Th3solution

@CheesyOatcake Thanks, mate. I’m with you — I do buy a lot of digital games when it makes sense, but I also like to buy physical when it makes sense. I’ve gradually shifted more and more towards digital, but over the last week I’ve actually used 4 different physical discs during my play sessions.

I’m ready to admit that buying digital has certain benefits but I’d like to make the decision based on the better value proposition for me personally. Whether it be price, convenience, or the ability to stream to my Portal, there’s definite reasons to buy digital sometimes, and I would rather Sony explore on expansion of those perks rather than simply forcing us to give up our discs and our trips to the local shop to browse the shelves. To me, that’s good smart business — offer your customers a reason to buy from you, rather than forcing their hand.

In the subject of retail stores, I do enjoy going into a store and looking at what’s there, picking up the cases and looking at the box art, reading the back of the box, and having the tangible experience. Sometimes I’ll visit with the person working the store, talk a little bit about games and swap recommendations. There’s still a place for it. Brick and mortar retail isn’t completely dead. I do the same for books and going to the bookstore (Barnes & Noble or also local used bookstores). It’s a fun part of the experience to see, browse, and hold the items rather than buying everything digitally from the couch.

“My personal opinion is that Sony doesn’t need to force what’s naturally occurring.”

I really like this statement, and I think the outcry has proven that Sony is going about this a little too soon. Eventually physical media would die out naturally, I suspect, but ripping the band-aid off in this manner has only spoiled goodwill amongst the fans and also retail partners. I would have preferred the approach of Sony making digital purchasing more and more attractive and nudging people that direction rather than unilaterally removing the physical option. They could start following some of the consumer friendly practices that Steam and Xbox are doing in their digital storefronts, for example

Will it affect Sony’s bottom line? Probably not. Will it affect my personal pocketbook and my personal enjoyment of the hobby? Absolutely. I’m not here to play games to please Sony or prepare for some future that would come anyway. I’m here to like the things I like and participate in gaming the way I prefer. Sony is taking some of that away from me and so I feel like it’s not unreasonable to be disappointed.

As for the specific topic of this article, I do wonder how this decision will affect PlayStation’s brand recognition and presence in the market going forward. Obviously they think it will not adversely affect their market share. But forgive me for not having faith in the decisions made by Sony’s corporate executives lately. I used to believe that they knew what they were doing, that is, until they closed down beloved studios recently and spent billions on dead end projects that most of us could have told them would fail.

I feel like there has been a few games over recent years where a game started out as a digital only release and then later released physically to boost its sales numbers. Alan Wake 2 was one I think, and I feel like there’s other notable examples even outside the indie scene. So even beyond the misleading 85% number (which doesn’t factor in digital only releases and therefore skews the numbers) there’s certainly sales boosts for the developers of these games when they release on both formats.

I love having the choice. I buy digital probably around 60-70% of the time now, but I like the ability to use my disc drive when it makes sense, such as finding it cheaper, wanting the tangible copy for collecting or display purposes, being able to lend or resell it, etc.

@Cutmastavictory Lol, what… games aren’t the same as milk!? 😜

There indeed are many reasons I don’t game on PC, and many reasons someone else might… and digital only is just one of many.

But my point is, when people say, “I don’t know why people are upset because PC already does this” it implies we care about the ecosystem’s health, which is not what we care about — we care about our customer experience. I don’t care if Sony will survive this decision… I’m still allowed to like what I like. It’s just such a weird PC master race thing to say that we should like it because they have been doing it for years. It’s completely illogical.
Just like my analogy.

Edit: think of this this way — change something you like about PC and make it the way PlayStation does it and then see how you like it. So if PC suddenly makes you pay for online, and all the PS players say to you “I don’t know what the big deal is… we’ve been paying for online for ages and we’re still enjoying our games just fine.”
You still would hate the fact that the system was changing something about the ecosystem to make it more like the ecosystem that you don’t use.

It’s such strange logic when people say “I don’t know what the big deal is — PC has been doing this for ages.” I mean, that’s part of the reason we use a PlayStation and not a PC! 😂

It’s like getting mad when you go to your favorite supermarket for the nice organic milk and they have stopped offering it and it’s now the regular stock milk product you don’t like, and when you’re mad about it your buddy says “What’s the big deal, Walmart’s been selling that lousy milk for ages.”
I don’t want the Walmart milk otherwise I’d have been shopping there the whole time! I want my organic milk!
(Okay, I don’t drink organic milk actually but it’s the analogy that came to mind first… 😅)

Ouch! PlayStation! Et tu Brute? I feel like I’ve been stabbed in the back.

I can’t believe I’m saying this as a PlayStation faithful since PS1, but if Xbox keep physical media I’m going to have to consider it. Those words taste bitter in my mouth, but I really do hate this. Not that I don’t buy loads of digital games too, but I want the option to do both.

@rjejr No sweat, just a thought. If your internet is good and you don’t mind leaving your machine on for a while then it’s no biggie. If Wolverine’s install size of 120 GB and your PS5 is saying estimated time remaining to completion is 19 hours, then consider trying it. 😄

@twitchtvpat Yeah, that’s true, although personally I wasn’t one of those who paid over retail, and I just had the patience and luck of getting my first PS5 legitimately. Still, I know a lot of people did pay $700-1000 for a scalped PS5. I do think there was a completely different economic environment then compared to now, and the raw numbers of those who paid over retail is probably a lot lower than we think. A more accurate prediction might be the decline in PS5 sales seen in recent months after the price hikes.

Still, a new PS6 with bells and whistles will tempt the high rollers to spend, just as they shelled out for scalped PS5’s. I think it all depends on the actual console and what it offers above and beyond the PS5 (Pro in my case). If there’s not a large boost in performance or some great exclusives that aren’t available on PS5, then it will be a slow burn for most people. Which is fine for Sony as long as software keeps selling on PS5. But the pricing will blunt the ‘splash’ that the PS6 could have generated otherwise

Definitely not for me, but I had no interest to begin with and surely not now. Although to play devil’s advocate, I think the games can be cheaper on Steam and if you’re already playing some in PC and have a Steam library then you can recoup some of this high cost by spending less on games.

I’ve been of the opinion that a delay is perfectly fine with me. 2028 at the earliest. I think the article nails it when he says that a PS6 (and its games) could be the most awesome things ever but if there’s no one able to experience it, does it even matter? Recent history has taught us that cheaper less capable hardware with much lower end tech and fewer games (Nintendo Switch) can outsell a superior technological product.

I’m sure the PS6 is/will be awesome, but it could die a slow death if the price of entry is prohibitive.

I’m also not a fan of the new release schedule, even though I very rarely am playing a PS+ game on day 1 of its inclusion to the service. It just feels disjointed.

The only positive is that we at least know the whole month’s games all at once and can plan ahead; I worry that the next step would be they announce the two weekly games in real time the day they release and we have to wait each week to find out what’s coming. That would be even worse. So given the option I’d take a monthly announcement over that.

@rjejr Its a bit of a tangent, but allow me share some newfound knowledge — I don’t know why I’m just now learning this, but I discovered recently that installing a game on your PS5 from a disc will still download the game file from the internet in some cases (I guess when there’s a patch also…? Not sure but it seems like often this happens) which slows the install way down. So before installing from disc, temporarily disable your PS5’s internet connection and it usually will speed up the install time drastically once it’s forced to do it fully from the disc only.

Phranque is growing on me. I also feel better about it since it’s been part of the concept and lore from the beginning. I really do feel like all these characters will have interesting and meaningful mythical counterparts and clever stories woven from legend.

I really think the promotional video was great, but I know there’s a lot more we still don’t know. It’s amazing that so many people have written the game off based on such a small sampling. The blend of old classic GoW combat with the new combat is great idea and one that I hope sticks the landing.

I’ve proposed this before but I’ll repeat it in hopes someone from Sony is watching —
It seems clear that a more customizable type of subscription model would attract a lot of users. Many want just online. Some of us are happy to give up the online but want the game catalog, cloud streaming, and cloud saves. They could keep the same 3 tiers but let us mix and match and leave off the services we don’t want. I’d be thrilled if I could pay $50 less per year and give up the online play access but keep all the other parts of my premium subscription.

I really don’t like first person shooters, but I liked Immortals of Aveum. I agree with a lot of the comments so far — characters and story are ‘meh’ but the gameplay and concepts are good enough to carry the game as one that is worth a spin.

Special shoutout to the graphics and performance. If you have a HDMI 2.1 TV then you can get frame rates up close to 120 fps with the game using frame generation, even with just a base PS5. I was playing just on my old PS5 at the time and with VRR enabled the frame rates were usually 70-90 but did regularly go over 100, iirc. I wonder if the Pro helps to pump out the a consistent 120, I’m not sure. It’s worth checking out if you’re into that kind of thing. Personally I don’t usually care much about the technical details of game performance, but I know a lot of enthusiasts are into that, so may want to check this one out.

Sounds great. I really loved Control, and I’m playing Alan Wake Remastered right now (loving it much less 😅) and looking forward to trying AW2.
Remedy need to be studied by the industry. A team of 300 people can consistently churn out good games and seemingly stay financially viable. I think it will only be 3 years between AW2 and Control Resonant (with FBC Firebreak in between!), which is insane in today’s industry where a good AA or AAA game seems to take a minimum of 5 years, even when it’s a sequel.

@GirlVersusGame Yes, all fixed on my end. 👍🏼

@nomither6 Yeah, I felt very strong Spider-Man vibes from the footage too. Even the way Wolverine leaps and moves around so quickly during combat. It seems kind of cut-and-paste with the way Spidey and Miles moved. For them it made sense because they are smaller, agile, nimble, quick. But not sure it’s quite like Wolverine moves. Granted the psychotic level of slicing up human bodies is something their Spider-Man games didn’t have 😂, but otherwise it has a strong SM foundation to it with the addition of the blood & guts. And I guess that’s fine… but it wasn’t what I was expecting or necessarily wanting from this game. I’m still trying to keep an open mind though.

It won’t likely affect me, since I’ve always got a backlog game going and I don’t usually jump into a PS+ game on day 1. It still seems needless, from a consumer standpoint.

Still, I much prefer this to the alternative where they do a weekly PS+ announcement with the release. That would be way worse. At least this way, I know there’s a game coming to the service in 3 weeks and can plan accordingly. If I didn’t know then I might accidentally have bought that game sometime in the next 3 weeks. 😅

This is a great month, although I already own KCD and have yet to play it, and I already played FF16. But I’m pleased to have LiS Double Exposure, since I’ve been meaning to get to that.

@itsfoz Lol, my initial impression with seeing the article subtitle was a little more realistic, but still disappointed that it wasn’t what I thought it would be — Baby Steps

@The_Elder Lol, that’s exactly what came to my mind too.

Final Fantasy 7: Regurgitate

I don’t watch these things live on account of real life going on most of the time. I miss not being able to participate in the realtime reactionary chat, but it means that I don’t have a problem with the pacing. 😄
I watch only the trailers that interest me and do so at my own pace.

Laufey for sure. Wolverine was okay but it didn’t live up to my own internal hype. TR Legend of Atlantis was my second favorite. I was pleasantly surprised by Until Dawn 2, as it wasn’t a game that I was all that enthusiastic about (despite liking the first game) but the trailer was actually pretty good, imo.

@AdamNovice I agree that, in my humble opinion, Kratos was not a good character in the original series. He always struck me as one-note, raged without nuance, and generally not relatable. The 2018 game really made me care about the character and his story. Of course this is all just my personal opinion, and many people tell me that the tragic, enraged Kratos who was running around mad at everyone (and having sex regularly on the side 😅) is a very deep and disturbed character with a profound arc. If so, I missed it while I was playing those games.

There’s a whole psychology to unpack here, because I know some of the Jaffe comments may be related to engagement baiting and said for shock value, but I also acknowledge that a person who is the creator of a given IP will likely have strong feelings to see it taken in a direction that they don’t agree with. So he’s definitely entitled to his opinion.

Regardless, I really liked the look of the game. And, although we have very little to go on at present, to me it looks like it totally fits within the GoW universe and is actually a really clever idea of where to take it to make things fresh and yet familiar.

I think the game will do just fine and not be a “Forspoken-like” critically or commercially. Will it “not do well for what they expect it to do”? Hard to say. Is Sony expecting 20 million sales? Probably not. The game should be a success and will sell millions though.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but for me the over-the-top nature of the blood and gore wasn’t necessarily my issue with the design as much as it was the way each combat encounter was comprised of Wolverine continuing to pummel, impale, and slice up an enemy who was clearly already a corpse. 😅 Everyone had to be stabbed 50 times and then decapitated to make extra sure they were dead. I guess Logan has anger control issues, so perhaps it’s a narrative fit. It also created a tonal double-take because there was so much Spider-Man DNA to the animations and the graphical assets, but completely different from Peter and Miles with their happy-go-lucky attitude, and how they don’t really kill anyone and just disable them, or knock them out. So to see the same character animations followed by disemboweling and butchering dozens of people in a row was quite a shift in tone! 😂

I agree with Sammy that this is a fascinating idea and a really interesting side storyline idea with great potential narratively. There’s so many directions they can take it, so here’s hoping they nail the concept. But then I thought the MCU multiverse was a cool construct too, and that quickly fell into disarray. There’s something very fanciful and appealing about mixing characters and arcs from different universes together and then watching the narrative chaos that can be drummed up. Nevertheless, Despite my excitement for the game and optimism for the setting and ideas, I do agree with @IntrepidWombat about some of the tonal whiplash that felt out of place, especially Frank the gelatinous cube. I haven’t done a google search to uncover his (its?) mythical origin and hopefully there is some cool tie-in about Frank being some mystical Aztec character from ancient folklore or something, but the style and feel of the character felt out of place, at least in the small slice of the game we got to see. I was less bothered by the Pokemon-esque little pet-like creature that looked like an homage to Nix in Star Wars: Outlaws. As Nix was one of my favorite things about that game, I’ll withhold criticism for the little guy for now. 😅

Overall though, for me this was the best thing to come out of the SoP, closely followed by Tomb Raider and Control Resonant. I actually was slightly disappointed by Wolverine.

I’m ashamed that I barely remember even hearing of this game. 😅

Well, I account for 1 sale of the game and zero deaths, zero enemies killed, and zero bosses killed. 😅
My copy is still sitting on the shelf.

@Ravix Yes, that might be a good target — when the rest of the world is playing GTA6, I can be playing Witcher 3. And I will most definitely be posting thoughts. When I get to that point maybe I’ll be able to recruit some other PS users to play along. I imagine the DLC will act as a prompt for many others to jump in or do a replay.

This is probably the title I’m more curious about this year. It may end up being rubbish, but to me the trailer looked really good!

@Ravix After finishing Blood of Elves I took a break from the series, partly because I wanted to pace myself through the books to coincide with prepping for playing the game, if that makes sense. BoE was great but as you and Furious had warned me it is a slower pace table-setter of a story to establish circumstances for the main plot going forward. My understanding is that The Time of Contempt is when things really start to reach a fever pitch and so I didn’t want to waste the crescendo too early before starting the game. Even reading the first 3 books had me itching to try the game and I knew it would turn my gaming schedule upside-down if I did. Still, I probably will get to ToC sometime soon, and then it will hopefully lead into starting the game shortly after. This DLC announcement is further motivation to get back into it. There’s just too many blasted games! Rough estimate though would be read/listen to ToC and Baptism of Fire in the next couple months or so, then launch into the game late 2026 or early 2027 maybe.

@Skinny-Pete @Killionaire That makes three of us! I’ve owned it for years, started it way back on PS4 and only got a few hours along before falling off of it. The game didn’t click for me at the time but I’m convinced it was just I was in the wrong mindset at the time. Since then I’ve read a couple of the Witcher books and I’m much more excited to give it a second try.

Hmm, nothing for me. Usually there’s at least one game that I have some level of interest in, but none of these are sparking anything for me. I’ll look at the bright side since it means nothing added to the already enormous backlog.

@Zuljaras Do you feel a difference with how Dark Souls 3 plays on PS5 vs how it ran on PS4? I ask because it’s in my list to play (for the first time) maybe later this year and I think I heard the PS5 patch is decent. There’s rumors on the full PS5 remaster though and I wonder if that’s even necessary.

@TrollOfWar Yeah, I actually think GT7 and MLB have been handled quite well. I was referring to these famous 12: https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2025/01/lists-of-sonyrs-cancelled-live-service-ps5-games-paint-a-worrying-picture

I know it’s not set the world on fire, but I’ll give Marathon a little more time to see if it can squeeze out a level of “success”. And I feel lukewarm about Hunters Gathering and I’d give it a moderate chance to make a small splash. Fairgames I’m less optimistic about.

Even in the absolute best of circumstances where— Marathon holds on and has a No Man’s Sky type of resurgence with updates, Hunter’s Gathering surprises and becomes the next Marvel Rivals, and Fairgames overcomes the huge negativity to hit like Helldivers 2– even if all goes perfectly from here (chances of all that is probably <5%) I will still feel like the gamble has not been worth the closure of Bluepoint, the billions spent on Bungie and Firewalk, the opportunity cost of the years lost where ND could have had a game or two already done by now (maybe we’d be playing Intergalactic this year and TLoU3 would be getting announced), and several other games we’d have already or soon from the other studios too, and the thousands of jobs sacrificed so far across the board. To make these sacrifices (and others) worthwhile, I think Marathon, Hunter, and Fairgames need to have huge success and take in billions of dollars over the next 2-3 years leading up to PS6. Fat chance. 😅

Quite interested in this. Glad that Xbox is filling the void left behind by all of Sony’s cancelled first party games.

@themightyant Yeah, I’ve had this happen on another site/app and wasn’t able to get into email and was out of luck. Customer service at this other company didn’t have a lot on me and so there wasn’t many questions to ask and without access to the email to reset the password and without access to the credit card that had been used for the purchases, there was no recourse. I lost all the purchases. Their consolation to me was to give me some free credit to use in the store for my new account that I had to create. I was really bummed but it was mostly my fault for being an idiot and losing access to those things and not logging in for so long. But there’s so many accounts we accumulate over the years it’s such a hassle to keep up with them. The burden of the digital age has grown exponentially over the last 10-15 years.

@streetshadow @TrollOfWar Yeah, the course correction we’re watching happen is the painful part (with the layoffs, the relative vacancy between large first party releases, the price hikes, the poor communication awful PR and wavering strategies, etc)

And I don’t begrudge Sony for taking a swing at the live service arena since the top tier games are more profitable than a successful single player game, but I’m just surprised that the smartest minds in the business couldn’t see the imprudence of putting 80% of your eggs in that one basket. I know it’s easy to play armchair CEO, but a lot of us out here who actually play the games every day could have foreseen some of this not working. It’s like they put all their chips in at the blackjack table and now are wondering how they are going to pay for the Uber home from the casino. It would seem wise to diversify your first party studios. Not put all off them on live service. Especially when none of them except Bungie have the expertise. Instead of 12 or 13 games, or whatever the count was, how about… I don’t know 4 or 5? I had made the calculations on an earlier post several weeks ago but it’s something like only 20% of their live service games are even going to even make it to the point of being launched, and of those all are abject failures except like maybe 2 games? I just didn’t know the corporate world had as much in common as the Vegas gambling tables.

@streetshadow @TrollofWar My comment above (#75) was tongue-in-cheek as I agree that shifting to have Bungie make games that they don’t have experience or expertise in is forcing a square peg in a round hole. But why did Sony not realize this when they asked their talented single player studios to shift to areas they have no business working in— Naughty Dog, Bluepoint, Bend, Insomniac…. all with cancelled live service projects that they really are out of their element to be spending their time on.
(That’s a rhetorical question, I’m not asking you per se, just agreeing with you and wondering out loud why the idea of Bungie shifting focus out of their comfort zone is a bad idea but yet the other studios shifting toward doing something they aren’t suited for shouldn’t also be an equally bad idea)

Here’s a thought—
Since Bungie consulted on the live service initiatives for the other first party studios and they seemed to have been a disaster, maybe Sony should turn the table and repurpose Bungie to make a traditional single player narrative action game. Naughty Dog can act as the consultant this time and return the favor of critiquing whatever they come up with.

Regarding Saros, for data that includes only 3 days of sales (the game launched in the April 30th iirc) #9 doesn’t seem too bad to me. Also considering the other factors brought up like cost and the niche audience for the game. Basically this sales data is going to only be the enthusiasts who pre-order or go out opening weekend. Positive word of mouth may carry the game for some nice additional sales through the next few months. Probably won’t chart high, but it will draw in an audience gradually, especially when it starts getting discounted.

I know this won’t make a splash with corporate revenue, but it’s one of those games, like Astro Bot and that Sons of Sparta, that help to keep the enthusiast crowd happy. There’s real value in that beyond mere dollars and cents.

“…I also could have told you Spellcasters Chronicles would end up in this situation the moment it was announced. If I, a mere blogger, could tell you that, then why are studios continuing to make these ridiculous bets?“

These are my thoughts as well. I’ve thought for a long time that studio leadership and boards are just not in touch with the market. I have no idea how these decisions are made exactly, but it feels like many of these cancelled and failed projects are being greenlit by a committee of businessmen who don’t play games, don’t visit online communities like Push Square, and are interpreting data out of context.

Honestly, it’s an issue I’m noticing in many other industries as well, not just gaming. We’ve lost the plot with our business education system I think. The wants and needs of the consumer seem to be an afterthought with a lot of these companies

@nessisonett Lol, yeah like it should be some form of responsibility that you agree to when you sign the EULA agreements for a PSN account — you agree to random selection to participate in live service betas as part of the agreement. 😂

Or better yet, players who have their account reported due to misconduct should have to participate in these for penance as an alternative to being banned from PSN.

The way this was communicated (or shall I say, miscommunicated) is really strange. Why did they wait to disclose this separately from the Easential announcement earlier? Does Sony prefer to have two PR hits instead of one? Man, the publicity and marketing department makes a lot of decisions that I don’t understand.

As far as the increase goes, yeah it sucks. Hopefully Sony has better pricing analysts than they do publicists. Will this push more of those 1 and 3 month subscribers toward an annual sub? Or will it result in a net exodus of people who will choose not to subscribe at all? There will be some of both, but apparently Sony feels fewer people will leave and so there will be a net increase. And like someone said on the other article, that has a lot to do with GTA6 and it’s likely online component, I reckon. They have the millions of GTA fans right where they want them and they will likely pay these prices and even higher to have their precious GTA online.

And here I am, wishing I could sublet the online play portion of my Premium subscription to someone else. It’s the part of my plan I could do without. Without ever using the online function, I still find my yearly Premium sub to be well worth it.

… (continued) 😅
And I think you’re seeing some evidence of this with the way other developers and publishers have come in to fill in the gaps since Sony has slowed down its single-player output. There’s money to be made and others in the industry will fill the void. Certainly Xbox and Nintendo are waiting in the wings if Sony gets too live service focused. Heck it’s already happened with how well the Xbox games have sold on PS5. There’s an untapped market that Sony partially abandoned and is getting filled by the competition.

I don’t think this list is conveying what most people think it is. As stated in the article, “Here we’re seeing the total number of unique players who started a game over the past seven days.”

First of all, starting the game counts as a “play”. So logically, free games will have a huge advantage because there is no purchase required first before launching the game. If a retail game has been launched in the last week, money has already been spent on it. And secondly, an endless live service game will tend to have a lot more ‘drop-in, drop-out’ players which also inflates some of this data.

Now I know there’s likely better data that tracks time spent in a game, which would be more useful information. Perhaps time spent still favors service games over a game that has a high entry cost and is a ‘one-and-done’ game. But ‘time spent’ still isn’t necessarily measuring success, profitability, or engagement to the same degree that people are interpreting this.

I would like to see some metrics on unique player monetary investment into the system. So, something like ‘dollar spent per hour played’. I know there’s probably a handful of people who play Fortnite for thousands of hours and spend hundreds of dollars a year on it, but I feel like that is a small minority of those millions of players who launch it, or who play it often for a few sessions with buddies but probably spend, what… $20-40 a year on it? Meanwhile I invest hundreds (thousands? … I’m scared to count) of dollars per year into the ecosystem between PS+ subs and purchasing new games regularly and I know a lot of enthusiasts on here spend way more than I do and buy and play multiple new games a month.

I don’t know if I’m making sense, but put in practical terms— I can spend 100 hours in a month playing Fortnite and maybe end up buying a couple MTX for $40, but if I’m doing that I don’t have time to play Ghost of Yotei, Pragmata, Saros, RE Requiem, and Mixtape, which I could have spent that same 100 hours doing and spent $250 into the ecosystem. There’s only so much time in the day and “engagement” or time spent in a game, doesn’t always mean “revenue” or money spent into the system, at least not at the same rate as if it was spread out. So why the industry would push toward attracting less profitable customers and abandon the highest spenders is beyond me.

For the average Fortnite player, how much does the industry make, and how much does Sony make? Per capita, I suspect not much. It’s economy of scale.

In summary, the weekly “player count” of 14 million “players” is not really a valid measure, first of all. And second of all, the majority of those players aren’t pumping money into your system. And I think that’s why, despite its popularity, Fortnite’s success did not prevent Epic from laying off thousands of employees last year. I’m sure the money is great, but clearly not enough. Honestly there’s more money being spent elsewhere and the real throughput coming from the PlayStation core is spending it across multiple titles. By my logic, if high quality single-player games disappear, the ecosystem will crumble.