Support NeoGAF

[mayham2199]

The difference being that Steam isn't a hardware platform, it's on PCs and there are billions of those in the world. Steam can lose any game and be fine. But Sony's console business is significantly less viable without COD.
And as for the 30%, where do you think the other 70% from each COD sale is going?

Yes, Sony would be hurt if COD dropped off the map today but that's not the reality we are dealing with so what's the point? Sony wouldn't go out of business without COD. They would be hurt financially and have to readjust. On top of that something tells me the person who plays COD every single day isn't going to just fall off the face of the earth when it comes to gaming. So will they go somewhere else? Will they start playing other games? We are talking about a fantasy scenario that will have outcomes that we can't even begin to predict.

Sony get's 30% and MS get's the other 70% and we know exactly how Xbox feels about that scenario and it's not good.

 

[Mr Moose]

And how many of those are among the most played PS5 games each month? Because that's what ultimately matters.


The fact that COD sells so well on PlayStation, a platform with no first party FPS offerings.
But don't take my word for it, just read the desperate pleadings of Sony's former CEO:

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

That sure sounds a lot like reliance, no?


The difference being that Steam isn't a hardware platform, it's on PCs and there are billions of those in the world. Steam can lose any game and be fine. But Sony's console business is significantly less viable without COD.
And as for the 30%, where do you think the other 70% from each COD sale is going?

Destiny *exists*.

Destiny 2 was released years before the takeover and on multiple platforms. As for Marathon, we'll have to see how the game turns out, but it has no solid release date.

The DLC wasn't, checkmate.
Like MS invented CoD.

 

[clarky]

Destiny 2 was released years before the takeover and on multiple platforms. As for Marathon, we'll have to see how the game turns out, but it has no solid release date.

Good gymnastics. Still a first party FPS.

COD HQ was released years ago and on multiple platforms also.

 

[clarky]

Destiny *exists*.The DLC wasn't, checkmate.
Like MS invented CoD.

shhhh you. Games are only first party if they fill certain parameters set by M14.

 

[m14]

I'm afraid Destiny isn't quite the blue chip gaming brand that COD is.

shhhh you. Games are only first party if they fill certain parameters set by M14.

Talking about Destiny DLC as some kind of "gotcha" while ignoring the former PlayStation CEO admitting that COD is vital for their business.

 

[Js562]

 

[clarky]

I'm afraid Destiny isn't quite the blue chip gaming brand that COD is.


Talking about Destiny DLC as some kind of "gotcha" while ignoring the former PlayStation CEO admitting that COD is vital for their business.

Not sure why that would be a "gotcha" I'm not Noel Edmonds.

Just simply correcting your error that sony has no first party FPS. It clearly has.

 

[DForce]

And how many of those are among the most played PS5 games each month? Because that's what ultimately matters.


The fact that COD sells so well on PlayStation, a platform with no first party FPS offerings.
But don't take my word for it, just read the desperate pleadings of Sony's former CEO:

"Because that's what ultimately matters."

That's not what's ultimately matters. That's stupid

What matters is what gamers are buying. You can use the same logic as Xbox, but of course you're not going to do it. Lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's alarming how reliant Valve are on third party games.

 

[Woopah]

And how many of those are among the most played PS5 games each month? Because that's what ultimately matters.


The fact that COD sells so well on PlayStation, a platform with no first party FPS offerings.
But don't take my word for it, just read the desperate pleadings of Sony's former CEO:

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

That sure sounds a lot like reliance, no?

The fact that COD sells so well on Playstation bodes well for their present and future profits.

You can use the interview to say that having a good COD experience is important to Sony. But nothing about these UK numbers is bad for Playstation.

 

[m14]

Not sure why that would be a "gotcha" I'm not Noel Edmonds.

Well it's surely a forgivable error considering Destiny 2 was first released in 2017, five years before the Bungie takeover.

I think more people should talk about Sony's lack of FPS, that way they might finally release remasters of the Resistance series.

"Because that's what ultimately matters."

That's not what's ultimately matters. That's stupid

What matters is what gamers are buying. You can use the same logic as Xbox, but of course you're not going to do it. Lol

Sony clearly agree or why else would they be so invested in GAAS?

The fact that COD sells so well on Playstation bodes well for their present and future profits.

You can use the interview to say that having a good COD experience is important to Sony. But nothing about these UK numbers is bad for Playstation.

It is when the deal that keeps such a vital game on their platform expires in less than ten years. That doesn't bode so well for their future.

 

[DForce]

Sony clearly agree or why else would they be so invested in GAAS?

GAAS generates tons of money, that's why they're investing more into It. Still doesn't change what I said.

Looking at the top 20 most played list and saying,"ah this is what truly matters" is dumb. Lol

If that was the case then they would stop making single player games, but no. Those games are selling millions of copies.

 

[GHG]

It is when the deal that keeps such a vital game on their platform expires in less than ten years. That doesn't bode so well for their future.

At this rate Xbox won't require your nonsensical ramblings in 1 year, let alone 10.

 

[Woopah]

Well it's surely a forgivable error considering Destiny 2 was first released in 2017, five years before the Bungie takeover.

I think more people should talk about Sony's lack of FPS, that way they might finally release remasters of the Resistance series.


Sony clearly agree or why else would they be so invested in GAAS?


It is when the deal that keeps such a vital game on their platform expires in less than ten years. That doesn't bode so well for their future.

The deal itself is a risk, but it's better to have very high sales for 10 years than low sales.

Plus the higher the sales are, the less likely MS are to take COD off Playstation.

 

[clarky]

Well it's surely a forgivable error considering Destiny 2 was first released in 2017, five years before the Bungie takeover.

Well by your logic then its an Activision franchise and by default that makes it MS'.

Spencer doing gods work again the guy is a genius.

 

[mayham2199]

Well it's surely a forgivable error considering Destiny 2 was first released in 2017, five years before the Bungie takeover.

I think more people should talk about Sony's lack of FPS, that way they might finally release remasters of the Resistance series.


Sony clearly agree or why else would they be so invested in GAAS?


It is when the deal that keeps such a vital game on their platform expires in less than ten years. That doesn't bode so well for their future.

I don't want Sony to invest in more shooters and I sure as hell don't want Resistance to come back. We have plenty of shooter Doom, COD, Xdefiant, Valorant, Destiny 2, BF.

They pulled back on their GAAS investment for one and every company in the world should be at least trying 1 or 2 GAAS games a year it would be dumb not to. I could turn around and say why is Sony so heavily invested in SP games, FF7 Rebirth, Rise of the ronin, astrobot, Stellar blade, Ghost of Y, Wolverine.

Lol what's your point here? That MS is going to stop releasing on PS? Sure keep up the hope. MS is already announcing their PS ports at game shows.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well by your logic then its an Activision franchise and by default that makes it MS'.

Spencer doing gods work again the guy is a genius.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's alarming how reliant Sony are on third party games. It certainly doesn't bode well for their future in a potential post console world.

You mean like PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4. How'd all those go?

 

[Shin-Ra]

Not sure why that would be a "gotcha" I'm not Noel Edmonds.

I see through your moustache and pink stripe disguise.

 

[Edmund]

Yeah, GP is such an amazing business-model that it forced MS to buy ABK and Bethesda and to become a 3rd publisher just to REMAIN IN LAST PLACE BY A FUCKING MILE

Fixed that for you.

 

[m14]

GAAS generates tons of money, that's why they're investing more into It. Still doesn't change what I said.

Looking at the top 20 most played list and saying,"ah this is what truly matters" is dumb. Lol

If that was the case then they would stop making single player games, but no. Those games are selling millions of copies.

Yes it does. It shows what a limited lifespan Sony's single player titles have. If you want further evidence then check your local CeX to see how many copies of GOW, Spider-Man etc there are warming the shelves. On the other hand, those top 20 games are constantly making money and a vanishingly small amount of them are Sony's first party offerings. Perhaps you should look into how much money some of those companies are making from microtransactions. I'm sure Epic Games are really envious of Sony's million selling single player games while they're swimming in their Fortnite revenues.
"dumb, Lol" indeed.

At this rate Xbox won't require your nonsensical ramblings in 1 year, let alone 10.

What part of pointing out that Sony are heavily dependent on a Microsoft owned title is "nonsensical"? Do you need me to post the Jim Ryan article again?

Lol what's your point here? That MS is going to stop releasing on PS? Sure keep up the hope. MS is already announcing their PS ports at game shows.

The point is that Sony are heavily dependent on a Microsoft owned franchise for the survival of their gaming platform. That is not a great position to be in.

You mean like PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4. How'd all those go?

I'm not really convinced of the merits of comparing the current and future gaming landscape to that of 20-30 years ago.

 

[xBlueStonex]

The logic in here doesn't follow. BO6 was put on Gamepass... which would obviously mean less sales on Xbox lol. People are already playing it on Gamepass, why would they buy it twice? Am I taking crazy pills?

 

[onQ123]

And how many of those are among the most played PS5 games each month? Because that's what ultimately matters.

Helldivers II just sold 12 million in its first few months

 

[Topher]

It's alarming how reliant Sony are on third party games. It certainly doesn't bode well for their future in a potential post console world.

Consoles have always depended on third party games (well....not Nintendo always). Why would Sony care about third parties in a world where there is no console?

 

[m14]

The logic in here doesn't follow. BO6 was put on Gamepass... which would obviously mean less sales on Xbox lol. People are already playing it on Gamepass, why would they buy it twice? Am I taking crazy pills?

No, it's just people grasping at anything to back up their own narratives.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I can't believe COD is now officially dead because GAF said so!

 

[mayham2199]

The point is that Sony are heavily dependent on a Microsoft owned franchise for the survival of their gaming platform. That is not a great position to be in.

Yes we've already established that Sony is reliant on 3rd party publishers nothing here has changed they've been doing this since the PS1.

 

[SweetTooth]

It's alarming how reliant Sony are on third party games. It certainly doesn't bode well for their future in a potential post console world.

The audacity of you saying this in this thread especially!! Haha

Its the other way actually:
"It's alarming how reliant MS are on PlayStation platfrom. It certainly doesn't bode well for their future in a potential post console world"

The statement is more accurate this way

 

[Topher]

I can't believe COD is now officially dead because GAF said so!

Did you say that, G GAF ?

 

[m14]

Helldivers II just sold 12 million in its first few months

And the vast majority of those moved on a few weeks after purchasing. (No doubt the defence force will arrive to remind us that "Well actually 20,000 players less than a year later is an amazing result.")

Consoles have always depended on third party games (well....not Nintendo always). Why would Sony care about third parties in a world where there is no console?

In this era many people play fewer games than before, and COD is now too big for them to afford to lose.

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

Sony need to keep selling consoles because in a post console world they simply don't publish enough games that matter to the mass audience.

Yes we've already established that Sony is reliant on 3rd party publishers nothing here has changed they've been doing this since the PS1.

It's a lot more of a worry in a landscape where such a small number of titles are so dominant.

 

[onQ123]

'Game sales 74% on PlayStation platform '

"This is very alarming for Sony "

 

[Klayzer]

'Game sales 74% on PlayStation platform '

"This is very alarming for Sony "

These jokers are just reaching for a life raft.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

And as for the 30%, where do you think the other 70% from each COD sale is going?

the 30% are pure profit... the 70% are revenue. It means ms bears the entire cost of the production of the game. Quite an important thing to remember as we've seen production costs these days can go quite high

 

[Topher]

And the vast majority of those moved on a few weeks after purchasing. (No doubt the defence force will arrive to remind us that "Well actually 20,000 players less than a year later is an amazing result.")


In this era many people play fewer games than before, and COD is now too big for them to afford to lose.

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

Sony need to keep selling consoles because in a post console world they simply don't publish enough games that matter to the mass audience.

Well then that works both ways. Third party publishers need platforms that people are wiling to invest in to buy their games. Microsoft publishing on PlayStation couldn't make that point any clearer. So this "post console world" is just a fantasy at this point.

 

[DForce]

Yes it does. It shows what a limited lifespan Sony's single player titles have. If you want further evidence then check your local CeX to see how many copies of GOW, Spider-Man etc there are warming the shelves. On the other hand, those top 20 games are constantly making money and a vanishingly small amount of them are Sony's first party offerings. Perhaps you should look into how much money some of those companies are making from microtransactions. I'm sure Epic Games are really envious of Sony's million selling single player games while they're swimming in their Fortnite revenues.
"dumb, Lol" indeed.

There's no evidence needed, your argument is dumb and multiple people are pointing that out.

99.9% of games won't make as much money as Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto, or Roblox.
Hogwarts Legacy has sold over 30 copies, around 8-9M this year. How often do you see the game on the top most played charts after launch?

Not often.
Elden Ring (which has multiplayer) hasn't been in the top 15 most-played charts often outside of the initial launch and during the release of the DLC.

Where's Baldur's Gate 3?

The list goes on.

You're trying to say the only games that matters are the top 15/20 on the most played charts and that's dumb.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well then that works both ways. Third party publishers need platforms that people are wiling to invest in to buy their games. Microsoft publishing on PlayStation couldn't make that point any clearer. So this "post console world" is just a fantasy at this point.

Amazing the new narrative™ now that one is on life support.

 

[Topher]

Amazing the new narrative™ now that one is on life support.

Post-Xbox world means post-console world? That one?

 

[Pop]

Gamepass is saving gaming

Thanks big boy Phil

 

[DeepEnigma]

Post-Xbox world means post-console world? That one?

They're always the leader,

 

[Topher]

Gamepass is saving gaming

And this is a real samurai.....

 

[DeepEnigma]

And this is a real samurai.....

 

[ap_puff]

Yes it does. It shows what a limited lifespan Sony's single player titles have. If you want further evidence then check your local CeX to see how many copies of GOW, Spider-Man etc there are warming the shelves. On the other hand, those top 20 games are constantly making money and a vanishingly small amount of them are Sony's first party offerings. Perhaps you should look into how much money some of those companies are making from microtransactions. I'm sure Epic Games are really envious of Sony's million selling single player games while they're swimming in their Fortnite revenues.
"dumb, Lol" indeed.


What part of pointing out that Sony are heavily dependent on a Microsoft owned title is "nonsensical"? Do you need me to post the Jim Ryan article again?


The point is that Sony are heavily dependent on a Microsoft owned franchise for the survival of their gaming platform. That is not a great position to be in.


I'm not really convinced of the merits of comparing the current and future gaming landscape to that of 20-30 years ago.

Bro you'd be a lot happier if you didn't tie your identity to a megacorp that doesn't give a shit about you.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

These jokers are just reaching for a life raft.

Nah, it's just him. Even the most zealous Xbox fans on this site aren't that delusional. They are wasting their time with that one.

 

[m14]

These jokers are just reaching for a life raft.

No, I'd say that was the people making a big deal about COD sales figures on Xbox when the game has been made available on a subscription service.

the 30% are pure profit... the 70% are revenue. It means ms bears the entire cost of the production of the game. Quite an important thing to remember as we've seen production costs these days can go quite high

Don't worry about those production costs, PlayStation users are happily handing MS their money.

Well then that works both ways. Third party publishers need platforms that people are wiling to invest in to buy their games. Microsoft publishing on PlayStation couldn't make that point any clearer. So this "post console world" is just a fantasy at this point.

We already live in a world where PC and mobile both significantly dwarf PlayStation. And anyone who knows their history (specifically how the iPod disrupted ended the Walkman's success) will be aware of how Sony are easy prey to disruptive innovators. It's odd that people retain such confidence in a company who once saw their leading product become obsolete overnight.

There's no evidence needed, your argument is dumb and multiple people are pointing that out.

99.9% of games won't make as much money as Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto, or Roblox.
Hogwarts Legacy has sold over 30 copies, around 8-9M this year. How often do you see the game on the top most played charts after launch?

Not often.
Elden Ring (which has multiplayer) hasn't been in the top 15 most-played charts often outside of the initial launch and during the release of the DLC.

Where's Baldur's Gate 3?

The list goes on.

You're trying to say the only games that matters are the top 15/20 on the most played charts and that's dumb.

No, multiple people are disagreeing because they don't like having their world view challenged. These are people surprised that COD's sales on Xbox are lower when it's being offered for "free" on Gamepass.
I never said that the top 20 are the "only games that matter":

And how many of those are among the most played PS5 games each month? Because that's what ultimately matters.

You were trying to deny that Sony are dependent on third party games because of the sales of their first party titles, when in reality their entire platform would be in jeopardy from losing COD alone.

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

Bro you'd be a lot happier if you didn't tie your identity to a megacorp that doesn't give a shit about you.

If you're feeling brave there's many other posters on this forum who are in much greater need of this particular advice.

 

[Mr Moose]

And this is a real samurai.....

No, I'd say that was the people making a big deal about COD sales figures on Xbox when the game has been made available on a subscription service.


Don't worry about those production costs, PlayStation users are happily handing MS their money.


We already live in a world where PC and mobile both significantly dwarf PlayStation. And anyone who knows their history (specifically how the iPod disrupted ended the Walkman's success) will be aware of how Sony are easy prey to disruptive innovators. It's odd that people retain such confidence in a company who once saw their leading product become obsolete overnight.



No, multiple people are disagreeing because they don't like having their world view challenged. These are people surprised that COD's sales on Xbox are lower when it's being offered for "free" on Gamepass.
I never said that the top 20 are the "only games that matter":

You were trying to deny that Sony are dependent on third party games because of the sales of their first party titles, when in reality their entire platform would be in jeopardy from losing COD alone.

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

If you're feeling brave there's many other posters on this forum who are in much greater need of this particular advice.

Imagine Game Pass with only first party titles. Lets go further, imagine Xbox with no 3rd party. Your argument is dumb.

Did we ever figure out whose alt you are?

 

[m14]

Imagine Game Pass with only first party titles. Lets go further, imagine Xbox with no 3rd party. Your argument is dumb.

So dumb that the PlayStation CEO himself said that their "business would never recover" if they lost this one game, which Microsoft now own.

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

 

[Mr Moose]

So dumb that the PlayStation CEO himself said that their "business would never recover" if they lost this one game, which Microsoft now own.

Jim Ryan: 'Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan in the company's response to the UK regulator, the Competition [...]

www.vgchartz.com

Whaaat, losing one of the biggest yearly games would affect business? No fucking way!
It would also affect MS if they ever took it away from PS, more so probably.

 

[Topher]

We already live in a world where PC and mobile both significantly dwarf PlayStation. And anyone who knows their history (specifically how the iPod disrupted ended the Walkman's success) will be aware of how Sony are easy prey to disruptive innovators. It's odd that people retain such confidence in a company who once saw their leading product become obsolete overnight.

iPod already happened once and so PlayStation is inevitably doomed. That's silly logic.

Since 2020 all gaming segments have increased, including console, and that is after adjusting back down following the peak during the covid years. There is a shitton of money to made in consoles. Sorry.....but that is just a fact and there is no indication that it is changing any time soon.

 

[m14]

Whaaat, losing one of the biggest yearly games would affect business? No fucking way!
It would also affect MS if they ever took it away from PS, more so probably.

Ryan said a degraded version of Call of Duty on PlayStation would "seriously damage our reputation. Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover."

iPod already happened once and so PlayStation is inevitably doomed. That's silly logic.

Since 2020 all gaming segments have increased, including console, and that is after adjusting back down following the peak during the covid years. There is a shitton of money to made in consoles. Sorry.....but that is just a fact and there is no indication that it is changing any time soon.

iPod was far from their only mistake. Look where Sony were in 2000 vs where they are today. I think it's much more illogical that people retain faith in a company with that track record.

 

[Mr Moose]

iPod was far from their only mistake. Look where Sony were in 2000 vs where they are today. I think it's much more illogical that people retain faith in a company with that track record.

It's like if the football game whatever the fuck that's called these days or GTA6 didn't come to the console. With how many they sell each year and with people who buy consoles just for those games, it would affect business.