All I know is that for a while Netflix was the only game in town.
And now it's not. People used to argue that any other streaming service would never be popular in comparison. But we now have multiple competitors. They may not be at the same level as Netflix, but they are still thriving with users. Their big issue is mostly one of content cost. But for Sony, content cost is already accounted for to support their consoles. This is just free money. I don't think Steam's moat is particularly robust. They don't have their own content, so rely almost entirely on other studios to supply them. Sony can leverage their position and relationships to build their own storefront, and as new generations enter PC gaming, will have plenty of options. Clicking a button to buy games is not a big deal. The Epic comparison isn't valid at all. Like Steam, Epic doesn't really make content either.
I just think Sony have to be very delicate and careful in how much they focus on multiplatform expansion to areas like PC without cannibalizing their own console before a natural decline in that market takes place. Which hasn't happened yet, and won't happen for at least another decade. Plus, there are other ways Sony can improve profit margins in the console space such as culling excess in budget bloat, or maybe even not necessarily trying to chase high-end graphics to ridiculous levels (besides outside of things like RT GI and such, gaming hardware is more than enough in areas like polygon generation, raster performance etc.). Also making more AA games, cutting out games that result in genre/demo redundancies, implementing AI into areas of game development to lower costs, etc.
Yes Sony have their 1P content, but them pushing a PC storefront that has no way to monetize itself outside of direct B2P purchases and add-on content (or paid subscriptions, which might end up lower in cost than console versions because of no online requirement), could result in situations where they are effectively losing a lot more in revenue per user that options for the storefront to get their games (with their own storefront I'd assume 1P games would all be Day 1 on there) vs. buying the console. Add to that, the fact Sony would have to be a lot more competitive on pricing deals and such to effectively compete with Steam, GOG, EGS etc. in the PC space, for their own storefront that has an initially lower install base than any of them, risking drawing over too many high-valued customers from console to choose the storefront and negatively affecting Sony's gaming revenue and profits in doing so.
There are very fundamental things that they'd have to address first before even considering their own PC storefront seriously and, again, I feel there's no reason to considering the console is going well. Are people suggesting this because they think Day 1 PC for all 1P titles is inevitable? Because I don't think that's happening whatsoever. Sony's PC strategy will focus on mainly GaaS titles, most of them going over and most being Day 1 on both platforms. The non-GaaS stuff...at least for new AAA titles, will still have noticeable gaps. IMHO the gaps should be more like 4-6 years between them at earliest, and any port with enhancements providing those enhancements for free or a small fee to PS console owners, plus a new equivalent 1P AAA non-GaaS exclusive only for console within 1-2 years of the port.
I think that strikes the perfect balance of instilling FOMO, maximizing the B2P sales pipeline on console, maximizing the subscription pipeline on console (where maybe the game goes into the service intermittently on/off after being out for 3 years), ensuring optimal polish for the initial release, ensuring optimal polish for the eventual port, giving enough time for maybe some DLC/expansion content to go with the PC/mobile port, giving 1P studios enough to to get enough work done on new 1P AAA & AA exclusively for the console, and creating that "virtuous cycle" where ultimately the console is always the priority through action (not just words).
I don't think it's a matter of whether their console business is health - it is - but if the console industry is growing enough to achieve their goals. I'd say it's not. It's pacing similar to the PS4. For Sony, tapping into PC would basically be all growth. And it seems like the console piece of the pie is stagnating while PC is growing over time, made worse by Xbox moving to day and date. I believe that's where most of their audience now resides.
Honestly I don't think the bolded is true. For example let's look at Helldivers 2: how many of those Steam sales are from PS5 owners who just optioned to get the Steam version because of better performance, potential mod support, and no fee to pay for online? That percentage of sales wouldn't be actual growth, then, but a lateral transfer at best. I'd argue a major reason the console market isn't seeing huge growth, is because maybe the platform holders aren't doing enough to make their products more competitive with other gaming device ecosystems like PC and mobile.
With the way Xbox's sales have been collapsing, arguably many of its would-be customers or even current customers who are dissatisfied should be buying PlayStations, but if they aren't, that's more an issue with a limitation in appeal on Sony's part that they need to address, not that the console market itself is "stagnate". But I guess expecting companies to take accountability for their own potential missteps, no matter how big or small, is always harder than laying the blame at forces well beyond the company's own control, like "the market", as if it's its own thing and that platform holder's actions have no bearing on it otherwise.
I can tell you exactly why PC is growing: platforms like Steam are doing a great job at attracting many once-console exclusive franchises, IP, and 3P devs/pubs to prioritize the platform. A 3P may sell, say, 2 million copies of a game at launch on console and 1 million on Steam, but if of those 2 million console copies 70% were physical, then the 3P is getting less a cut of each copy than the digital ones. OTOH, Steam is all digital, so after Valve gets their 30% (and IIRC, they lower this down to 20% after a certain threshold in sales?) cut, the 3P gets the rest. Assuming the price for the game is the same or not that much lower than the typical going price, even accounting for potential piracy, the 3P gets more per copy from Steam than they do the consoles. Additionally, 3P don't have to do much advertising for their games on PC; in fact I suspect many just use their marketing deals and such with console platforms to cover any marketing costs they'd have for PC. But that can work to the detriment of consoles because they are probably still advertising the Steam version somewhere, plus on Steam WOM is a very community-driven thing in the platform itself, which acts as its own form of advertising.
I'd also say that not needing to "buy a box" for Steam specifically also works to its favor to some degree, so the access point is lower for it versus buying a console. Those are just some of the main reasons I can think of why PC gaming has been growing (also going beyond Steam, there are various 3P with their own launchers like Riot, EA etc. which I'm sure also count towards its growth, and competing storefronts that might have some redundancies/duplicate of factors vs. Steam doing the same, like EGS). But it's also worth considering, in the current console market, if the total install base is staying relatively "flat", then we know some portion of Xbox users are going to Sony & Nintendo, because Xbox is the platform suffering the biggest declines and not pulling its own weight. I don't get why analysts never state the obvious in that context.
Certainly. I believe Sony, in attempting to establish their launcher, would prioritize quality over a barebones approach. They might adopt a cautious strategy, initially releasing games exclusively on Steam and making a significant push when their launcher is fully developed. Given their subscription's stagnant growth, having their store allows cross-promotion with the console, potentially boosting sales. While most games could still be on Steam, offering unique perks and exclusive titles like a Bloodborne remake on their platform could entice users.
Essentially, maintaining a favorable balance would involve avoiding simultaneous releases on Steam for major titles. As long as they do timed exclusivity for their single-player games, the specifics of release platforms may not significantly impact the overall strategy.
Well, I don't see where it makes fiscal sense to tie a Bloodborne remake to their own PC launcher, if they are bringing even bigger 1P games to Steam. I "get it" on some level because Souls games are very popular on PC apparently, but if Sony are a company trying to grow their own storefront on the platform, why only make Bloodborne exclusive? Why not all their 1P (that aren't GaaS, I guess)?
Also kinda wonder if Valve would be cool with a publisher using their storefront as a means of gaining relevance and revenue simply to launch a competitor storefront later on. Don't know how Valve handles business with 3P in that sense, but they have removed games from Steam and probably banned developers from putting games up for sale, too. Just something telling me they'd probably circumvent that type of thing from Sony's end.
Plus I actually would compare that to Microsoft right now publishing games on PlayStation and Nintendo. IMO the reason Starfield, Indiana Jones etc. (you know, the big games) aren't confirmed yet is probably because Sony for example, won't let them launch on PlayStation if Microsoft are still essentially competing directly with Xbox Series and Game Pass. They just said all their games will still come to Game Pass (not Core) Day 1; does Sony want the money from those games on their platform to mostly go to Microsoft so they can sustain Game Pass the way it currently is, and potentially use that and the profits gained to make more moves against PlayStation such as gaming M&As?
No I don't think Sony would want that, or Nintendo for that matter (if the rumors of an Xbox handheld, as in a
console handheld and not a
PC handheld. Need to stress the distinction here). So if Microsoft are still going to compete directly with them this gen and even next gen, Sony & Nintendo aren't entertaining releases like a Starfield, Indiana Jones, etc. until well after they've already been out on Xbox and Game Pass. Even then, they know those ports won't sell to as high an amount or as many copies as they would've if they came Day 1, which means less money for Microsoft overall off of PlayStation and Nintendo customers. That's something very important for Sony & Nintendo to keep in play if MS are going for a half-in/half-out multiplatform strategy where they're still going to be competing with Xbox consoles and console handheld devices (and that traditional console business model) for this gen and next-gen.
So in the PC space, Steam would be where Sony & Nintendo are in the console area with the Microsoft example. Although it's a bit different for Valve; they don't mind Day 1 ports of Sony 1P games I'd reckon, but that might also be in big part because currently Sony have no direct competitor in a PC gaming storefront. Not just in terms of one that exists, but exists and has significant market share vs. Steam. Valve haven't been put in that situation yet, but they could sweat if Sony wanted to try doing so, because they already see the success Sony has had in the console market.
I don't know if Valve would want to empower Sony in that way, just like how Sony don't want to empower Microsoft with this expanded multi-console strategy if MS still aim to compete directly with PlayStation for the foreseeable future.
.
