Destiny 2 looks good, sounds good snd has GREAT gunplay that makes the game fun and addictive.
In just about EVERY other aspect from level design to inventory management to story and more, Destiny 2 is a big, fat fail. The gun gunplay covered up the cracks but the game is overly grindy, too much work, far too repetitive and focuses too much on driving players to the shop through deliberately bad design.
Now that the Light and Dark saga has ended, players have no reason to stick around
@CupidStunt The problem with your opinion here is that you are comparing apples with oranges. XBox and PS have two very different business strategies, very different priorities, very different needs.
The only factor where your statement is true is that PS has sold more consoles.
That actually isn't a W. Not when you look at all the factors.
First....Sony uses units shipped (rather than sold) for a reason. It gives a big boost to the numbers. Second...Sony has been known to mix hardware, generations, etc in that number again boosting numbers. Third...the PS sells more consoles, but many of these go to casual and BH gamers precisely because PS dominates the zeitgeist. The problem for Sony is that these gamers spend relatively small sums on software. Another problem is that much of the money that is spent doesn't go to Sony at all. When your business model relies on software sales to offset losses in hardware, having millions of your gamer base enjoying free games isn't helpful. Fourth...related is that at any one time, up to 25% of PSs made had effectively disappeared. These units generate no sales, and were never connected to the internet. No updates. No patches. No online play. They just.....vanished. This problem goes back to the PS3 era and was particularly noticeable with PS4 but remains present to the current day. Fifth...sales figures such as these hide one fact that troubles both PS and XBox. Namely, the console market is stagnant and declining. These sales represent upgrades rather than new blood and new money. And sixth....a big reason XBox sales lag is because console sales aren't as critical to XBox as they are to PS. XBox eco-system can be accessed via console. PC. Mobile. Laptop. TV. Cloud. MS is also moving into streaming and subscription services. Sonys focus is the console, but MS is pushing Cloud. Sony is moving to Cloud as well, but is about 5 years behind. And both companies dominate where they are focussing. The problem for Sony is it too wants to drop the console....and it can't. Not yet.
So while you are right about the install base, the situation is a good bit more complex.
@naruball Sonys various financial reports have been complaining about PSs low ROI since the PS3 era. The botched GAAS transition hasn't helped, but Sony spends a lot of money on exclusives that then go on to disappointing sales.
Many of these do make a profit....the problem is they don't make enough of a profit to justify the huge risk. Concord, all said and done, cost Sony $700m. $400m on development, but there are other costs to consider....marketing for example and the studio acquisition.
What about non-GAAS? SM2 cost Sony almost $600m to develop, market and license and part of the profits were eaten up by expensive royalties to Disney. Sure, it made back ots development budget but ***ALL*** costs considered, SM2 had NOT broken even before it was released on PC.
And that fact alone tells you why it was released on PC so quickly, at least by Sony standards.
It is not unusual for Sony to spend $500-$800 million on a single single player game, and design that game with little or no replayability, and little or no monetisation. The game might even be short, with only limited content. And it isn't just Sony and MS....just about all of Sonys usual partners have also abandoned exclusivity. That alone shows this isn't due to Sonys botched GAAS push but is a market wide reaction to the very nature of exclusivity and the realisation that exclusivity now costs more than it gains.
Costs have skyrocketed and frankly, part of that is due to Sonys mismanagrment. As much as people liked boasting about seeing reflections in Ratchets eyes, that is a geature that adds nothing to gameplay and doesn't even affect how the game looks, feels or plays. But it DOES add millions to the budget and it does negatively affect performance.
But Sony can craft cheap games and successful as well. HD2 is an example. It was relatively cheap to develop, popular, well received even if it were poorly monetised. HD2s big problem was the PS user base....it sold relatively poorly on PS and it has largely been carried by PC.
I get that you are trying to save Sonys model. That you like exclusives. But the truth is that exclusives were losing viability even before Sonys botched GAAS push, even before Concord. Costs are rising, attach rates are falling and the market is in decline as console gaming transitions to a very expensive hobby.
What Sonys botched GAAS push has done is accelerate matters. Sony has lost too much money to simply overlook it and it needs to look to other sources. Going multi-platform is the easy, obvious choice but it was one that was unlikely to move forward this generation. Embracing a multi-plat strategy, with Timed Exclusives being revealed during the PS6 launch would have offered Sony a much better platform but time and money can't wait and Sony seems to have brought forward its plans by a few years.
And that's good. HD2 is the type of game that should do well on XBox but a late release also means a large number of lost saled. But it'll still earn Sony a lot of money.
Remember when PS games weren't going to PC? When PS games weren't going to other consoles? When it was only going to be GAAS?
People consoled themselves with such thinking.....right till the next time Sony stepped through a fan imposed redline that Sony wasn't supposed to cross.
Sony advertised a position worth almost $300k. Do people really believe they would do that for just GAAS? Especially when, other tgsn FairGames, Sonys GAAS output is either already cancelled or already confirmed for XBox?
$300k to decide if one game...maybe two...is released on XBox.
Seriously?
PS fans need to step away from their delusions.
The reality is simple....love it or loathe it, the gaming market can no longer sustain exclusivity. Sonys effort to sustain that traditional business model is a big reason PS profitability and ROI is low. Exclusivity is justified if, and only if, it leads to enough hardware sales which then, in turn, generate enough software sales to offset the high costs of exclusivity.
And for the past decade and more, with the rise of F2P, BH and one-game casuals, that is no longer the case. Both Sony and MS have confirmed the console market isn't growing. In fact, the reverse is true...its shrinking and console sales are due to existing console gamers upgrading rather than new blood, new money coming in.
Both Sony and MS need to expand their player base, need to grow revenues and profits. And MS is succeeding. Half the number of consoles compared with PS, but its profitability and ROI are far greater, in both relative and absolute terms.
And one reason is that MS abandoned exclusivity. FH5 has sold 3m copies on PS. And that is PURE PROFIT. FH5 is already paid for by XBox and is a 5 year old game. MLB has up to 5 times as many players on XBox as PS....and sells more than TWICE as many copies. Sony makes more money from MLB on XBox than PS. And as much as gamers loved HD2, it was PC which saved it. It sold relatively few copies on PS
You think Sony doesn't notice? You think Sony doesn't care about money?
Exclusivity is dead and PS fans need to be prepared for the whole slate to go to XBox. Its easy money for Sony, its cheap, its safe. PS fans need to get used to TIMED exclusivity being the norm.
@Fiendish-Beaver XBox has cheap entry points with the FireStick, TV apps, Mobile phone apps and PC access. You want a cheap entry point into gaming? XBox is the answer.
Is Sony going that route? Yes. And no. Sony and its CEOs have already spoken about plans to transition to a virtualised future....i.e. app based systems running on Mobile, Laptop and PC platforms. They are just a few years behind MicroSoft in implementation.
Will they continue along that path? Maybe. Probably. But plans change as the market changes. Sonys exclusivity based business plan worked great in 2010 but the rise of F2P and BH damaged it and now both XBox and PS are embracing multi-platform.
The real question is how willing are Sony going to be in subsidising the cost of the console. Consoles are cheap because Sony and MS made a loss on sales. But that makes sense only if they make a decent ROI from software sales. But software is becoming more expensive, ROI is going down and costs are skyrocketing. That's why both MS and Sony are abandoning exclusivity....the market can't support it. But that in turn means there is much less incentive for Sony or MS to sell consoles at a loss. And if Sony isn't willing to eat the cost, then this new console might still end up reasonably expensive for its capability.
Gaming has changed over the past two generations and exclusivity stopped being relevant years ago. Games simply cost too much to develop and sell too few copies for exclusivity to be attractive. Moreso since exclusives aren't shifting consoles the way they used to either.
Sony has signalled for years that, just like MicroSoft, it was embracing a multi-platform release strategy and embracing a future as a 3rd party publisher (as some would define it). The true surprise is not that this happened, but that it happened so quickly....personally, I was expecting moves in 2027 with the PS6, even with Totoki in charge.
But then.....porting to another platform is a relatively cheap and safe way to extend sales and Sony does have a shortfall to make up.
So, I'm getting that DS2 physicals would be lower than DS1s, given the "different era" excuse but then we have another exception...same era, but Astrobot just sold well on physical so we shouldn't count it.
What I'm hearing are excuses.
DS2 is a sequel to DS1......which, quite frankly, earned a great reputation as a walking simulator. There were quite a lot of complaints about that at the time. DS1 has been "fixed" since then but first impressions do count.
I suspect that there has been a drop in physical sales and a rise in digital, but I'd also suspect the usual drop off we see with sequels is a bit more pronounced with DS2. I'd suggest a lot of players who did buy DS1 will indeed end up buying it, but in a sale or simply just waiting for it on PSN.
Sure, games like Metal Gear requires licensing so easy to see those being temporary.
But a lot of what is streaming is owned by Sony. It costs much, much less to keep them available. And whats weird is that streaming services need a solid, permanent core and those PS3 games could help provide that. Especially if they can only be streamed
@quality_assurance The new XBox sell for the same reason consoles sell today.
Some people don't like PCs. And the new XBox will be a PC configured as a console. Best of all worlds....in theory at any rate.
PCs....desktops....aren't built to sit under the TV. And as flexible as they are, a lot of people don't like the idea of messing around with cards and drivers and blue screens. And others just don't want to sit in front of a PC after doing so for 10 hours at work.
A console....even the PS...is a PC with a dedicated OS and fixed specs that reduce/remove the need to fiddle with hardware and drivers. But what really makes consoles attractive to gamers over and above PCs is the cost. Consoles are subsidised so they offer a powerful gaming platform at a relatively bargain price.
Or did. Neither Sony nor MS appear to have any interest in subsidising new console generations so the next generation of consoles is likely to see relative parity with PCs as far as value is concerned.
As for nobody on XBox buys games.....noone on PS buys games. Thats a big part of why Sonys exclusivity model is failing and why hardware subsidies is going away. Attach rates are actually higher on XBox than PS but the truth is attach rates have largely collapsed.
As it is, Sony is also embracing a multi-plat 3rd party strategy, Sony is also moving away from hardware based consoles and Sony also has a streaming rent-a-game service with PSN.
Sony also has no games and has to spend billions securing content to support that service.
But yes....the next XBox being a PC/Console hybrid makes perfect sense for MicroSoft.
Play Everything....including PS games. Play Everywhere....TVs, consoles, mobiles, tablets, PCs, phones
And here's the big one....MS integrating XBox and GamePass into Windows as the Windows Gaming Mode means any developer developing for the XBox platform now has simplified costs, proven development tools and processes, and a market size that starts with a B rather than an M.
And its still going to be a black box sitting under the TV.
I'm not seeing the downside for the gamer, for MicroSoft or for devs. Sure....it'll likely cost more than today but cost is only an issue if Sony reverses course and keeps subsidisies (which it won't) but even then, cost didn't stop a billion gaming PCs being bought and used.
In a couple of years, everyone who has Windows 12 will have an XBox on their PC. And there'll be XBox consoles. And the XBox app on phone, tablet, TV. There'll be no connection cost. There'll be cross play, cloud saves, cross progression, Play Anywhere.
And PSs big answer to all that.....is one big timed exclusive every year.
That's why people will buy the console. But also yes...fewer console sales because of higher costs. But with XBox on Windows,TV, Firestick, Phone, etc do you think console sales will matter? Even Sony doesn't think so
Several misconceptions here, not least of which are the assumptions Sony wants to continue with consoles...it doesn't and it has already spoken about the need and desire to transition the PS to a virtualised app based approach...and that Sony is going to keep subsidising consoles when it doesn't have to. There is no competition as neither MS nor Nintendo show any signs of subsidising the next gen.
And again, both Sony and MS have spoken out on the flaws of that model and to them, there is no point continuing to subsidise the hardware when such subsidies aren't boosting sales, nor translating into games sold.
More...yes, GamePass will change. MS will have to adopt the PC model where internet access is free. This is not really going to affect GamePass any more than it affects Netflix. MS will simply add other perks to GamePass or adjust pricing.
As for the PS6.....I personally doubt a money man like Totoki has any interest in subsidising PS sales. That model is effectively dead and if neither MS nor Nintendo subsidise their consoles, Sony is going to be effectively burning money by doing so.
At best, Sony will price the PS6 lower than next gen XBox, but we can expect higher prices and lower subsidisation. Sony is going to stick with the PS5 Pro approach and price the hardware so it isn't losing money.
There is no point judging the next gen XBox by PS standards. The market has been changing for more than a decade now and it is XBox which is driving that change. I would not be certain Sony will stick with its current business model. In fact, I would be very worried if it did.
Square still reaping the "benefits" of exclusivity. FF16 and FF7 are both old titles that have been on the market for some time. Shadow drops also tend to see a sales drop and FF16 doesn't have the greatest reputation when it comes to performance.
Even so, 22000 copies sold...with more sales to come...is another $1.5m for Square that it wouldn't have earned without a release.
Honestly....Concord had flaws but its major failings were its design and marketing.
Implementation was mostly fine but it was a bad design that was delivered.
Compounding this was what I can only describe as one of the worst marketing campaigns Sony has ever undertaken. And it was this poor marketing which killed the game.
Sonys marketing is usually first class so why it was so bad for Concord we'll likely never know.
The point is....anyone paying attention can surely see the parallels between Concord and both Marathon and (albeit to a lesser degree) Fairgames.
Marathon, unfortunately, is probably too far gone to save but there is a little hope for Fairgames. Marathon has little to iffer beuond the Bungie name. All of which is to say Sony keeps making the same mistakes with GAAS
Games cost too much to develop these days for exclusivity to be a factor. With console sales in decline, and the gaming market for consoles shrinking, there aren't many options open. Neither MS nor Sony can count on expanding the numbers of consoles sold so the options for increasing sales are limited, especially when so much of the console market is given over to one game casuals.
Multi platform releases are an obvious way for both Sony and MS to increase the number of players who might buy their games. Why sell to half the console players when you can sell to all of them?
@Greifchen What's happening is XBox is raking in the cash and fortifying its lead in Cloud gaming. Sony meanwhile appears to be prepping for another GAAS disaster with Marathon.
GamePass is too successful and btings in too much money for MS to abandon hardware. There will be another XBox generation.
But both Sony and MS have admitted that consoles as a form factor is dying. Both are moving towards an app based future focussing on Cloud and Streaming. MicroSoft abandoning exclusivity makes a lot more sense with that in mind. And with the hybrid PC model XBox is embracing, XBox has a USP PS can't match.
With PS also moving away from exclusives, and embracing a 3rd party multi-plat approach that will see PS games on other platforms including XBox, there's really nothing in it other than whether you like the design
@Dodoo MictoSoft has largely abandoned exclusivity as a sales model. It'll have timed exclusives at best.
The reason....well, you just need to look at Sony and PS. Sony spends huge amounts of money securing exclusivity rights for 1st and 3rd party games. And its sales are low, ROI is seen as chronically problematic and its own shareholders have called the PS5 a failure that has failed to capitalise on consoles sold.
The rise of F2P games has fundamentally changed the gaming market in a way Sony and PS does not appear to have adapted to. And consoles stagnating and in decline, dev costs skyrocketing and sales underperforming for many titles, something has to give.
That is why both Sony and MS are abandoning the old exclusivity based model. And even Sonys current "keep it off XBox" model isn't sustainable
@Ravix MicroSoft could buy EA, Take 2, UbiSoft, WB and several other gaming publishers and still come nowhere near to being in a monopoly situation.
Gaming is big and fragmented. Its just the console space is limited.....and consoles are dying. Prices are rising, costs are going up, sales are going down.
Jury isn't out on long term viability
Game Pass is earning MicroSoft billions each year, and they've repeatedly stated it is both profitable and sustainable.
PS fans somehow overlook these statements. The fact is that MS did not become a multi trillion dollar company by funding failure. If GamePass was not profitable and sustainable, it wouldn't exist.
Quite a difference from PS where Sonys financial reports continually complain about PSs low ROI and lack of profit, and where even Sonys own shareholders call it a faliure for failing to achieve the success they wanted
Not going to be the next Concord but unless the game is different from what we have seen so far, its not going to be the hit Bungie and Sony need.
They'll call it a success but odds look good that it'll be like Destiny....whatever money it brings in will be just a little more than the cost of support and maintenance.
Priced at $40, and entering a saturated market filled with F2P games and a player base already heavily invested in existing titles, it doesn't seem a likely candidate to be a mega hit
And unfortunately, Sonys games don't do any better. Sales are worse in many aspects and this also misses the point that these games are essentially already paid for....every PS sale is pure profit.
This is doing something for MS and XBox that Sony isn't doing for PS....securing the platforms finances. Expanding the fan base. Growing the numbers of players who know of and enjoy XBox 1st party titles. Increasing the MAUs in the XBox eco-system. Preparing for the "Content Wars" of rival streaming services.
Sales on PS don't have to be high for the port to be successful. Nobody expected a niche title like Pentiment or even HellBlade 2 (coming soon) to sell in huge numbers. And the pre-orders show that titles like Indy or Forza will sell. And drown out Sonys 1st party on PS.
Whatever happened to "Support the Devs" and "I'd even pay $150 as its a good game" and other such nonsense?
Why does the wallet snap shut when its not Sony trying to fleece its player base? How much is Sony going to charge to give players yet another unneeded ReMaster with next to no changes, additions or updates simply because it needs cash quickly without the risk or cost of developing a new game?
And now you get upset because MicroSoft is treating you the same as its own playerbase?
XBox putting its games on PS is indeed a sign of the times. Games cost too much in time and money to develop for exclusivity to have any value. That has been increasingly self evident for the past decade and more.
But it is also true for PS which has not only openly committed to a multiplatform strategy...PC first then Switch and then elsewhere...but is also increasingly adopting a day and date strategy to maximise sales and the impact of marketing.
Look at the recent SOP....not one exclusive and while you can argue a couple of games won't be on XBox (at first) some of the games shown are Day One on GamePass.
But is it unreasonable to suggest XBox games on PS is a sign Sony is "spinning its wheels"?
Yes....things aren't that good for Sony. Many Sony 1st party games, and 1st/3rd party exclusives already suffer disappointing sales. And now Sony is being crowded out by a flood of XBox releases. Every dollar spent on Forza or Halo is money not going to Sony. The market for GAAS on PS is dominated by XBox...where is the room for Marathon?
Sonys record breaking financials showed high revenue, but also continues to show low profit. Sony sells more consoles but XBox is more profitable.
Sony needs to up its game before its too late. And that includes acknowledging games like Death Stranding 2 as 3rd party releases that are just timed exclusives. Let Sony do its own damage control
I'm sure some on the teams knew. The question is whether that "some" was just certain management figures or everyone. Sony is the studio who held a party for London studios just days before shutting them down after all.
I find it all too easy to believe that the teams and most of the workforce were NOT made aware of this decision even if their managers were.
Greenlighting 12 of them at once? Forcing teams known for single player games to develop a multiplayer game with little or no experience? Entering a saturated mature market with known and huge difficulties in taking on the entrenched favorites? Erecting barriers to entry such as an up front cost and a PSN requirement? And being so blind and ignorant of the market that you think blandness and no USP is a plus.
These are where Sony made mistakes...implementation. 9 out of 14 known GAAS games are now dead. Marathon and FairGames both got poor first impressions. Marathon and Project Gummi, both Bungie Games, look set to fail and FairGames isn't promising.
The last is the Horizon multiplayer. Which joins Horizon 3 and Horizon MMO.
Sony needs only 2 to hit big. Maybe eblven just 1. They hobbled HellDivers 2 so these next releases are make or break.
But really...Sony needs GAAS but given its history it would likely be best served cancelling what it has, then doing a thorough examination of the market so it can develop a GAAS game people want to play.
Gamers don't buy hundreds of games a year but ultimately, what matters most is how much money a gamer pumps into the eco system. A gamer who subs to GamePass for 6 weeks has given MS the cash it would get from a game sale.
Subscription services are also very profitable. Profits rise faster than costs...it costs the same money to develop a game regardless of how many subs.
GamePass brings in $4 Bn a year in sub fees alone. $1Bn is spent on licensing and as MS acquires more publishers, that figure will drop. As it stands, even with the old numbers, GamePass is both profitable and sustainable and looks set to grow as Cloud becomes more accessible, and Content more tempting.
A subscription to GamePass already gives subscribers permanent access to some of the best games and biggest IPs in gaming history and there is an increasingly steady stream of high quality 1st party content. And that looks set to accelerate over the next few years.
Imagine the catalogue if MS acquires EA or T2I? One just needs to look to Steam to see the possibilities.
With consoles becoming less important for both Sony and MS, Cloud gaming and subscription services will become the de facto gateway for gaming over the next decade. The race for subscribers is on
And for all that the market wants a "traditional" experience, reality says differently.
The console market isn't growing. Quite the reverse. Both PS and XBox are moving away from the traditional model of subsidised hardware and exclusivity because costs are rising and the market is shrinking. Both PS and XBox are moving to a multi-platform strategy because...lets face it...both Sony and MS love money.
And both Sony and MS are moving to a cloud based console-less future based on PSN and GP because, quite frankly, it gives them a huge boost in profit and control.
Thats the reality over the next decade. Traditional consoles will still be around, just like BluRays are still around and we can still buy record players and cassettes. But Cloud and Subscription services will be the future.
First....it was entering a crowded, saturated market where gamers had already invested a lot of time, energy and money into established games. It takes something special for gamers to abandon that investment.
Second...it had a $40 price tag. This demonstrated a lack of faith by Sony who were planning to get their money up front and raised questions about Sonys commitment to keeping the game active long term. A bit ironic as Concord was pushed heavily by Hermann Hulst and Sony really pushed it in marketing.
Third...bad design. The game, for the most part, was technically competent and surprisingly polished. But it was bland, generic, average and had no hook, no unique selling point to attract gamers. It was a tick box exercise. It looked bland and the gameplay was standard. More, some of the design aspects where it did try to be different came across poorly...the game was not a twitch shooter but tried to be more coop. However, this resulted in slow movement, lack of mobility and long TTK. Exactly what todays market doesn't like.
End of day, it was trying to out OverWatch OverWatch in a universe where OverWatch did everything better.
And finally....the big reason why Concord failed. Marketing.
Sony marketing is usually top notch. And Sony really spent on Concord. And pushed it hard...Hulst believed in it and saw it as a potential Star Wars level franchise.
It was to be Sonys OW-killer and Halo-Killer and COD-killer in one.
But when first revealed, the Internet was mocking the teaser, making fun of burger jiggle physics. Noone was really talking about the game. Marketing dropped the ball, let a VERY negative vibe take hold and did nothing to counter what was turning into toxic speculation.
Then came the trailer. Poor acting. Poor writing. Technically competent and yet utterly average and generic.
The playtests. Who chose the playtesters? To a one, they were clearly uninterested and unexcited about the game. Bland, boring, robotic. Fragpunk was doing some testing at the same time and the excitement and buzz of the testers there was palpable.
Sony marketing acted to discourage people and depress interest. The open beta exposed players already inclined against Concord to a game that was not a twitch shooter and had balance and gameplay issues. And the $40 price tag meant players already inclined against Concord as a result of poor marketing and poor word of mouth were unwilling to drop in and give it a go
Concord needed 1, maybe 2, characters with actual personality and it needed to drop the $40 charge. That way, it might have attracted enough players to counter the negative vibe and keep the game running. A couple of months and FireWalk would have patched most of the gameplay issues out, brought in more modes and maps and added a few new characters that weren't as generic as the starter bunch.
Sony is creating remasters because they are cheap, quick, easy and safe. These are established franchises that Sony knows WILL sell.
What's wrong is that they are current franchises.
These games run on PS5. These games look good on PS5. These games play well on PS4. Many have already received their $10 PS5 upgrade
What point is there in ReMastering them when the biggest noticeable difference is likely to be having the word "ReMastered" on the box?
Other companies have an onboarding process that lets them work on new games and manage to train staff without redoing the wheel. The Coalition trained itself on UE5 by working on new IP before it got tapped for The Matrix.
But Sony knows enough of its fanbase will buy a $70 game that has minimal work done to it to make the effort worth its time. Its knows they will buy a game they already own so long as it comes in a shiny new wrap
Which is why they do it. Sony needs money and it doesn't have enough.
There is nothing in the reveals or teasers or trailers, nothing in the reports or leaks, nothing to make me think Marathon will be anything but a new Concord.
Granted, it probably won't fail as hard...
But extraction shooters are so passe right now, and Tarkov players and the like already invested. And Marathon has gone from extraction shooter to hero shooter to loot shooter back to extraction.
Given the likely turmoil at Bungie right now, and the reports of its loathed playtest, Marathon doesn't seem poised for success.
I anticipate it will be a mid success....but the high asking price and negative vibe will turn many players away though Sony will hopefully do a better job marketing it than it did Concord.
Even so, this game seems likely to be cancelled as right now it just looks and feels like another Concord situation and that is something Sony doesn't want.
@WhensDinner Because they are cheap, quick and easy. They are safe.
Older games would benefit more from re-masters. But they'd also require a lot more time, effort and money. Further....Sony largely abandoned many of these classic IPs there so the brand recognition has faded.
It makes these IPs riskier.
Sony has lost at least $6Bn on its botched GAAS pivot. Thats a lot of money, even for Sony, even given that it is spread over several years.
Concord looks bland and generic It costs $40 to play and is entering an oversaturated genre filled with freebie games into which players already have a lot of time, effort, money and emotion invested. Marvels Rivals, shown off in the same showcase, looked better and it is up against established games like OverWatch without having displayed any unique hook or selling point to attract and retain players.
More, Valorant is coming to PS.
Concord may yet connect with players and be a hit but right now, it appears to be a Dead Game Walking, Dead Before Arrival and on the quick path to failure.
The best outcome I can see is that it will maintain enough support to keep it open, but not enough to be the hit Sony needs
It is GamePass. It is Cloud. It is PC. It is mobile. It is cloud. It is console.
XBox has evolved into a multi-platform eco-system which is why looking at just console sales or numbers gives a very misleading picture.
The PC market is very fragmented. But it is also HUGE. Much larger than PS and XBox combined. That is hundreds of millions of players who can potentially buy Indiana Jones or Blade.
The 50m PS5 consoles are, all things considered, a minor matter. Important, but PS isn't as big or powerful as it wants to be. Sony ignored PC development and that has ramifications.
Sonys big advantage is not size or consoles sold, but that the PS market is controlled and unified, allowing it to set prices, conditions and access. PC gamers are also far more independent and like deals, buying games cheaply.
But yes...once you recognise that Disney is OK with IJ and Blade going to the hundreds of millions of cloud, mobile, PC and XBox devices, the decision to drop the 50m PS5s makes sense.
@Flaming_Kaiser No...XBox gamers have embraced digital in a big way. We've seen this several times before where XBXS sales look poor when you just look at physical sales but look a lot healthier when digital sales are included.
@Royalblues The only reasons Minecraft didn't go exclusive is because it was already multiplatform and the owner insisted on it in the contract of sale.
Neither holds true for CoD once this deal is closed. CoD23 will not be on PS5
That's expected...but risky. It's leaving the competitors in charge of the narrative.
We do have the rumoured PSX style event coming up in August and TGS at the end of September and Sony should have plenty to announce, from the PSVR2 to the activation of SSD slot to all the games coming out over the next year to Bluepoints acquisition (I don't think anyone believes their denials but they are as good as 1st party anyway) not to mention possible announcements on Metal Gear and Silent Hill so the material for a major showcase is there.
Comments 38
Re: Sony's Acquisition of Bungie Continues to Be Questioned as Destiny 2 Falls Off a Cliff
Destiny 2 looks good, sounds good snd has GREAT gunplay that makes the game fun and addictive.
In just about EVERY other aspect from level design to inventory management to story and more, Destiny 2 is a big, fat fail. The gun gunplay covered up the cracks but the game is overly grindy, too much work, far too repetitive and focuses too much on driving players to the shop through deliberately bad design.
Now that the Light and Dark saga has ended, players have no reason to stick around
Re: Rumour: Sony to Put More First-Party PS5 Games on Xbox
@CupidStunt The problem with your opinion here is that you are comparing apples with oranges. XBox and PS have two very different business strategies, very different priorities, very different needs.
The only factor where your statement is true is that PS has sold more consoles.
That actually isn't a W. Not when you look at all the factors.
First....Sony uses units shipped (rather than sold) for a reason. It gives a big boost to the numbers.
Second...Sony has been known to mix hardware, generations, etc in that number again boosting numbers.
Third...the PS sells more consoles, but many of these go to casual and BH gamers precisely because PS dominates the zeitgeist. The problem for Sony is that these gamers spend relatively small sums on software. Another problem is that much of the money that is spent doesn't go to Sony at all. When your business model relies on software sales to offset losses in hardware, having millions of your gamer base enjoying free games isn't helpful.
Fourth...related is that at any one time, up to 25% of PSs made had effectively disappeared. These units generate no sales, and were never connected to the internet. No updates. No patches. No online play. They just.....vanished. This problem goes back to the PS3 era and was particularly noticeable with PS4 but remains present to the current day.
Fifth...sales figures such as these hide one fact that troubles both PS and XBox. Namely, the console market is stagnant and declining. These sales represent upgrades rather than new blood and new money.
And sixth....a big reason XBox sales lag is because console sales aren't as critical to XBox as they are to PS. XBox eco-system can be accessed via console. PC. Mobile. Laptop. TV. Cloud. MS is also moving into streaming and subscription services. Sonys focus is the console, but MS is pushing Cloud. Sony is moving to Cloud as well, but is about 5 years behind. And both companies dominate where they are focussing. The problem for Sony is it too wants to drop the console....and it can't. Not yet.
So while you are right about the install base, the situation is a good bit more complex.
Re: Rumour: Sony to Put More First-Party PS5 Games on Xbox
@naruball Sonys various financial reports have been complaining about PSs low ROI since the PS3 era. The botched GAAS transition hasn't helped, but Sony spends a lot of money on exclusives that then go on to disappointing sales.
Many of these do make a profit....the problem is they don't make enough of a profit to justify the huge risk. Concord, all said and done, cost Sony $700m. $400m on development, but there are other costs to consider....marketing for example and the studio acquisition.
What about non-GAAS? SM2 cost Sony almost $600m to develop, market and license and part of the profits were eaten up by expensive royalties to Disney. Sure, it made back ots development budget but ***ALL*** costs considered, SM2 had NOT broken even before it was released on PC.
And that fact alone tells you why it was released on PC so quickly, at least by Sony standards.
It is not unusual for Sony to spend $500-$800 million on a single single player game, and design that game with little or no replayability, and little or no monetisation. The game might even be short, with only limited content.
And it isn't just Sony and MS....just about all of Sonys usual partners have also abandoned exclusivity. That alone shows this isn't due to Sonys botched GAAS push but is a market wide reaction to the very nature of exclusivity and the realisation that exclusivity now costs more than it gains.
Costs have skyrocketed and frankly, part of that is due to Sonys mismanagrment. As much as people liked boasting about seeing reflections in Ratchets eyes, that is a geature that adds nothing to gameplay and doesn't even affect how the game looks, feels or plays. But it DOES add millions to the budget and it does negatively affect performance.
But Sony can craft cheap games and successful as well. HD2 is an example. It was relatively cheap to develop, popular, well received even if it were poorly monetised. HD2s big problem was the PS user base....it sold relatively poorly on PS and it has largely been carried by PC.
I get that you are trying to save Sonys model. That you like exclusives. But the truth is that exclusives were losing viability even before Sonys botched GAAS push, even before Concord. Costs are rising, attach rates are falling and the market is in decline as console gaming transitions to a very expensive hobby.
What Sonys botched GAAS push has done is accelerate matters. Sony has lost too much money to simply overlook it and it needs to look to other sources. Going multi-platform is the easy, obvious choice but it was one that was unlikely to move forward this generation. Embracing a multi-plat strategy, with Timed Exclusives being revealed during the PS6 launch would have offered Sony a much better platform but time and money can't wait and Sony seems to have brought forward its plans by a few years.
And that's good. HD2 is the type of game that should do well on XBox but a late release also means a large number of lost saled. But it'll still earn Sony a lot of money.
Re: Rumour: Sony to Put More First-Party PS5 Games on Xbox
Sony has been stating its plans openly for years.
But certain PS fans added qualifiers.
Remember when PS games weren't going to PC? When PS games weren't going to other consoles? When it was only going to be GAAS?
People consoled themselves with such thinking.....right till the next time Sony stepped through a fan imposed redline that Sony wasn't supposed to cross.
Sony advertised a position worth almost $300k. Do people really believe they would do that for just GAAS? Especially when, other tgsn FairGames, Sonys GAAS output is either already cancelled or already confirmed for XBox?
$300k to decide if one game...maybe two...is released on XBox.
Seriously?
PS fans need to step away from their delusions.
The reality is simple....love it or loathe it, the gaming market can no longer sustain exclusivity. Sonys effort to sustain that traditional business model is a big reason PS profitability and ROI is low. Exclusivity is justified if, and only if, it leads to enough hardware sales which then, in turn, generate enough software sales to offset the high costs of exclusivity.
And for the past decade and more, with the rise of F2P, BH and one-game casuals, that is no longer the case. Both Sony and MS have confirmed the console market isn't growing. In fact, the reverse is true...its shrinking and console sales are due to existing console gamers upgrading rather than new blood, new money coming in.
Both Sony and MS need to expand their player base, need to grow revenues and profits. And MS is succeeding. Half the number of consoles compared with PS, but its profitability and ROI are far greater, in both relative and absolute terms.
And one reason is that MS abandoned exclusivity. FH5 has sold 3m copies on PS. And that is PURE PROFIT. FH5 is already paid for by XBox and is a 5 year old game. MLB has up to 5 times as many players on XBox as PS....and sells more than TWICE as many copies. Sony makes more money from MLB on XBox than PS. And as much as gamers loved HD2, it was PC which saved it. It sold relatively few copies on PS
You think Sony doesn't notice? You think Sony doesn't care about money?
Exclusivity is dead and PS fans need to be prepared for the whole slate to go to XBox. Its easy money for Sony, its cheap, its safe. PS fans need to get used to TIMED exclusivity being the norm.
Just like XBox
Re: Rumour: Leaked PS6 Specs Reveal Affordable, Power Efficient Next-Gen Console
@Fiendish-Beaver XBox has cheap entry points with the FireStick, TV apps, Mobile phone apps and PC access. You want a cheap entry point into gaming? XBox is the answer.
Is Sony going that route? Yes. And no. Sony and its CEOs have already spoken about plans to transition to a virtualised future....i.e. app based systems running on Mobile, Laptop and PC platforms. They are just a few years behind MicroSoft in implementation.
Will they continue along that path? Maybe. Probably. But plans change as the market changes. Sonys exclusivity based business plan worked great in 2010 but the rise of F2P and BH damaged it and now both XBox and PS are embracing multi-platform.
The real question is how willing are Sony going to be in subsidising the cost of the console. Consoles are cheap because Sony and MS made a loss on sales. But that makes sense only if they make a decent ROI from software sales. But software is becoming more expensive, ROI is going down and costs are skyrocketing. That's why both MS and Sony are abandoning exclusivity....the market can't support it. But that in turn means there is much less incentive for Sony or MS to sell consoles at a loss. And if Sony isn't willing to eat the cost, then this new console might still end up reasonably expensive for its capability.
Re: PS5 Fans Divided Over Helldivers 2 on Xbox Pivot
Gaming has changed over the past two generations and exclusivity stopped being relevant years ago. Games simply cost too much to develop and sell too few copies for exclusivity to be attractive. Moreso since exclusives aren't shifting consoles the way they used to either.
Sony has signalled for years that, just like MicroSoft, it was embracing a multi-platform release strategy and embracing a future as a 3rd party publisher (as some would define it). The true surprise is not that this happened, but that it happened so quickly....personally, I was expecting moves in 2027 with the PS6, even with Totoki in charge.
But then.....porting to another platform is a relatively cheap and safe way to extend sales and Sony does have a shortfall to make up.
Re: UK's Death Stranding 2 PS5 Physical Sales Down 66% Compared to Predecessor, But Context Matters
So, I'm getting that DS2 physicals would be lower than DS1s, given the "different era" excuse but then we have another exception...same era, but Astrobot just sold well on physical so we shouldn't count it.
What I'm hearing are excuses.
DS2 is a sequel to DS1......which, quite frankly, earned a great reputation as a walking simulator. There were quite a lot of complaints about that at the time. DS1 has been "fixed" since then but first impressions do count.
I suspect that there has been a drop in physical sales and a rise in digital, but I'd also suspect the usual drop off we see with sequels is a bit more pronounced with DS2. I'd suggest a lot of players who did buy DS1 will indeed end up buying it, but in a sale or simply just waiting for it on PSN.
Re: Sony Hasn't Given Up on Adding More PS3 Games to PS Plus Yet
Not convincing at all.
Sure, games like Metal Gear requires licensing so easy to see those being temporary.
But a lot of what is streaming is owned by Sony. It costs much, much less to keep them available. And whats weird is that streaming services need a solid, permanent core and those PS3 games could help provide that. Especially if they can only be streamed
Re: The Next Xbox Is a PC, So What Does That Mean for PS6?
@quality_assurance The new XBox sell for the same reason consoles sell today.
Some people don't like PCs. And the new XBox will be a PC configured as a console. Best of all worlds....in theory at any rate.
PCs....desktops....aren't built to sit under the TV. And as flexible as they are, a lot of people don't like the idea of messing around with cards and drivers and blue screens. And others just don't want to sit in front of a PC after doing so for 10 hours at work.
A console....even the PS...is a PC with a dedicated OS and fixed specs that reduce/remove the need to fiddle with hardware and drivers. But what really makes consoles attractive to gamers over and above PCs is the cost. Consoles are subsidised so they offer a powerful gaming platform at a relatively bargain price.
Or did. Neither Sony nor MS appear to have any interest in subsidising new console generations so the next generation of consoles is likely to see relative parity with PCs as far as value is concerned.
As for nobody on XBox buys games.....noone on PS buys games. Thats a big part of why Sonys exclusivity model is failing and why hardware subsidies is going away. Attach rates are actually higher on XBox than PS but the truth is attach rates have largely collapsed.
As it is, Sony is also embracing a multi-plat 3rd party strategy, Sony is also moving away from hardware based consoles and Sony also has a streaming rent-a-game service with PSN.
Sony also has no games and has to spend billions securing content to support that service.
But yes....the next XBox being a PC/Console hybrid makes perfect sense for MicroSoft.
Play Everything....including PS games.
Play Everywhere....TVs, consoles, mobiles, tablets, PCs, phones
And here's the big one....MS integrating XBox and GamePass into Windows as the Windows Gaming Mode means any developer developing for the XBox platform now has simplified costs, proven development tools and processes, and a market size that starts with a B rather than an M.
And its still going to be a black box sitting under the TV.
I'm not seeing the downside for the gamer, for MicroSoft or for devs. Sure....it'll likely cost more than today but cost is only an issue if Sony reverses course and keeps subsidisies (which it won't) but even then, cost didn't stop a billion gaming PCs being bought and used.
In a couple of years, everyone who has Windows 12 will have an XBox on their PC. And there'll be XBox consoles. And the XBox app on phone, tablet, TV. There'll be no connection cost. There'll be cross play, cloud saves, cross progression, Play Anywhere.
And PSs big answer to all that.....is one big timed exclusive every year.
That's why people will buy the console. But also yes...fewer console sales because of higher costs. But with XBox on Windows,TV, Firestick, Phone, etc do you think console sales will matter? Even Sony doesn't think so
Re: The Next Xbox Is a PC, So What Does That Mean for PS6?
Several misconceptions here, not least of which are the assumptions Sony wants to continue with consoles...it doesn't and it has already spoken about the need and desire to transition the PS to a virtualised app based approach...and that Sony is going to keep subsidising consoles when it doesn't have to. There is no competition as neither MS nor Nintendo show any signs of subsidising the next gen.
And again, both Sony and MS have spoken out on the flaws of that model and to them, there is no point continuing to subsidise the hardware when such subsidies aren't boosting sales, nor translating into games sold.
More...yes, GamePass will change. MS will have to adopt the PC model where internet access is free. This is not really going to affect GamePass any more than it affects Netflix. MS will simply add other perks to GamePass or adjust pricing.
As for the PS6.....I personally doubt a money man like Totoki has any interest in subsidising PS sales. That model is effectively dead and if neither MS nor Nintendo subsidise their consoles, Sony is going to be effectively burning money by doing so.
At best, Sony will price the PS6 lower than next gen XBox, but we can expect higher prices and lower subsidisation. Sony is going to stick with the PS5 Pro approach and price the hardware so it isn't losing money.
There is no point judging the next gen XBox by PS standards. The market has been changing for more than a decade now and it is XBox which is driving that change. I would not be certain Sony will stick with its current business model. In fact, I would be very worried if it did.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 May Have Underperformed on PS5, But It's Doing Terribly on Xbox
Removed
Re: Final Fantasy 16 May Have Underperformed on PS5, But It's Doing Terribly on Xbox
Square still reaping the "benefits" of exclusivity. FF16 and FF7 are both old titles that have been on the market for some time. Shadow drops also tend to see a sales drop and FF16 doesn't have the greatest reputation when it comes to performance.
Even so, 22000 copies sold...with more sales to come...is another $1.5m for Square that it wouldn't have earned without a release.
Re: 'We Won't Make the Same Mistakes Again': Sony Reflects on PS5's Catastrophic Concord
"We won't make the same mistakes again"
Exhibit 1...Concord
Exhibit 2...Marathon
Exhibit 3...Fairgames
Honestly....Concord had flaws but its major failings were its design and marketing.
Implementation was mostly fine but it was a bad design that was delivered.
Compounding this was what I can only describe as one of the worst marketing campaigns Sony has ever undertaken. And it was this poor marketing which killed the game.
Sonys marketing is usually first class so why it was so bad for Concord we'll likely never know.
The point is....anyone paying attention can surely see the parallels between Concord and both Marathon and (albeit to a lesser degree) Fairgames.
Marathon, unfortunately, is probably too far gone to save but there is a little hope for Fairgames. Marathon has little to iffer beuond the Bungie name. All of which is to say Sony keeps making the same mistakes with GAAS
Re: Xbox RPG Avowed Should Be a Much Improved Game Once It Comes to PS5
Games cost too much to develop these days for exclusivity to be a factor. With console sales in decline, and the gaming market for consoles shrinking, there aren't many options open. Neither MS nor Sony can count on expanding the numbers of consoles sold so the options for increasing sales are limited, especially when so much of the console market is given over to one game casuals.
Multi platform releases are an obvious way for both Sony and MS to increase the number of players who might buy their games. Why sell to half the console players when you can sell to all of them?
Re: Xbox Buyout Won't Stop Sony Bundling PS5 with Call of Duty
@Greifchen What's happening is XBox is raking in the cash and fortifying its lead in Cloud gaming. Sony meanwhile appears to be prepping for another GAAS disaster with Marathon.
GamePass is too successful and btings in too much money for MS to abandon hardware. There will be another XBox generation.
But both Sony and MS have admitted that consoles as a form factor is dying. Both are moving towards an app based future focussing on Cloud and Streaming. MicroSoft abandoning exclusivity makes a lot more sense with that in mind. And with the hybrid PC model XBox is embracing, XBox has a USP PS can't match.
With PS also moving away from exclusives, and embracing a 3rd party multi-plat approach that will see PS games on other platforms including XBox, there's really nothing in it other than whether you like the design
Re: Halo the Final PS5 Holdout of Xbox's Historic Big Three
@Dodoo MictoSoft has largely abandoned exclusivity as a sales model. It'll have timed exclusives at best.
The reason....well, you just need to look at Sony and PS. Sony spends huge amounts of money securing exclusivity rights for 1st and 3rd party games. And its sales are low, ROI is seen as chronically problematic and its own shareholders have called the PS5 a failure that has failed to capitalise on consoles sold.
The rise of F2P games has fundamentally changed the gaming market in a way Sony and PS does not appear to have adapted to. And consoles stagnating and in decline, dev costs skyrocketing and sales underperforming for many titles, something has to give.
That is why both Sony and MS are abandoning the old exclusivity based model. And even Sonys current "keep it off XBox" model isn't sustainable
Re: Halo the Final PS5 Holdout of Xbox's Historic Big Three
@Ravix MicroSoft could buy EA, Take 2, UbiSoft, WB and several other gaming publishers and still come nowhere near to being in a monopoly situation.
Gaming is big and fragmented. Its just the console space is limited.....and consoles are dying. Prices are rising, costs are going up, sales are going down.
Re: Plenty of People Are Playing Expedition 33 on PS5, Despite Having to Actually Buy It
Jury isn't out on long term viability
Game Pass is earning MicroSoft billions each year, and they've repeatedly stated it is both profitable and sustainable.
PS fans somehow overlook these statements. The fact is that MS did not become a multi trillion dollar company by funding failure. If GamePass was not profitable and sustainable, it wouldn't exist.
Quite a difference from PS where Sonys financial reports continually complain about PSs low ROI and lack of profit, and where even Sonys own shareholders call it a faliure for failing to achieve the success they wanted
As for E33...
Great game, but one of many on GamePass.
Re: PS3's Resistance Games Not Playable on PS5, PS4 at All After Just 6 Months
I guess we now know what IP People Can Fly are working on for Sony.
Re: Poll: Are You Planning to Buy Bungie's Marathon?
Not going to be the next Concord but unless the game is different from what we have seen so far, its not going to be the hit Bungie and Sony need.
They'll call it a success but odds look good that it'll be like Destiny....whatever money it brings in will be just a little more than the cost of support and maintenance.
Priced at $40, and entering a saturated market filled with F2P games and a player base already heavily invested in existing titles, it doesn't seem a likely candidate to be a mega hit
Re: Analyst Firm Predicts Some Pretty Unimpressive Sales Numbers for Xbox Ports on PS5
And unfortunately, Sonys games don't do any better. Sales are worse in many aspects and this also misses the point that these games are essentially already paid for....every PS sale is pure profit.
This is doing something for MS and XBox that Sony isn't doing for PS....securing the platforms finances. Expanding the fan base. Growing the numbers of players who know of and enjoy XBox 1st party titles. Increasing the MAUs in the XBox eco-system. Preparing for the "Content Wars" of rival streaming services.
Sales on PS don't have to be high for the port to be successful. Nobody expected a niche title like Pentiment or even HellBlade 2 (coming soon) to sell in huge numbers. And the pre-orders show that titles like Indy or Forza will sell. And drown out Sonys 1st party on PS.
Re: Talking Point: Is Forza Horizon 5's PS5 Price Point Too High?
Whatever happened to "Support the Devs" and "I'd even pay $150 as its a good game" and other such nonsense?
Why does the wallet snap shut when its not Sony trying to fleece its player base? How much is Sony going to charge to give players yet another unneeded ReMaster with next to no changes, additions or updates simply because it needs cash quickly without the risk or cost of developing a new game?
And now you get upset because MicroSoft is treating you the same as its own playerbase?
Re: Reaction: Xbox Publishing More Games on PS5 Than Sony Is Not a Gotcha, It's Just a Sign of the Times
XBox putting its games on PS is indeed a sign of the times. Games cost too much in time and money to develop for exclusivity to have any value. That has been increasingly self evident for the past decade and more.
But it is also true for PS which has not only openly committed to a multiplatform strategy...PC first then Switch and then elsewhere...but is also increasingly adopting a day and date strategy to maximise sales and the impact of marketing.
Look at the recent SOP....not one exclusive and while you can argue a couple of games won't be on XBox (at first) some of the games shown are Day One on GamePass.
But is it unreasonable to suggest XBox games on PS is a sign Sony is "spinning its wheels"?
Yes....things aren't that good for Sony. Many Sony 1st party games, and 1st/3rd party exclusives already suffer disappointing sales. And now Sony is being crowded out by a flood of XBox releases. Every dollar spent on Forza or Halo is money not going to Sony. The market for GAAS on PS is dominated by XBox...where is the room for Marathon?
Sonys record breaking financials showed high revenue, but also continues to show low profit. Sony sells more consoles but XBox is more profitable.
Sony needs to up its game before its too late. And that includes acknowledging games like Death Stranding 2 as 3rd party releases that are just timed exclusives. Let Sony do its own damage control
Re: Damning PlayStation Studios Rumour Debunked After Live Service PS5 Game Cancellations
I'm sure some on the teams knew.
The question is whether that "some" was just certain management figures or everyone. Sony is the studio who held a party for London studios just days before shutting them down after all.
I find it all too easy to believe that the teams and most of the workforce were NOT made aware of this decision even if their managers were.
Its how Sony has been shown to operate.
Re: Reaction: Sony's Live Service Push Has Been a Disaster of Utterly Insane Proportions
Sony and PS going after GAAS was not a mistake.
Greenlighting 12 of them at once?
Forcing teams known for single player games to develop a multiplayer game with little or no experience?
Entering a saturated mature market with known and huge difficulties in taking on the entrenched favorites?
Erecting barriers to entry such as an up front cost and a PSN requirement?
And being so blind and ignorant of the market that you think blandness and no USP is a plus.
These are where Sony made mistakes...implementation. 9 out of 14 known GAAS games are now dead. Marathon and FairGames both got poor first impressions. Marathon and Project Gummi, both Bungie Games, look set to fail and FairGames isn't promising.
The last is the Horizon multiplayer. Which joins Horizon 3 and Horizon MMO.
Sony needs only 2 to hit big. Maybe eblven just 1. They hobbled HellDivers 2 so these next releases are make or break.
But really...Sony needs GAAS but given its history it would likely be best served cancelling what it has, then doing a thorough examination of the market so it can develop a GAAS game people want to play.
Re: Video Game Industry 'Doesn't Want a Game Pass', Says Market Analyst
@liathach Economic reality says differently.
Gamers don't buy hundreds of games a year but ultimately, what matters most is how much money a gamer pumps into the eco system. A gamer who subs to GamePass for 6 weeks has given MS the cash it would get from a game sale.
Subscription services are also very profitable. Profits rise faster than costs...it costs the same money to develop a game regardless of how many subs.
GamePass brings in $4 Bn a year in sub fees alone. $1Bn is spent on licensing and as MS acquires more publishers, that figure will drop. As it stands, even with the old numbers, GamePass is both profitable and sustainable and looks set to grow as Cloud becomes more accessible, and Content more tempting.
A subscription to GamePass already gives subscribers permanent access to some of the best games and biggest IPs in gaming history and there is an increasingly steady stream of high quality 1st party content. And that looks set to accelerate over the next few years.
Imagine the catalogue if MS acquires EA or T2I? One just needs to look to Steam to see the possibilities.
With consoles becoming less important for both Sony and MS, Cloud gaming and subscription services will become the de facto gateway for gaming over the next decade. The race for subscribers is on
Re: Video Game Industry 'Doesn't Want a Game Pass', Says Market Analyst
And for all that the market wants a "traditional" experience, reality says differently.
The console market isn't growing. Quite the reverse. Both PS and XBox are moving away from the traditional model of subsidised hardware and exclusivity because costs are rising and the market is shrinking. Both PS and XBox are moving to a multi-platform strategy because...lets face it...both Sony and MS love money.
And both Sony and MS are moving to a cloud based console-less future based on PSN and GP because, quite frankly, it gives them a huge boost in profit and control.
Thats the reality over the next decade. Traditional consoles will still be around, just like BluRays are still around and we can still buy record players and cassettes. But Cloud and Subscription services will be the future.
Re: Rumour: Forza Horizon 5 Is Ready to Roll on PS5, But Release Has Been Delayed
@Vaako007 Thats not how it works.
Re: Rumour: Forza Horizon 5 Is Ready to Roll on PS5, But Release Has Been Delayed
The only problem with porting FH5 over to the PS5 is that Sony may as well shut down Polyphony and Gran Turismo.
Re: Secret Level Creator Comments on Concord's Awkward Anthology Inclusion
Several reasons why Concord failed.
First....it was entering a crowded, saturated market where gamers had already invested a lot of time, energy and money into established games. It takes something special for gamers to abandon that investment.
Second...it had a $40 price tag. This demonstrated a lack of faith by Sony who were planning to get their money up front and raised questions about Sonys commitment to keeping the game active long term. A bit ironic as Concord was pushed heavily by Hermann Hulst and Sony really pushed it in marketing.
Third...bad design. The game, for the most part, was technically competent and surprisingly polished. But it was bland, generic, average and had no hook, no unique selling point to attract gamers. It was a tick box exercise. It looked bland and the gameplay was standard. More, some of the design aspects where it did try to be different came across poorly...the game was not a twitch shooter but tried to be more coop. However, this resulted in slow movement, lack of mobility and long TTK. Exactly what todays market doesn't like.
End of day, it was trying to out OverWatch OverWatch in a universe where OverWatch did everything better.
And finally....the big reason why Concord failed. Marketing.
Sony marketing is usually top notch. And Sony really spent on Concord. And pushed it hard...Hulst believed in it and saw it as a potential Star Wars level franchise.
It was to be Sonys OW-killer and Halo-Killer and COD-killer in one.
But when first revealed, the Internet was mocking the teaser, making fun of burger jiggle physics. Noone was really talking about the game. Marketing dropped the ball, let a VERY negative vibe take hold and did nothing to counter what was turning into toxic speculation.
Then came the trailer. Poor acting. Poor writing. Technically competent and yet utterly average and generic.
The playtests. Who chose the playtesters? To a one, they were clearly uninterested and unexcited about the game. Bland, boring, robotic. Fragpunk was doing some testing at the same time and the excitement and buzz of the testers there was palpable.
Sony marketing acted to discourage people and depress interest. The open beta exposed players already inclined against Concord to a game that was not a twitch shooter and had balance and gameplay issues. And the $40 price tag meant players already inclined against Concord as a result of poor marketing and poor word of mouth were unwilling to drop in and give it a go
Concord needed 1, maybe 2, characters with actual personality and it needed to drop the $40 charge. That way, it might have attracted enough players to counter the negative vibe and keep the game running. A couple of months and FireWalk would have patched most of the gameplay issues out, brought in more modes and maps and added a few new characters that weren't as generic as the starter bunch.
Re: Reaction: Why There Are So Many Unnecessary PS5 Remasters for Games That Don't Need Them
A coherent answer, but one that is wrong
Sony is creating remasters because they are cheap, quick, easy and safe. These are established franchises that Sony knows WILL sell.
What's wrong is that they are current franchises.
These games run on PS5.
These games look good on PS5.
These games play well on PS4.
Many have already received their $10 PS5 upgrade
What point is there in ReMastering them when the biggest noticeable difference is likely to be having the word "ReMastered" on the box?
Other companies have an onboarding process that lets them work on new games and manage to train staff without redoing the wheel. The Coalition trained itself on UE5 by working on new IP before it got tapped for The Matrix.
But Sony knows enough of its fanbase will buy a $70 game that has minimal work done to it to make the effort worth its time. Its knows they will buy a game they already own so long as it comes in a shiny new wrap
Which is why they do it. Sony needs money and it doesn't have enough.
Re: Fresh Marathon Details Cover Heroes, Pricing, and Bungie's Silence
There is nothing in the reveals or teasers or trailers, nothing in the reports or leaks, nothing to make me think Marathon will be anything but a new Concord.
Granted, it probably won't fail as hard...
But extraction shooters are so passe right now, and Tarkov players and the like already invested. And Marathon has gone from extraction shooter to hero shooter to loot shooter back to extraction.
Given the likely turmoil at Bungie right now, and the reports of its loathed playtest, Marathon doesn't seem poised for success.
I anticipate it will be a mid success....but the high asking price and negative vibe will turn many players away though Sony will hopefully do a better job marketing it than it did Concord.
Even so, this game seems likely to be cancelled as right now it just looks and feels like another Concord situation and that is something Sony doesn't want.
Re: Sony Priming 'Even Less Exciting' PS5 Remaster for State of Play
@WhensDinner Because they are cheap, quick and easy. They are safe.
Older games would benefit more from re-masters. But they'd also require a lot more time, effort and money. Further....Sony largely abandoned many of these classic IPs there so the brand recognition has faded.
It makes these IPs riskier.
Sony has lost at least $6Bn on its botched GAAS pivot. Thats a lot of money, even for Sony, even given that it is spread over several years.
Its not interested in risky projects
Re: Round Up: Concord PS5 Previews Seem Torn on Sony's New Shooter
Right now...
Concord looks bland and generic
It costs $40 to play and is entering an oversaturated genre filled with freebie games into which players already have a lot of time, effort, money and emotion invested.
Marvels Rivals, shown off in the same showcase, looked better and it is up against established games like OverWatch without having displayed any unique hook or selling point to attract and retain players.
More, Valorant is coming to PS.
Concord may yet connect with players and be a hit but right now, it appears to be a Dead Game Walking, Dead Before Arrival and on the quick path to failure.
The best outcome I can see is that it will maintain enough support to keep it open, but not enough to be the hit Sony needs
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@Anke His reasoning is sound.
XBox isn't just the console.
It is GamePass.
It is Cloud.
It is PC.
It is mobile.
It is cloud.
It is console.
XBox has evolved into a multi-platform eco-system which is why looking at just console sales or numbers gives a very misleading picture.
The PC market is very fragmented. But it is also HUGE. Much larger than PS and XBox combined. That is hundreds of millions of players who can potentially buy Indiana Jones or Blade.
The 50m PS5 consoles are, all things considered, a minor matter. Important, but PS isn't as big or powerful as it wants to be. Sony ignored PC development and that has ramifications.
Sonys big advantage is not size or consoles sold, but that the PS market is controlled and unified, allowing it to set prices, conditions and access. PC gamers are also far more independent and like deals, buying games cheaply.
But yes...once you recognise that Disney is OK with IJ and Blade going to the hundreds of millions of cloud, mobile, PC and XBox devices, the decision to drop the 50m PS5s makes sense.
Re: UK Sales Charts: The Quarry PS5, PS4 Physical Sales Run Away with 84% Share
@Flaming_Kaiser No...XBox gamers have embraced digital in a big way. We've seen this several times before where XBXS sales look poor when you just look at physical sales but look a lot healthier when digital sales are included.
Re: PlayStation's Call of Duty Marketing Deal Almost Certainly Ending
@Royalblues The only reasons Minecraft didn't go exclusive is because it was already multiplatform and the owner insisted on it in the contract of sale.
Neither holds true for CoD once this deal is closed. CoD23 will not be on PS5
Re: After E3 2021 No Show, Sony's Seemingly Skipping Gamescom As Well
That's expected...but risky. It's leaving the competitors in charge of the narrative.
We do have the rumoured PSX style event coming up in August and TGS at the end of September and Sony should have plenty to announce, from the PSVR2 to the activation of SSD slot to all the games coming out over the next year to Bluepoints acquisition (I don't think anyone believes their denials but they are as good as 1st party anyway) not to mention possible announcements on Metal Gear and Silent Hill so the material for a major showcase is there.