Support NeoGAF

[DavJay]

It's funny how people complained about paying for Xbox live while being free everywhere else. Now Xbox is the cheaper of the two option for online multiplayers.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Not all of us. Just PlayStation/Xbox players.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

I wasn't aware subs stopped you doing that, but ok.

Why waste the money? I don't need to be supplemented.

 

[THE DUCK]

Whose value is subjective to begin with and makes the sub value destructive to the ecosystem.

You talk as if Xbox first party is must play after must play.

For new console buyers PS+ Extra is a bargain too if we want to box the argument.

Add to that the fact that people on PlayStation buy a lot of games, which is not what's happening on Xbox. MS has made it so that GP is the focal point of the console and now they are married to it.

True that value is subject to the buyers preferences, but even if you love every sony game, the odds are you already own every good game or can buy them cheap.

Conversely I do have to recognize the lineup on xbox has been less than stellar in some periods, but this should improve. They have also made an effort for some 3rd party titles day and date.

As to games not selling on xbox, not so sure the attach rate per console is far lower, I'd have to see actual numbers.

 

[THE DUCK]

I am counting PS+ subs as PS+ subs, because they are game subscriptions. This month Gold gets merged in GP, won't exist anymore as a separate game sub.

And no, nothing leads to think GP is over 30M. They got stuck at 25M for a while before they stopped to report the amount of game subs. Which was some time before they started to remove $1 deals and announce price increases.

And yes, MS is doing worse: if it isn't enough to see around twice the game subs in the PS+ side, you can look at the revenue both MS and Sony make from game subs: it's way higher in the case of Sony. Sony started with game subs way before than MS and always had better numbers.

Sony not only sells more consoles and more first party games than Microsoft: they also sell more game subs.

They aren't really full on game subscriptions, gold and regular ps plus don't qualify. A tiny selection of games each month does not make. The fact is, in terms of full on game subs, gamepass has a lot more subs.

Even if you insist on adding both ps plus and gold to the pile, the numbers are similar as total revenue. Which is impressive considering ms has less than half the hardware units to sell to. The numbers I'm seeing online us 4 billion for ms per year, and similar for Sony. (Just under a billion per quarter) Your previous statement appears to be incorrect.

 

[yurinka]

They aren't really full on game subscriptions, gold and regular ps plus don't qualify. A tiny selection of games each month does not make. The fact is, in terms of full on game subs, gamepass has a lot more subs.

By definition game subscriptions are subscriptions that give you games, so Gold and Essential qualify. That's a fact.

GP doesn't have more more subs, PS+ around has twice as much as GP, that's another fact.

Even if you insist on adding both ps plus and gold to the pile, the numbers are similar as total revenue. Which is impressive considering ms has less than half the hardware units to sell to. The numbers I'm seeing online us 4 billion for ms per year, and similar for Sony. (Just under a billion per quarter) Your previous statement appears to be incorrect.

SIE's Network Services make that around just under a billion per quarter you mention. As of now that's basically the revenue of PS+ plus.

Microsoft can't make this money with half the subs at all. Even more considering a lot of them people with free trials, $1 trials etc. You may have seen some "Xbox content and services revenue" number somewhere, but that number also includes the game sales and DLCs sold for Xbox, isn't only their services.

"Xbox content and services revenue" is somewhat equivalent instead to the addition of Sony's G&NS "Digital Software and Add-on Content" and G&NS "Network Services" revenues combined (around $3.32B last quarter, $13.5B last fiscal year). We have to consider that in Sony's case this is only for PS software, they also have a separate group for PS hardware and another grou for "other" (which includes PS accesories or PC revenue).

 

[ArtHands]

Not all of us. Just PlayStation/Xbox players.

i am just glad after so many years online is still free on PC.

 

[sainraja]

Its my issue with this as well, show me why I should be paying more for an already weak service

So far it just feels greedy

I don't see how it is "that" weak, though, if subscribing to access a bunch of games is what you are interested in, you are getting that. Day one first-party games is where it seems to be lacking; while getting them day one as a guarantee is nice and all, that does not guarantee the quality and frequency of those games, as we've seen with Game Pass so far. MS is definitely trying to change that [frequency], given their acquisitions, but the quality of said games is still going to be an open question.

Raising prices for something without adding value is always going to be looked down upon, so Sony definitely needs to think of ways to make their service "attractive" but I don't think it is necessarily weaker simply for not promising day one first-party games, etc.