ImGumbyDammit

@Dange It appears that the numbers took a sharp decline. After the initial announcement, there was no further mention of digital sales. This is similar to how Sony reported PSVR2 sales after three months, noting that they were ahead of the previous model, but then went silent once sales slowed down. Moreover, we still do not know whether overall sales surpassed those of the original Death Stranding, or if the decline in physical sales was fully offset by an increase in digital. The only information provided was that digital sales were higher, not that they exceeded the performance of Death Stranding 1. And ~1.5 million is not a success for a game with development cost north of 100 million (no including millions in advertising) and is why games like this need to make their way to PC, Xbox and Switch.

Much of the early momentum buys likely came from players who had already experienced the first game and wanted to jump into the sequel immediately, just as early PSVR2 buyers were primarily enthusiasts. After that initial surge, sales dropped off quickly.

I played Death Stranding 1 on PC and will probably purchase the sequel there as well, just as I did with the last one. What I find amusing is the double standard: some people call 1.5 million sales on PlayStation a success, despite a user base of 84 million consoles, yet dismiss 3+ million sales on Xbox, which has a smaller base of around 40 million consoles, as a failure simply because of Game Pass. That kind of fanboy logic is hard to take seriously.

@Stickleman But they only matter when comparing numbers to Xbox. How often does Push Square and fanboys do that? Of course it is usually using UK and physical numbers with how they beat their chests while ignoring the fact the Xbox (a smaller userbase) is far ahead in users willing to buy digital over Sony. Something like 75% of PS buy digitally only versus 87%+ of Xbox (as of last year) that buy digital.

@ShogunRok No Sony digital store does not make more then all of Nintendo. Neither does it make more if you include the whole of all Sony gaming; Nintendo makes more profits than all of Sony gaming interests. Maybe you are confusing revenue with net-income. Sony's overall gaming net income was around $1.75 billion for this past year; that is a 6% realization off around 25 billion revenue for the year. Nintendo had a net income of $3.03 billion for the same period. I assume we can agree that over $3 billion in profits is much more than $1.75 billion in profit from gaming. In fact, Nintendo is actually at decline from the previous year where they had $3,2 billion in net income. Except for an outlier in 2020, Sony (the whole company not just gaming) usually lands somewhere between in 6.4 to 7.4 billion in net income for a year.

Every time a I see PS fans chest pounding it is about revenue never about realized profits. Learn the difference. A company cares a lot more about actual profits it keeps and investors love it because they get a piece of profits not from large revenue that has to paydown most and returns a low realization value from over extended expenses on that revenue. In fact, ABK makes more net-income (actual profit on yearly basis then all of Sony gaming) I.E. for the same 2023 period ABK had 2.2 billion net income of off ~$8.5 billion in revenue. I can only imagine how bad Sony's profit outlook is going to be for this new fiscal year with no big first-party driving in any profits for the whole year along with a possible PS5 Pro release that may be set a price to be a loss leader or force their PS5 consoles to be loss leaders when they aren't now.

Music has surpassed gaming as the number one profit generator for Sony. Again, there is a reason Ryan is going bye bye and Sony proper put the head accountant of all Sony in charge of gaming. They aren't growing profits in the console space. Sony is flat in gaming profits. Sony gaming is gathering an increase in revenue but not profits. I.E. The sell a lot of consoles they are selling at a mid gen increased price but aren't capitalizing on after a console buy with sales of software adoption and services.

In what way is PS5 going to be the most successful PS gen ever? The PS isn't surpassing the PS2 unit numbers. That is rich if you think that is possible. The PS5 probably isn't likely to surpass the PS4 unit numbers. So, where is PS this gen actually heading to be the most successful?

Do you mean revenue? OK, sure revenue is up. Revenue is only a chest pounding exercise if you don't understand what a company really cares about something more than revenue. You know what is also up (way up)? Expenses. You know what is down for Sony gaming and likely to stay down because of increasing expenses? Net-income. Yes net-income or profit/ That is the money Sony gets to keep after all those expenses and investors get a piece of. That is where you should be pounding your chest for not revenue. Sony expecting 20% and getting 6% realization off of revenue really a chest pounding King Kong moment. Especially with that it is not likely to change for the foreseeable future with some big moves curtail expenses and drive up their post console sale adoption numbers in software and services. Reminder 6% realization with their consoles being sold no loss (at cost or a slight profit) and that is with your main competitor selling consoles at a loss yet still has a 30% better realization off its revenue then Sony gaming.

So how is the PS5 heading to be most successful with net-income down. PSVR2 in a death spin. First-party studios mismanaged and poor ROI on games that have ballooning budget.

I do think you are right about one thing. This PS gen is going to be the most successful gen but it won't be on most successful for consoles but on PC. The PC is helping to compensate for massive game expenses. It is sad day when a Ratchet game is only profitable because the released the game on PC.

@CrackmanNL You are still buying the "I a retiring to spend time with my family" story. Listen you don't put the head bean counter of all Sony (a man with zero gaming experience) in charge of your prized position SIE the very minute Jim writes his goodbye letter. If the Jim Ryan was doing well and leaving of his own accord. Why did Sony proper immediately hand the reigns over to Totoki and relieve Jim of any power? That fact is, Ryan was given a graceful exit of 6 months of goodbyes and no power over SIE to avoid the even greater damage it would do to the Sony stock. I could only imagine the actual damage if Sony proper's unhappiness with Sony gaming with respect to Ryan's leadership was even more apparent beyond obvious assigning of Hiroki Totoki to immediately adjust the gaming division finances.

Ryan's failure is evident by moves made almost immediately under Totoki's rule I.E 900 jobs gone. Those jobs weren't mainly support staff that Sony had plenty elsewhere like the majority of 1900 laid off by MS was (beyond the scenes like HR, legal, etc..) The Sony layoffs were almost exclusively the creatives that build the games. Plus cancelling 6+ games and that is after they shutdown 6 of Ryan's GAAS games a few months earlier. And it included closing of a studio (almost two studios). As for VR I don't necessarily blame him because he never liked VR (that was forced upon him) but he still is the one in charge with PSVR2 not selling (just sitting on shelves and warehouses). He is responsible for mismanaged studios and focusing too heavily on GAAS. He is responsible for Desitny and the mess they are causing. Ryan is responsible for lousy 6% realization on 25 billion revenues and the likelihood that will continue to plague Sony. That 6% right there gets you fired when they were expecting 20%. Investors know what is up and that 6% lost Sony over $11 billion in value (they still have not recovered from.)

Edit: I didn't even get into the PS Portal. The first hardware I have seen since 2013 that Sony not actually announced numbers for. Sony loves to announce numbers. That just signals to me the Portal is about as dead as PSVR2 with no real numbers to get excited about. At least the PSVR2 got couple of numbers announcement in the first several months than nothing.

Edit: I guess I can't give all that bad realization numbers to Ryan. If we are going to give Layden the credit for greenlighting those games that cost 250million, 300 million, and growing. Then he should get the blame for causing so little profit return as well.

Edit: Music is now heading to become golden boy profit generator for Sony surpassing Music.. And it is doing it for far less risk than gaming requires. Whereas gaming is risking over 23 billion in expenses to just get 1.7 billion in net and with costs going up and up that net may dwindle even more. Maybe that is why Sony proper are taking a lot of those billions they set aside for acquisitions and partnerships and spending it on their growing music division and nearly a peep with any of it being spent on gaming.

@KundaliniRising333 Wrong you cover everything. That is very essence of REAL journalism. I am sorry Sony/Insomniac got hacked. But that is on Sony and Insomniac for its weak security. But that doesn't stop the journalistic part of the equation. You seek answers and not run away from them because of some idea it might somebodies' feelings or you think Sony may not be your BFF if you do.

You can feel sorry for the user data issues but that doesn't mean that too isn't a story to investigated as well. Everything is fair game. Either that or any story that is based on info not directly announced by a company should never be written about going forward. Most of these sites/writers/editors would have no articles to present without relying unofficial sources. At least this hack provides official sources not made up, insider references, or rumors.

@Shepherd_Tallon Love the double standard. When its Sony and bad for business we better not publish anything at all related to the hack. These editors/writers/websites suddenly have some misplaced moral rod up their ass. Where was that same compass when it came to every other hack. Seems to me if you had no problem talking about the recent GT6 hack or Sega hacks then you have no leg to stand on now. To me (an many others) the angle is more of "we better not upset our corporate gaming overlord" then any real stance on the subject that will last beyond this one.

I can 100% can guarantee with upmost certainty when the next hack (no matter the magnitude) that as long as the hack isn't on Sony or a Sony studio these same writers being so sanctimonious now will suddenly revert back to being on top of the story instead of ignoring the matter for some fake stance.

Edit: It is not like they would be reporting actual user info. But there is so much in this hack that is newsworthy and should be investigated further. Well at least real journalists will look into those items.

@Nyne This is Sony. Their goal is to sell consoles. Doing what you are proposing (streaming from PS Premium sub directly to the Portal) could lead to people not buying a PS5 console and just getting PS+ Premium sub and then remotely playing to this device. A subscription like PS+ Premium is meant to support those with PS already. That is how Sony thinks. For Sony it is all about adding additional value to the PS5 console not consumer playable options to other endpoints that don't depend on a PS5. If trying to lock you to PS5 wasn't true, then Sony would also allow you to stream PS5 games to PS4 from PS+ Premium (like Game Pass allows Series X only games to previous gen Xbox One) but Sony doesn't allow that possibility either.

@ChrisDeku Hher job was to implement internal direction SIE changes. Which if you add it to other recent moves like Ryan;s supposed need to retire could set a pattern of internal strife with Sony proper in Japan with SIE in the US. Perhaps it is connected. I am still of the belief Ryan was forced out. Firing would have caused too much panic among investors, so (conjectur on my part) he was given a save face way out with retiring. Let's not forget how they treated their last guy. But if he was retiring at the end of the year/early next year normally they would still retain power until that time came and/or a true replacement could be found. But, that is not what is happening. Sony immediately remove him from any further decision capability and replaced him temporarily with Totoki COO/CFO of Sony (a man with no gaming experience but is second in command of all Sony.) Ryan is still around. Why? And Totoki serves no purpose other than to ease internal (upper brass) of concerns they may have and possible start to right a ship they believe has taken some bad turns under Ryan that may cost the division dearly (i.e heavy focus on GAAS and resulting in mismanagement of first-party normal output)

@ChrisDeku @Dragon83 She is not leaving Guerilla games. She is leaving as VP of SIE in charge of plotting future internal directions. She may be replaced by a Guerilla employee.

To me (if true) this puts more credence into Ryan retiring was not his idea but Sony's. Perhaps upper brass had increasing concern on the path he has set SIE on with the heavy push into GAAS at the expense of other areas. Along with the possible fallout/blowback Ryan's narrative push with regulators on ABK will cause Sony and the industry. And "retiring" to spend time with family is a way for Ryan to save face and the company to avoid panic among investors by him suddenly not working their anymore. But if others start to fall or upper SIE brass see demotions into other positions it will become even more apparent.

It is quite strange to say you are going to retire at end of the year but are immediately replaced by the VP of Sony proper, immediately leaving Ryyan with no control of anything. And Totoki who is now in charge of SIE has no history in gaming. He is the CFO/COO of Sony proper (second in command). Why are people just accepting things at face value ("I am restring to spend time with family" oldest push out statement there is) when we have things like this happening.

To me (if this is true) this is just adding more ammo the possibility of a change in leadership at SIE was forced.

A little hyperbolic there with "prices up dramatically". Where were your stories that Sony stock dramatically drops with PS Portal announcement? Sony's stock was $91.66 at the start of August. Now at the start of September (even with that recent "dramatic" bump) it is sitting at S83.19. That means the current price is remains over a $7 loss in share value in one month. BTW, the start of the increase at 8/25 (when the stock was $80 down $11 from start of August) happened before Sony announced their PS+ price increases. So, you are putting way too much value on how the market reacted to the PS+ price increase. It may have played a role, but timing shows it was not the origin. Well unless you believe the market was acting clairvoyantly the week before the announcement when the slight price adjustment started an upwards move. You know what also happened, Sony announced new cameras coming at the end of August (coincidentally around the stock price uptick). They also announced chips advancements.

BTW, if $3 up in the past 10 days is dramatic what was it when the Sony stock was down $11 for the month? I never saw a story explaining that.

@BeerIsAwesome Unlike Sony, MS did not raise prices on the base pay to play online tier what was Live Gold now called Game Pass Core. That is still the same yearly price and MS actually added value by getting rid of the god-awful monthly games and instead is providing a mini curated GP catalog. Most of the complaints were that people were upset that pay for online was still a thing, when most of us consider it an archaic practice that has no purpose anymore especially when both PC and mobile gaming don't have it (i.e. it is cash grab from both console companies).

Also, people weren't as upset (still were but not as much) because you could see the value with the announced and first-party and some third-party) coming day one. With Sony you have no idea what, if anything, those extra dollars you are going to be paying Sony will in return be providing you with any of the PS+ tiers at all.

MS also hasn't raised prices since Game Pass released 6 years ago. Meanwhile Sony's revamped PS+/PS Now service and its current pricing was released in June 2022 and year later Sony is raising prices. That is a pretty big difference in how the services have been treated. And PS+ bumps are quite large comparatively to GP.

Edit: minor point but Microsoft price increases are not global like Sony's increases. Microsoft's increases affect only certain countries. It still the bigger markets but not all markets.

@Th3solution I thought a lot of those (if not all) planned Sony GAAS were going to be F2P because that is how the big bucks are made (i.e. with the MTs like with Fortnite or Destiny) and you need a large user base right away that F2P provides. Sony can't release 12 GAAS and expect any of those to work if they are charging for them and then closing them if they don't show profits immediately. People will just stop buying them. They are going to have a problem with so many being release and most not having any return at all which leads to closing them anyways. As that will affect mindset of users willing to invest in other first-part GAAS From Sony as time goes by

So, unless Sony has changed their current policies F2P (and I believe they haven't) it will still mean you don't have to pay for PS+ for online play with those free to play games. Which means I don't see sub numbers increasing very much as most gamers of GAAS pick one or two games and stick with it and aren't jumping around because of the need to be invested to be competitive with others and definitely are primarily focused on those games much more than paying oth MP games like COD (but would play CW2) and Sony's other first-party games (i.e. SM, GOW, Horizon, other than GT) don't incentivize any need to pay for an online service because they have no online game component..

@Max_the_German No you can't use it as regular controller on a PS console. None of the literature mentions that (you think Sony would mention it if it were possible). Beyond that the most obvious reason why is because the device doesn't support Bluetooth at all. Lack of Bluetooth is why wireless headsets won't work and you have to buy these new wireless audio devices (headphone, buds) Sony announced along with Portal because only they support Sony's PlayStation Link proprietary tech. This is old Sony arrogance popping up again.

You have to love the arrogance or it just plain old crapping on their consumer base with them calling this the Play Station Portal or what works out to have the acronym of PSP. And don't think for a moment they didn't know that. Instead, they give us this garbage device rather than a new version of the previous PSP devices that most of us have been requesting all along.

@KaijuKaiser 6hrs? The Portal isn't going to last 6 hours. That is a pipe dream. Multiple sites have done battery tests over the y past several and found the average time a DS battery lasts, with features on, is 3 hours and now you add the screen and other energy draining components (not in a DS) the likelihood oven even reaching that expectation is even less. Sony saying "aiming for" should be another clue, this device isn't going to even come close to Dual Sense numbers.

@blockfight Let me explain how flops work. Those too don't mean they weren't for someone. People buy into flops but not nearly enough to count as success and keep the device onthe market. This will be one of those types of devices, a flop. Just like small group of people bought into New Coke, Qwikster, Google Lively/Glasses (hell a ton of Google stuff) all flops.

@Mikey856 @thefourfoldroot1 You watch this thing won't even get close to 4 hours, definitely not with features turned on. Your mileage may vary is code for, "our numbers are way inflated."

@Shepherd_Tallon A Dual Sense controller has a MSRP of $70. Then you add a 1080p screen plus some type of APU (nothing fancy) and memory (not much but enough to load app and OS, store multiple screen pages), have larger battery driving both the controller and screen for apparently 4 hours. You are likely over $200. I am betting close to $300 or $350. For reference we could use the Logitech G Cloud which actually has a smaller screen and 7" vs 8" for the Q is $350. Though Logitech screen is smaller it is touch (no word on if the Q is is) but overall, the device serves a similar purpose and has minimal hardware specs (low end Snapdragon CPU). Let's not forget Sony does tend to charge toward the high end with its products. So, expect similar pricing to the Logitech G Cloud.

@NEStalgia Where do you get that nonsense. Sony isn't #1. They aren't even in the top 25 LI battery producers in the world. I even looked at the top 100 (from 2022) and they weren't in the list then either.

@Psnfanboy79 Yup! If you voted NO all the way through you would have (I believe) made 26 out of 31 correct choices.

@TrickyDicky99 Your analysis is completely wrong. Attached VR (wired - tethered - to another device to power the VR) has not grown at all, it is actually in decline. The growth in VR is because of the standalone models, especially the Oculus Quest models. People don't want to have to spend $500+ on a PC or console before you must spend another $500 to get to VR. And the vast amount of people definitely don't want to be directly wired to another device. They want the device to be self-contained VR device at a reasonable price. That is where the growth has been

Unsung feature? Unsung because no one is singing the praises of this Premium tier feature. You act as if Sony didn't sell this trial feature as a major point of Premium, a feature where every game over $34 MSRP would have a 2+ hours trial no later the 3 months after release. Today there are barely a handful or two of trials and that list of games hasn't changed much since the revamp service went live 10 months ago. But here you are writing an article celebrating another one "sneaking in" as if this "unsung" feature is working as Sony sold it. Sony doesn't even put much effort into putting their own games on the trial list. Horizon Forbidden West is one of the rare appearances for Sony own games itself, Ragnarök is another How about the 100's of other games that have been released since June of last year when PS+ revamped went live?

As for Sony (the one creating this service feature and requirements) I would expect if Sony isn't going to put all their games in PS Extra, they should at least put forward the effort to provide a trial to their first-party released in the last 3 to 4 years for those not in Extra. And for new first-party games have trials ready day one of release and not trials 3 months later. And don't even get me started about the weak sauce of how Sony is slow walking the PSone and PS2 games.

Edit: I think paying for trials is wrong on its face but if Sony is going to make a feature (one you are paying for) then Sony needs to better curate how this feature is currently working. And so far, the trial feature has been working pretty poorly compared to how it was originally sold.

@TheCollector316 Sony has strange hate, maybe fear of gaming via cloud. They had a vision of cloud streaming at one time. But those Sony executives have been pushed aside. Sony is the only ones to take away devices they had originally supported (TVs, PS3, DVD players). And did so for no real technical reason (at the time) other than to sell more PS4s. They have slowed walked advancing their own (first to market service) PS Now to be competitive and support more endpoints (it is non-existent beyond PC and PS. Meanwhile others (Xbox, GeForce Now, Luna, and many more) support a broad selection of additional endpoints to service the consumer. And now if a PS5 exclusive game is on their cloud service it is only streamable if you are streaming it to a PS5 (forget even trying if you have a PS4). It is not like a games stream at 4k and can't play otherwise. They prioritized the console endpoint (especially the current gen) at every turn. That is the opposite of what you should be doing. So, I agree they should make this device support their cloud service but history shows they probably won't. I believe they will prioritize this device around supporting PS consoles in order to sell more consoles. Obviously it they do it will likely fail. Which case they can always update it to later support their cloud service.

Edit: even this device is rumored to only support Remote Play from PS5 consoles. So not supporting PS4 further tells me, if true, it probably won't support their cloud gaming.

@Ooccoo_Jr Considering most of the third-party in this list has already been in Game Pass and left after being in the service for a while or is still in the Xbox service so I don't know how you can say Extra is killing over Game Pass. Especially considering what has been dropping day one in the Microsoft service this month comparatively to this list. Good to know that Ghostwire Tokyo with its large update and being PS+ (like Deathloop) is a sign it will drop on Xbox soon (April 12th) and that means GP too. Which is great for my brother.

And PS+ Premium which I foolishly converted my time to has been an utter waste of my money. It is like they don't even care about the service for this tier. The BC content is utter shame compared to what they sold everyone on. And where are all those demos? That was a major selling point. It was supposed to be for every game (over $35). Still barely a handful.

@Tharsman Selectively parting with a few IP (specifically FF) would be like Coca-Cola parting with Coke and keeping everything else. I don't think Fresca, energy drinks and Jack Daniels would be the same Coca-Cola company without the cola related product. Now selling off Yahoo. Coke could do that. An even better example would be Sony selling just SIE/PS. It is the golden goose; you don't sell the golden goose alone. You sell everything with the golden goose (the cage, the food, the pooper scooper). It would make very little sense financially for Square to sell off the prized IP only.

@themightyant dig deep requires money. So, unless you think Sony is willing to exchange shares (unlikely giving a lot of control over to stakeholders of the acquired company in a big deal). And this is not the time to raise long term debt-based borrowing against hard capital with higher interest rates and decreasing monetary value. Bonds would also in this economy be an option but leave a much larger debt with higher rate payouts to get investors interested. Let's not forget Sony was on the verge of falling of that financial cliff a decade ago. They are not going to bet their bank account and dig deep in an economic climate that is not great and especially hard on manufacturing (which is primarily what Sony does) and this world economy isn't looking to get better for a while.

Edit: I am not one of those that says Sony doesn't have the money in the bank for SE. They have the cash. But it would require them taking a good percentage of what they do have and using it. It would be like MS taking that $140 billion they had in the bank and instead of just using 50%, using 90% of it on ABK. MS would never do that. A nice portion of cash on hand is meant for break in case of emergency. Sony wouldn't do that either. Not in this economy or actually any economy. It would leave them very venerable to fluctuations and unforeseen needs and may put them back at that situation they were in in the early 2010's. Manufacturing is especially volatile. Much more than tech services which MS relies primarily on.

@alienwithin You were doing well until you said Sony has 1.5 trillion in debt. The problem is that people keep quoting this trillions in debt but don't realize the source that it comes frpm mistakenly did not convert the value from Yen to dollars but just wrote it as dollars. If you look at their quarterly's (where the original story derived its trillions form) they have billions in debt (low 10's) not trillions. Sony's overall debt is no larger (relative to their size) then other companies with similar size. They have debt structure of about 17+ billion dollars short term (give or take) and similar (maybe slightly less) for long term debt.

Edit: if Sony actually had a long-term debt of trillions of dollars their interest alone would be more than the revenue, they make yearly (not profit but revenue) and that means they would not exist as a company if that were the case. And if Sony had any large short-term debt (ie 100+ billion) that is debt that must be paid off within the year they would as well be in trouble considering their OI is around $10 billion yearly. Believe me Sony has no more of a debt issue than MS or Apple do.

@themightyant MS didn't dig deep. They had about $140 billion in cash. After the deal is complete, they will still have $140 bill (more actually) in the bank because they make about $135 billion in profits each year and that works out to about $82+ billion in OI each year. If the deal closes by June 2023 as their lawyers stated last year they will put more cash in the bank, than what the ABK deal will cost since the time they announced it last February 2022.

@Acurisur You are right it isn't solely for PS but it isn't for electronics. The money set aside was for enteterainment based acquisitions. Which is movies/TV, anime, music, and gaming. And it isn't solely for acquisitions but investments of a variety of types (i.e. their minority stake Discord, From Software, Epic). They have made other entertainment related investments that people aren't paying attention to like at the end of 2021 they acquired Bad Wolf Productions (the company now producing Doctor Who for the BBC) . They also made a majority stake purchase in Alamo Records

@StrawberryWave Stop with the nonsense that American companies can't buy Japanese companies. There are certain companies in certain industries that are protected. Gaming is not one of them. And most protections (beyond national security) like chip manufacturing are in place to keep out the Chinese not the West. In fact, 30% of large companies in Japan have a foreign owner (US is is around 40%). The way a company is bought is packaged differently (quite similar to how Australia requires foreign ownership). But, nothing is stopping an American company (including MS which already owns Tango GameWorks a Japanese studio).

Edit: in fact, if the Japan government was so worried about foreign investment controlling a company then you would have to look no further to see how ridiculous your claim that Japan cares (at least with Western investors). Sony itself is primarily owned by foreigners. 56% stock is owned by foreigners. Of the top 10 largest investors in Sony 8 are foreign; 6 are American institutional investors including the top 2 and only two are Japanese.

@Americansamurai1 Maybe so. But there is a big difference between Xbox 360 COD days when Xbox perks most of the time lasted a couple of weeks or a month at most and were with map packs or doodads. Sony morphed it to a point where content perks lasted a year and included a lot more than a few maps and unique looking headgear. For a game which has a new iteration every year Sony's COD content locking essentially made those perks permeant for the game as most people will have moved move on to the next COD release by the time those perks would be available to other platforms.

In fact, I find it ironic that one of Sony's own complaints against this merger is MS might do exactly what Sony itself is doing right now. And that scares Sony. Why? Because they probably know how effective that has been for them.

@InternetUser It is Sony and they have to protect their PS5 console sales. Is there any other reason? No. At least no technical reason Ps5 games shouldn't be streamable on the PS4, PC and in the future (hopefully) mobile is supported. The fact is Sony pretends to have this new mindset but they really don't. This is them being the old Sony. Just like when they removed PS Now from PS3. It wasn't because the PS3 wasn't capable of handling streaming any longer but they wanted to only sell PS4s. Once gain Sony is essentially doing the same thing here with PS5 games. There is no technical reason why PS5 only PS5.

Streamable to all supported devices is something Xbox already does with their streaming service and I wish Sony would follow. In fact, even as Microsoft is now only making next-gen games going forward all the next-gen only first-party will still be streamable to X1 devices. That is how it should be done.

Edit: and it seems if you are subscribing to PS+ Premium you are getting less if you are PS4 owner but are still paying the same for the service. Will they charge you less for getting less if you are on a PS4? Doubtful.

@PhantomMenace84 By Sony's own words they said they were making a profit off the PS5 base unit as late as the start of this year long after increases in hinger inflation had been happening. Was Sony lying to their investors back in early 2022? Because there is no way with inflation and seeing certain parts having pricing drops in tech if you look into pricing PC parts, that inflation added over $100 to $150 to the build cost. That is what you are saying if we are to believe they are still taking a loss after raising console prices up to $50 more. And that is not even taking into account how much profit they (again their own statements said it profitable) were actually were making on each PS5 base.

Now, I agree the PS AD was a money loser if the base unit was earlier being sold at a profit, That 4KBRdrive+cage+molding (plus other incidentals like BR licensing's) is around $30 means the PS5 AD was having Sony take a hit of around $70 loss on each sale if the PS5 was sold at cost but again it was being sold at profit. But, that loss was from the very start of the gen nothing to do with inflation. That is why you see 1 PS AD for every 4 or 5 PS5 base units being made. When it would be the reverse (more PS5 AD, less PS5 base) if Sony's goal is to sell digital not physical. But that loss was already built in to their plans at the $100 differential. And if anything the fact the it doesn't have as much internal parts that would be affected by inflation (i.e. 4kBR) that means that build cost to MSRP could have actually shrunk that loss over the PS5 base unit. Say that loss was $70 but now that BR4K costs Sony $35 that means their PS5 AD is now a $65 loss to the PS5 base not the $70 it once was. All because the PS5 AD otherwise isn't adding parts to the build but subtracting parts from the build, parts that may have been affected by inflation.

@Jaz007 Well then you better find the monopoly. Show me that level that this even comes close to that measurement. Because there isn't one here. The combined XBox+ABK is still smaller in revenue then PS, as a percentage of the industry smaller then Sony. And if this falls through should any Sony move now automatically be called in to concern for being a monopoly themselves? As for MS we can talk monopoly if they buy EA, Take-Two, Embracer, Tencent and after al that MS are making a play for PS. Then we can talk monopoly. (all that would be just about 50% of the industry) I bet even then Nintendo won't care and just move along at their own pace.

BTW. Neither of these console makers are anywhere in the vicinity of a monopoly on any level with respect to the gaming industry. Competition still exists. No one (including Sony) is stopped from making games, buying studios, making deals or expanding their own subscription service to be more competitive. Not EA. Take Two, small developers, big devs, etc. Hence why everyone when questioned except Sony all said they were fine with the deal. The concern of regulators is not that Sony will remain number one or worry they may lose a few dollars in revenue or if Game Pass may be successful if Sony is keeps not willing to compete there. Their concern is if there is competition. And again, every major player (besides Sony) agreed there would be competition as there is now.

@LightningLeader Lets be honest each has pros and cons. For example, my digital collection is over 1200 movies/tv series. (Not on Sony thank God) It is easily accessible almost anywhere in the world. Plays on a phone, tablet, computer, console, TV without the need of a disc player. I can give access to anybody. It doesn't get misplaced (unless Sony misplaces ), It doesn't get worn out or damaged. If I loan it out (ie give my account info to a friend) I never have to worry about it being returned, damaged or lost. My digital collection has grown so large mainly because I have kids (lots of kids) of various ages. So giving them access to digital, easily accessible visual catalog rather than allowing them to handle discs, possibly damage another player(s) and put discs in the wrong box is an obvious bonus of digital.

Of course, physical has benefits digital doesn't. This very situation being one. No need for the internet (ever) to play a movie. The quality is real 4K or HD not the overly compressed versions that we stream digitally. Larger selection of movies/TV to buy and add to your catalog. Your catalog is in one place. Whereas digital may be spread across different apps/stores. Physical contains the bonus features often not part of digital versions. My physical collection currently stands around 800 discs (many duplicated digitally)

I suspect you will see legislation start to appear that protects the rights of users who buy digital video content from things like this Sony situation happening again and again.

@sketchturner Give it time. I am sure Sony is mulling completely getting rid of their video store. The store is no longer selling anything. That means it no longer is bringing in money. Yet Sony still has to continue to pay for licenses this obviously means they are losing money now. So, one step at a time. Before you know it Interstellar may be on the chopping block. It is not like it is a Sony/Columbia studio movie.

How does that poem go "first they came for....."

There should be laws in place that protect users in such matters as this. Sony should have worked it out so content could be retained somehow. For example, I remember years ago when Microsoft decided to get rid of their music store, they gave everyone the opportunity to download unprotected versions (no DRM) of all the music they bought. Sony should be required to do something similar here. Work out a deal or return the funds back to the user for a product they sold and are now revoking access to. Where in the non-digital world where would anybody stand for this?

@get2sammyb Calysto Protocol restricted pre-orders to PS only even though it is multi-plat.

Timed exclusives hide the fact they will be coming to other platforms. How long did Kena hide the fact it was even going to be multi-platform even though that was the plan all along? Stray?

@stu123 Different system. Sony pays the publishers differently. And more times than not they a fairly old game. Does Sony let you play those games when you stop paying for PS+? Nope. Sony wants its pound of flesh to make back the cost of paying for those games you can download from PS+. Just like publishers in PS+ Extra/Premium want their pound of flesh from Sony for letting Sony allow you to play the games.

@stu123 @stu123 @Scob I think Sony will be fairly aggressive in the beginning. You will see Ratchet for sure. Probably the recent Uncharted Legacy of Thieves. Maybe even some very recent third-party. As for PS5 games I would think Sony won't be that idiotic not to give you the PS5 version. If suspect if there is PS5 version of a game you will get that version if running a PS5. That Morales version, for example, would be the PS5 update version not the PS4 version if you on a PS5. I mean if Sony just was giving you PS4 versions of games I can't imagine how bad that would go over. It would be a Shitzu storm.

@stu123 They aren't yours to own. Just like any other service (i.e. Netflix or GP) if the games are removed from the catalog they won't run. On GP you get a "You don't own this" message if you try to run a game after it leaves the GP catalog. I don't know why it would be any different from PS+ Extra/Premium. It is not like Sony is paying the game publisher any more when it leaves the catalog. So that means Sony doesn't have the right to just hand it to you for free use after the fact.

@Th3solution Sony already says they plan to have 10 live service games by 2026 (that is 4 years from now). How are they going to do that without buying more studios for that purpose? Otherwise, if they don't, they are going to have to assign the job to teams within their current stable of studios. Sure, they can buy the work from another third-party like Haven (a studio that was acting as second-party developing a live service game before Sony decided to buy them outright instead two weeks ago). But there aren't that many around with that type of pedigree of talent to really support a live service. Sio you will buy them when you can. And I assume Sony knows it be better to own the teams that develop a live service game than continuously spend on an outside dev for supporting a live game for content for many years.

Not saying this rumor of a possible acquisition will be focused on live services capable dev. Just that if Sony has that goal of having (quite) a few live services then there will be more acquisitions tailored towards that goal.

@KippDynamite Sony saved few bucks here. Now all they have to do is save another $400 billion more and maybe the Disney board might actually answer their call instead of laughing and prank calling Sony back.

@UnlimitedSevens Foreigners not able to buy Japanese companies is a fallacy. There were regulations after WWII that were put in place that made it almost impossible to buy a company and that was there to keep Japan from being taking over financially by outside force after the war. However most of those regulations have long been removed.

There are some industries that have a higher protection lid. But those same industries have a higher scrutiny from buyers in almost every country (including US). And gaming studios are not one of those. Any more then it would be if Sony wanted to buy Activision. That increased scrutiny or lack of actually not allowing is for industries that deal with things like chip manufacturing and the like. Security-related industries. Industries that deal with infrastructure or defense. And today it is mainly aimed at China's attempt to invest in Japanese companies and transfer technology and not Western companies investing. In fact, today around 30% of Japanese companies (small to large) have foreign owners.

@Shinnok789 I can't see any timed exclusiveness. Especially considering it is essentially a yearly released game. It will either be day one on PS or it won't come at all.

That being said Sony makes a ton of money off the game on PS. And a large percentage of COD players that is almost all they play (just like Fornite gamers, or FIFA). And Sony likes money and wants to keep those gamers (who are mostly casuals with no box loyalty) from jumping ship and taking that money with them. So I can see Sony working out a deal with MS. Where PS gets COD and in return they give Xbox something (or two somethings).

Instead of any timed exclusivity, where MS will make COD enticing to get people to adopt the Xbox ecosystem and in turn incentivize GP adoption (the true goal here) is by giving GP subscribers perks (maps, early access, etc). That alone will drive COD gamers in mass to GP. No different than how Sony got a lot of games to move from Xbox to PS when they did something similar after retraining the market rights to the game last gen.

@Mauzuri You still think GOW is this year? I am thinking that game is going to be delayed more than the year people were thought was happening. Now from the original announced 2021 to sometime 2023. Hope I am wrong but Sony not even saying 2022 at this point, which would be a year delay, leads me to believe it is a Spring 2023 game.

@colonelkilgore You should have said October. If it comes out September 30th you get one day before your friends start bothering, you. I know my friends would message me continuously (in jest of course) if I said September and the next day was October.

What idiotic analysis. PS5 shortages have nothing to do with exclusives out of the top 10. Sony already said they are exceeding PS4 gen. So, there are more than enough consoles to sell to.

Here is the primary reason and the most obvious Sony's studios don't have anything people want to buy in mass at the moment. And what they have released has done Good to OK the month it was released but died out quite quickly beyond that. Even the much-lauded Ratchet only sold slightly more than a million units. And that is to hungry PS5 console ownership that has had little to buy for next-gen only gaming. That million is only10% of its userbase. I would have expected it do at least 15% to 20%. Even cross-gen games have done so-so. Morales didn't even reach 50% of the Spider-Man sales. And that is with Morales having close to 30 million more consoles to rely on for sales.

Secondly, pricing. $10 more is $10 too much. Simple as that. Casuals (you know the 80%+ of owners) are going to conserve their money. Even on PS5 at this point, I would say 50% that I know personally that have a PS5 console are casual gamers. Maybe Ratchet might pop-up on the list again if it gets a 50% sale or magically appears on PS4 next year (taking bets it will, in takers?).

But let's just face it several of those games are always there. GTA V and Minecraft never move off. Some of those other games have sales going on (see my point about Ratchet). Others will probably not be there next month or two replaced by what is the next hot thing for a month. I.E. maybe Deathloop or a Directors Cut or the latest cross-gen third-party.

The first Lego movie did surprisingly well. Beyond all expectations. But that led to Warner inundating us with several Lego movies that did not fare well. WB with movies like Sony has noted recently with games is looking for big bangers rather than investing in smaller movies.

As for WB Games, almost all their IP is licensed. Either they licensed it from someone (Middle Earth, Potter, Lego) or they own it via DC and not directly owned by the game studios. And that has been the problem with Warner trying to sell almost all their studios where either DC IP would have to have a long-term deal to make it sense for the price and then for the other IP it is locked licensing hell for all the other content that Warner Games is using.

As for TT, I think that would be a great fit for Xbox needs. Spencer specifically said several times that more family-oriented games are in their headlights to balance out their catalog. TT would fit that need quite well. It would. as well, lead to a lot of content immediately to GP with the 40 or so Lego games they have done. And I think Lego (who has worked with MS several times already) would not have a problem continue to license the IP. And there is a lot of content in the Xbox catalog that they could use (beyond the normal Disney,r DC or Marvel IP) they do already. Imagine Fall Out or Halo TT-based Lego game. Cross license those with Legos as well. I think if MS did get TT in many cases they would treat it like Minecraft (or maybe licensing would force them) have the games go multi-plat (minus games that are using MS IP). But again this is all about GP. And TT is good for one or two games a year for GP day and date.

MK IP is questionable. I have been told by someone who has better knowledge about Nether Realms Studio that the MK is owned by the game studio, not under Warner proper. Now MK could be retained by Warner in the studio sale but, that just means they won't get any price near the numbers they want. This would be OK for Xbox since they have Killer Instinct to use NR for but, no IP would not benefit Sony if they were to buy NR. Or ATT/Time-Warner could make a long-term deal for MK film licenses and let Nether Realm Studio retain the rights. Not like MK movies (at any time) have been giant earners. So maybe Warner won't care about the movie rights or retaining the IP at all.