Sony stan Explains why Gamepass and MS/Activision merger is bad for the industry

[winb83]

Everyone going to subscription services is corny and is all predicated on suits wanting to fatten their and their stockholders pockets. Consumer is second.

Even grocery stores following. shyt is so goofy.

I mean they still sell the games. You don't have to sub to anything. In terms of value you definitely losing out buying them though.

When it comes to consuming content I love streaming services. I never want to go back to buying music, TV shows, movies. I'm fine with games being the same. Even at a $15 base price I can pay that and play a $60-$70 game and be in and out of the service as I see fit.

 

[The Mad Titan]

None of these companies should be allowed to buy up the industry, Tencent is the worst but Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are on the same level in terms of companies that could potentially harm the gaming industry with too much control. Sony isnt innocent either, but they dont have the money to just buy control of the gaming industry like those other companies.

Microsoft seems to be getting praised as the savior compared to tencent, google, and Amazon but we honestly dont know how Microsoft would act if they were dominating. Microsoft could easily remove phil and have some non gaming suit who's focused on maximizing profits take over.

The fact of the matter is not a single one of them has to buy up all the dev's to kill off entire franchises. But lets be honest, most of these acquisitions at least between Sony and MS are much more helpful to the gamers and IP's than hurtful short term. Long term this is was and is going to happen if Sony and MS participate or not. Sony getting Konami isn't a bad thing... When's the last time you played a konami IP, and for companies like Act/blizz it is 100 times better that MS bought them as it allow for MS to revive Ip's that aren't necessary system sellers but would be great on gamepass.

Truth of the matter is most of us sit around reminiscing about old games and what was great and should be brought back while not even playing the newest stuff from the company. And a lot of games get attention and play on these consoles simply because they are exclusives.


We are in a age were big companies buy up little ones and assimilate them into there over all market out and Ideas, it's crazy to think that it wouldn't or wont happening in the gaming circle when it has happen with everything else in the world, currently MS has my favorite outlook and ecosystem so that's who I prefer to get companies and exclusives. That could change with a shift in management but that can be said for any and every company.

 

[Rekkapryde]

I mean they still sell the games. You don't have to sub to anything. In terms of value you definitely losing out buying them though.

When it comes to consuming content I love streaming services. I never want to go back to buying music, TV shows, movies. I'm fine with games being the same. Even at a $15 base price I can pay that and play a $60-$70 game and be in and out of the service as I see fit.

Expecting AAA blockbuster games on there day 1 cannot be expected and more importantly sustainable. MS is doing it because they have to and are trying to drive GP sales and subs. TLOU2 did 4 million in a couple of days. I'm getting that revenue first before putting on any streaming service. And as you know, GP ain't even profitable yet. These big games cost too much to make.

 

[Pimp]

Expecting AAA blockbuster games on there day 1 cannot be expected and more importantly sustainable. MS is doing it because they have to and are trying to drive GP sales and subs. TLOU2 did 4 million in a couple of days. I'm getting that revenue first before putting on any streaming service. And as you know, GP ain't even profitable yet. These big games cost too much to make.

Nah bro. This is where you're wrong. Microsoft is getting $10/month from everyone. Then they get 100% of in game sales from their games, and 30% from third party games. All of this shyt pays for itself.

Apex Legends is a "free" game but more profitable than damn near most games that sell for $70. They'll offset the cost of making games with in game purchases.

In game purchases ruined gaming for me. There's like no way to tell who's good and who's not. You can buy all the good armor nowadays..

 

[TripleAgent]

EMBRACE

EXTEND

EXTINGUISH












But, Sony is so far ahead, and has so many "homegrown" "classics", they'll be fine, right?










Right?

 

[winb83]

Expecting AAA blockbuster games on there day 1 cannot be expected and more importantly sustainable. MS is doing it because they have to and are trying to drive GP sales and subs. TLOU2 did 4 million in a couple of days. I'm getting that revenue first before putting on any streaming service. And as you know, GP ain't even profitable yet. These big games cost too much to make.

When you untether this from the limited 100 million or less typical console install base I don't see why it can't be sustainable. Once you reach a given number of subs at a specific price it can work.

At a base price of $15 a month if you can reach 100 million subs you generating $18 billion a year in revenue. That's almost 75% of the revenue PlayStation does in a year. That's more revenue than Xbox or even Nintendo generates right now as a whole unit. Thats just counting subscribers not counting software individual sales, console and accessories, or any DLC.

It's more than sustainable you would just have to reach a high number of subs.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Nah bro. This is where you're wrong. Microsoft is getting $10/month from everyone. Then they get 100% of in game sales from their games, and 30% from third party games. All of this shyt pays for itself.

Apex Legends is a "free" game but more profitable than damn near most games that sell for $70. They'll offset the cost of making games with in game purchases.

In game purchases ruined gaming for me. There's like no way to tell who's good and who's not. You can buy all the good armor nowadays..

It’s not even about microtransactions.

Average attach rate for these consoles is about 10 games over the course of a generation.

Even if we assume every single one of those games were purchased at a full $60 that’s $600 Sony can expect to get from the average user over the course of a gen, and the majority of that money is going to 3rd parties.

Comparatively at $10-$15 a month it would only take a user ~3-5 years to match that total and all the money goes straight to Microsoft. On top of the fact they still sell games/DLC/add ons the traditional way.

Gamepass currently has around 25-30 million users. That’s around 3 billion of revenue just on Gamepass subs. Would take around 50 million in games sells just to match that.

People are underestimating just how much money these subscriptions can bring in. And it’s guaranteed monthly money. Most people don’t even think about paying it. It just happens.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Nah bro. This is where you're wrong. Microsoft is getting $10/month from everyone. Then they get 100% of in game sales from their games, and 30% from third party games. All of this shyt pays for itself.

Apex Legends is a "free" game but more profitable than damn near most games that sell for $70. They'll offset the cost of making games with in game purchases.

In game purchases ruined gaming for me. There's like no way to tell who's good and who's not. You can buy all the good armor nowadays..

They are losing bread on Gamepass. That is facts. It's not profitable yet.

You see Disney putting their Big movies on D+ Day one? WB did it and committed to a year of of it because of the pandemic. They look dumb in hindsight. The Batman ain't gonna be on HBO Max Day 1 right?

Everyone can't go subscription model and/or in game purchases and every game shouldn't be.

I can see a potential discount on the big budget games to play Day 1 in the future, but the current state of Gamepass at it's current price is gonna be hard.

 

[Rekkapryde]

When you untether this from the limited 100 million or less typical console install base I don't see why it can't be sustainable. Once you reach a given number of subs at a specific price it can work.

At a base price of $15 a month if you can reach 100 million subs you generating $18 billion a year in revenue. That's almost 75% of the revenue PlayStation does in a year. That's more revenue than Xbox or even Nintendo generates right now as a whole unit. Thats just counting subscribers not counting software individual sales, console and accessories, or any DLC.

It's more than sustainable you would just have to reach a high number of subs.

100 million subs.....100 million subs

Playstation not even at 50 with PS Plus and they have a substantially bigger consumer base worldwide than Xbox, but you expecting 100 million for Gamepass? Cmon fam.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

They are losing bread on Gamepass. That is facts. It's not profitable yet.

Post the numbers?

 

[Rekkapryde]

Post the numbers?

Phil said it's not profitable, take it up with him

"Not the Only Focus"- Phil Spencer Seemingly Admits Game Pass Is Not Profitable But Neither Is Xbox Console - EssentiallySports

 

[winb83]

100 million subs.....100 million subs

Playstation not even at 50 with PS Plus and they have a substantially bigger consumer base worldwide than Xbox, but you expecting 100 million for Gamepass? Cmon fam.

PlayStation subs are limited by the platform itself. You get this streaming on an app or through just the web browser and you can access people beyond that limited install base.

 

[Malik1time]

Console war Stan’s are weird
Grown ass men arguing over a plastic box

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Console war Stan’s are weird
Grown ass men arguing over a plastic box

It is kinda weird


nikkas act like they in a gang

 

[Diondon]

100 million subs.....100 million subs

Playstation not even at 50 with PS Plus and they have a substantially bigger consumer base worldwide than Xbox, but you expecting 100 million for Gamepass? Cmon fam.

GamePass is gonna be on toasters and fridges, fam