more popular than MS and gets talked about more in console circles.Absolutely nobody circa 2014-2016 went around stating "Xbox are a 3rd party publisher" purely on the basis of Minecraft and them releasing their games on PC.
Have you considered them to be a 3rd party publisher this whole time?
PC was mostly invisible to me as a platform back then. You can be both at once. If you have your own platform they are 1st party games on your platform, but you also are publishing it on other platforms as 3rd party games. If Nintendo put their console games on PC, it would be a huge deal and everyone would react accordingly. If anyone avoided calling out MS, its mostly because of Windows and because Sony is a lot more popular than MS and gets talked about more in console circles.
I dont know why you asked me a question then. Sure, go with whatever the industry says if that is what you like.It's not about what it is to you, it's about how a business is perceived and what the industry definition is.
Lol no???
All of their games are on PC.
No, they primarily make money on the revenue that comes in by virtue of their platform.I doubt that it's better if they make even less money on software when software is where they're making their money.
You'd have to explain Spider-Man 2 and practically every Xbox release since 2017 to convince me of that.What they should do is remove the PC delays. Late releases always get less hype and have lower marketing budget and sell worse.
You've just made the argument of excising PC ports all together. No ambiguity of release on another platform = force to ensure that the person buys the first party platform and the game sooner to its initial release. There's practically zero chance that that doesn't net more money on that purchase and over the long term. Exactly as it was for 20 years before the PS5 and as it continues to be the case for Nintendo. So much so that they can charge 80 dollars for the next fucking Mario Kart.And some of us don't want to double dip but want to know how much better it is on PC. So we wait. But once it's there the hype is gone and the price is often too high, and we might skip it or forget about it. Like me with Spider-Man 2. Forgot all about it until the recent patch, but paying full price today seemed too much, so nothing yet.
I dont know why you asked me a question then. Sure, go with whatever the industry says if that is what you like.
I literally didn't think about PC in 2014. That was my answer. I was playing mostly Wii U and 3DS. PC didn't have a show around E3. It might as well have not existed for me at the time. I also didn't make anywhere near the money I make now so it was a complete fantasy to even consider it. 100% was not on my radar, like I said.You avoided answering the question by claiming PC was "invisible".
![]()
I literally didn't think about PC in 2014. That was my answer. I was playing mostly Wii U and 3DS. PC didn't have a show around E3. It might as well have not existed for me at the time. I also didn't make anywhere near the money I make now so it was a complete fantasy to even consider it. 100% was not on my radar, like I said.
I literally didn't even say I considered Sony a 3rd party publisher. I pretty much just talked about industry trends affecting everyone and how that could look in the future.
I literally didn't even say I considered Sony a 3rd party publisher. I pretty much just talked about industry trends affecting everyone and how that could look in the future.
I can't believe the effort you waste on trolling lol.
So again for anyone else reading, I literally never said it and he's so stubborn he can't even acknowledge it. Just 100% made up.You don't need to say anything explicitly when it's implied in your responses throughout this thread.
It's quite simple, if people want to currently consider Playstation to be a 3rd party publisher, then by the same token they must have considered Xbox to be a 3rd party publisher since 2015 (or 2014 if we want to consider the purchase of Minecraft as being the turning point).
When looking at things through that lens, it makes the reactions to what's been happening regarding Xbox ports over the last couple of years look peculiar. Why all the hullabaloo if they were widely considered to be a "3rd party publisher" this whole time?
It's ironic when Phil was complaining about Gen Z, while Nintendo (arguably the most closed ecosystem) is thriving despite having a much younger audience.It's pretty obvious the old console model will go the way of the Dodo eventually, it just takes a lot of time. Younger generations simply don't accept the premise of closed ecosystems that are made obsolete every couple years.