Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

Those numbers don’t stack up. Gamepass is available for a fraction of the West’s price in 3rd world countries. People there are not paying these prices.

Doesn’t take much to see as there is no shortage on ways to game the system via vpn purchases of gamepass subs to drop into ones account.

Maybe I did the math wrong.

But the article says NA/Europe sub plans are worth $3.7 billion and GP has 25 million subs worth 60% of the $3.7 billion, which is $2.22 billion.

Feel free to take a crack at the math yourself.

 

[Shmunter]

Maybe I did the math wrong.

But the article says NA/Europe sub plans are worth $3.7 billion and GP has 25 million subs worth 60% of the $3.7 billion, which is $2.22 billion.

Feel free to take a crack at the math yourself.

Can’t find the blackboard duster, will do soo as soon as able.

Those numbers are straight up extrapolated on number of subs multiplied by the avg pricing tiers, aka the projected worth. Not actuals I reckon.

 

[akimbo009]

Games are not movies and Tv, they are fundamentally different.

I played SFIV everyday for 8 years (bought 3 different full price boxed versions in that time). They are not throw away, watch once and never watch again junk entertainment like Netflix. This is why the subscription idea doesn't apply.

Maybe casuals with attention spans of goldfish might enjoy gamepass, but any self respecting gamer wants to purchase and play their own games, often for months / years at a time like me.

I hate myself, and treat my body like the dirty whore I am. I shove subscriptions into the dirtiest places just for a quick hit unlike the sophistos who luxuriate over 2, 5, 10 years with older refined gaming experiences that they come back to time after time like a well curated wine cellar.

Or.... I just like cheap shit. Dunno.

 

[Javthusiast]

 

[SportsFan581]

The blistering hot takes in this thread are embarrassing lmao. No shit sub service revenue pales in comparison to total gaming industry revenue in these regions which accounts for stuff like mtx and mobile. A single game like Warzone and Fortnite make as much money as the total game pass revenue right now based on that number.

And the completely expected results too. It is what it is.

 

[MonarchJT]

it's just started

 

[SportsFan581]

They are using a number that includes all spending on all games, including MTX, across any platform..

Then dividing in spending on MS/Sony/Nintendo sub services.

The number still isn't massive, but that's not really a great analysis lol Particularly since games are put on these services partly to generate MTX/DLC sales as they often don't include those.

Anyways, I don't believe they are or will be the "main" way games are consumed, but they'll continue to grow as a bigger and bigger portion of the pie.

You would need a good breakdown of where the MTX/DLC $$ are coming from to get a complete picture, that's true.

 

[NikuNashi]

I hate myself, and treat my body like the dirty whore I am. I shove subscriptions into the dirtiest places just for a quick hit unlike the sophistos who luxuriate over 2, 5, 10 years with older refined gaming experiences that they come back to time after time like a well curated wine cellar.

Or.... I just like cheap shit. Dunno.

Then you don't deserve the premium wagu steak that Sony are serving up in their AAA titles. Get your ass to Mcdonalds and get a standard burger with small fries.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

So GP's 25 million subs is 60% of $3.7 billion. That's $2.22 billion.

Dividing $2.22 billion / 25 million subs = $88.80 revenue per sub. So right in the middle of an annualized $180/yr sub plan. And that assumes all 25 million subbers are NA/Europe. Xbox is weak in other regions, but the rev/user is even higher if NA/Europe GP users are lets say 23 or 24 million.

I thought GP were all $1 subs? So even with all the $1 sign ups weighing down the average, about $90/yr is even higher than PS+, PS Now, or Xbox Gold at regular price.

The remaining $1.5 billion is then split across PS+, PS Now, Nintendo and Xbox Gold. Who knows what the split is, but PS+ is going to be most of it.

It's not $2.2 billion, though. First off their own $3.7 billion is wrong because that's more than 4%, the actual number should be closer to $3.2 billion - $3.24 billion (I've seen $80 billion floating around). So the actual article screwed up their percentages somewhere when writing it out. The market would've needed to generate $92.5 billion in revenue to get $3.7 billion in GP-style sub services as 4%, not $80 billion or $81 billion.

60% of that $3.2 - $3.24 billion is $1.92 billion - $1.94 billion, not $2.2 billion. That averages out to $76.8/year for each user, average monthly of $6.40. Which is notably less than the $10/mo rate in most parts of the world, even lower than the averaged monthly for an even split of both tiers ($12.50).

So, assuming that's 25 million concurrent, then we can basically say that at most, half of the 25 million are paying the full monthly rate (either tier) for the entire year. Or it could actually less than that even, meaning the remainder would be a mix of those paying lower rates in certain countries (such as India), maybe paying for a few months here and there, paying via the $1 conversion, using free trails (therefore, non-paying), or using Microsoft Reward points (essentially non-paying).

Also I though the 4% figure was just for GP-style subscription services, not services like PS+ (which has at least 48 million paying members so assuming the GP percentages held up (they don't), and there were only 24 million PS+ users paying a full year, that's still $1.44 billion/year. Then add in XBL Gold where again, take the GP percentages holding up (which again, they wouldn't; this is just for demonstration purposes) and assume XBL Gold has half the # subs as PS+, and all are somehow paying for the year in advance. That's another $720 million on top of everything else.

That's already $4 billion, and we haven't touched NSO, Stadia, or Luna. Not only that but it also screws up the GP numbers not to mention the actual revenue Axios mentions. So I doubt this includes non-GamePass subscription services in the mix.

 

[akimbo009]

Then you don't deserve the premium wagu steak that Sony are serving up in their AAA titles. Get your ass to Mcdonalds and get a standard burger with small fries.

That's xtra large fries, thank you.

 

[DenchDeckard]

the comments in here are really interesting when you think about that microsoft only Really, really started pushing game pass with the launch of the series X and S and then add onto that the fact that the Bethesda purchase was last year and activision won’t be for another year before it goes through. This shit hasn’t really even started.

let’s take a look at the end of the generation once hopefully the pandemic has blown over and hardware is available To purchase as freely as it used to be.

 

[sinnergy]

Sony fans rather pay 700 - 1600 dollars a year rather than GP 160 dollars a year with all the AAA games ! I applauded them!

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It's not $2.2 billion, though. First off their own $3.7 billion is wrong because that's more than 4%, the actual number should be closer to $3.2 billion - $3.24 billion (I've seen $80 billion floating around). So the actual article screwed up their percentages somewhere when writing it out. The market would've needed to generate $92.5 billion in revenue to get $3.7 billion in GP-style sub services as 4%, not $80 billion or $81 billion.

60% of that $3.2 - $3.24 billion is $1.92 billion - $1.94 billion, not $2.2 billion. That averages out to $76.8/year for each user, average monthly of $6.40. Which is notably less than the $10/mo rate in most parts of the world, even lower than the averaged monthly for an even split of both tiers ($12.50).

So, assuming that's 25 million concurrent, then we can basically say that at most, half of the 25 million are paying the full monthly rate (either tier) for the entire year. Or it could actually less than that even, meaning the remainder would be a mix of those paying lower rates in certain countries (such as India), maybe paying for a few months here and there, paying via the $1 conversion, using free trails (therefore, non-paying), or using Microsoft Reward points (essentially non-paying).

Also I though the 4% figure was just for GP-style subscription services, not services like PS+ (which has at least 48 million paying members so assuming the GP percentages held up (they don't), and there were only 24 million PS+ users paying a full year, that's still $1.44 billion/year. Then add in XBL Gold where again, take the GP percentages holding up (which again, they wouldn't; this is just for demonstration purposes) and assume XBL Gold has half the # subs as PS+, and all are somehow paying for the year in advance. That's another $720 million on top of everything else.

That's already $4 billion, and we haven't touched NSO, Stadia, or Luna. Not only that but it also screws up the GP numbers not to mention the actual revenue Axios mentions. So I doubt this includes non-GamePass subscription services in the mix.

Our numbers are close. Also the 25 million subs are overinflated in the calculation because that is global count while the $$$ value is NA/Europe only. Really it might be 23-24 million so the avg rev per user goes back up. Who knows.

Either way it doesnt matter who’s math is correct as we’re both in the ballpark. And that is the avg rev per user is way higher than the “GP users are $1 sign ups”.

All the users who are truly one and done $1 drop offs means the true core sub count will be less than 25 million but the revenue would barely drop. So that means the core GP user is paying a lot to get to ~$2 billion.

 

[THE DUCK]

Does the 81 billion include all mobile, pc and tablet games? If so that 4% number seems skewed.

 

[Helghan]

Does the 81 billion include all mobile, pc and tablet games? If so that 4% number seems skewed.

I was just wondering the exact same thing, because if so. Then 4% is a lot for a service that's only here for 3 years.

Well the fact that they think Game Pass is generating $2.2 billion is already a lot.

 

[Shubh_C63]

Yes 2.4%

But realistically its an educated guess that subscriptions will eventually become (say ~ 15%) of the market in maybe 10 years. MS still commanding 50% of that pie would still be huge with potential room to grow and exploit.

This is 2.4% of 4% without heavy hitters from MS coming in next 2-5 years.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

This is almost the exact same post regarding digital gaming a decade ago.

A decade ago no one was buying physical games on PC already. It was a matter of time until digital started to be bigger on consoles.
Also the ONLY reason we got a huge increase lately was due to a pandemic and having the world going into lockdown. That changed our ways of consuming products tremendously. And even on lockdown subscriptions didn't increase nearly as much as digital sales.

Now how are PC gamers doing on subscriptions (something that's been here for a decade already)? At most they are playing live games...that's it. (Which is Sony's bet for the future.) They ain't leaving steam lmao. Not saying i particularly like subscriptions and live games as the future...but if something is growing much faster than subscriptions is live games...all publishers want a piece of that pie.

It's only a matter of time until MS starts investing more on that as well.

We need to stop looking at games as we do music or tv shows / movies. Spotify doesn't have music coming and leaving the service every 2 months. Usually once it's there no one removes it. And subscriptions for TV and movies...you see it once and that's it. You move on.

Games is something you keep coming back to many times. It's a product you invest a lot more time of your life. I really can't imagine subscriptions being the future for games. For that to be the future, sales need to be decreasing and people going more towards them...and that's not happening as far as i know (except MS games). The industry never had so many games sold. As i said before...it's just an alternative.

 

[Lupin25]

Sony fans rather pay 700 - 1600 dollars a year rather than GP 160 dollars a year with all the AAA games ! I applauded them!

It’s almost as if PlayStation doesn’t have an entire exclusive catalog…

You’re telling people to give up God of War, Spider-Man, Ghost of Tsushima, TLOU 1 & 2, Bloodborne, Gran Turismo, Horizon 1 & 2, Uncharted, Demon’s Souls, Ratchet & Clank, Returnal, Death Stranding, Sifu, Kena… for what exactly on XGP?

 

[rofif]

That's thanks to me paying 1$ every 3 months for gamepass on pc.
And 30$ for ps+ each year when it's 50% off... that's still too much. ps+ is not worth it

 

[M1chl]

How much revenue is from buying the games? Because as far as I know it gets dwarfed by MTX and other bullshit. Breakdwon would be nice. Still I thought is more, especially when you need Gold and PS+ for MP...

 

[lh032]

It’s almost as if PlayStation doesn’t have an entire exclusive catalog…

You’re telling people to give up God of War, Spider-Man, Ghost of Tsushima, TLOU 1 & 2, Bloodborne, Gran Turismo, Horizon 1 & 2, Uncharted, Demon’s Souls, Ratchet & Clank, Returnal, Death Stranding, Sifu, Kena… for what exactly on XGP?

for amazing AAA games which does not exist for now but will exist in the future@!!! hopefully

 

[Riky]

So GP's 25 million subs is 60% of $3.7 billion. That's $2.22 billion.

Dividing $2.22 billion / 25 million subs = $88.80 revenue per sub. So right in the middle of an annualized $180/yr sub plan. And that assumes all 25 million subbers are NA/Europe. Xbox is weak in other regions, but the rev/user is even higher if NA/Europe GP users are lets say 23 or 24 million.

I thought GP were all $1 subs? So even with all the $1 sign ups weighing down the average, about $90/yr is even higher than PS+, PS Now, or Xbox Gold at regular price.

The remaining $1.5 billion is then split across PS+, PS Now, Nintendo and Xbox Gold. Who knows what the split is, but PS+ is going to be most of it.

Yeah the figures destroy that narrative, when they hit 30 million plus the end of the year it's got to be profitable.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Surprised but not really surprised. As Jim Ryan said, Subscription services are NOT the future of the gaming industry. At least, not yet.

 

[Markio128]

Just to add a little perspective on things. I remember reading that FF14 had around 24 million subs at one point, just for that one game. Now that is the business I’d rather be in than one like game pass, and sort of cements Jim’s opinion.

 

[ArtHands]

A decade ago no one was buying physical games on PC already. It was a matter of time until digital started to be bigger on consoles.
Also the ONLY reason we got a huge increase lately was due to a pandemic and having the world going into lockdown. That changed our ways of consuming products tremendously. And even on lockdown subscriptions didn't increase nearly as much as digital sales.

Now how are PC gamers doing on subscriptions (something that's been here for a decade already)? At most they are playing live games...that's it. (Which is Sony's bet for the future.) They ain't leaving steam lmao. Not saying i particularly like subscriptions and live games as the future...but if something is growing much faster than subscriptions is live games...all publishers want a piece of that pie.

It's only a matter of time until MS starts investing more on that as well.

We need to stop looking at games as we do music or tv shows / movies. Spotify doesn't have music coming and leaving the service every 2 months. Usually once it's there no one removes it. And subscriptions for TV and movies...you see it once and that's it. You move on.

Games is something you keep coming back to many times. It's a product you invest a lot more time of your life. I really can't imagine subscriptions being the future for games. For that to be the future, sales need to be decreasing and people going more towards them...and that's not happening as far as i know (except MS games). The industry never had so many games sold. As i said before...it's just an alternative.

We are using PC to gauge the future of console gaming now? Almost every console players insist digital ain't going to takeover physical on consoles

PC gamers are taking up Game Pass subscription rather well from what I see. I also see Sony switching the servers off for various games, and nobody care enough because they are already couple of years old. They practically removed PS1/2 classics that people bought on PS3 from PS4 and 5 and nobody cares too. All are fine.

 

[Heisenberg007]

We know from Sony's official financial reports that PlayStation's network services generate $3.5 billion worldwide. North America and EU are PlayStation's strongest markets, so it is safe to assume that they generate $3 billion from these two regions, and $0.5 billion from everywhere else.

But let's push that number down to $2.5 billion anyway.

• PLAYSTATION = So, PlayStation's subscription services are bringing in ~$2.5 billion from of the above-mentioned $3.7 billion.
• NINTENDO = Nintendo has 32 million subscribers. At $20 per year, they yield $0.64 billion worldwide. Let's push these numbers down by 30% to $0.45 billion (just for NA and EU)
• GAMEPASS = That leaves roughly $0.7 billion for Gamepass. That helps us figure out the Gamepass ARPU, which turns out to be around $35 per year (assuming 20 out of 25 million GP subscribers belong to EU and NA). That's way too low and once again reiterates the fact that the overwhelming majority of GP subscribers are using the $1 XBLG conversion path.

 

[sinnergy]

Ones upon a time Spotify and Netflix pulled those numbers .. and look now.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Ones upon a time Spotify and Netflix pulled those numbers .. and look now.

Did your read any of the other post in this thread? It a few posters who make a good points on why movie and music aren't comparable to games.

 

[PropellerEar]

We know from Sony's official financial reports that PlayStation's network services generate $3.5 billion worldwide. North America and EU are PlayStation's strongest markets, so it is safe to assume that they generate $3 billion from these two regions, and $0.5 billion from everywhere else.

But let's push that number down to $2.5 billion anyway.

• PLAYSTATION = So, PlayStation's subscription services are bringing in ~$2.5 billion from of the above-mentioned $3.7 billion.
• NINTENDO = Nintendo has 32 million subscribers. At $20 per year, they yield $0.64 billion worldwide. Let's push these numbers down by 30% to $0.45 billion (just for NA and EU)
• GAMEPASS = That leaves roughly $0.7 billion for Gamepass. That helps us figure out the Gamepass ARPU, which turns out to be around $35 per year (assuming 20 out of 25 million GP subscribers belong to EU and NA). That's way too low and once again reiterates the fact that the overwhelming majority of GP subscribers are using the $1 XBLG conversion path.

 

[poppabk]

We know from Sony's official financial reports that PlayStation's network services generate $3.5 billion worldwide. North America and EU are PlayStation's strongest markets, so it is safe to assume that they generate $3 billion from these two regions, and $0.5 billion from everywhere else.

But let's push that number down to $2.5 billion anyway.

• PLAYSTATION = So, PlayStation's subscription services are bringing in ~$2.5 billion from of the above-mentioned $3.7 billion.
• NINTENDO = Nintendo has 32 million subscribers. At $20 per year, they yield $0.64 billion worldwide. Let's push these numbers down by 30% to $0.45 billion (just for NA and EU)
• GAMEPASS = That leaves roughly $0.7 billion for Gamepass. That helps us figure out the Gamepass ARPU, which turns out to be around $35 per year (assuming 20 out of 25 million GP subscribers belong to EU and NA). That's way too low and once again reiterates the fact that the overwhelming majority of GP subscribers are using the $1 XBLG conversion path.

Except they say that gamepass is 60% of that number. So they are being way to vague about what numbers they are talking about to do that kind of math. Plus we don't know how Gamepass affects MTX and add-on purchases as well as follow-on digital purchases. I know it was a lot easier for me to buy the premium add-on for FH5 getting the base for free. And if FH5 leaves gamepass I will obviously be buying it.
Think of it this way - the base purchase of F2P games is 0% of the gaming market but generated $70 billion plus revenue globally.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Except they say that gamepass is 60% of that number. So they are being way to vague about what numbers they are talking about to do that kind of math. Plus we don't know how Gamepass affects MTX and add-on purchases as well as follow-on digital purchases. I know it was a lot easier for me to buy the premium add-on for FH5 getting the base for free. And if FH5 leaves gamepass I will obviously be buying it.
Think of it this way - the base purchase of F2P games is 0% of the gaming market but generated $70 billion plus revenue globally.

I see many people in this thread being confused/misled with that 60% number. I noticed the conversation above by thicc_girls_are_teh_best and StreetsofBeige ethomaz .

That 60% did not represent the revenue share. It was for the overall market share for total subscribers. And it was flawed measurement anyway, because that didn't data take into account PS+ at all. Proof:

The article was written in a way that's confusing. While talking about revenue, it quickly jumped to the total market share (as shown in the above image) without making the distinction clear.

We already have the official revenue number of PS+, which make it significantly easier to calculate everything else to a reasonable estimate.

 

[JLB]

Let me ask again: What the heck is OTHER referring to? Without that this whole analysis is absurd.

 

[JLB]

Does the 81 billion include all mobile, pc and tablet games? If so that 4% number seems skewed.

At this point 81 billion could include packs of bridge cards, pachinkos and oranges since looks non one has access to the real analysis to know what the analyist labeled as that.

 

[KungFucius]

I find it odd that they say GamePass has 60%. PlayStation Plus is a subscription service with more members. Why don’t people include that as a subscription?

Maybe because that is how you get online and the games are usually shit and there is no library access. So they are only considering the services that are just games.

 

[poppabk]

I see many people in this thread being confused/misled with that 60% number. I noticed the conversation above by thicc_girls_are_teh_best and StreetsofBeige ethomaz .

That 60% did not represent the revenue share. It was for the overall market share for total subscribers. And it was flawed measurement anyway, because that didn't data take into account PS+ at all. Proo
The article was written in a way that's confusing. While talking about revenue, it quickly jumped to the total market share (as shown in the above image) without making the distinction clear.

We already have the official revenue number of PS+, which make it significantly easier to calculate everything else to a reasonable estimate.

That pie chart is $ spend share and doesn't jibe at all with your figures even if I could figure out all the colors.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Maybe because that is how you get online and the games are usually shit and there is no library access. So they are only considering the services that are just games.

Yet the include Xbox Gamepass (all services). See the actual slide image I shared above.

We all know the real reason they didn't include PS+.

 

[Saber]

Sony fans rather pay 700 - 1600 dollars a year rather than GP 160 dollars a year with all the AAA games ! I applauded them!

Dunno about you, but I'm pretty happy with my GoT and gaming habits.
Maybe most of people see valor in their games, similar to Nintendo games(sorry if you don't). Who are you to say how people should spend on games, Microsoft official astroturfing?

 

[Heisenberg007]

That pie chart is $ spend share and doesn't jibe at all with your figures even if I could figure out all the colors.

Even if that pie chart does not represent market share for # of subscribers, the problem persists.

The VGC article referred to this slide and data (which does not include PS+). The rest of the article talks about total revenue generated ($3.7 billion) by subscription services that includes PS+. That completely changes the equation -- which is why that 60% should not be taken into account at all while talking about that $3.7 billion.

 

[Swift_Star]

25 million subscribers on what is the lowest selling console of the big 3 in 4~ years is not nothing.

A number which will increase and lead to a higher percentage of subscription adaption owing to more studios and games coming under the banner in the coming months/years. Factoring in Sony joining the party it will only cause the increase to be an exponential increase.

This isn't a short term thing, but it is inevitable.




I think you're being too generous with the 20 year estimate. I'm guessing it'll be sooner than that.

You’re overly defensive of GP, that is pretty telling about its performance.

 

[Hobbygaming]

the comments in here are really interesting when you think about that microsoft only Really, really started pushing game pass with the launch of the series X and S and then add onto that the fact that the Bethesda purchase was last year and activision won’t be for another year before it goes through. This shit hasn’t really even started.

let’s take a look at the end of the generation once hopefully the pandemic has blown over and hardware is available To purchase as freely as it used to be.

GP has been doing roughly 5 million subs a year at an entry point of $1 to $15

A little over 1 year and PS5 is already at 17 million sales, Xbox Series X/S are at around 13 million and they cost $299 - $499 to buy these consoles, to put things into perspective

I don't think game subscription services like EA's, GP, etc are really taking off like people want you to believe

 

[ReBurn]

The thing is.... gaming subscriptions do not exist in a vacuum.

Most people have 1-3 TV/Film streaming subscriptions, spotify, office, youtube, twitch, news and other subscriptions..... we are at the point of subscription overload.

and frankly, how does turning your hobby into a monthly bill not feel like less fun? An obligation rather than a joy.....

Netflix numbers are going down, not up. All tastes can never be catered for in an economic way within a subscription and it would only limit choice and shrink the industry that way anyway because games are not really being rewarded on individual merit or innovation but collective value.

Netflix subcriber counts aren't going down. Subscriber growth is declining. They are not the same thing, Subscriptions are still going up, just at a slower rate than in previous years. The video streaming market is reaching a point of saturation where there are too many publishers hoarding and specializing In their own content so many subscribers move between services month to month chasing new shows. The growth is spreading across a lot of providers now.

This is nothing like the current gaming subscription model where there are only really 4 options and only one of the 4 has been serious about it as a real revenue model. MS, Sony, Nintendo and EA, where EA rides on the back of MS and Sony. Until the last couple of years these services were marketed as supplemental offerings to make money on back catalog games that were no longer selling much at retail. It's really only been the last two years that Microsoft has been pushing it as an alternative to the traditional gaming revenue model.

It's too early to know whether everything will be subscription going forward. But it's clear that's what both Microsoft, Sony and most major publishers want. If they can get you to pay for your games continually instead of just once they are going to do it. The investment in live service games is exactly that. Sony's already going down that road with GT7, confirmed in the statement where Polyphony said they were gicing you everyone a million in game credits to make up for the issues caused as they focus on turning it into live service.

The notion that video games are somehow immune to the changes that other entertainment media have gone through is naive, especially when it's already happened with MTX and other forms of ongoing monetization. Revenue from ongoing transactions is outpacing one time software sales. The allure and security of recurring revenue is changing and will continue to change video game distribution just like it has music, movies and TV. The only choice consumers have is pay or not pay and for every one of us who say we'll quit there are dozens more who will pay.

 

[mejin]

Plus generates lots of profits for Sony. Service will only grow with the unified service.

Phil Spender should learn some lessons from Jimbo.

 

[PropellerEar]

Plus generates lots of profits for Sony. Service will only grow with the unified service.

Phil Spender should learn some lessons from Jimbo.

 

[RoboFu]

Well yeah there is a huge difference between watching a 40 min show or 2 hour movie once and playing a game for 40 hours.

 

[adamsapple]

You’re overly defensive of GP, that is pretty telling about its performance.

There it is again, the 'defensive' line. Your go to in every topic.

Doth project too much

Plus generates lots of profits for Sony. Service will only grow with the unified service.

Phil Spender should learn some lessons from Jimbo.

You know the future is subscription when even the ardent fanbase from either side is starting to say it.

 

[poppabk]

Even if that pie chart does not represent market share for # of subscribers, the problem persists.

The VGC article referred to this slide and data (which does not include PS+). The rest of the article talks about total revenue generated ($3.7 billion) by subscription services that includes PS+. That completely changes the equation -- which is why that 60% should not be taken into account at all while talking about that $3.7 billion.

To be honest I don't think that article knows what it is talking about.

 

[Helghan]

Even if that pie chart does not represent market share for # of subscribers, the problem persists.

The VGC article referred to this slide and data (which does not include PS+). The rest of the article talks about total revenue generated ($3.7 billion) by subscription services that includes PS+. That completely changes the equation -- which is why that 60% should not be taken into account at all while talking about that $3.7 billion.

Wouldn't that almost cancel out due to Xbox Live subscriptions?

 

[SportsFan581]

We know from Sony's official financial reports that PlayStation's network services generate $3.5 billion worldwide. North America and EU are PlayStation's strongest markets, so it is safe to assume that they generate $3 billion from these two regions, and $0.5 billion from everywhere else.

But let's push that number down to $2.5 billion anyway.

• PLAYSTATION = So, PlayStation's subscription services are bringing in ~$2.5 billion from of the above-mentioned $3.7 billion.
• NINTENDO = Nintendo has 32 million subscribers. At $20 per year, they yield $0.64 billion worldwide. Let's push these numbers down by 30% to $0.45 billion (just for NA and EU)
• GAMEPASS = That leaves roughly $0.7 billion for Gamepass. That helps us figure out the Gamepass ARPU, which turns out to be around $35 per year (assuming 20 out of 25 million GP subscribers belong to EU and NA). That's way too low and once again reiterates the fact that the overwhelming majority of GP subscribers are using the $1 XBLG conversion path.

Or perhaps the guesstimation used to achieve the top figure here is just not correct.

 

[ethomaz]

Does the 81 billion include all mobile, pc and tablet games? If so that 4% number seems skewed.

Doesn’t seems like.
Mobile alone is over $81b worldwide in 2021… $92b exactly.
Even if you guess the NA and EU only it doesn’t make sense to $81b include mobile.

It makes sense that it is console and PC games because these generated $85b in 2021… so only NA + EU can be closer to $81b that fits better than having mobile included.

 

[John Wick]

Doubt it. Between Xbox, PC and streaming there is more than enough people to get Game Pass subscriptions to where Microsoft eventually wants them. Bethesda and Activision were already not coming to Switch, mostly. So you're talking about PS5 ports. Nope, not going to happen. Microsoft didn't spend all this money to put these games on PS5. Not how it works. Now if Sony opens the door to them for Game Pass they probably would. That's win/win for Microsoft. But it doesn't sound like Sony will allow that to happen. So no Bethesda or Activision games coming your way on PS5.

And there is a reason that Sony is switching things up with PS+. There is a ton of money to be made on these subscription services. Sony saw what MS was pulling in on Game Pass and they want some of that sweet action. PS Now by itself was a joke so they knew they had to roll it into PS+. That was obvious. There is a reason Sony is making these changes. It is the future. Sony finally sees that. Microsoft has the first mover advantage. We'll see if Sony can catch up.

Sony already had a gaming sub service. You make it seem like MS invented the game subscription service. Do you expect a company not to take the logical steps to increase revenue? Like PC releases and improving PSplus etc