The whole industry goes to shit if everything goes in this direction.
If you think the number of subpar, undercooked and flat out unfinished games is something now then prepare your butt.
It would crash the industry.
Netflix spent approximately $70 million to make Season 1 of The Witcher show, which is in line with what a typical AAA game would cost. Netflix debuts dozens of new shows every year.Generally shows/movies cost less than triple A games and Netflix needed 214 million subs to make a profit.
your point isn't very strong either.
I think the profit model hurts when you release your games day and date and pay for exclusivity deals.But gaf has been saying for the past year or 2 that subscription services are terrible and a bad idea.
Now Sonys gonna do it and it's a great idea?
You started off strong with that first sentence. I expected so much better from the rest of the ad.![]()
The whole industry goes to shit if everything goes in this direction.
If you think the number of subpar, undercooked and flat out unfinished games is something now then prepare your butt.
It would crash the industry.
Okay gentlemen, now is the time to get screenshots from all the old Gamepass-related threads. Should be interesting how people’s opinions magically change once it’s no longer something that one side has and the other doesn’t.
I don't get comments like this and all the people liking and loling at it? Did you guys even read what this is about? PS+ and PSNow already exist. They are just adding another tier and bundling them.Prepare for some people's opinion on subscription services to miraculous change.
Gamepass is basically their version of PS Now. MS was not ahead of anything. You could even stream on TVs and Vita in 2017.Looks like Microsoft was ahead of the game when they launched Xbox Game Pass 4 years ago and now the rest of the industry is going to be playing catch-up. Will be hard to match the built-in advantage that Microsoft has with XCloud, PC, the most expansive BC library, and the deepest pockets in the world to snatch up brand new games and developers.
And Xbox plans to do the same, that's why they bought up studios and will continue to do so.Netflix spent approximately $70 million to make Season 1 of The Witcher show, which is in line with what a typical AAA game would cost. Netflix debuts dozens of new shows every year.
Netflix booked $1.4 billion in profit according to their most recent quarterly earnings statement and made $4.5 billion in the first 9 months of 2021. If you're building an argument off of Netflix you're doing it wrong.
This is so true and on point. You can expect any Season/Battle Pass game to require roughly 150 hours per season to reach max level. There seems to be an industry standard on how many levels to gain, how much it's gonna cost and how much time you have to spend. This is some serious investment for a hobby, especially if you do anything else besides gaming. But since you have a lot of gamers already in that hamster wheel and they can't or won't or don't play anything else of course you have to stretch that grind because if 90% of your player base is done within two weeks they will probably go somewhere else. And all of the sudden the majority is fine with the time sink they spend their time on. Strange times, if you ask me, but maybe I'm just too old for this.Microsoft, and soon Sony, have to be concerned about that because individual games are getting both deeper (3,000+ hours)
I think the profit model hurts when you release your games day and date and pay for exclusivity deals.
If its just for legacy and some new games from time to time post release it wont cost as much to uphold.
MS on the other hand releases their games day 1 and they cost $300M to make, they need a certain sub count that i'm sure they have outlined internally that they need to reach before they even make a dime.
it's a risk that might not pay off unless they get a huge sub count, as stated in this thread Netflix needed over $200 million subs to make a profit - potential is there but its ambitious
When you compare the volume of shows and movies Netflix produces each year to the number of AAA games Sony and Microsoft produce each year it makes sense. Microsoft including AAA games day 1 tells you that AAA budgets aren't a limiting factor. Netflix invests billions in content each year, more than Sony invests in first party AAA each year, and makes billions in profit. Microsoft is willing to go all in on AAA. You might need to consider that your assumptions could be wrong.Generally shows/movies cost less than triple A games and Netflix needed 214 million subs to make a profit.
your point isn't very strong either.
If there's no day 1 exclusives on it, then what exactly will separate it from ps now? Are they killing off Ps Now?
Pointless if it doesn't imo.
which game costs 300M$ to develop? Xbox and Sony are not making GTA or RDR...I think the profit model hurts when you release your games day and date and pay for exclusivity deals.
If its just for legacy and some new games from time to time post release it wont cost as much to uphold.
MS on the other hand releases their games day 1 and they cost $300M to make, they need a certain sub count that i'm sure they have outlined internally that they need to reach before they even make a dime.
it's a risk that might not pay off unless they get a huge sub count, as stated in this thread Netflix needed over $200 million subs to make a profit - potential is there but its ambitious
It's only risky if you're betting the whole farm on it. The amount of money being used to make Game Pass relevant is chump change to Microsoft. If they think it'll provide a net profit 10-years from now, they will do it happily just like Netflix did.And Xbox plans to do the same, that's why they bought up studios and will continue to do so.
Do you remember how Netflix began? they barely made their own content.
They are modelling after them, im not saying its not valid im just saying that its risky.
Generally shows/movies cost less than triple A games and Netflix needed 214 million subs to make a profit.
your point isn't very strong either.
It's kinda hard isn't it, without looking at their books we don't know what costs and allocations are.When you compare the volume of shows and movies Netflix produces each year to the number of AAA games Sony and Microsoft produce each year it makes sense. Microsoft including AAA games day 1 tells you that AAA budgets aren't a limiting factor. Netflix invests billions in content each year, more than Sony invests in first party AAA each year, and makes billions in profit. Microsoft is willing to go all in on AAA. You might need to consider that your assumptions could be wrong.
If that’s true and there’s no content change then that’s terrible value.Per Jason's description and my own guesses:
$10/month $60/year PS+
$15/month $120/year PS++ (PS+ and broader PS+ catalog)
$20/month $180/year PS+++ (PS+, the broader catalog, PSNow and legacy stuff)
you'd be surprised, almost all first party games cost that much now.which game costs 300M$ to develop? Xbox and Sony are not making GTA or RDR...
Same here! They had done little with PS2 games on PS4 (and PS Now, by extension), and virtually nothing with PS1 and PSP aside from a few ported/emulated games. I hope this represents a renewed effort to bring a significantly larger number of these systems' games to current PS4/PS5 users.
That's close to what I think could happen, although I believe tier 3 needs some other perks in addition to PS1/PS2/PSP games. While those games are attractive to a certain group of people like me, I don't think they're a big enough enticement to the masses to carry a more expensive tier by themselves.
Sony might be better off just putting PS1/PS2/PSP games into PS Now (tier 2), and give something like "day one" releases of certain games on tier 3.
If there's no day 1 exclusives on it, then what exactly will separate it from ps now? Are they killing off Ps Now?
Pointless if it doesn't imo.
I mean, Jason states the first tier would be PS+ as is, the second is a broader catalog which sounds like the PS+ Collection on steroids (aka PS Now without the streaming side?), then third tier is streaming and the PS1,2,3 PSP BC stuffIf that’s true and there’s no content change then that’s terrible value.
Sorry, but you are just dumb. Netflix spends same amount annually on original content as is Xbox's revenue for fiscal year. They need 214 millions subs to pay bills because they are making plenty of content.Generally shows/movies cost less than triple A games and Netflix needed 214 million subs to make a profit.
your point isn't very strong either.
Sony has sure been following MS' trends lately. People criticized MS for putting games on PC, then sony does the same. Then Sony tries to avoid Cross-Play, but then does the same. Then people say GamePass isn't profitable/sustainable, then sony does the same thing lol.
Looks like MS' approach was right. Soon exclusives will matter less and less too.
you'd be surprised, almost all first party games cost that much now.
wasn't it rumoured that Halo was at $500M? you better believe Starfield will be up there.
Thats what I was saying a few pages back as well, if none of their big games are on it day one whats the point?If there's no day 1 exclusives on it, then what exactly will separate it from ps now? Are they killing off Ps Now?
Pointless if it doesn't imo.
Net income is actual income after cost of revenue and taxes are deducted. That's the bottom line. Their gross revenue for the most recent quarter was $7.48b. Their gross revenue for the first nine months of this year was nearly $22b. No doubt they're burning money, but they're not burning all of it.That's just their net income. They've been burning money for years
You need to read between the lines and use your brain, i didn't say now but i'm sure its truly their ambition to expand their games production and increase the sub count to go after a larger audience.Sorry, but you are just dumb. Netflix spends same amount annually on original content as is Xbox's revenue for fiscal year. They need 214 millions subs to pay bills because they are making plenty of content.
Xbox is not spending that amount of money on original content, so they need way less subs.
And I'm not even talking about fact that Netflix has one revenue stream - subscriptions, meanwhile Xbox is selling full priced games, has 30% cut on everything and is also selling accessories
Net income is actual income after cost of revenue and taxes are deducted. That's the bottom line. Their gross revenue for the most recent quarter was $7.48b. Their gross revenue for the first nine months of this year was nearly $22b. No doubt they're burning money, but they're not burning all of it.
I don't know for sure, the only official statement we have is from Sony who says it costs $200-300M to make games now. Wouldn't be surprised if some exceeded that.Not a chance. If that $500 million is true it's probably factoring in post-launch support
Combining Plus and Now allows for them to charge people more, assuming Plus disappears as a standalone product and you have to buy this to play games online.Thats what I was saying a few pages back as well, if none of their big games are on it day one whats the point?
Thats still no competition for Gamepass imo
I don't know for sure, the only official statement we have is from Sony who says it costs $200-300M to make games now. Wouldn't be surprised if some exceeded that.
Exact same thoughts.I only care if they'll sell those PSX/PS2/PSP games own their own without the subscription and if you own the disc it just works..
Not really interested in a rental service.
Even so just my 2 cents thats not "Taking on Gamepass" as the headline alludes.Combining Plus and Now allows for them to charge people more, assuming Plus disappears as a standalone product and you have to buy this to play games online.
soon exclusives will matter less and less?
then why did Microsoft give Xbox a 7.5B bailout to buy Bethesda so they could have more exclusives?
Xbox has been on a huge buying spree playing “catch up” with Sony…so clearly exclusives matter
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...cost-200-million-says-ex-playstation-head.htmThe figure was upwards of $100 million or something. Not $200-$300M
I agreeEven so just my 2 cents thats not "Taking on Gamepass" as the headline alludes.
Unless you include your first party games you are falling short
Thats what I was saying a few pages back as well, if none of their big games are on it day one whats the point?
Thats still no competition for Gamepass imo