Pretty much. He knows Sony won't put their games day one but if people actually believe that and the usual bullshit articles start circulating they will be disappointed when it's announced.
-
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.
Xbox boss speaks on rumored PlayStation service tiers/consolidation
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
He's right, and I've been saying this for a while. All Sony needs to do is offer their 1P games on a subscription-based, contractual model per game. $3/MO - $6/MO depending on the game. Make it $9/MO if you also want to include access to a season or two's worth of DLC content for games planned to release them during the year period.
The user just has to check in monthly to continue their subscription, but otherwise they get access to the whole game Day 1 as if they purchased it normally. This would seem like a model Sony'd do in order to offer Day 1 games since they seem more concerned (whether rightly or wrongly) about unit sales being affected by a subscription model compared to Microsoft. It'd also encourage more sales of games since the person will perceive a certain value in only paying a few bucks a month for a full game, even if they are obligated to pay the whole price.
That would also allow them to retain original MRSP on digital titles even longer, so they effectively get more revenue per copy sold in the longer term with a contractual game-based subscription model. And if a user skips a payment? Mark it as an infraction on their account and revoke some privileges. If they do it too many times, just ban/lock their account altogether and they have to pay a fee in order to get access back to it and content purchased with that account.
It may not be purely what GamePass does but I think it would work for how Sony views subscription services. I also wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft implemented some form of this into the future if there's ever a restructuring of GamePass to come. At the very least I think with this model you'd get a lot more 3P publishers to jump in without needing to pay them upfront to get their content onto the service.
$3 trillion, actually.
...yeah, I know
Phil hasn't managed Xbox studios since he took over the division. That is Matt Booty's role and has been for years.
Literally incorrect; GamePass notifies people when a game is going out of rotation. They...kind of have to do this for the service to function properly xD
The user just has to check in monthly to continue their subscription, but otherwise they get access to the whole game Day 1 as if they purchased it normally. This would seem like a model Sony'd do in order to offer Day 1 games since they seem more concerned (whether rightly or wrongly) about unit sales being affected by a subscription model compared to Microsoft. It'd also encourage more sales of games since the person will perceive a certain value in only paying a few bucks a month for a full game, even if they are obligated to pay the whole price.
That would also allow them to retain original MRSP on digital titles even longer, so they effectively get more revenue per copy sold in the longer term with a contractual game-based subscription model. And if a user skips a payment? Mark it as an infraction on their account and revoke some privileges. If they do it too many times, just ban/lock their account altogether and they have to pay a fee in order to get access back to it and content purchased with that account.
It may not be purely what GamePass does but I think it would work for how Sony views subscription services. I also wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft implemented some form of this into the future if there's ever a restructuring of GamePass to come. At the very least I think with this model you'd get a lot more 3P publishers to jump in without needing to pay them upfront to get their content onto the service.
$3 trillion, actually.
...yeah, I know
Phil hasn't managed Xbox studios since he took over the division. That is Matt Booty's role and has been for years.
Literally incorrect; GamePass notifies people when a game is going out of rotation. They...kind of have to do this for the service to function properly xD
Last edited:
Badlucktroll
Member
This better be loaded with Ps3 “classics”. Folklore, Resistance, Mgs4, Motorstorm, ect.
They don't make the big chunk money off first party games.
I will get the % for you but its in theory largely 3rd party game sales and more importantly dlc/mtx. There could be a point and a calculation that pc and Xbox is cutting into dlc/mtx more than the loss from sacrificing first party sales.
Papacheeks
Banned
issue is I still see no games or library from Amazon/Google that can compete at this moment even if we are just talking streaming. If Xbox was doing gang busters for gamepass subs they would have said something. It's now 2022, and the last thing we heard officially was January 2021 which was 18 Million. If it's not in the mid 30's for subscribers I would argue its not growing like many within Microsoft want.
kingfey
Banned
MS can spend $30m-$50m per AAA day1 for their gamepass, and that wont hurt their banks. They can practically spend $360m-$600m and they wont lose anything. Not to mention the 1st party games. That is like more than a billion dollar investment per year. MS can afford it.
Sony on other hand will lose alot of money.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Phil's smart enough not to allude what their plans are if this was true
Papacheeks
Banned
Moron we use cloud for steaming our actual feeds for local and national using first and third party hardware and software like AMAZON CLOUD servers which are used for quality assurance on the stream.
lastmessiah
Member
What does that have to do with anything? lol.
Negotiator101
Member
Yeah, who to believe you or Phil Spencer?
GHG
Member
The end game of these subscription services is that the primary method of delivery will be via cloud streaming. For subscription services where hardware barriers are removed, content is all that will matter.
Right now content acquisition is primarily done by throwing money at 3rd party publishers/studios but the industry as a whole has just embarked on a period of consolidation. The larger players have started snapping up gaming studios/publishers and if the likes of Google and Amazon get involved in that race then everyone is in trouble.
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
They're doing fine currently without it.
too much eslim
Member
gamepass tells you when it leaves.
lastmessiah
Member
then why have Spartacus at all?
Papacheeks
Banned
Go look at what you said. You told me I dont know how cloud infrastructure works, yet we have access to amazon's tools, and use our own company's version of stream servers in house that take our feed, analyze it, encode and send it out via amazon cloud where its distributed over different networks like Hulu, Paramount+ ect. I know intricately because I set them up. We have our own cloud farm here as well. We have cloud based live feeds that we are receiving and then re-distributing.
To consolidate and elevate what they offer for services. PS NOW didn't do super well, and PS+ needs a revamp. So they are in essence combining the two to make it simpler and more attractive.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
They are "winning" already though in a business sense! So whatever they do, its an attempt to extend their advantage, not play catch up.
lastmessiah
Member
Ok…but what is the point you are trying to make? Do you think Amazon can’t see your activity on its own network? Really not following your train of thought here.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Because Cloud is an avenue of growth regardless of whether they actually need it or not.
PSNow needs to be dropped if they want to expand on it more
FY20
Hardware was about 20%
Network Services was ~15%
Other is 7%
Rest is solftware:
- DLC is 34%
- Full game sales is 25%
First party titles makes up 20% of full game sales so if average price is the same; sony's fp game sales is 5% of their annual revenue, if it's double 3rd party then its 7%.
If they lose 10% marketshare, they are losing 3.4% from just dlc alone nevermind the other categories.
Off to play Yakuza 5.
Agent X
Member
Sony might do this for some lower tier games (think about games like Concrete Genie or MediEvil), or games that have a lot of DLC/microtransactions. However, I don't see Sony putting all of their games on their subscription service, particularly their top-tier blockbusters that are capable of selling very well on their own.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
Online memberships was initially against Sonys grain and they shut up and started charging a price for psn, like Xbox live. This gamepass narrative is rough, I love ps plus, even though it’s a total money grab but ps plus put free games in there before game pass. Yes ps plus was against Xbox live but you saw free games for years.
Papacheeks
Banned
They only see the activity we have port forwarded to them? It's not like we have a amazon server in house calling back to home base. They can't see within our walls. All they can see is the device thats sending out a stream via a IP over a specific port that talks only to amazon's receiving end.
Thats what port forwarding and firewall protocols are for. We have a firewall thats monitored and behind locked down routing. As in the traffic is designated specifically over specific IP protocals and ports. They might be able to ping something, but all they are going to be able to see is how long it takes for the ping, and where it goes once it leaves our location. No information is accessible.
So you think Since Sony signed a contract to use AZURE hosted services that Microsoft has hacked their databases where they keep their plans on their onedrives, and dossier's? God go watch a youtube video. No one not even people at Sony knew what the PS5 looked like until they were literally taken down to a secret floor where it was in a vault. You think Microsoft had some kind of backend setup to try to see how Mark Cerny came up with the I/O solution? No one knew, only those closely involved.
Same goes for anything each company does. They can take a guess at what they are doing via their recent behavior/purchases/partnerships. But their just that, guesses.
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
If someone can compete with you on an equal level i'd view that as trouble
just_like_that
Member
nah i dont think so lol of course everyone would want that. but didnt jimmy say that kind of model isnt going to work out? either way ps4 had the whole gen without game pass and whatever spartacus is, i dont see day 1 games being on there but maybe third party games.
also nintendo is just chilling lol
also nintendo is just chilling lol
GHG
Member
That's my point, Microsoft wouldn't be, everyone else would be.
Microsoft are also in a position where they could destroy Nintendo and Sony should either of them decide to pivot their businesses to be centered around services equivalent to gamepass.
lastmessiah
Member
They do see Amazon and Google as formidable competitors. That was the reason for the Zenimax purchase in my estimation, to get them away from Amazon and Google before it’s too late.
kingfey
Banned
$3 trillion, actually.
...yeah, I know
Roxkis_ii
Banned
Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
lastmessiah
Member
You are assuming that every sale would be at $70. That is definitely not the case. Only Nintendo can do that.Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
"They don't make the big chunk money off first party games" because there's A LOT more 3rd party games that come out every week than huge AAA blockbusters that are 1st party. And let's not mention F2P games like Fortnite, where almost 50% of revenue comes from Playstation.
I can assure you Sony itself makes a lot more money with a 1st party AAA title than with a 3rd party AAA title on their platform, obviously. They just release a lot less 1st party games every year like every other console manufacturer.
Sony invests on their games, so that's what my original post was about. They spend their own money on developing, producing, distributing and marketing them. That's the games they want to not only break even but also turn into hits. And they can do that with their current business model. Not by having their games releasing on their 5 dollar monthly subscription service where you can also play 800 other games.
Imagine Sony releasing Horizon Forbidden West, Gran Turismo 7 and God of War Ragnarok day one on PS Plus...back to back like that. Games that cost 100M to develop, plus marketing costs. That would be suicide for all those studios. 50M subscribers aren't nearly enough to cover all the losses and Sony will never spend the same money as MS is on Gamepass to develop their own solution.
My guess? They will bet on previous generations of games, backwards compatibility, adding other stuff like Crunchyroll, Apple TV (possibly), etc to add value to their own thing...and one day if their PS Plus subscription hits something like 100M subscribers they MIGHT start testing that and releasing huge AAA titles there. F2P multiplayer games might have some perks if you have a PS Plus subscription as well to push for a few more subs...but that's it.
Just my 2 cents.
kingfey
Banned
these companies have resources nintendo and Sony dont have. Their products are all over the world.
A simple $5 subscription model from Apple would generate a half a billion in 1 month.
Google owns YouTube. Amazon owns twitch and prime. They gain subs from these people. And they will generate crazy amount of money easily.
Good thing these stupid companies arent that much in to gaming.
Last edited:
Roxkis_ii
Banned
That is true, games go on sale all the time, but Sony usually releases more then one game a year also.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Subs have tons of games to try too which every game now has mtx. And mtx revenue is what every game publisher brags about now with its giant profit margins.Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
It's like what makes more money? A F2P game like Fortnite or a $70 game? Fortnite.
NewYork214
Member
Now say we get ps plus, ps now, and day 1 exclusives. What would be acceptable rate? I'd pay 250 a year. Maybe 300 tops. Be like 25 a month.
I pay 60 a year for plus. At least 3 sony exclusives, at 70 each. That's 210 easily. And I get now only on sales. I think 25 a month would be fair.
Still not sure if I'd do that tho. I like owning my games whether physical or digital.
Edit: not even considering all the other games, I would get a well
I pay 60 a year for plus. At least 3 sony exclusives, at 70 each. That's 210 easily. And I get now only on sales. I think 25 a month would be fair.
Still not sure if I'd do that tho. I like owning my games whether physical or digital.
Edit: not even considering all the other games, I would get a well
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
You can spend 10$ easily. but normal people wont spend 70$ at once. Only those who have the money can.Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
If you can extract 10$ from normal people monthly, they feel a dent on their pocket. Compared to 70$.
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
Sony: "Alright, God of War Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West and Gran Turismo cost 100M to produce, each. That's 300M right there...not counting marketing. We could release each one of these games for 70$ / 80€ and break-even during our first week of release...but you know what? Let's put them all back to back on our 5$ subscription service where not even 50M people are subscribed. Our investors will be much happier like this"
Gaf: "Finally! Poor dying Playstation brand finally saw the light"
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Amazon I think will become a genuine threat in the next decade or two. They're dipping their toes for now, but they're genuinely trying
Google just continues to be a laughing stock
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
They had prime gaming. I didnt know they had that. It offers good games, which you can keep them forever. If these tactics reach normal gamers, Amazon would be very dangerous.
the stock market does prefer rundles cause you have more opportunities to upsell. rundle = recurring bundle.Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
It would be great to get revenue numbers instead of units, I am just looking at the Sony financial information (MS probably did and does worse on 1st full game sales and Nintendo probably does better despite having the biggest number of third party games or it's growing to be the biggest)
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Member
I certainly hope Sony doesn't move towards day 1 release of their blockbuster IPs. Production value and overall quality would certainly take a hit. I hate to say it, but so far this has been very apparent with the release of Xbox games, perhaps with the exception of Forza Horizon. I'm sure some will disagree with my position but that's how I see it as of now. You are simply not getting GOW, Horizon, Uncharted, quality games via a subscription model. Would love to be proven wrong in the future, though. There are so many strange choices that Microsoft has made from my perspective, but I guess if their customers are fine with them becoming the Netflix of gaming, then it makes a bit more sense.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
Which is ironic because most Sony first party titles don't come with mtx (that I can think of).
SteelCurtain 59
Member
Would be awesome, and necessary if they want to actually compete with Game Pass in any meaningful capacity
True, but the vast majority of Playstation users aren't buying multiple Sony first party games a year, whereas they might be willing to subscribe to the Sony Game Pass
True, but the vast majority of Playstation users aren't buying multiple Sony first party games a year, whereas they might be willing to subscribe to the Sony Game Pass
yazenov
Member
Reading post here is really confusing.
So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?
From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????
Huh?
Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.
Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.
Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.
Last edited:
Roxkis_ii
Banned
With Sony's first party sales numbers, I think one could argue that people do by multiple Sony first party games.
Similar threads
- Locked