Live Service Games Made Over 40% of Sony’s First-Party Revenue in Q1 FY25
Killjoy-NL
Member
Going by Gaf, it would've been only 15% at most if Concord flopped.
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
ecosse_011172
Banned
There's no accounting for taste.
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
That's the dead service category. Different part of the report.
Killjoy-NL
Member
Main point is that live service contributed for over 40% of revenue.
Only morons would say Sony should give up that chunk.
Edit:
20-30% for the full year.
Last edited:
Of course the real kicker is that last quarter under review doesn't really have any significant non-GaaS first party release so of course it's heavily skewed by Helldivers 2, MLB and Destiny 2.
Expect that to drop for next quarter when they factor in Death Stranding 2 and (to a greater extent) Ghost of Yotei.
Giving up on live service isn't an option and wouldn't be a smart move, but they'll certainly be more measured about how they play in that space after all the high profile failings.
Last edited:
Killjoy-NL
Member
That's the point though. Development cycles take longer, so this is the inevitable outcome.
And the smaller budget titles like Astro or Stellar Blade don't make that much money.
The entire point of the live service-model is to provide a steady stream of revenue and these numbers show Sony made a good call.
And it's extra revenue. It's not a replacement for singelplayer.
Last edited:
ecosse_011172
Banned
I don't think anyone suggests that, just that 10 times as much investment in GaaS as normal games maybe was a bit OTT.
HRK69
Banned
You mad?
ecosse_011172
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
So you're saying they need to invest more into it?
Dynasty8
Member
All the negative buzz online surrounding live service doesn't mean shit when the games are generating a shit ton of revenue.
Destiny 2 alone last year was one of Steam's highest revenue generators among the best selling games and people have been saying that franchise has been dying for 10 years... I'm convinced people only want to believe what's in their head because they hate something instead of what's actually true with actual statistics.
Destiny 2 alone last year was one of Steam's highest revenue generators among the best selling games and people have been saying that franchise has been dying for 10 years... I'm convinced people only want to believe what's in their head because they hate something instead of what's actually true with actual statistics.
diffusionx
Gold Member
no one says Sony should give up that chunk
But it's worth noting the games.
Helldivers 2 - relatively cheap game, made on a discontinued engine, sseqel to 10 year old Vita game, that came in with modest expectations
MLB The Show - franchise has existed for 20 years
Gran Turismo 7 - franchise has existed for 30 years
Destiny 2 - piece of shit game, but one that has been around for 10 years with a simp audience of idiots and one they bought wholesale at an inflated price
Note what you do not see in this list. There is no game here that Sony decided needed to be built and decided to fund it out of whole cloth sometime in 2019-2022. No super expensive God of War live service or Horizon live service or Factions 2 or what have you. Just stuff that has either existed for a long time or has a natural audience from decades of growth. That is the right approach for Sony, always has been, not the one they decided to do when Jim Ryan and Hermen Hulst decided they needed to artificially build six hundred live games.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
It's 40% of first party (3rd party probably higher cause cod and sports and Fortnite). But look at the first party games:
"We now, have Helldivers 2, MLB The Show and Gran Turismo 7, and Bungie's Destiny 2, so we have these four live services contributing to sales and profits in a stable manner."
They have not succeeded with their push for live service IMO. Racing and baseball are not breaking any molds or having benefitted from a new strategy IMO. They just added live service to existing games. Helldivers 2 is the only success from their push for live service IMO.
"We now, have Helldivers 2, MLB The Show and Gran Turismo 7, and Bungie's Destiny 2, so we have these four live services contributing to sales and profits in a stable manner."
They have not succeeded with their push for live service IMO. Racing and baseball are not breaking any molds or having benefitted from a new strategy IMO. They just added live service to existing games. Helldivers 2 is the only success from their push for live service IMO.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
The Tim Sweeney game?
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
40% just first party revenue is kinda high.
Are people buying tons of MTX?
Are people buying tons of MTX?
diffusionx
Gold Member
yes
MLB The Show has a card game mode that is huge. It's also less exploitative and better than the ones in Madden and NBA 2K.
vaibhavpisal
Member
This is the revenue stream they are looking for.
I dont mind live service but they can do so much better than what they have done.
Felessan
Member
There were 1 SP game this quarter and 0 live service games/paid dlc
Last edited:
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
TBH, they didn't release shit as far as single player games go this year. Of course live service games will make up a high percentage of their revenue.
When there aren't new SP games to play from Sony the majority will dabble in live service and whatever else is out there from them.
The fact they even made 60% from single player revenue when they haven't released any SP first party games this year is pretty impressive and surprising to me.
When there aren't new SP games to play from Sony the majority will dabble in live service and whatever else is out there from them.
The fact they even made 60% from single player revenue when they haven't released any SP first party games this year is pretty impressive and surprising to me.
Last edited:
Sakura
Member
Those numbers don't mean a whole lot without context.
ie if a bigger percentage of your releases are live service games then obviously you are going to see a bigger percentage of overall revenue coming from live service games.
Also those games would've made money even if they were not live service. For example if TLOU3 were to have some sort of live service functionality, then all of a sudden all the revenue from that game is counted as revenue from a live service game. But obviously it still would sell millions of copies even if it wasn't.
ie if a bigger percentage of your releases are live service games then obviously you are going to see a bigger percentage of overall revenue coming from live service games.
Also those games would've made money even if they were not live service. For example if TLOU3 were to have some sort of live service functionality, then all of a sudden all the revenue from that game is counted as revenue from a live service game. But obviously it still would sell millions of copies even if it wasn't.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
It would be less if they put out some traditional games. Also this 40% is comprised of mostly legacy titles like GT and MLB and Destiny.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Nice to see a reasonable take on this.
I agree on GaaS. It's no surprise Sony's most successful GaaS games are mostly PvE or SP with MP modes. They should not be financing PvP focussed GaaS. They should be developing mostly PvE GaaS. That's what will find them success.
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
I'm sorry but erasing GT7 and MLB, specially when MLB is always one of the best sellers in the USA each year makes no sense. GT7 is also their top earning title in the IP's history. Destiny might not be number one currently but still has a lot of players and sits as the 23rd game with the biggest peak in gamers playing on steam over the past 24 hours.
Also, their marvel fighting game is coming. That's gonna be a winner from the hype that its generating.
Last edited:
lughnasadh123
Member
The success of live service games have already been established. Of course it's beneficial. It's largely just people against those games that were thinking this was all nonsense.
Topher
Identifies as young
Remember Sony's projected investment chart for 2025? 60% of investment returning 40% of the revenue? Just one quarter, but still
vaibhavpisal
Member
I think they know their strengths.
I am seeing them going in a good direction with Saros, GOW Valhalla, Helldivers 2 etc.
Finding success in such new genres isn't easy, but it will be worth it I think.
Angry_Megalodon
Member
No matter how big that share is, Sony doesn't have the means to replicate that success so it's a pointless effort.
Is Sony making a new Genshin, COD or Fortnite anytime soon? The answer is NO. So, leave that to the pros.
Is Sony making a new Genshin, COD or Fortnite anytime soon? The answer is NO. So, leave that to the pros.
Q1 ends in June - so technically they did. But it's only a week of sales for DS2.
Fbh
Member
Isn't that pretty bad? Q1 is January to March, right?
They had no first party releases in that time, and no big first party releases during the holiday season. The only recent first party single player game was Astrobot which by January was already 4 months old, is in a more niche genre on Ps5 and sold for a lower price. And even with that 60% of the revenue came from single player games.
They had no first party releases in that time, and no big first party releases during the holiday season. The only recent first party single player game was Astrobot which by January was already 4 months old, is in a more niche genre on Ps5 and sold for a lower price. And even with that 60% of the revenue came from single player games.
Killjoy-NL
Member
Thing is, the live service strategy started under Shawn Layden and Shuhei Yoshida back in 2019, if not earlier.
Concord, for example, was a deal made by Yoshida, not by Hulst (as per Yoshida himself).
Despite what the nay-sayers claim, Ryan made this the most profitable gen for Sony, with live service providing a sizeable chunk in revenue.
It's completely logical that they invest "more" into live service. They had to acquire new studios, start up new teams to get everything going. It would make sense to me that the cost for doing that would be larger than having their main studios work on new projects.
And if you look at the graph that
Topher
posted, you can see that while 60% would be invested in live service, the investment in singleplayer is already larger than what they invested prior to FY25.So in that sense it's not like there was a cut-back.
Remember Sony's projected investment chart for 2025? 60% of investment returning 40% of the revenue? Just one quarter, but still
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
you dont need to put out live service games, thats exactly the reason why sony went balls deep into them.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Sadly yes.
People are instant buying 50 euro skins in call of duty despite a new release comes every year making current mtx worthless.
The generation grew up with mtx and sees no problem with it.
viveks86
Member
Felessan
Member
For B2P service games you do
All Playstation live service games are B2P (Destiny, GT, HD2, MLB) and their revenue heavily tied to initial/dlc sales, unlike f2p that live of mtx. Though B2P, unlike SP, are evergreen titles and often sold successfully for years.
Fbh
Member
Sure, but they make their most revenue at launch when they usually sell at the fastest rate and for full price.
GAAS are supposed to bring in constant revenue while single player games have their biggest impact at launch and then slow down. If Sony GAAS can't even keep up after a year with barely any single player releases from them that's not a positive showing for their GAAS initiative IMO.
It basically means that if instead of wasting tons of time and resources on GAAS they had just kept releasing high quality single player games at a steady rate they'd be making more money.
Killjoy-NL
Member
Angry_Megalodon
Member
Ever wonder why? It's funny that everybody seems to accept this mantra religiously.
It takes longer because of bad management. The games are pretty much the same as the ones of last gen, with slightly better tech. If anything, it should take LESS time to develop. They don't because gaming studios are run mostly by incompetents.
Tell that to Kojima or Miyazaki. Good directors have a focus and dont have projects 4 years in pre-production, for example. Bend studio is the paradigm of bad management and WHY games are "expensive" nowadays. It's the human factor.
Killjoy-NL
Member
Miyazaki is from the Souls-series, right?
No offense, their games are great, but they're not AAA.
Those games being successful are outliers anyway.
Bend always was kinda mediocre and does not qualify for the AAA/high quality output.
Last edited:
SILKYSMOOTH30FPS
Banned
They have no singleplayer exclusives since the beginning of this generation. How can it get revenue from singleplayer titles when they don't release shit?
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
It's almost as if the rate at which you can release single player games drops when you have your single player studios like Naughty Dog, Bluepoint and Bend waste years and millions of dollars working on failed GAAS projects.
And if instead of expanding your studios (or opening new ones) to have multiple teams that can work on multiple projects to compensate for the longer dev times you waste hundreds of millions investing in obvious bombs like Concord and FairGames and spend literally billions to get Bungie who only have 1 game which is on downward trend as the main story is concluded.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Already?
We're fucked, aren't we?
We're fucked, aren't we?