Support NeoGAF

[viveks86]

Lets put this way, if bungie released Destiny 3 I wouldn't champion as some Sony achievement. The buyout of Bungie is as ridiculous as Bethesda and ABK.. is numbers for the sake of numbers.

That's an arbitrary take. What does ownership even mean to you then? Sony owns the IP AND (indirectly) pays the salaries for the people who would make Destiny 3. And yet they get no credit? You are treating ownership based on feeling of ownership instead of simple logic. If it's too big or popular prior to acquisition, then it somehow doesn't roll up the chain? Let's change this thought exercise up a bit:

What if Hermen Hulst cancels Marathon and Bungie proposes that they make Killzone GaaS instead. This gives Hermen the boner of his lifetime and he writes them a blank check. Game earns megabucks, rave reviews and gamers agree that "Bungie is back". Does Sony get any credit?

We are in a place where Sony gets the nod for publishing Death Stranding 2, even though they neither own the IP anymore nor the studio, but they don't get credit for anything Bungie does even in the future? Isn't that weird? I think it's weird.

We can agree that the buyouts are ridiculous and not at all heartwarming to observe. But those are just feelings. Ownership is ownership. Plain and simple.

 

[NickFire]

Do you really believe games like Intergalatic, Death Stranding 2, Ghost of Yotei, and Wolverine can draw in groups of people that haven't already purchased a PS5?

If Wolverine has anywhere near the world of mouth that Deadpool v Wolverine did then yeah, it can draw in some serious people I bet. I'm not sure it will though, sadly. Was supposed to be a 2024 game when first announced yet here we are 1/2 way through 2025 without a release date. But the potential to move systems is there with this IP.

No clue on Death Stranding 2. First one did not interest me enough to play it. No clue how good the game is or how big of an audience it had. If I had to guess I'd say it won't move systems though.

Ghost - I know I want to try it when it's discounted because I loved the first one. No clue how much enthusiasm there is for sequel beyond my personal interest. If I had to guess I'd say this will not move systems.

Intergalactic - absolute wild card imo. The devs track record is that good thanks to Last of Us in particular. Whether they can reach system seller status again I just don't know. Admittedly I'm not very interested myself yet so I'm not hopeful. But LoU was so big I can't count it out just because I'm not feeling it yet.

 

[Sooner]

Price increase the console that plays disc.

Barely print any disc games so those users can't buy them in stores or constantly print and release them for the competition consoles instead.

In fairness, they also significantly raised the price of the hardware that doesn't play discs and has specs closer to last-generation hardware.

 

[Bernardougf]

That's an arbitrary take. What does ownership even mean to you then? Sony owns the IP AND (indirectly) pays the salaries for the people who would make Destiny 3. And yet they get no credit? You are treating ownership based on feeling of ownership instead of simple logic. If it's too big or popular prior to acquisition, then it somehow doesn't roll up the chain? Let's change this thought exercise up a bit:

What if Hermen Hulst cancels Marathon and Bungie proposes that they make Killzone GaaS instead. This gives Hermen the boner of his lifetime and he writes them a blank check. Game earns megabucks, rave reviews and gamers agree that "Bungie is back". Does Sony get any credit?

We are in a place where Sony gets the nod for publishing Death Stranding 2, even though they neither own the IP anymore nor the studio, but they don't get credit for anything Bungie does even in the future? Isn't that weird? I think it's weird.

We can agree that the buyouts are ridiculous and not at all heartwarming to observe. But those are just feelings. Ownership is ownership. Plain and simple.

You're are free to disagree with my take budy ... its not going to change

Edit: and when MS pulls a halo to ID soft move we can go back to this discussion because this is not the case. Im not going to champion bought established third party franchises, much more anual ones as some achievement. Not now. Not ever.

 

[DavidGzz]

Raised the price and you can't even find it in store. MS wants you to buy any of the other hundreds of Xbox(the Sony model had a 3% increase at least) models before the actual Xbox.

 

[mckmas8808]

If Wolverine has anywhere near the world of mouth that Deadpool v Wolverine did then yeah, it can draw in some serious people I bet. I'm not sure it will though, sadly. Was supposed to be a 2024 game when first announced yet here we are 1/2 way through 2025 without a release date. But the potential to move systems is there with this IP.

No clue on Death Stranding 2. First one did not interest me enough to play it. No clue how good the game is or how big of an audience it had. If I had to guess I'd say it won't move systems though.

Ghost - I know I want to try it when it's discounted because I loved the first one. No clue how much enthusiasm there is for sequel beyond my personal interest. If I had to guess I'd say this will not move systems.

Intergalactic - absolute wild card imo. The devs track record is that good thanks to Last of Us in particular. Whether they can reach system seller status again I just don't know. Admittedly I'm not very interested myself yet so I'm not hopeful. But LoU was so big I can't count it out just because I'm not feeling it yet.

And while everything you said is true to you and very understandable. There's others that probably feel the opposite from what you just said. I'm pretty sure there will be some people the first ghost game and will feel like this fall is a great time to upgrade from the PS4 to the PS5 to play the second one.

All you need is one or two games to excite someone to upgrade or purchase the ps5. That much I'm sure of. What I'm not sure of is will Sony raise the price of the PlayStation 5 due to tariffs or other reasons.

If the price increases 50 bucks or $100 then strike everything I said from the record.

 

[ToadMan]

Lost profits are incentived through game pass

And while this is about the hardware, GP is primarily driven by console users.

So if the console isn't selling, then GP subs aren't going to increase...

Which is basically what we're seeing, and of course what has led to the mass layoffs and cancelled projects.

 

[Mattyp]

30% lost on hardware but still up in revenue regardless on the total, shows you how much Xbox gaming software is pumping.

 

[kungfuian]

They are literally hedging their bets by investing in conflicting business models so of course something has to give-
-Cross Platform releases of first Party games weaken the platform and reduce hardware sales
-loss of hardware sales negatively impact Game Pass adoption and sales potential for 3rd parties
-Game Pass cannibalizes both first and third party software sales
-reduced software sales impact investment in making games, because games aren't profitable enough to make, in turn impacting game pass content

The real questions are-
-How long will 3rd parties consider them a viable platform? How long till 3rd parties just skip 'em because of low sales potential on their platform?
-How do they plan on maintaining Game Pass subscriptions if no one buys their hardware?
-How will they maintain sufficient interest in Game Pass content if the games they make have such low sales they can't justify the expense of making them?

 

[ToadMan]

They are literally hedging their bets by investing in conflicting business models so of course something has to give-
-Cross Platform releases of first Party games weaken the platform and reduce hardware sales
-loss of hardware sales negatively impact Game Pass adoption and sales potential for 3rd parties
-Game Pass cannibalizes both first and third party software sales
-reduced software sales impact investment in making games, because games aren't profitable enough to make, in turn impacting game pass content

The real question's are-
-How long will 3rd parties consider them a viable platform? How long till 3rd parties just skip 'em because of low sales potential on their platform?
-How do they plan on maintaining Game Pass subscriptions if no one buys their hardware?
-How will they maintain sufficient interest in Game Pass content if the games they make have such low sales they can't justify the expense of making them?

I think 3rd party support continues because it's relatively easy to port these days.

If the Xsex, PS and PC were significantly different architecture then there'd already have been a nosedive.

I think one of the recent leaks following from the firings at Xbox pointed out that GP budget was a black hole that had been used by MS to pay for ports of games from third parties too. The implication then, is that there were third parties prepared to skip the platform unless MS gave them an incentive to come over.

I'm actually curious about Hell Divers too. At first I thought it was Arrowhead pushing for it, but they said that wasn't the case and then a rumor surfaced that MS approached Sony asking for it.

Which is interesting, because if MS wants to make money, they can encourage Sony to bring HD2 over but of course not put it on GP. That makes MS more money. But did MS fund the port in some way?

If true, I'm also curious what words MS would have used to convince Sony that this was a win in terms of platform positioning. Did they basically open up to Sony on their 3rd party plans and exit from hardware?

As things stand, for MS to make money from Xbox consoles and sales, they need a bunch of popular non GP content, which Sony has available...

 

[drganon]

Stay thinking Sony excluuuusives have people rushing out to buy PS5s.

Not taking your layoff from Xbox well I see. Hopefully you can find someone else that needs a worthless shill such as yourself.

 

[DenchDeckard]

There is a big difference between seeing growth quarter-over-quarter the first year after you raise prices and seeing growth quarter-over-quarter 2+ years after you raise prices. It's been two years since Sony raised prices of PlayStation Plus. If we attribute their growth from two years ago to one year ago as being due to the price hikes, what are we attributing the growth from one year ago until now towards? Did they do additional price hikes that I am not aware of? If not, then your argument means nothing.

You responded to his claim that PlayStation revenue is doing well, and your response was that Game Pass revenue is also doing well based on that article you linked. Except that article says revenue increased by 5% from Q1 2024 until Q1 2025, but Game Pass prices increased by over 17% between Q1 2024 until Q1 2025. Call me crazy, but that doesn't sound great to me. It sounds like they're making more money from the people who are staying with Game Pass, but they have less total subscribers than before their price hikes. And we're only talking revenue here, not profits. At its basest level, this looks bad.

Honestly, your counterargument was what sucked. The actual counterargument is that the article he linked regarding "PlayStation Plus Subscriptions Have Seen Continued Growth Despite Price Hikes" didn't give any numbers about total subscribers at all. The numbers it gave was that more people are opting for higher tiers for PlayStation Plus than they were previously, but that doesn't mean that overall PlayStation Plus subscribers have increased in any meaningful way. In fact, it's technically possible that overall subscribers have decreased since that article didn't talk about total revenue, subscriber count, or any meaningful statistic.

OK, thanks for a more detailed explanation. I agree.

Honestly, with all this stuff. I really don't care I just don't like seeing blatant console warring. It's like Sony guys have had an absolute free pass to shit on ms about every part of the business but if anyone mentions a counter argument or talks positively about ms and xbox, the toys are out the pram and here comes the Sony fans on a rampage.

So, basically, myself and RetroGamingUK points sucked on trying to highlight growth.

To note, I never said playstation wasn't growing, I was trying to come back to the constant posts that every part of xbox business is failing and not seeing growth. Retro likes to often express these thoughts, which are completely incorrect.

I'll finish with, MS deserves shit for the recent layoffs. Go to town but this idea that every part of the business is failing is a stretch in my opinion.

I bet there isn't one third party publisher that wouldn't want 5 out out of the 10 top selling games being games they have published. Yet somehow their business is a failure to these hardcore Sony fans. The evidence is right there, they are releasing a steady clip of games and some, not all are performing well. This is how gaming has always been and it seems healthy to me. Ubisoft might have a couple of games in the charts and then they have games like the lost crown that don't sell as much but do well critically and find an audience with a lower budget.

Anyway. Thanks for the post. I didn't search long or read too much into my rebuttal, it was a quick link to show that these execs can talk positively about their numbers and was more of a response to "one service is seeing growth"

I'd like to think if subscriptions grew by 30 percent in may, that is not just coming from new ps plus subscribers when the hardware only grew by 3 percent. That math ain't mathing imo.

 

[Felessan]

Which is interesting, because if MS wants to make money, they can encourage Sony to bring HD2 over but of course not put it on GP. That makes MS more money. But did MS fund the port in some way?
If true, I'm also curious what words MS would have used to convince Sony that this was a win in terms of platform positioning. Did they basically open up to Sony on their 3rd party plans and exit from hardware?
As things stand, for MS to make money from Xbox consoles and sales, they need a bunch of popular non GP content, which Sony has available...

I think they paid for porting and marketing.
And Sony doesn't lose much as it's a 1.5 years old game (so most hype and sales already accumulated) and as live service game it wants any player it can get.

 

[Kumomeme]

 

[RetroGamingUK]

OK, thanks for a more detailed explanation. I agree.

Honestly, with all this stuff. I really don't care I just don't like seeing blatant console warring. It's like Sony guys have had an absolute free pass to shit on ms about every part of the business but if anyone mentions a counter argument or talks positively about ms and xbox, the toys are out the pram and here comes the Sony fans on a rampage.

So, basically, myself and RetroGamingUK points sucked on trying to highlight growth.

To note, I never said playstation wasn't growing, I was trying to come back to the constant posts that every part of xbox business is failing and not seeing growth. Retro likes to often express these thoughts, which are completely incorrect.

I'll finish with, MS deserves shit for the recent layoffs. Go to town but this idea that every part of the business is failing is a stretch in my opinion.

I bet there isn't one third party publisher that wouldn't want 5 out out of the 10 top selling games being games they have published. Yet somehow their business is a failure to these hardcore Sony fans. The evidence is right there, they are releasing a steady clip of games and some, not all are performing well. This is how gaming has always been and it seems healthy to me. Ubisoft might have a couple of games in the charts and then they have games like the lost crown that don't sell as much but do well critically and find an audience with a lower budget.

Anyway. Thanks for the post. I didn't search long or read too much into my rebuttal, it was a quick link to show that these execs can talk positively about their numbers and was more of a response to "one service is seeing growth"

I'd like to think if subscriptions grew by 30 percent in may, that is not just coming from new ps plus subscribers when the hardware only grew by 3 percent. That math ain't mathing imo.

Appreciate the detailed explaination.

The issue here is that many, including yourself, are unable to separate Xbox from Microsoft Gaming.

Xbox sits under Microsoft gaming, alongside Activision and Bethesda, Activision and Bethesda may be in the same family as Xbox, but they are not part of Xbox.

Simply put…

Microsoft Gaming = healthy
Xbox = dead


It's the same as…

Sega = healthy
Dreamcast = dead

 

[Alan Wake]

 

[DenchDeckard]

Appreciate the detailed explaination.

The issue here is that many, including yourself, are unable to separate Xbox from Microsoft Gaming.

Xbox sits under Microsoft gaming, alongside Activision and Bethesda, Activision and Bethesda may be in the same family as Xbox, but they are not part of Xbox.

Simply put…

Microsoft Gaming = healthy
Xbox = dead


It's the same as…

Sega = healthy
Dreamcast = dead

Completely agree, brother!

I can absolutely separate xbox though. I can not stress enough how dead xbox is. I have absolutely 0 issue with that. Its their fumbles that caused it. No point in spending any of my energy thinking about that. I could have probably done a better job, haha.

To be clear, I view xbox. MS gaming or whatever ms want to call it now as a third party pub, just like ubi or ea.

 

[CitizenKratos]

Best third party output this gen.

FTFY