Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

Thats good, if only everybody was like this. Unfortunately thats not the case, ive seen people disliking sony expanding.

And it makes zero sense, unless that hardcore ecosystem warrior theory is true..... if Sony releases first party games on PC, the PS gamer user base will all dump their consoles and play on PC rigs with RTX 2000 and 3000 cards. So their entire revenue model of mtx and digital cuts shrivels up to the size of a raisin.

If that insane theory isn't true (which doesnt seem so since Sony is happy porting), then Sony fans should love the porting strategy by default since it means more sales. That gives them more ammo for sales and profit list wars.

But due to which warrior attitude they have, there's conflicting aspirations. They wants walled gardens, but also more sales list war reports. So depending on the gamer, you got one type who wants exclusives at the expense of lower sales and protecting against the theory of plummeting sales due to PC transitioners, but also the opposite type who doesn't care about PC ports, but chooses sales wars as key. So more PC porting the better.

And then you got that other theory. PC porting is being done with by all these new studios to tease PC gamers. If they get a taste of 4 year old ports, they’ll dump their PC and get a PS5 to play the sequel. Lol

 

[yazenov]

kids, this is why Sony wants you to buy their console more than they want day one sales from PC gamers. And this is why they port their games years later to PC so as to not affect their hardware sales in any way possible, unlike Microsoft. Releasing their games on PC day one devalues their own platform.

Court Documents Reveal Almost 50% of Fortnite's Revenue Is on PlayStation

That's a lot of V-Bucks

www.pushsquare.com

court documents reveal that 46.8 per cent of Fortnite’s total revenues between March 2018 and July 2020 were driven by PlayStation 4. That’s significantly more than the 27.5 per cent contributed by Xbox One and 7 per cent spent through iOS. The remaining 18 per cent are split between PC, Android, and Nintendo Switch.

None of this will come as a surprise to those following Sony’s financials, of course. Microtransactions purchased through the PS Store are comfortably the organisation’s biggest revenue driver, exceeding both hardware and software sales. With PS4 having the largest global install base of all the major consoles, it’s only natural that its ecosystem is generating significant sums of money for third-parties

For the slow folks out there, Coz they get free money on every purchase through their platform.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Like I said, the market is changing.

Changing how? Shifting to game subscriptions? We have data showing that subscriptions in total account for just 4% of all console gaming revenue. Services like GamePass account for a smaller slice of that, and GamePass itself accounts for 60% of whatever that slice is...if we're going off publicly available data to the best of our knowledge, anyway.

The fact we never get GamePass revenue or profit figures from Microsoft is very telling IMO, considering companies like Sony had no issue giving revenue for the "failure" that was PS Now, and even Nintendo provide their services revenue on its own. Microsoft is the only one who bundles in all of their gaming segments into a total Xbox division revenue and nothing else. Companies that do this tend to do so for the benefit of obfuscation.

Sony can have their cake and eat it too. They don't need their software to sell hardware units and honestly never really did. I'm not saying they give up PlayStation hardware the royalties that come with it, but their ability to sell software across the board has serious implications for them down the line.

The reason why putting 1P AAA releases Day 1 on PC will cause severe problems for Sony (IMO) are as follow:

-Business: At least some portion of the audience who buy Sony's 1P games Day 1 on PlayStation consoles, also do the vast bulk of their 3P software purchases on PlayStation, likely pay for some tier of PS+ as well. If that audience size is significant, and these same 1P games come Day 1 on PC, those players will have multiple incentives to simply not buy a PlayStation and to buy the games on PC (via Steam) instead, causing the following:

-Less money for Sony (30% revenue cut goes to Valve, software price also lower on Steam, more 3P reseller options for cheap codes on Day 1 meaning even less revenue, piracy etc.)​

-Less revenue from PS+ for Sony (online on PC is free, why pay for it on PS+?)​

-Less 3P sales for Sony (most 3P PS games also release on PC Day 1, are often cheaper on PC vs. console, any online MP is free on PC, etc.)​

That doesn't even bring in the other benefits of PC over PlayStation for such users, such as better resolution & framerates, more display option support, mod support, more controller and input I/O support. And contrary to popular belief, getting a game to run on PC isn't that much more difficult than playing it on console. It's not 1992 anymore.

-Software: More platforms that need Day 1 optimizations means less resources for focused optimizations to go around, as it's now split among more platforms and SKUs simultaneously.

Spacing out ports by a few years not only allows for exhaustion of the sales model on one platform (instead of sales on that platform being cannibalized by simultaneous sales on another platform) before adding additional platforms for extended lifetime sales, but also allows more resources to be focused on a smaller range of hardware specs at any one time, providing a superior experience for each platform once the game is made available for it.

The platforms are becoming more and more ubiquitous. What they're selling now is the PlayStation brand and as long as gamers can get games on it, they'll be happy. They don't have to be exclusive. Most people aren't going to buy a gaming PC rig just because Sony Interactive games are on PC.

No, most won't. But if enough of the hardcore/core gamers do (especially those who also buy Sony 1P games in high frequency) do, that will have negative effects on total PlayStation revenue because now you're talking about a lot of "whales" moving almost all of their business to a different platform (PC).

Xbox Series X/S might be the best-selling Xbox console when all is said and done and that will be because of the strength of brand rather than any exclusives.

I don't see that happening considering they aren't tracking that far ahead of 360 and even the XBO was tracking ahead of 360 for a period of time before "stuff" happened. Also IMO, the Xbox Series are still missing several key big things the 360 had in its favor early on.

But if MS does release a streaming-only Xbox Series device as rumored, and adds that in to total Series hardware, then it's possible they'll see their highest total of system sales ever. Just don't expect Series X to account for any more than 20% of total Series sales, though.

I didn't say anything about game pass. Sony's model is already more profitable because they have as high if not higher a sub base and they keep their first party sales on PS and PC.

Well we've known for a while PS+ brings in much more money than GamePass because Sony have actually published its revenue figures multiple times, they've now added additional tiers at higher prices, and most likely have a higher ARPU than GamePass since avenues to get PS+ for super cheap or free like GamePass are not as plentiful, by design.

 

[SSfox]

Well guess i'm not buying the game day one full price then, well Jimbo and Hermen.

 

[JimRyanGOAT]

Playstation swimming in Money

 

[playsaves3]

Of course this is gonna happen, and I'm gonna enjoy the PS fanboys crying about it.

Besides that, the ports mostly were flawless. Horizon was kinda shitty on release but patched pretty quickly and I was able to finish it without any issues.

This would only be bad if the ps version ends up unoptimized without vrr support otherwise it’s actually a good thing besides more players we can see benchmarks between console and pc

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Changing how? Shifting to game subscriptions? We have data showing that subscriptions in total account for just 4% of all console gaming revenue. Services like GamePass account for a smaller slice of that, and GamePass itself accounts for 60% of whatever that slice is...if we're going off publicly available data to the best of our knowledge, anyway.

The fact we never get GamePass revenue or profit figures from Microsoft is very telling IMO, considering companies like Sony had no issue giving revenue for the "failure" that was PS Now, and even Nintendo provide their services revenue on its own. Microsoft is the only one who bundles in all of their gaming segments into a total Xbox division revenue and nothing else. Companies that do this tend to do so for the benefit of obfuscation.



The reason why putting 1P AAA releases Day 1 on PC will cause severe problems for Sony (IMO) are as follow:

-Business: At least some portion of the audience who buy Sony's 1P games Day 1 on PlayStation consoles, also do the vast bulk of their 3P software purchases on PlayStation, likely pay for some tier of PS+ as well. If that audience size is significant, and these same 1P games come Day 1 on PC, those players will have multiple incentives to simply not buy a PlayStation and to buy the games on PC (via Steam) instead, causing the following:

-Less money for Sony (30% revenue cut goes to Valve, software price also lower on Steam, more 3P reseller options for cheap codes on Day 1 meaning even less revenue, piracy etc.)​

-Less revenue from PS+ for Sony (online on PC is free, why pay for it on PS+?)​

-Less 3P sales for Sony (most 3P PS games also release on PC Day 1, are often cheaper on PC vs. console, any online MP is free on PC, etc.)​

That doesn't even bring in the other benefits of PC over PlayStation for such users, such as better resolution & framerates, more display option support, mod support, more controller and input I/O support. And contrary to popular belief, getting a game to run on PC isn't that much more difficult than playing it on console. It's not 1992 anymore.

-Software: More platforms that need Day 1 optimizations means less resources for focused optimizations to go around, as it's now split among more platforms and SKUs simultaneously.

Spacing out ports by a few years not only allows for exhaustion of the sales model on one platform (instead of sales on that platform being cannibalized by simultaneous sales on another platform) before adding additional platforms for extended lifetime sales, but also allows more resources to be focused on a smaller range of hardware specs at any one time, providing a superior experience for each platform once the game is made available for it.



No, most won't. But if enough of the hardcore/core gamers do (especially those who also buy Sony 1P games in high frequency) do, that will have negative effects on total PlayStation revenue because now you're talking about a lot of "whales" moving almost all of their business to a different platform (PC).



I don't see that happening considering they aren't tracking that far ahead of 360 and even the XBO was tracking ahead of 360 for a period of time before "stuff" happened. Also IMO, the Xbox Series are still missing several key big things the 360 had in its favor early on.

But if MS does release a streaming-only Xbox Series device as rumored, and adds that in to total Series hardware, then it's possible they'll see their highest total of system sales ever. Just don't expect Series X to account for any more than 20% of total Series sales, though.



Well we've known for a while PS+ brings in much more money than GamePass because Sony have actually published its revenue figures multiple times, they've now added additional tiers at higher prices, and most likely have a higher ARPU than GamePass since avenues to get PS+ for super cheap or free like GamePass are not as plentiful, by design.

Changing how? Games are getting extremely expensive to develop and they're getting extremely long to develop with most AAA games taking a minimum of 4-5 years.

These are high risk high profile games and having them exclusive on one system increases the risk profile of the game and for the studio who develops it. Making games multiplatform is also the easiest it has ever been and the cheapest.

The PC market and Mobile Market are larger now than they have ever been as well. So the ability to obtain significant money from other markets by leveraging existing IP is greater than it has ever been before. So while Sony has historically made by far their most money off of royalties, that ratio is drastically going to shift with new markets available to them.

Nowhere did I mention anything about it shifting towards subscriptions... Seems like you're having an argument with yourself here.

 

[Self_Destructive]

Day 1 games are coming.

 

[Andodalf]

It’s probably best practice to do it while the game is still in development. They probably have PC versions of all there games ready to go for whenever they decide to sell them

 

[ArtHands]

It is a fact that big American retailers don't put AO games on their shelves.

It is fact that is mandatory to get proper ESRB rating for retail games, which is separated, way more expensive and more strict than the ESRB rating digital only indie games receive via the international age rating bundle IARC.

It is a fact that Sony doesn't handle the content / age rating of their games, if something they only may guide publishers/devs telling them 'be careful with this, ESRB/PEGI may ask you to raise the rating to certain other one'.

It is a fact that Martha Is Dead was released in retail only on PS, and that in most cases where there is self censorship, the self censorship when applied only to some platforms are the ones for the platform released on retail for USA. Which tradionally are for the best selling platforms, Switch and specially PlayStation. Many publishers don't release their games in retail for Xbox and PC because sales are too low for them to consider it worth it.

There's also country specific censorship in some other games, again not censorship coming from Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony, but due to the age ratings or regulations of these countries.

Games like the Japanese versions of Resident Evil aren't censored in all platforms because Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony tell them to censor the games, they only require devs releasing games for their platforms to follow the rules and age rating of each country regarding game -and particularly physical- releases.

These are all facts.

It is also a fact that the article you posted doesn't say that Sony mandated them to censor the game, the most remotely similar thing they say is "Neil Broadhead, marketing head at Wired Productions, told IGN that these changes were made due to talks with Sony itself: 'The changes in content were made as a result of conversations with PlayStation in the lead up to our launch.'", which matches with my explanation of how age rating and game certification works (I'm a dev btw) and even says "A spokesperson for the [ESRB] board told IGN that it's unusual for companies like PlayStation to take decisions about what's appropriate into their own hands."

Game has the same M rating on other platforms, similar to Playstation's censored version, which is a fact too. By proxy there's no reason to say if they release the uncensored version on Playstation digitally, it wouldn't get the M rating too. You’re sprouting irrelevant facts with conjecture that they are related.

The dev has never said it is related to ESRB.

It is a fact that Sony doesn't handle the content / age rating of their games,

They clarified that "platforms and retailers always have the option to make choices about the content they want to offer their consumers," though "situations like this are uncommon".

They said its possible, just uncommon.
Lets just face it: you're wrong.

 

[Pakoe]

And it makes zero sense, unless that hardcore ecosystem warrior theory is true..... if Sony releases first party games on PC, the PS gamer user base will all dump their consoles and play on PC rigs with RTX 2000 and 3000 cards. So their entire revenue model of mtx and digital cuts shrivels up to the size of a raisin.

If that insane theory isn't true (which doesnt seem so since Sony is happy porting), then Sony fans should love the porting strategy by default since it means more sales. That gives them more ammo for sales and profit list wars.

But due to which warrior attitude they have, there's conflicting aspirations. They wants walled gardens, but also more sales list war reports. So depending on the gamer, you got one type who wants exclusives at the expense of lower sales and protecting against the theory of plummeting sales due to PC transitioners, but also the opposite type who doesn't care about PC ports, but chooses sales wars as key. So more PC porting the better.

And then you got that other theory. PC porting is being done with by all these new studios to tease PC gamers. If they get a taste of 4 year old ports, they’ll dump their PC and get a PS5 to play the sequel. Lol

This would only be bad if the ps version ends up unoptimized without vrr support otherwise it’s actually a good thing besides more players we can see benchmarks between console and pc

Well said and completely agreed.

 

[yurinka]

As a support team they can help in other things other than in porting, so maybe they did help on Ragnarok in non-porting tasks.

Or who knows, maybe Sony assume or plans that somewhere in the future, some years after the original PS only relase, they'll release Ragnarok on PC. And knowing that started to work on the porting on advance before keeping it on the fridge until whenever fits in their strategy in order to don't negatively affect sales of the PS version and console sales.

 

[yurinka]

Changing how? Shifting to game subscriptions? We have data showing that subscriptions in total account for just 4% of all console gaming revenue. Services like GamePass account for a smaller slice of that, and GamePass itself accounts for 60% of whatever that slice is...if we're going off publicly available data to the best of our knowledge, anyway.

The fact we never get GamePass revenue or profit figures from Microsoft is very telling IMO, considering companies like Sony had no issue giving revenue for the "failure" that was PS Now, and even Nintendo provide their services revenue on its own. Microsoft is the only one who bundles in all of their gaming segments into a total Xbox division revenue and nothing else. Companies that do this tend to do so for the benefit of obfuscation.

According to IDG in the previous FY game subs generated $8B and the total console revenue was $64B ($43B if we don't count hardware). Meaning game subs were 12.5% of the console revenue (18.6% if we don't count hardware).

We know PS Plus and Nintendo's game sub are way bigger and generate more money than GP, which means not even inside game subs GP isn't a leader and we know that in consoles they generate less than a third of these $8B (btw we also have to remember there's also EA, Ubi, non-GPU Gold etc).

The reason why putting 1P AAA releases Day 1 on PC will cause severe problems for Sony (IMO) are as follow:

Sony said they won't release PS Studios games day one on PC, and specifically shown that there will be zero PS5+PC releases for the current FY and the one that ends in 2026.

Pretty likely they won't release the PS Studios games day one on PC (other than maybe some day MLB) for the reasons you provided to explain that it's a bad idea for them.

But if MS does release a streaming-only Xbox Series device as rumored, and adds that in to total Series hardware, then it's possible they'll see their highest total of system sales ever. Just don't expect Series X to account for any more than 20% of total Series sales, though.

I think that device would be basically a chromecast, I don't think it would be console shaped.

I think most MS fans -who I think will be the vast majority of GP subs- already have GP and if not they'd use it on a normal Xbox or a PC. And if not, I assume they'll have a smart tv or any device with a web browser / xCloud player. Or well, maybe don't have access to a great -not data capped- internet connection and don't live on countries supported by xCloud or are too far from their servers.

Considering everything, I don't think that in the long term GP will grow a lot, I think it will maybe double the size it has now, and I think that only a small portion of these new users would use that stream only chromecast/console. I think most of them won't need it. So well, I think won't help grow the hardware installbase a lot, I think even combining them with their consoles will continue being pretty far from Nintendo and Sony.

Well we've known for a while PS+ brings in much more money than GamePass because Sony have actually published its revenue figures multiple times, they've now added additional tiers at higher prices, and most likely have a higher ARPU than GamePass since avenues to get PS+ for super cheap or free like GamePass are not as plentiful, by design.

We can know some things even without seeing MS GP related revenue/profit/loses numbers:
-PS+ has less aggresive pricing (free PC months, $1 upgrades etc), so on average users should pay more, so the ARPU must be higher on PS+
-PS+ has around twice subbers than GP, so in addition to having higher ARPU PS+ must be generating way more revenue
-Sony owns all that cloud gaming patents they bought from Gaikai and Online plus the ones filled by themselves, meaning don't have to pay to use them
-The price of putting an old game on a sub is cheaper than putting a game day one on the sub, so in addition to generating way more revenue than GP,PS+ must also be more profitable

 

[GreatnessRD]

You'd be suprised. I saw someone on neogaf crying about the PS5 had no real exclusives now that the games are releasing on PC.

Those people should seek professional help. It's gettin' real crazy in the world, lol.