Helldivers 2 announced for Xbox Series X|S (Releases August 26, 2025)
cireza
Member
The difference in games has always been exaggerated. Otherwise nobody would have an Xbox. I never felt the need of getting a PS, I have all the games I am interested in on Xbox, why would I change ? If they continue to carry forward my library of games, I have zero reason to move somewhere else. And now, we are seeing games like FF XVI, FF VII or Helldivers coming to Xbox. This further strengthens the message that I don't need to go anywhere (even if I personally have 0 interest in these specific games).
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I use my adult son often as an example as he has been on Xbox his whole life and has a huge Xbox library
That said when we have talked about next gen stuff he has zero desire to move to PS as many casuals do not care how things are going behind the scenes
He doesn't care how many consoles they sell he just wants to enjoy games and still access his library
Astray
Member
Youtuber already reached out to Playstation France and they gave him this response (AI dubbing is by Youtube as video is in French)
If you ask me though, I think we will see at least some singleplayer games hitting Xbox at some point.
Migration will only start happening if MS shows its hand for next-gen and it is deemed unacceptable for whatever reason by the majority of users.
Until that happens there's 30m users that aren't gonna move any time soon and should be monetized if possible. There's no real reason for Sony to not do this as they are for the 1st time in full control of their lane, and PS players moving to PC in protest or whatever have a significant financial roadblock ahead of them.
DevilHunterX0
Member
The most dudebro New Earth F*Yeah© game is finally coming to the most dudebro console.
Viruz
Member
I think the only thing that's holding GT from PC is Kaz himself and that's because of cheaters/modders like you said. It will ruin the game for the guys that play hours to gain 1/10 of a second on a lap. They really need to be careful with this.
As much as I like it Polyphony can't realistically continue to give free updates every month forever so something has to change in their model, we'll see. Personally I play my games offline not only GT7 so I'm not affected at all by any PC port.
Concord beta is counted in the 5 hours
You are also right about the identity thing and that's why exclusives are a must, not so you can brag about it online but because I think the more platforms your game is on the more diluted focus, style and quality wise it'll be since you're trying to please different type of gamers. There's a reason why people like myself own and play on a unique platform. Should be interesting if there's numbers/stats of how many players own a single one vs multiple.
But what do I know? I'm just a customer and if one day Gran Turismo changes too much and isn't in line with my taste I simply won't buy it like any other product.
We are very far from this, let's see first how GT8 looks.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
TheGodfather07
Member
Not much. Xbox has been on continuous decline since like 2015. people have been leaving the brand for years now and that's when they still had exclusives. Only the super hardcore Xbox fans are left now.
Astray
Member
Yep.
This isn't the 2010s, 3P players are no longer willing to take exclusivity checks, and PS have decided if the larger industry doesn't want its cash anymore, then they surely won't mind if Sony competes with them for turf on previously uncontested waters, like Steam or Xbox or even Nintendo.
Expect Sony to not only start ramping up ports to other platforms, they might even dabble in some genres that they normally left entirely to 3P players.
kaizenkko
Member
Well, this makes sense since all other live service games are (or are intended to be) on Xbox.
But we'll need to wait and see what their approach will be with hybrid games like Marvel Tokon. I can also see them releasing single-player games using the same excuse they use for PC releases.
Joel Was Right
Member
Why would Sony opt to keep consumers on Xbox in exchange for 30% rather than convert them (like they did during the PS4), into their ecosystem? The PS5 has already generated more profit than all previous PlayStation generations combined thanks to their current strategy.
You're arguing that a live service game signals their intent to generate more profit, but then suggest an action that would see them earn less in the long-term. That's a contradiction, no?
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
How will Sony convert more players to PS ecosystems?
By making exclusives. Something they dont make anymore.
Astray
Member
Because why wait for their money to maybe come in 2-4 years (when Xbox ceases to become a mass-market console device and a big chunk of their users face no choice but to shift next gen) instead of getting it today (minus a %)? Microsoft is already pivoting out of the big volume HW race and pushing Xbox as a Steam/SteamOS competitor of sorts.
Time value of money is a thing. especially when consumer spending is not guaranteed to go up again.
sncvsrtoip
Member
Its not considered as gaas by Sony in their presentations
reinking
Gold Member
Case by case means if it makes money, it is going third-party. I would expect most releases to be delayed after Sony gets initial sales but I would not expect any service games to be off of the table.
Does it matter in the long run if a game is going to Xbox consoles? I think a few others have made this point. MS is making it clear the Xbox console is not going to be the future of Xbox. Regardless if that means the consoles are going away, or becoming more open, Sony PC games will be playable on Xbox in the future. I do find it weird that some Xbox fanatics think this is a win when it is happening at the demise of the console they have defended for decades. I guess when everything is an Xbox, everything is a win.
Sony is playing with fire as more titles go third-party. While there is money to be made, they have stated multiple times that they must protect their console business. They cannot compete with Microsoft and Steam in the PC space and there is potential to weaken their console brand as more titles go third-party. It also gives fodder for the media warriors to shout #SonyToo.
On a personal level, I think it is great more games are available to more players. From a business perspective, I think this goes against what has been working for PlayStation in the past.
Does it matter in the long run if a game is going to Xbox consoles? I think a few others have made this point. MS is making it clear the Xbox console is not going to be the future of Xbox. Regardless if that means the consoles are going away, or becoming more open, Sony PC games will be playable on Xbox in the future. I do find it weird that some Xbox fanatics think this is a win when it is happening at the demise of the console they have defended for decades. I guess when everything is an Xbox, everything is a win.
Sony is playing with fire as more titles go third-party. While there is money to be made, they have stated multiple times that they must protect their console business. They cannot compete with Microsoft and Steam in the PC space and there is potential to weaken their console brand as more titles go third-party. It also gives fodder for the media warriors to shout #SonyToo.
On a personal level, I think it is great more games are available to more players. From a business perspective, I think this goes against what has been working for PlayStation in the past.
Viruz
Member
Joel Was Right
Member
Because they could earn thousands from each new convert rather than $12
Astray
Member
That math doesn't seem accurate at all. Like for one they'd be making $28 a pop on unit sales alone, and that's assuming all regular edition sales + 0 MTX.
I have no clue where you're getting thousands from either. Whatever the true amount is, that money is neither guaranteed to come (because those users could simply opt not to buy a PS device next gen), and even when it comes it will come in much later and inflation will lessen its value to Sony.
yurinka
Member
PlayStation France PR has no fucking idea about PS Studios specific future strategy regarding if this port is an exception or not, so they gave them the related standard PR polite reply. Maybe even PS Studios/SIE heads don't know it.
Pretty likely it's a test to see what happens when publishing a successful PS Studios GaaS on Xbox: to see if it's profitable, if it accelerates or increases the Xbox Series to PS5 migration to avoid them migrating instead to PC/Xbox PC handheld 'consoles'/Switch 2, if it has some negative effect on PS hardware sales or other metrics, etc.
If they steal userbase quick enough, a lower enough Xbox and GP active userbase could make MS move away from future Xbox console plans (maybe even 3rd party manufactured ones), something that would be good news for Sony because would give PS6 a monopoly in home consoles as Switch had in portables.
If results are good they'd double down doing the same not only releasing there day one the Bungie games but also other upcoming PS Studios GaaS -particularly those not developed internally or using external IPs- as could be Marvel Tokon.
In any case, it's super clear that Sony is 100% sure that they won the war, that Xbox is defeated and isn't a threat anymore, and went to loot the corpse to acquire a bigger portion of the remaining users there before MS or somebody else does by moving them to an Asus Xbox, Meta Xbox, Roomba Xbox or whatever else.
And well, maybe Arrowhead wanted to make it multiplatform and Sony ported it after studying the case and seeing no issues other than a few fanboys complaining about it in gaming forums.
Last edited:
Astray
Member
Which is why I said this is not believable to me.
I think the downside risk has been quite minimal for PS when they ported to PC, and it's actually even less for porting to Xbox at this point. If this was 2020 I'd have thought something different though.
SamuraiEdge
Member
I've been happy with their strategy of Console launch first and then releasing on PC later on, after a year or so case by case. Hasn't cannibalised their profits with what we've seen thus far.
yurinka
Member
Yep. I think the risk with PC was already small:
Most PC players specially in some countries would never buy a console, and most PS fans won't leave PS to play only in PC instead. And even if a tiny portion of the userbase moved from PS to PC, it's getting more than compensated with the influx of new players going from PC to PS.
And I agree that the risk with Xbox is even smaller: the marketshare and userbase of Xbox continues decreasing and is going to go extinct soon. And this port got announced the day after MS did shut down games and studios (making Xbox fans sad or angry) and will be released the same day Gears of War releases on PS (something that also made Xbox fans angry/sad). So many MS fans must be thinking about alternatives. And well, PS fans have no incentives to move to Xbox.
So with the port Sony doesn't lose anything: Helldivers 2 will be available anyways in the upcoming Xbox PC handhelds & consolized PCs, and PS players will continue in PS. So by releasing the port they simply make more revenue and profit (doesn't even need to sell 100K to make it profitable) and may convert some of these remaining Xbox players to PS.
Yes, the PS active userbase and user spent kept growing and is now at all time records, as is SIE's total revenue and profit, or their console revenue in areas like game sales / addon sales / game sub sales sales / accesories sales plus obviously off-PS 1st party revenue.
Regarding their total 1st party game revenue, extrapolating the console unit sales percentages between 1st and 3rd party to their total game revenue, we see that more or less their 1st party revenue should be aprox. almost twice as big as it was starting this generation and PC+GaaS push.
In their presentations they don't list every single game when listing GaaS or non-GaaS.
GT Sport and GT7 are by definition GaaS. Not listing them there doesn't mean they aren't GaaS. There are many other GaaS normally not listed there like Convallaria, Midnight Murder Club, Firewall Ultra, Horizon Online or Marvel Tokon. Maybe they don't mention GT because it already was a successful GaaS before this GaaS initiative, so they use the available space to highlight other ones.
And well, GT7 also has a meaty SP content so could be listed as SP game too. Typically in their lists they differentiated between non-GaaS SP games ('tentpole') and the MP GaaS titles to highlight that in addition to invest in their traditional games they're also investing in MP focused/GaaS games. They can only list a few games in these list, and GT7 maybe isn't a good example because it's a both SP and MP GaaS title.
In the same way, not mentioning some non-GaaS title in their list of SP games examples as could be Stellar Blade or Uncharted doesn't mean that they consider them a GaaS or MP game.
Sony will continue being first party because will continue being the platform holder of PlayStation.
Even if since the 80's they published each decade some dozens of games in non-Sony platforms (computers, consoles, mobile), so being a 3rd party in these platforms, they will continue being the first party of the market leader console brand, PlayStation.
Microsoft instead (as others like Sega or Atari did before), seems will stop being a console maker, so a console first party. So in consoles will be only a third party publisher. Using instead PC and Windows as their home platform.
Last edited:
Bernardougf
Member
Not even microsoft is dumb enough to try the first ever successful full third party console, so they are going to the pc-box oem space, but somehow sony geniuses are going to make it work because "the war is over lets all be friends" ... some of you people live in crazy town la-la land.
Last edited:
"The Playstation brand is too strong to fail!"
They've convinced themselves that any box with a PS logo on it will sell no matter what, even if it offers nothing you can't get elsewhere. Not realizing that each past console succeeded only because it was actually backed by something, be it hardware or software. The Vita couldn't make that argument in a smartphone world and that's why nobody bought it. Good look to PS6 making that argument without exclusive software in a world where basically any hardware will be strong enough to run most games.
Last edited:
Ultra Donny
Member
Helldivers 2 looks like a really fun game. Will definitely try it out on the series x. Since xbox fumbels their studios I'll have to start relying on PlayStation to deliver the games.
chilichote
Member
I don't get Sony nowadays.
Joel Was Right
Member
The average PS5 owner spends an extra $731 on "content, services, and peripherals"
"While the PlayStation 4 is still an important part of our business, our PlayStation 5 players are even more engaged than in the previous generation"
That's just one generation of hardware. That is what is at stake.
Astray
Member
1) This is not "thousands" of dollars, so you're already proving your argument false.The average PS5 owner spends an extra $731 on "content, services, and peripherals"
"While the PlayStation 4 is still an important part of our business, our PlayStation 5 players are even more engaged than in the previous generation"www.gamesradar.com
That's just one generation of hardware. That is what is at stake.
2) $734 is like a couple CODs/FIFAs plus PS+ for the duration of the gen. This type of consumer gives zero shits about exclusives, if they did then attach rates of these exclusives would have skyrocketed.
Joel Was Right
Member
My brother, what I'm trying to get across to you (and clearly failing here) is that Sony would earn far more money bringing people into their ecosystem now that all the games are on their platform than they would by earning 30% on individual releases on other platforms.
It's not even an opinion or conjecture - it is their current policy, and one that has seen them make more money than ever before. In fact, it is the view they themselves -- not me -- reiterated when the suggestion of releasing their games on Xbox was brought up.
If you disagree because you think they could earn far more money doing it the other way, sure. But right now, you're struggling to see the forest beyond the trees. For instance, the 700 spending rate per console generation would translate to more as that gamer is likely to continue buying other Playstation platforms in the future, in the same way that Apple can extrapolate revenue per iPhone user depending on how much they spend on average per iPhone.
Last edited:
Astray
Member
There's no assurances that an Xbox user is definitely hitting PS6, let alone switch to PS5. A percentage will and are already, but some of that population will go for PC, some might get whatever Xbox brings out next at any price and some might leave gaming behind entirely.
Gaming now is very calcified, especially with physical game splits declining like they are, the idea of entirely switching your gaming presence is actually very costly because you have money locked in via digital purchases. Meanwhile you have a ton of games coming out every month for all platforms, this means that the value proposition of exclusives is going DOWN not up.
Meanwhile, you have a live-service game that is by nature always in need of players, and a platform of 30m that are always up for an online shooting game that you are not monetizing.
I think this is an easy decision if you have the data behind the scenes and know what new PS5 owners immediately play when they do their 1st boot up of that machine.
Last edited:
Fess
Member
This is what I hear too. Those that are on Xbox will stay on Xbox, 20 or whatever ports to PS isn't doing much. I haven't heard a single one talk about PS.
But It's not just digital libraries, it's discs too, and achievements and saves and friend lists. Dropping everything is no small thing.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
As a multi-console owner, I just enjoy playing on the Xbox ecosystem more, I prefer the controller and the general system features, UI and interface.
That is where the majority of my library is right now, 99% of the games are identical across the world so there's a very little in terms of performance differentials these days anyway.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Before cross play was the norm I had a large set of Xbox friends I played with and a large set on Playstation and while some of the Xbox people have migrated to mostly PC the vast majority of those I know in the Xbox ecosystem will buy the next Xbox console and have zero desire to own a Playstation
Fess
Member
I've moved to PC so it's a bit different for me. But my living room PC feels almost like an Xbox since I have an Xbox controller and see those button labels and even the Xbox logo in Steam and I also leech on Gamepass a lot.
I don't like the current console UI though. Or the Xbox App UI. A grid UI is always bad with a controller. They should've never moved away from the 360 blades UI, that was perfect. And having Xbox Live Arcade on a blade was awesome.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Speaking of clowns: put back on that red rubber nose. MSX computers were only popular in Japan and isolated parts of Asia. The ENTIRE standard was designed with the Japanese market in mind. People in places like the US knew about MSX, but IBM PC-compatibles and Apple machines, even stuff like the Atari ST, obliterated MSX sales in America. In Europe, Atari, Amiga and other microcomputers decimated MSX offerings there.
And since you were so quick trying to call me a clown, you actually just proved another point I've been making: if Sony's MSX games weren't even released in Japan, then they basically prioritized those releases for markets where MSX was a super-niche product. Now why would they do that, at a time they were scaling up into console game development with Sony Imagesoft later in that decade (and even some games for platforms like Famicom prior to that)? Oh, was it perhaps because Sony didn't want to dilute their core game development focus on console (including hardware like SFC's sound chip) in their primary market for said console game focus, with focus of games for a computer standard that was mainly only popular in Japan?
Now how's that relate to today? If Sony wanted to grow brand presence in markets like China & South Korea with PC ports, why didn't they make them regional efforts? Why did they make them global releases in markets where their console business is huge and also increasingly in competition with PC gaming growth? Ironically, what you just described Sony of doing with MSX, was smarter in protecting core interests vs. what they've been doing with their PC strategy today.
And I already explained why Psygnosis did that: pre-existing contracts and terms to their acquisition that aren't too dissimilar to what SIE have/had with Bungie. Psygnosis was too large to fully integrate into Sony's gaming unit at the time, and platforms like the Mega Drive & SNES were on their way out (and not seen as competitors to upcoming 32-bit 3D-centric consoles like PlayStation). Stuff like Amiga CD32 were basically dead by the time PS1 launched, same with FM Towns Marty, and SIE probably viewed Amiga similar to how they did IBM-compatible PCs.
Also again, Psygnosis had games in-development for some of these platforms when they had been acquired, and as a new console platform holder, there was still a big chance the PS1 would've failed. That's why it made sense to have Psygnosis as a multiplat publisher for some years, but as PS1 established itself as the dominant console & Sony's gaming unit grew, you do realize those Psygnosis games on non-PlayStation consoles began drying up...right?
The hilarious thing here is you trying to use the situation with Psygnosis, at a time when PS was still trying to establish itself as a brand and risked fading away like countless other new entrants in the market at that time, as a justification for SIE's multiplatform efforts today. Today, when PS is clearly an established brand and (seemingly) not at risk of going anywhere.
Of course, you are going to look at that and say "that's exactly why they are porting all their games to PC and now porting more games to Xbox (a console you yourself have said is dead or on the verge of death, so how the hell does bringing games to a dead console make any sense?), because you have to make your POV stay in lockstep with whatever business moves SIE wants to do. You gotta move those goalposts.
Me? I'd look at it from what's logical, and take it to its logical conclusion. That SIE have been compromised, and bought into unsubstantiated claims that consoles are coming to an end. That they're worried over growth of hardware-agnostic platforms like Steam or a cloud future. That the only way to be successful in the market is to be on as many platforms as possible.
And that's why they're bringing Helldivers 2 to Xbox. And most likely, quite a few other games going forward too.
I can't wait to see your new goalpost when SIE announces a 1P AAA single-player game coming Day 1 on PS5/PS6 & PC, because you'll inevitably do so. It's what you've been doing for years.
Did you really just Google search and Wiki a history lesson I already knew about, just to recite a history lesson that adds NOTHING to your point or even come from your own POV?
Aniplex has nothing to do with SIE or PlayStation. They're their own thing. And yeah maybe get off this history lesson bent because you're just rambling with a Wiki article copypasta.
I've acknowledged they have several times. Even in the past, I've mentioned the Everquest games. And an arcade bowling game that never got a PS1 port, but did get ported to Windows.
What does any of this have to do with Sony publishing Helldivers 2 on Xbox today? How does any of what you said, tie into the news of the thread, beyond the fact that both things have happened?
You spent more time giving a history lesson that wasn't needed, than tying anything together.
That was your entire point? Just cheering for more money of SIE's that isn't yours, to save more bar graphs and pie charts in the future in replies to threads that have nothing to do with fiscal results?
"That's all" indeed
"Mattered" how? In terms of sales? Because even that isn't true. You might not care about the Motor Toon games, but those were crucial stepping stones to get to Gran Turismo. You don't care about Jumping Flash or Arc the Lad, but those games helped make PlayStation competitive against Saturn in the early years, especially in markets like Japan. Those games did, in fact, help to sell systems, even if early sales weren't "fast" the way we're conditioned to seeing nowadays.
Games like Parappa might not matter to you, but they helped basically create new subgenres, and also helped keep PS1 relevant in the market. It'd really help to stop pretending games don't matter unless they themselves sell many millions of copies; that mentality is what's poisoning the Western games industry today, especially in AAA.
TLOU2 also sold massively in its initial launch window, then cemented itself as one of the most divisive games in history and getting the chance to piss off both gamers AND normies between the game and a mediocre 2nd season to a TV show that's basically killed the show's chances for Season 3.
Are we also going to ignore how both Ragnarok and Spiderman 2 were contentious themselves with segments of the fanbase over creative choices compared to their predecessors? These are the kind of things that matter in addition to sales themselves, because they can impact sales of future installments.
Using "true" as a way of quantifying negative effects already reads like an attempt to dismiss that any negative consequences have occurred, and in fact said consequences have begann creaking up. PS5 sales are still lower than PS4's when launch-aligned; maybe not massively so, but they are. And one of the reasons the trend isn't too bad yet, is because Xbox this gen has essentially bled out, so there's been a big influx of Xbox owners shifting to PlayStation (as well as PC).
Also, if you look at a market like Japan, there have absolutely been very noticeable declines, but it's not due to stuff like HZD or GOW going to PC. It's a combination of that, and other things like PlayStation losing most of the exclusives they once had last gen, or timed exclusives in other cases, particularly among 3P titles. That's not something SIE could have necessarily controlled, but their porting strategy this gen has definitely made it easier for 3P to prioritize less exclusives to PS themselves.
If SIE continue as they have so far, or accelerate their multiplat strategy, then yes, PS6 launch period we will see some of the things that have been speculated upon so far (and various examples of parts of which have already began manifesting).
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Would go a step further, and say the people who say exclusives are anti-consumer or bad, either don't know gaming history, don't appreciate it, or don't really care about video games.
I wouldn't worry about Nintendo; even in the event they stop making hardware, they'd sooner make an app exclusively for their own games to be available through, than put their games on other companies' storefronts. And they'd probably lock that in with subscription models of some type, plus required online connections (all-time for GAAS, periodic for non-GAAS).
Millions of Xbox users this gen didn't get the memo.
It's almost like different games have different budgets and different sales targets.
Also, Astro Bot's certainly sold closer to 3 or 3.5 million by this point. The 2 million was prior to the TGA GOTY stuff, unless you think the game's sold zero copies in six months.
You can't expect bean counters at SIE to care about things like this.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Only cult with actual exclusives too.
StreetsofBeige
Member
I'm not going to read all the back and forth you did with Yurinka, but for sake of discussion regarding MSX I can only go by my anecdotal example of one - me.
I never heard of MSX until the internet came about and learned about it.
All I can add as some random food for thought was out of all the gaming mags my bros used to buy in the early/mid 80s, which included a ton of console/arcade gaming mags and home computing mags, I dont remember ever seeing one thing written about MSX. It was all arcade/atari/coleco/intellivision. Or the mag was more geared to C64, Apple, Atari 400/800 or whatever home computers were out at the time. Amiga wasnt out yet. This comes from US centric mags, which were sold in Canada. If for whatever reason MSX was covered, it must had been so few and forgettable I dont remember. But I remember all the other platforms covered. Even Vic-20 and Vectrex.
And later in the 80s when I bought my own gaming mags, and my bro still bought computer focused mags, I still dont remember any MSX coverage.
Last edited:
nial
Member
Yes, in terms of market reach, you know where I was going. I do care about Motor Toon Grand Prix, Jumping Flash!, Arc the Lad and PaRappa the Rapper, so please drop that shitty condescending attitude when I have always showed personal interest on the niche, Japanese AA side of SIE's history far more than you.
Jumping Flash! and PaRappa the Rapper both fall in the line of fairly innovative titles that broke out new spaces on gaming, but quickly fade out as soon as they couldn't keep up to their contemporaries at Nintendo and Konami. Arc the Lad was a regional hit (like many games, such as Wipeout) that quickly positioned itself on the Japanese market without much competition, and there's no secret that as soon as 3 dropped in 1999, the series was beginning to lose its steam.
Gran Turismo was the only series that was treated with actual care and willingness to build it by SCE, when even Arc the Lad had to be given to Cattle Call on the PS2 generation when Square ended up buying G-Craft in the previous years, and it's no secret that Twilight of the Spirits and Generation are pretty much despised in Japan.
Please explain to me how this remotely impacted the game's tail in the long run. S2 is an extremely external factor that I don't even know why you'd bring it up, when it's universally agreed to be worse than TLOU2.
Are we also going to ignore how God of War 2018 was contentious itself with segments of the fanbase over being a completely different direction compared to its predecessors? Most of your points so far have revolved around reactions of loud minorities and hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen, while completely dismissing or ignoring any fact that is remotely against whatever you're trying to prove.
That's what being heavily supply-constrained for two years and price increases will do. I knew you were going to bring up Japan (not that I'd call it 'noticeable declines', considering how PS3 and PS4 did over there), but have you even considered the fact that the console launched at ¥49,980 / ¥39,980 in 2020, while it's now sold at ¥79,980 / ¥72,980 in 2025?
We will just see what happens, though I will just say that I haven't seen any of the things speculated in 2019 and 2020 yet.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
What a clown, you have no idea. 8 and 16 bit computers sold more or less this:
- PC-98: around 18M (but had many models until the 2000s) *
- Commodore 64: around 12-17M
- MSX: around 4-9M
- Apple II: around 5M (plus >1M of Apple IIGS)
- Spectrum: around 5M
- Amstrad CPC: around 3M
- Commodore Amiga: around 5M
- Atari ST: around 2M
- FM Towns: around 500K *
- X68000: unknown, pretty likely some hundred thousands *
And no, MSX wasn't made for the Japanese market. It was made for the global market to have a global computer standard like the VHS was for video, and was made by Microsoft (USA) and ASCII (JP). Many companies from all around the world made their own MSX computers and games for it, being Sony just one of them. Many key manufacturers were Japanese and ASCII was the one mainly moving it, so the main manufacturers were Japanese.
The thing is that the computers market was a very fragmented one, with different computars working better in different countries, and being incompatible between them. MSX tried to solve that problem, but wasn't very successful.
The king of the 8 bits in USA and EU was Commodore 64, and in Japan the PC-88 (and later PC-98, which lasted until the 2000s) and maybe later X68000. In the west there was the 16 bits war between Amiga and Atari ST, and Commodore won but later all these microcomputers got replaced by IBM-PC.
The IBM-PC stantard was mostly used for offices (in the early 80s they did cost around $1500 and were worse to play than most of these other home computers) and started to become popular to play at home aprox. in the late 80s/early 90s as they became cheaper and more powerful. By aprox. the mid 90s or so it already dominated the computers market.
I didn't say that Sony MSX games weren't released in Japan. I said many of them, not all. Back then there were developers making MSX games in America, Europe or Asia, and generally most of them weren't sell worldwide, many of them were limited to the region where they were made.
As an example, some Japanese made games (by Sony or any other publisher) never left Japan while other ones were published in many countries by them or by other publishers who wanted to localize and distribute them elsewhere.
Same happened in many other regions. As an example, here we had Sony España (Sony Spain), who published MSX games, educative software or productivity apps (stock manager, spreadsheets, videoclub manager etc) in Spain. Many of them were developed by local dev teams, were only sold in Spain, had texts only in Spanish or in some cases a few nearby countries, in many cases localized by somebody because most of them were in Spanish.
Sony España or other publishers also imported to Spain and localized some foreign games and apps, often originally made by other publishers & devs. Same happened in many other publishers in many other countries. Back then there wasn't a global market as we have today.
Same happened with the Japanese branch of Sony: they published local games there, some of which never left Japan, imported and localized to Japanese some other ones etc.
In MSX Sony wasn't only making MSX games, they were also making MSX computers, or MSX accesories including innovative gamepads like wireless one. Sony was with MSX since 1983 until I think it was 1988 with Family Boxing:
Months later in 1989 Sony founded the American publisher CSG Imagesoft Inc, later renamed to Sony Imagesoft, who published in the west games for NES, Master System, Game Boy, Game Gear, Super Nintendo, Mega Drive, Mega CD, MS DOS, Windows or Macintosh. As an example, one of these games was developed by Game Freak and had music from Akira Yamaoka.
Meanwhile in Japan in late 80s/early 90s they also published games for platforms like Windows, Mac, Super Famicom, Sega CD, PC-Engine, etc. under the publishing labels Epic (A.K.A. "Epic/Sony Record - A Division of CBS/Sony Group") or Sony Music Entertainment Japan publishing labels. This later label did continue working until the PS2 days separated from SCE (similar to what happens today with Aniplex).
Relates to see that Sony has always been publishing games for computers and non-Sony consoles since the 80s until today. And since they didn't get doomed for doing so before, they won't get doomed now for making a late port for Xbox.
Sony wants to grow their gaming business worldwide in every possible way.
In countries where they already are big (like west and Japan), but specially where they have more room to grow: top countries (like China or Korea) or the fastest growing countries or regions (India, MENA) where Sony/PS has a small market share.
Same goes with platforms: they want to continue growing PS but its growth and the home console market is limited. Specially considering PC is a much bigger market, and mobile even more.
Back in the early 80s, in the MSX days, publishers mostly only shipped to their country or some other nearby ones not to protect any country, but instead because of logistics, back then the world wasn't as globalized as today: distant shipments were more relatively way more expensive than are today, there was more paperwork, there was the language barrier (English wasn't as common worldwide as today), they didn't have internet, and even phone calls to other countries were very expensive. And distribution and sales were way more complex: the market wasn't dominated by a few huge retailer/store franchises, but instead games were sold mostly in small local stores that weren't part of any global franshise.
In most of the world there wasn't even big malls, ore there were just a few and there weren't videogame specific stores: you bought games instead mostly in small local stores that also sold tvs, radios or washing machines, or in small local stores where they sold computers, or small local videoclubs, or in toy stores. So publishers and distributors had to go city by city selling individually to small family businesses separatedly.
Nowadays with global digital stores is way easier, both the ones of the gaming platforms or retail ones like Amazon. And there are huge retailers with huge presence in many countries, or at least having many stores in the same country, simplifying the process a lot.
Companies make nowadays global releases because they are companies and are not stupid: they try to make as much money as possible by selling as much as possible and now they can afford global releases, which obviously provides way more money than being limited to one or a few countries, or to want to block on purpose top selling markets or regions.
Regarding regional efforts in specific new regions where they want to grow, they already are doing them: one part is starting to work in the platforms that are more popular there (mobile and PC), plus also partner with local devs (MiHoyo, Game Science, Shift Up, Netease...) or local platform holders (like Tencent) and make initiatives like China/India/MENA Hero Project.
Nah, this is just a nonsensical madeup theory out of your ass. Psygnosis continued publishing games during many years in non-PlayStation consoles and computers after their full acquisition by Sony because Sony wanted to do so, to make more money.
In the same way that Sony wanted Bungie to continue releasing their stuff multiplatform, to make more money not being limited to their own platform. In this case, because one of the reasons they acquired Bungie was because Sony wanted to be more multiplatform and expand beyond their PS consoles.
Games back in the 90s were made in a some months or barely above a year, it's nonsensical to think they had a pre-acquisition contract to release Rollcage 2 for Windows (I still own that copy today btw) more than 7 years before its release (Sony acquired Psygnosis in 1993 and this release was in 2000). Specially when back then they selfpublished their games and there was no Steam or anything to sign: they manufactured their games and sold them.
And well, Psygnosis wasn't a huge publisher like let's say Activision Blizzard King today at all. They had their niche of fans specially in the Amiga, but weren't top sellers. After acquired, a few years later their output decreased because they kept shifting to focus in their internal development part than in publishing externally developed games, also because as always the next generation required more budget/time/devs for the games, and was a particularly difficult generation transition because of the jump from 2D to 3D, a jump many devs weren't able to make and because of that many people left the industry. And well, obviously now being part of Sony they prioritized their own platform, PlayStation.
I'm not justifying anything, I'm just describing the truth: Sony kept releasing games in non-PS platforms via Psygnosis up to 7 years after having fully acquired it.
In the same way they were also doing at the same time with several other subsidiaries like the ones I mentioned in these posts and keep doing it today with Bungie, Aniplex, Lasengle, PS Studios and so on.
And no, if Sony keeps updating Fate/Grand Order 10 years after release on mobile, or released this year a Japanese focused game as Switch console exclusive game with Aniplex, or will release on Xbox Marathon or Helldivers 2 isn't because any pre-existing contract,: Sony does so because they think it's good for their business and want to make more money. Nobody is forcing them, they see their numbers and to what they think it's the best option for their business.
They haven't been compromised and nobody at Sony ever said consoles are coming to an end, and even less SIE or PlayStation.
SIE & PlayStation are posting their best numbers ever and are growing in all areas. And they have been working to grow beyond that both with PlayStation and beyond it.
I won't move any goalpost.
I think that as part of to continue expanding their gaming business and PlayStation, they'll eventually release their PC PSN store and at some point will end releasing their SP games too day one on PC, using their own PC store/launcher as an extention of PlayStation, to play you your PlayStation games in your laptop or PC handheld (not only the Sony one) if you want to do so. And to make more appealing for PC players to buy a PS5 after having build a PSN library if there's crossbuy between that store and its console version.
I think they'll do it after seeing that releasing GaaS day one everywhere day one doesn't negatively affect their console business, and that same goes with releasing the SP games around a year or less later. I think they may keep timed exclusivity for PC in non-PSN PC stores.
I think that PC PSN store could release at the same time than their portable (which I think will be a PC handheld using that PC PSN store) and PS6.
I posted it partly to correct you and show a few sources, since you had no idea you were talking about or were simply lying.
Obviously has to do with SIE/PlayStation, it's a game publisher owned by Sony that publishes in different platforms including PlayStation.
Both cases are Sony publishing games outside PlayStation, something they always have been doing since the early 80s. It didn't doom any of the other PS consoles, so won't doom this or the next one.
And yes, was needed to highlight that this dooming and drama is nonsensical, specially because doomers like you had no idea about Sony's gaming history.
The point was to talk about this announcement explaining that isn't something new, showing the tons of similar previous cases where Sony published games outside their consoles.
If you get butthurted by related factual data like their related history, metrics of graphs because don't match your doom and gloom anti-Sony narrative and fantasies it's your fault, not mine.
sainraja
Member
It's short-sighted maybe (thinking they are not competing)…they are still competing. It is just not the way they use to compete. I think Sony is making a smart decision by putting HD2 on as many platforms as possible and if they can put it on Switch 2, they should. It's a live service game.
Fess
Member
Yeah same here, in Sweden. I think I first learned about MSX when reading on the internet about Metal Gear, sometime after playing Metal Gear Solid on PS1.
This thread suddenly became a time machine. When googling on MSX I now see that my first computer apparently was a sort of starting point for MSX. Spectravideo SVI-328.
First game played:
Armoured Assault
But Sweden was extremely Commodore focused back then. Spectravideo, and MSX and MSX2, disappeared almost before anyone knew they existed. C64 was where you wanted to be if you were a computer gamer in the early 80s. I think it was more popular than even NES, I certainly knew more people gaming on C64. Later when Amiga 500 arrived there were Atari ST as well, and Amstrad, not nearly as big but still had a spot on the market. MSX must've gone poof long ago by then.
No idea what this has to do with Helldivers 2 on Xbox…
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Exactly, and I bet you most people in Western countries at that time hadn't heard of MSX either, because the computer line was specifically designed to address problems with IBM-compatible PCs & DOS in the Japanese market. Those issues were why companies like NEC made such headway in Japan, so companies like ASCII and Microsoft developed a standard to help Japanese computers have a high level of device & software compatibility.
I'm sure the most hardcore of computer diehards in America, Europe etc. knew of the MSX's existence, but the actual sales of the systems out in those regions were extremely niche. And that's fine, because the MSX wasn't really developed with non-Japanese markets in mind.
Eh "far more" is probably a stretch but at least you do care about that side of their output. And I do respect that, because a lot of other people simply don't care at all.
Well, define "quickly". I'm sure Sony weren't necessarily expecting things like Parappa to be evergreen properties like Mario, and claiming Parappa became irrelevant because of Konami series like DDR or Beatmania is an unfair comparison. There are different types of rhythm games; Nana-on-sha maybe just wanted to keep their series character-driven and more story-centric, to compliment the visual style they had developed early on. That doesn't mean the character-driven approach suddenly became outdated when styles like DDR got popular; the two styles can coexist.
Also worth considering, the rate game genres and the industry as a whole were advancing during the '90s was unprecedented, so even if a franchise started falling off by a latter installment, that doesn't invalidate the performance of the earlier installments. Which with Arc the Lad, that clearly was the case with 1 & 2. Otherwise it's like saying Tomb Raider was irrelevant because the IP lost a lot of steam by the 4th installment, when saying such kind of invalidates the impact the first two installments clearly had for the market & the platform.
Well if the metric of IP that mattered (in the sense of sales for the market) is based on whether that IP persisted onto the PS2, again I think that's a bad argument and not a good way of judging an IP's worth. Sony IP that were on PS1, that didn't make the jump to PS2, weren't necessarily "failed" IP or IP that brought little to the market. And trying to judge their worth by measuring their sales or impact relative to other IP, kind of strips away understanding the specific niche & role the IP may have been intended to serve in the first place.
It's also worth stating that sometimes market tastes just change. 2D beat 'em ups had some amazing entries on 16-bit consoles, but the jump to 3D left many behind. Streets of Rage is an excellent example of that (not Sony, yes, but just to illustrate a point). A lot of the Sony IP from PS1 that didn't move on to PS2, either simply served their purpose on the PS1 and weren't "needed" anymore, or the creative teams wanted to move onto new projects, or 3P franchises stepped in to fulfill a similar role anyway. And yes, in some cases it was also because IP (Jet Moto, for example) just declined heavily in quality, but well that's something more about 989 Studios itself and is a whole topic onto itself.
It's actually easy to understand why S2 could negatively impact sales for TLOU2 going forward; S1 was very well-received by 'normies' and casuals who generally don't even play games, but likely went and picked up a copy of TLOU1 due to liking the show at the time. A lot of those same types will likely not do the same for Part 2 after having gone through Season 2 of the show.
I also think the recent decision by Neil Druckmann and Hailey Gross to depart the show altogether (or in any major capacity beyond maybe consultation) will potentially hurt Season 3 of the show. That depends on how much they've already provided for Craig Mazin to work with, because he's shown he doesn't get the source material, when left to his own devices. So the problems with Season 2 could be exacerbated with Season 3 (in terms of characterization and writing, and certain creative choices), which in turn could lead to lower interest still by 'normies' and casuals to buy the games.
GOW 2018 did cause some contention, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But it'd seem Ragnarok caused even more, both among fans of the "traditional" Jaffe-style games, but also among some who in fact loved GOW 2018. And there were some creative choices we can all agree were too obtrusive, like the constant "hints" for puzzles that basically told you the solutions more often than not.
None of the contention was with a majority in either game's case; I never said that and never insinuated it either. But it was there.
I have considered that, yes. But the price going up isn't the only issue, because software B2P sales in Japan were rather weak even when the system was at a normal price. The software situation has been long-term an issue there, and sure the first year or two would be due to the install base still building up. But it's persisted long afterwards.
What were the things you saw speculated in 2019/2020? Because I'm sure there were some wild takes, but I'll give some things I've seen in support for the PC strategy others have said over the years, and how those talking points haven't materialized:
-IDEA: PC ports won't disrupt the studios
-TRUTH: Studios like Naughty Dog already had to set aside time & manpower to retool their engine & pipelines for hosting PC development
-IDEA: GAAS won't come at the expense of single-player
-TRUTH: Studios like Bend & Bluepoint were sidelined this gen due to GAAS that go cancelled
-IDEA: SIE won't put any non-GAAS on PC Day 1
-TRUTH: LEGO Horizon was Day 1 on Steam AND Switch
-IDEA: PC ports will help fund more single-player games for console
-TRUTH: SIE is only putting out one tentpole single-player AAA a year (if that); most of the profits from PC ports has either been pocketed or used to fund more ports & GAAS
-IDEA: SIE will never focus on MAU
-TRUTH: SIE literally announced a shift in focus to MAU at the recent fiscal call
Last edited:
Simple question for those who say this all makes perfect business sense and always part of the plan since it is a gaas and needs the extra users:
Why launch the game on xbox now and not on day 1 alongside ps5 and pc? Why does releasing helldivers for xbox now suddenly "make sense", but apparently didn't make any sense on february 8 2024?
Why launch the game on xbox now and not on day 1 alongside ps5 and pc? Why does releasing helldivers for xbox now suddenly "make sense", but apparently didn't make any sense on february 8 2024?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They should be judged only by the amount of paragraphs their supports are willing to write on online forums.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll