-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jim Ryan says Sony’s games ‘could suffer’ by adding them to PlayStation Plus on day one (VCG)
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hari Seldon
Member
Day one or day 365, there is no way I am going to buy games like Horizon now that I know that I can easily rent them when I have some time off from work for a fraction of the price of buying them.
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Sony doesn't have MS money, would you rather them not see profits and close the doors?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yet you don't keep that same energy in the other direction.
I generally don't bring up PS Now or PS+ in game pass specific topics in the first place
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Because you're too busy hanging out in Sony threads doing work.I generally don't bring up PS Now or PS+ in game pass specific topics in the first place
My comment was about you going just as hard in the paint for your bros with executive confirmation bias. But ofc, you knew that.
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
I ain’t waiting months or years to play games I want just to save a few bucks. That’s insane.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Because you're too busy hanging out in Sony threads doing work.
A
Aye man it's the hot news of the day, user engagement is guaranteed
remember_spinal
Banned
not hard to understand, its why disney isn’t putting Dr Strange and The Multiverse of Madness on Disney + day 1
NoviDon
Member
This will be a great service to play the games that you weren't interested in enough to pay full price for, and are still on the fence about paying for even during a sale, now you can play them as a big bargain through the subscription service a year or two after release, which is when they would've been played anyways.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Aye man it's the hot news of the day, user engagement is guaranteed
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Men_in_Boxes
Banned
Sony has to treat GamePass as a threat because it is. It's a steamroller that burns money while slowly improving marketshare.
Sonys focus is now games as a service.
ByWatterson
Member
Perhaps?
But that's kinda my issue. The lack of forward-looking risk-taking (the kind of risks that got them in this position! Spending hundreds of millions on prestige titles was a really bold move) makes me think they're acting too cautiously.
I suppose it's never too late to catch up with a proven brand like Playstation, but they just seem complacent to me in this area.
However, their push into service games is aggressive, so maybe I'm overreacting.
Dr Bass
Member
So I have GPU and I think there is almost nothing to play on it. Forza Horizon 5 is probably the best game on the service, but unfortunately it's really not my style. Halo Infinite is an absolute turd of a game IMO, and I am not sure I can bring myself to finish it. The rest is just ... I dunno. Not things that are worth spending my time on, and that's the real key here. How you spend your time. So what are the big games that can compete with what Sony, or even Nintendo does with Mario and Zelda on GP? I know Starfield is coming, but again ... that was already well into development and not started by MS, nor was it "funded" by GP.But not too early to make THESE calls, right ?
Can you name a single game on GPU that is AAA and profitable via GPU? I can't think of a single one. I'm not talking player metrics. I'm talking a game not sold anywhere, only exists on Game Pass and is bringing in cash. The model kind of negates that doesn't it?
I think Sony knows how much they spend on their games and what their projected sales vs. subs would be. As a fan of games, I want these companies products to be very profitable so they have a reason to keep making them. It's an extremely simple concept and relationship of the business with the consumer. That's why I am more than happy to pay for the entertainment I like. This whole "give me everything and I don't want to pay for it" mentality is extremely childish.
Again, what's with the defensiveness over GP? Why can't we just try and discuss what it delivers, and the pros and cons? People react like their mother was insulted. The pros are that it's obviously really cheap and a great deal for gamers. As I've said over and over, I think the cons will be it will train Xbox gamers to not want to buy anymore (look at the comments in the RE Village thread to see my point being proven in real time), which will make it tougher to make big game productions unless MS wants to continue to subsidize them. Which, again, is not a sustainable (there's that word again) model for the rest of the industry. Fine for a behemoth like MS, but not for anyone else. And this is not unique to MS. Apple engages in behavior like this on their side of things in different areas and we've seen this example before, which is exactly why I can see it happening here. Go see how happy devs are with Apple in various areas. There is a reason I say the things I do.
If you want good software, you're going to have to keep paying for it. I don't have any problem with this of course. But plenty of people can think the future of software is to get a lot more of it at a fraction of the cost.
remember_spinal
Banned
The evidence is the CEO of the company (and past CEO) saying exactly that, what more evidence do you need?
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah it depends on your hype level. To me, I have zero FOMO in regards to single player console games. Now if Sony made live service games or online games, then there would be a significant reason to play at launch. But for stuff like Horizon and God of War, I will get the same exact experience a year after launch as someone does at launch. I.e. If Sony provides a cheaper option to play their games, I will use it full stop.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Netflix films vs. Theater bangers.
Not only in special effects department, but editing, scripts, etc..
And this,
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No shit. Right now they 'could suffer'... down the line if or when the industry changes, such would be our consumption habits I'm sure.
Remember, Gen Z ADHD habits will then be adults, adulting. If we're not a fallout wasteland.
Last edited:
remember_spinal
Banned
Could be 2 years from now or 15 years from now, who knows what the market looks like by the time that change happens. It would make no sense fo him to commit to what method one way or the other right now.
As of right now for the type of games sony makes, the gamepass strategy doesn’t work and thats all that matters. Most sony fans will gladly agree to keep paying full price for big budget games rather than have them diminish in anyway for a subscription service
ethomaz
Banned
The own OP is the evidence lol
ethomaz
Banned
Yeap they can change their publishing model... like for example putting less budget to make games.
And that involve change in gamers purchase habits too.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
so basically he’s saying everything he wants to say right now and trying to say gaming won’t go the Netflix route but then completely opens the door to accept that gaming goes the Netflix route and streaming becomes more important for when they start putting titles day 1 on the service.
gaming won’t go the Netflix route though because games will still be for sale digitally in all the stores too. It will be a hybrid model.
I like it. Good business talk tbh.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sure, but that's also like saying it could be now, could be 15 years from now when the GP subscription model actually starts determining a games budget/development lol.
We have no example of that happening in first party, and third parties/indies are not developed with GP in mind, they're developed for selling at retail in mind and just may or may not happen to land on a subscription service of ones choosing.
Sure, it really depends on how well this is received.
Maybe Sony might cave in from share holder pressure and announce they'll start adding first party games day and date in a few months or by the time this service actually launches.
Who can say.
You know, actually evidence that it doesn't work including when/if you change the margin required.
I was going to reply saying how much I keep repeating the Netflix model isn't the one being done in gaming.
Disney is a little bit closer cause they are able to monetize outside of the streaming service with stuff like toys.
He is giving himself an out, I think it's a couple of years before we see the smaller studios dropping games straight into Premium/Extra day one
Hari Seldon
Member
Actually this proves the opposite. 20 years ago Theater was actually good. These days it is all targeted at people easily fooled by marketing (i.e. comic book nerds) and it is largely complete trash. All of the great shit is on streaming, and they have massively huge budgets because they are all in competition with each other. If we had the same type of competition in gaming that we do in normal entertainment, gaming budges would probably be 5x more and we would be getting wild shit.
Dr Bass
Member
It is not "forward looking risk taking" to engage in an endeavor guaranteed to lose money. That's called being foolish. Don't you think they've modeled out the possibilities in terms of costs vs. what they would expect to collect revenue wise? Now one can say the same about MS, and I would hope they have done this but they also have a pretty long history of completely bungled ideas and acquisitions. Nokia was a 7 billion dollar boner for example. Skype amounted to nothing after all that time and money spent (another huge acquisition). I also think Nadella is just big on "software subscriptions" as a whole, and the whole thing smells like a Hail Mary pass proposed by Spencer to keep in Nadella's good graces. Pure speculation of course, but I just can't figure out the business side of it. Plus, the way Nadella talks about games sounds like he's never played a game in his life.
The Sony strategy seems clear to me.
1. Big tentpole releases they release at a regular cadence and charge full price for. They hope to make hundreds of millions, to a billion+ in revenue for these releases, per title.
2. GaaS. Start getting into live service games that can generate a hell of a lot of revenue over time, similar to Fortnite. Again, this is very focused relationship, with single GaaS products pulling in recurring and directly attributable revenue.
3. PS+ with multiple tiers. Here is your networking service for multiplayer for games in category 1 (and 2? I dont know) as well as access to a ton of old games no longer bringing in revenue. This also keeps a regular revenue stream coming in, but doesn't give away everything the company has to offer. The premium level works out to 10 dollars a month, which is the same cost as GP on a monthly basis, and yet gives away zero of their top quality new games. You do get good old releases though.
All of those things to me make sense. Clear product offerings, directly correlating revenue with specific products (so you can shut them down if they are duds!) and a simple message to communicate.
It's not that different from the Nintendo strategy. Sell big releases, and have a network subscription offering. And that's the other thing. People keep framing this as Sony vs MS, but what it really is, is MS doing something radically different from both Sony and Nintendo, out of necessity.
It's all so obvious, simple, and straightforward. I can't believe people are arguing making more money on a larger library of better products is the wrong way to go.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I'm not going to argue that with the themepark movies. I can agree.
What I am saying, are the budgets being vastly different in the special effects department, and editing, and even talent. Basically AAA first party tech/gameplay like Naughty Dog, Playground Games, Insomniac, vs. a lot of lower budget graphics and jank out there. More often than not.
ByWatterson
Member
Is this a real take? Game Pass is clearly working for them. It's likely not profitable now, but it's probably getting close, with a ceiling that keeps getting higher.
They're not dropping 70 billion on Activision for a project that isn't panning out - or dropping that amount as a hail mary.
Swift_Star
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There is no game exclusive to GP, nor will there be at least for the foreseeable future as per Phil Spencer.
But arguments like "Forza isn't my style" and "Halo is a turd" are completely subjective and what may not work for you, may work for millions of others.
Need I remind you which game this community collectively voted for as 'Game of the Year 2021'
There's not so much defensiveness (Ok there might be) as much as people lampooning it into other topics.
Again, we're making the budget/development argument that doesn't have any real basis.
Oddvintagechap
Banned
I agree Jim, as long as you keep most of the games MTX free.
plasmawave
Banned
Just look at Halo Infinite
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
playstation is fine for everyone. It’s just my mentality for their games has changed. If it’s something I really really really want to play I would buy it as cheap as I can find it on disk and look to complete it then trade it in asap. If it’s something else I will wait until it’s on sale on disk. It doesn’t even take too long, I got sackboy for like 30 quid. Horizon is now like 45 pounds in a lot of places, it won’t be too long until games drop in price. Gran Turismo 7 is already like 55 squids.
These 70 pound prices just ain’t sticking at retailers for Sony In the UK. Wait a month or two and your getting them cheaper, even less if you can wait a little longer. That’s why it was so important that I got a disk version ps5. It’s already really paid off in what I’ve saved and it’s a great 4k Blu ray player too.
Just look at age of empires, Forza, flight simulator?
NoviDon
Member
Right, its very simple for people who already game on Playstation. I probably pay a few hundred dollars a year buying a bunch of discounted games that I didn't want to pay full price for. Game or the year editions discounted from 100+ to 50-60 dollars, trilogy collections, etc. Now with the PS+ upgrade, im paying $96 a year more on my subscription to have access to games I would have racked up hundreds more for. Its a bargain, not on the same level as MS, but its a good deal while also protecting Sony's business model for producing the highest quality AAA budget games possible for the consumers. It's the right balance right now, which is what SCE has always been about, whether its hardware design or business strategies, striking the perfect balance.
3liteDragon
Member
Jimbo literally said a few months back why a GP-like model wouldn’t be sustainable for them & yet people still floated that “Sony GP” rumor for no reason.
Last edited:
itsjustJEFF
Member
I think he has a point. I don't think Playstation has enough studios to feed a consistent stream of games, at least not right now and not all AAA games through out the year. Look at Netflix, they had to build up their studios to be able to produce content regularly. Look at XBox, you can't HONESTLY tell me that they've had a consistent stream of content... BUT they will. They've also been good about paying 3rd party studios to put games on GP to fill the gaps that they just can't fill right now. Even Xbox understands that every release can't be AAA, you need filler, you need to give the devs time.
Playstation's will need to add many more studios or create smaller studios within their big ones to fill the gaps in AAA titles. Or cut budgets on AAA titles so that they come out quicker therefore making them AA tiles or somethings.
Playstation's will need to add many more studios or create smaller studios within their big ones to fill the gaps in AAA titles. Or cut budgets on AAA titles so that they come out quicker therefore making them AA tiles or somethings.
Dr.brain64
Member
Obviously...
Swift_Star
Banned
It should be obvious by now, but: this raise in price was made so they could sell for a higher price when offering a discount... and it's working. A 70 game selling for 50 feels cheaper than a 60 one... It feels like you're getting a better discount this way.
Last edited:
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Their business could "could suffer" long term if they don't have a viable competitor to game pass. You even see it on these very boards, people trying Xbox again, or choosing Xbox simply due to gamepass. This will only grow once Activision is on board as well.
There is risk of not doing enough too.
There is some talk above about it being about the "games" - and yes, I agree, Sony has some amazing IP's that should keep them competitive, but they don't control them all. MS's lineup of exclusive IP's now is very large, Sony risks losing customers to that combined with the value of gamepass.
I don't think Sony is at immediate risk short term, but to ignore this may cost them more than some people think long term.
Also we've seen very little direct evidence that the subscription model hurts the quality of games, at least so far.
There is risk of not doing enough too.
There is some talk above about it being about the "games" - and yes, I agree, Sony has some amazing IP's that should keep them competitive, but they don't control them all. MS's lineup of exclusive IP's now is very large, Sony risks losing customers to that combined with the value of gamepass.
I don't think Sony is at immediate risk short term, but to ignore this may cost them more than some people think long term.
Also we've seen very little direct evidence that the subscription model hurts the quality of games, at least so far.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
of course they would these services devalue games.
You no longer sell them for 60 or 70. There is no incentive to make it extra good because reviewers will not punish it for being "free".
Netflix, hbo, even gamepass a bit. halo dont have coop and is broken shit on pc? oh not a biggie - it is free.
You no longer sell them for 60 or 70. There is no incentive to make it extra good because reviewers will not punish it for being "free".
Netflix, hbo, even gamepass a bit. halo dont have coop and is broken shit on pc? oh not a biggie - it is free.
Last edited:
JLB
Banned
it is, because mr. ryan said not so long ago he was going to offer something to compete with gamepass, and this is a joke compared to it.
Barakov
Gold Member
He's pretty spot on here. 1st party games should be of the quality that make you want to shell out the cash for. If you spend $10 for a month of gamepass and one and done it, there's no reason for you to come back to it.
It's actually interesting how Sony and MS view their 1st party stuff.
It's actually interesting how Sony and MS view their 1st party stuff.