The monthly PS Plus games, available to Essential subscribers, rarely are universally appreciated. There are exceptions, of course, where it feels like everyone is on board – but usually the updates are met with a mixed response, as our monthly polls demonstrate. So, how much does it cost Sony to upset its fanbase every four weeks? A substantial sum, it seems!
Obviously, the deals will vary on a game-to-game basis, but an otherwise boring financial document submitted by Snails Inc reveals that Sony paid $3.5 million to include ARK: Survival Evolved on PS Plus back in March 2022. Interestingly, it cost Microsoft just $2.5 million to include the same game in Xbox Game Pass for six months.
We suspect the difference in cost is down to a couple of key factors: PS Plus, for starters, has more subscribers, with recent internal data pegging the service at around 50 million active members – compared to approximately half that on Xbox Game Pass. In addition, players who redeem PS Plus games are able to keep them forever, while they’re removed entirely from Microsoft’s service.
The most bizarre part, though, is that Xbox is paying just $2.3 million to include ARK 2 in its service from launch, for three full years. You’d expect this to carry a significantly higher cost than any of the aforementioned deals, considering it’s a brand new game, so we’re curious how Microsoft has negotiated that price.
[source sec.gov, via resetera.com]
Comments 43
"The most bizarre part, though, is that Xbox is paying just $2.3 million to include ARK 2"
Yeah that's the official amount, but not including the money on the sly.....
@UltimateOtaku91 I imagine the $2.3 million is like a base fee, and then it will rise or something.
@UltimateOtaku91 For 6 months with PS Plus its as long as your subscribed that could make a difference.
Have they tried getting good games like knack 2 on the service though?
@get2sammyb most likely yeah, $2.3 million upfront to just have the game on gamepass, then maybe an extra $1 million per every 5 million players via gamepass. Something along those lines.
@sonicmeerkat dream on. Knack 2 costs all of the money. Developing the motion capture for the hands on the NPC's cost seventeen million pounds.
I was going to suggest it's because Xboxs strategy is to tell a company that the only way they will make any money on their platform is if a game is on game pass so they might as well give it to them for cheap, but then I remembered that game pass subscribers buy more games.
Why should customers care about this? Playing games is key and having fun. I feel people these days are obsessed with having everything but playing nothing
Microsoft probably contributed to development costs and that fee is not counted there. This is a model MS has used in the past for gamepass launches.
@render game pass subscribers buy less games
@get2sammyb PS+ (essential) games are for the life of your subscriptions though, so that needs to be factored in whereas Game pass is just a set time.
Also it's works both ways.
Sony, having a substantially larger market share, would in theory have to pay more for a game to be included on it's service because publishers will lose out on more sales.
But on the other hand Microsoft probably would in theory have to pay more to make a game exclusive as it would be keeping more sales away from larger more lucrative platforms. Double edged sword.
Lastly that Ark 2 number is very iffy. It's a console launch exclusive for however long, surely they can't have sold that, and 3 years on GP, for just $2.3 million. Something's not right there. Though there is some wisdom in releasing 'FREE' on the smaller platforms and using that as crowd marketing to push sales on other platforms, but that doesn't match with an exclusive... and Game Pass isn't exactly small.
@get2sammyb @UltimateOtaku91 @themightyant Sounds like "campaign contributions" lol
Seriously, these deals are complex. It could include milestone/engagement based bonuses along the way like you said, or it could include things like MS waiving some percentage of their royalties for a period of time or for the first $x in revenues on the platform for game/DLC sales, or even waiving 100% of it for a fixed time or up to a certain $ amount. Or marketing, etc. That wouldn't show up in initial payment reports, but could mean a significant sum of money over time in increased revenue for the dev, if the game is successful, which would make it similar to traditional publishing arrangements, where a sales failure is still higher risk, but as a sequel, they'll be fairly confident in their projections to risk it.
I'm sure it's the same for Sony on Extra/Premium (I still keep calling it Now!), but for older games, so less give-aways.
@Razrye888 Not according to MS. I assume they know their user metrics.
Imagine being so unsure of the sales for a major sequel to a solidly popular IP on a major platform, that you settle for $2.3 mm over a 3 year period. That's kind of atrocious, if you ask me. Either the game sucks and they know it, or sales on Xbox are that bad that they see that as a money making deal.
@get2sammyb Yes i suspect Sony paid more because they are effectively 'giving the game away' so long as the player is subscribed to plus, whereas on gamepass, the game has a 'shelf life' before it is withdrawn and players cant continue to access it unless they buy the game.
I also wonder if Microsoft have to pay a fee to the developer if titles reach a certain number of downloads - like 1 million, 2 million etc.
I’ve always been of the mindset of quality over quantity.
I’m currently playing FF7:R through PS+.
Game pass hasn’t been appealing enough for me to jump in. Their 1st party doesn’t do it for me.
@get2sammyb the ark 2 price might be on top of whatever additional deal secured their timed exclusivity, and that might had lowered the GP payment.
Phil Spencer also has talked in the past that some publishers opt for either upfront payments, time share royalty payments or a hybrid.
It’s posible they will get additional money based on how much time any given player spends playing Arc 2.
"players who redeem PS Plus games are able to keep them forever"
Assuming you have an active PS Plus subscription otherwise you're left with a pretty game icon that is more useless then a beer coster.
@NEStalgia @Razrye888 On the "game pass subscribers buy less games"/ "Not according to MS".
I don't think Microsoft did state that Game Pass subscribers buy more games. They did say most recently that they "spent 50% more on the games they play via in-game purchases and add-ons"... but compared to who? Your average gamer who doesn't have Game Pass.
That's like saying "guy who loves beer spends 50% more on beer, than guy who only occasionally drinks"... shock horror, who would have guessed /s. The "Spends 50% more" is a good soundbyte, and probably does wonders for marketing to publishers, but if you think about it, it really doesn't mean much. This isn't to dismiss MS or Game Pass - a service I love - but statements like that are classic ways to lie with statistics.
I would guess that the extra $1 mil paid by Sony for Ark is the "ownership tax" since the game will never become inaccessible to PS Plus players
Thats a lot of money for 1 game .its crazy how much money is been putting on those subscriptions.word up son
when is this months extra/premium lineup revealed, usually released in like a week, or did i miss it?
The deal isn't really that complex... Uhhh why hasn't anyone mentioned that it was probably more expensive because it was a shorter run time? 5 weeks on PS Plus vs 3 years on Xbox?? Not to also mention the cost of Inflation 3 years later. C'mon PushSquare..... Of course if the run window is shorter it will cost more. That's how's it's always been in business dealings.
@Luigia Your wrong its about value and quantity where did you get this nonsense about having fun and relaxing.
@themightyant I never hear them talk about profit though so lets see how much more it makes them.
A lot of games are timed so there is hurry to finish a game yeah i dont give a toss about value i just want to play at my own pase.
Removed - offensive remarks
@themightyant The current sales may be different from the past. The statements about GP subscribers buy more games that I'm thinking of do predate the launch of the XSXS consoles, but I remember (I'd have to find the video link), I think it was XO18 or XO19 near the end of the presentation with Phil "in the crowd" talking about X1X at the time, GP, talking about (paraphrased from memory and misquoted but roughly "GP subscribers actually buy more games, I know it's counterintuitive, but they buy more games than non-GP subscribers" - and that statement was the same as other statements from print around the time.
But GP was a different product that applied only to console players back then so the metrics today mean something different.
Obviously that was a few years ago and maybe the trajectory has changed since then. But GP is also a very different product now, and we're also talking about the cloud-only subscribers which is arguably their biggest growth market in general, (that obviously buy 0 games) now that wasn't a factor back then because cloud wasn't even launched yet.
So today when they say "Game Pass subscribers" with stats, they mean ALL Game Pass including PC that's probably less likely to buy GP games than console players (and/or more likely to play on GP but buy on Steam/GoG/EGS), and cloud/streaming/TV/phone players that can't/aren't buying games. That skews what we're talking about here in terms of console-only, especially in a comparison directly to PS, and PS's sub that's not on PC or cloud-only (except PS3.)
So today's statements about "GP subscribers spend more on IAP" instead of "buy more games" may be apples to oranges. We'd need to know about Xbox console GP subscribers habits without the PC and cloud subscribers included. And realistically MS doesn't even care about that statistic enough to track it separately, they're just interested in how GP is doing as an overall service.
If I were to guess, I'd guess GP console subscribers on average do buy more games than non subscribers. The reason, though, is likely less that they buy more as a consequence of being a GP subscriber, and more as a coincidence that a dedicated GP subscriber is someone that likes playing a lot of games, is more likely to be a core gamer, and is therefore more likely to be somebody who tends to buy many games, because the deeply casual players are likely to buy one or two retail GaaS games and that's it.
The current economy, though could be skewing that and GP could be loading up with very budget-conscious gamers that are streamlining their gaming spend to a subscription only.
@Razrye888 InB4 Colin Moriarty - it's "fewer".
I’ve always been curious about how much money these games cost for the service. Very interesting.
@sonicmeerkat knack knack knackin' on heaven's door
@stvevan reveal should be tomorrow. Extra/Premium updates on the third Tuesday of the month, so the reveal is at latest the Wednesday before the third Tuesday of the month.
Interesting. I’ve wondered about how that worked for the developers. Now we know. And now I will feel a tinge of guilt when I add a game to my library, but never play it, knowing that Sony had to pay a nice sum for it.
Remove the paywall for playing online & they wouldn't have to spend millions throwing in these 'free' games because that's what the majority of people are subscribed for of course if they removed that paywall they'd lose alot more money than what it costs them to add the plus games
@Flaming_Kaiser just a feeling and love your name 😀👍🏻
Removed - trolling/baiting
I would rather they keep the games and get rid of having to pay for online play. I dont think I've ever played any of the PS Plus games.
who cares , the games they choose is garbage just like plus . no sympathy for a scam service
@Luigia I get what you're saying and I actually agree.
I personally like numbers alot, looking at them and dissecting them is just fun.
how dare people complain about a paid service...
@Luigia gamepass fanboys in a nutshell 👌
I’d prefer them to pay that but extra to keep all games on there permanently, even if it means a slightly higher price. Unfortunately, with all the people bitching that they only want new games that’s unlikely to happen;?those people give the impression older games have no value so rotating them out must be seen as not too bad.
Don't care, Sammy. Ultimately, one can't keep playing games on either service without continuing to pay a fee. This seems like a peeing contest to distract from Sony's poor software output this year.
@Luigia I took the name and i thought it looked cool like flames but i didnt even think the other meaning of it...... ☹️
The Dragon is from one of my favorite games Breath of Fire 4.
Do companies really owe us a living? Subscription costs is the norm these days when it comes to Sony and is not a luxury.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...