Sony’s stance on PS5 exclusives in relation to PS Plus is resolute, and won’t be changing in the near-future. Unlike its main rival Microsoft, the Japanese giant has resisted the temptation to release its major first-party exclusives into its subscription, instead allowing them to enjoy large traditional launches before eventually being rolled into the membership model. This two-pronged approach is enabling the organisation to have its cake and eat it, guaranteeing sizeable revenue upon release while still eventually offering incentive to subscribe to PS Plus at a later date.
Speaking with Games Industry, the firm’s head of subscriptions Nick Maguire weighed in on the manufacturer’s mindset: “We're happy with our strategy. Putting games in a bit later in the life cycle has meant that we can reach more customers 12, 18, 24 months after they have released. We're seeing customers still get excited about those games and jumping in. For us, that's working. Occasionally, there will be an opportunity to invest in a day-and-date like Stray and we will jump on those when they come in. But for us, letting those [first-party] games go out to the platform outside the service first, that's working and that will continue to be our strategy moving forward.”
Sony has been under intense pressure all generation to make its games available at no extra cost with PS Plus like its competitor, but Xbox has admitted that Game Pass cannibalises software sales and has obfuscated the profits of its gaming division, reporting only revenue instead. Furthermore, recent data coming out of the United States suggested that gaming subscription growth has completely stagnated this year, corroborated by the fact that PS Plus has pretty persistently pushed against a ceiling of 50 million active subscribers.
[source gamesindustry.biz]
Comments 110
Sony just don’t have the pockets to currently do the GP model.
It may end up there, it may not… I’m happy as long as Sony keep delivering on PSExtra etc. as GP has been a bit slow last few months.
It's also working for most major third party publishers, the biggest AAA games dont come to gamepass until 3+ months later.
I still can't fathom the idea of Microsoft's approach. But apparently it's working too.
But yeah, I play all MS exclusives for 3 bucks. Have one month, cancel. Then wait for a bunch new ones and get another month for 3 bucks (on ebay).
So, I will play Hellblade 2, Starfield, Forza, Fifa, Fable, and many other games for around 6 bucks instead of 350-600 Euros.
They are choosing not to diminish the value of their product, nor the quality. And we as consumers can still choose to have standards that deem acceptable for a product.
@Grimwood It's a loss leader. They're investing unfathomable sums to try and strangle out the competition. It really is as simple as that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
This is just common sense though, isn't it? Why would I buy a game for 70 when I can get it for "free"?
Madness anyone thought this would work.
I know a certain group of people's eyes are twitching because of this
What I’ll be really interested in is how Starfield affects the streaming market and it’s viability.
All things would suggest Starfield will be an outstanding title, and the first MS internally developed hit in a long time. If it doesn’t boost GamePass subs, then I don’t know what will. We shall see if there is any future in putting AAA first party day and date if Starfield causes a sustained boost in subscribers. If it fails, then I think that’s probably the nail in the coffin for this market strategy (unless ABK goes through at which time COD could definitely salvage the plan).
This is the way. Economically sustainable by charging those who are most excited for a launch. Those who are less interested can wait for it to hit Plus and try it out there if they have some passing interest.
Hey everyone, free beer. And if you're interested I'm also selling beer for £60. This business plan can't possibly go wrong.
I’m ok with that since their exclusives (the ones I buy anyway) are top tier in quality but what gamepass does best is often having day one releases of smaller titles. Playstation did it with Stray but not much else and since I already played all the big older games they add, paying for extra is pretty pointless for me but it is an amazing value for new players.
That's because there games are too good to just throw on a subscription service. Plus Sony are smart enough to know that doing that would affect the quality of games.
@get2sammyb Additionally for all the talk of first party games on Game Pass there haven't actually been that many YET. By my count since the first - Sea of Thieves in March 2018 - there have only been 22 new games from Xbox Game Studios, not including remasters on day 1. So about 4 a year. (There have been other remasters, old games etc.)
But that includes games they probably wish weren't on there like Crackdown 3, Redfall, Bleeding Edge and some that didn't come to console like Age of Empires IV. When you consider you won't like them all there is perhaps 1 or 2 a year you actually might want to play. (I speak from experience, been subbed for 5+ years)
I guess my point is it's not the silver bullet some think imho, in fact it's all the OTHER games on the service that really do the day to day heavy lifting and make the service great.
While I can't deny that Game Pass is a great offering, I'm not really miffed about waiting for big first party games. I already have so much to play that I don't get most new games on release anyway, and despite having had Game Pass on and off both on PC and Xbox Series S I haven't really used the service to play many day-1 games. If the model is working for them then stick with it.
@LifeGirl well they don’t because they don’t have to but if tomorrow Microsoft had the lead that Sony has in consoles sells they would rethink it I’m pretty sure. But like I said in my comment the exclusives that I play are so top tier that they are worth every dollars but having both consoles, I can also say that gamepass saves me a bunch of money every year so there’s that
@Matroska You know that GP games aren't outright free.
What you mean to say is "Hey you can pay $15 a month for all the beer you can drink from all of these wonderful taps. Or you can have this single beer for $70. The choice is yours!"
Don't deceive when making a point.
@KaijuKaiser Yeah, I’m only thinking in terms of if MS makes COD exclusive to XBox. I can’t be sure, but I suspect that even though you’d still have people buy the game every year for $70, it would definitely cause an large uptick in GP subs if it was day and date offered on GP and not on PS5.
Of course MS has assured everyone it doesn’t plan to pull it from PS, but we know that is what they said initially about Starfield
Pretty sure Starfield will bump GP subscription by around 10 million, together with console sales rise + huge sales on Steam, these guys I don't understand, cause you can just jump to Windows store and just buy a month sub to play it.
No amount of Wo Longs and Plague Tales will increase subs, but games like Starfield will for sure.
Sony likes to make money, and lots of it. If their analysis showed that adding first party games to PS Plus on release would make them more money you can be sure they would be doing it already. If MS have somehow managed to make the model work for them then that's fair enough but other companies that it wouldn't work so well for shouldn't be pressured into following suit.
Of course its working for a 'Sales' focussed Business like Sony. They are still getting Subscribers, but also not affecting their 'Sales'. The whole point about NOT putting games in a Sub service day/date is to maximise the SALES.
You want to play Spider-Man 2 on day/date, you must buy (or at least have bought) a PS5 and must buy the game. Therefore that maximises SALES. Once that game is no longer 'selling' Hardware and Software sales are at a 'trickle', use that game to get even more Sales to PC gamers and use it to sell Subscriptions on PS5 to maximise Profits.
Microsoft, therefore Game Pass, is a Different Business model, more Service Driven where the point is not to maximise Sales but to maximise the playerbase in your Ecosystem. It doesn't matter if you don't 'buy' a Console and buy the game - as long as you are in their 'ecosystem'. Being available on a 'service' impacts SALES of Hardware as you don't 'need' to buy the Console or the Software as you don't need to Pre-order or buy the game to play it.
Its a different business model and whilst Sony operates their Business as a 'Sales' based business, rather than a more Service focused Business like MS, this 'model' of not putting their games day/date into PS+ makes the most sense and would 'work' best for them.
Not saying Service based is better than Sales based (or vice versa) - its just a different way to operate, therefore the differences in things like 'Services' (MS putting their games into GP day/date, releasing on PC etc) and 'Sales' (must buy the single Console Hardware its releasing on and/or must buy the Game as 'services' are not supported at launch) is just down to their 'different' business model.
@Sil_Am I would be expecting to be dipping in and out of a game the size and scope of Starfield for many months after it releases. Once you pass the 5/6 month mark you're at diminishing returns on the value of your sub oif you're subscribed purely to play just that game. If I do decide to play Starfield I will be purchasing it outright and playing it on my laptop.
So that's their strategy with Spiderman 2 and possibly Wolverine even. 🤔 Interesting take Sony.
What other first party games have been announced that would fall under this model?
@Kevw2006, that's fair if you know you'll be playing for months.
Typical Sony were Number 1 you do as we say..Empires have fallen with that attitude.
@get2sammyb To be fair they have unfathomable sums and if it means giving their competitors a bite on the bum it's worked.
Sony also doesn't have a streaming service of their own, nor do they release their movies for day one streaming. They called it a "devastating" plan. Makes sense to hear they're keeping firm on that.
@Number09 Sony is just shy of number one. Nintendo sells far more games, but Sony makes more money from services, so it's just an illusion.
Once Sony loses COD and other big sellers in the future, maybe FIFA, they drift back to No. 2 or 3 easily.
@Sil_Am Excellent point Sir.
@Sil_Am dreaming of you think starfield will increase subs by 10million. Isn’t it like 35-40mil GP subscribers?
One game won’t boost it 20%+ not when growth is around 2% natural.
Plus it’s profitable and good for the industry.
@Th3solution the question will be not just how many sign up, but how long they stay. If people sign up, play it for a couple of months and then leave again, they'll have just been selling Skyrim for a $40 discount at launch.
Buy a game for £40 ask your mates for a fiver to play it 20 mates = £100 ..=£60 profit...Microsoft know exactly what the game is.
It really doesn’t bother me that I have to pay for games. I just wait for the price to lower if they’re set at £70 and snap them up around half price. I don’t believe first party games should be free, they deserve to be filthy stinking rich if they create a great game.
Ms will lose $ with Starfield, and that will worry anyone that wants games that are as big as that since MS won't look at them feasible
We all know that Microsoft is trying to bully the competition out of the market. Fortunately it's not working, people still prefer quality over quantity.
@BusyOlf, I do the same. The only games I buy day 1 are some JRPGs I know for sure won't drop in price, physical of course, like the upcoming Trails Into Reverie and FFXVI.
I'm fine with that, it definitely seems to be working for them so why change it.
I honestly don't know how Microsoft do it to be fair. I have both a PS5 and a Series X, I subscribe to both PS plus Premium and Game pass ultimate ( I get game pass for free with my mobile phone contract)
I honestly can't remember the last time I actually bought a new game.
Unless it was something I really really REALLY wanted to play I just don't see the point anymore because I know that eventually it will end up on one of the platforms and I can play if for "Free"
Sony and Nintendo couldn't really survive on the Game Pass model. Especially not Nintendo, whose games sell like new at full price years after release.
The GP model was driven by their failure to consistently grow the Xbox brand and drive console sales by competing in a traditional manner, whereas Sony and Nintendo are on top of the world at the moment.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I believe that the last officially stated number was 25 million, but that was quite a while ago now so is likely to be higher. Popular consensus though is that MS would likely have made some sort of announcement when it hit a milestone, such as 30 million.
@Sil_Am
10 million? Highly doubt it. Why not pay $70 since they're probably not subbed because that's the only game they care about to make them sub.
And if that happened, a loss of 10 milliom sales? If they cancel in 1 month, that's $15 per copy of Starfield and the cost of having the other games there.
@Number09 Do explain how you manage to share a game with 20 mates and you can all play at the same time?
@Kevw2006
I doubt it's higher. Once you play all the games you want, people will not keep subbing for that one game for a month when the game itself could be $15 on a sale and keep it.
No first party games also. Starfield will pump it up and then it will go down.
There are less gamers than series watchers. It will eventually saturate. Plus games are longer so $15 for a 20h game is more bang for the buck than a 1 hour and a half movie.
MS's model actually would work if they can deliver big first party games every 2-3 months in addition to the 3rd party games they are currently adding. Just imagine how many millions of people would sign up to GP even if it's the 12 month option. Sony should start sweating.
@MFTWrecks It's not deceiving when the outcome of the analogy is the same in both cases. The point is that it's a terrible business model that would obviously stop most people buying games in the same way free, or so cheap it's basically free, beer would stop people buying it by the pint normally. (If you want to get really accurate, it'd be a single beer that potentially lasts for over 100 hours of drinking for £60, so it's not as bad as what you and I just said.)
Anyway, the point is it's a no brainer it'd cannibalise sales and it's also clearly shown that it doesn't really help Xbox as it's been outsold massively again.
It's fine with me ,better to pay for exclusives etc etc pay at the store as I do and I use ps plus extra and essential to play games I wouldn't normally try I also find paying for exclusives etc gives gaming value personally all gd with me ,you could argue all day long about whether 70 quid is to much or not for a ps5 exclusive but I suppose developers etc etc have to make profits to keep making great games if sony say current system is working then all gd
Something to remember is the fact that Microsoft have started selling premium passes to their big "day one" first party game pass releases, with the main carrot on the stick being early access to the game. The premium pass plus the cost of the sub pushes the price up to close to a full release and I'm sure MS are banking at many people not being able to resist that early access.
"Sony has been under intense pressure all generation to make its games available at no extra cost with PS Plus." I disagree with this, Sony has not been under immense pressure. There are media commentators and Xbox people who say day-and-date is the way forward because it would then legitimise the Xbox strategy.
But when you have games like God of War Ragnarok sell millions of units at launch then you see Sony is right to do its own thing. It means it makes premium games, and then when the time comes that they are released on PS Plus like Ratchett & Clank a Rift Apart and Miles Morales, the 'free' games are perceived to have more value as they were paid for premium games.
@Pat_trick Maybe they are trying to bully but it appears they are trying to get on an even playing field with a different business model with subscription, console, pc, cloud and mobile. But let's be honest. The biggest bully in the market for years has been Sony. Let's not pretend that is not the case.
@ThomasHL This is true. If the game is Skyrim-like, there’s probably a good chance of prolonged sustained engagement. When I played Skyrim back at launch, I was obsessed with it for several months, and if I didn’t have other games to play, I could see myself playing it intermittently for years, especially if there are updates.
However, the reality is that there are way more games to get to nowadays, and I don’t want to necessarily be stuck on one game for years on end. But that’s me.
If MS were to play it’s cards right, Starfield would be the entry point for a lot of new people, but a steady stream of new AA and AAA games would keep players subscribed. If they would release Hellblade 2 within 6 months of Starfield, and then Indiana Jones a few months later, and then a Fable game or something a few months later, coupled with solid third party day 1 stuff like Lies of P, Assassin’s Creed, etc. sprinkled between, then I could see myself being tempted to get an Xbox and subscribe to GamePass. But if they expect me to subscribe for a year with only Starfield, then it does make more sense to just buy the game outright.
I'm happier just having as few subscriptions as possible, to be honest with you.
@Perturbator But if games like Starfield and Hellblade etc are on GP day 1 why wouldn't you want that have a GP subscription?
@cburg If you really believe that then that's just sad. Maybe you should go and read up on Microsoft's history, bullying the competition out of the market is how they've got where they are now.
@UltimateOtaku91 Most don’t come to Gamepass cause publishers would rather put it on their subscription service first.
I only have the essential tier. Game pass has also been underwhelming lately, I had no plans to renew as my subscription expired a couple of months ago but at the end of may I was able to stack 3 years of Xbox Live Gold cards for aproximately 100 USD, which I then upgraded to 3 years of Gamepass Ultimate, can’t beat that.
@cburg You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
Aggressively buying huge studios in billion dollars deals and taking huge financial hits just to get ahead in the market are things that Sony doesn't even have the monetary capability of doing.
Extra is far more attractive to me because i'm always at least a year behind the new releases anyway, I genuinely think the selecton of games is better.
There are exceptions to this rule though and it's name is FF16. (it comes out two days before my bday, so lucky me)
I do also have a gamepass subscription, but that's for exclusive content and a different variety of games.I did day one Planet of Lana recently, which is quite unlike me.
Comparing the 1st party stuff that's coming to Xbox with PS; I am more than happy they don't put them in the service. And yeah, I don't feel most of them are not on part with PS ones.
Considering the volume of games Sony has, I don’t see a reason to release day one. There are plenty of older games that are amazing. My backlog is to the point where I’ve stopped buying games before they’re discounted. I’m currently wrapped up with Midnight Suns and Hogwarts. I’ll be good for some time.
@Pat_trick They also conveniently ignore the fact that MS have and do also engage in the same exclusive content and timed or full third party exclusivity that Sony apparently use to "bully" the market.
@Kevw2006 Come on. don't act like Sony hasn't been bullying the competition for years. I am not saying either is right. But let's not pretend Sony has not had shady underhanded tactics for years.
@Pat_trick But that is why they can. They have a much more diversified business and business model.
@Chaotic_Goat There is Humanity and Tchia, both of which are much better than simulator games often debuted on Xbox. And what is the point of playing those small indie games day one? There are many small indie games available on ps plus. All those TMNT, simulator games debuted on GP coming later to PS plus too. Granted there are bigger games like Plague Tale that debuted but that too will come later and the reason it was debuted on GP was Xbox has a barren year with 0 first party exclusives last year and they need to release something on GP.
That suits me fine, I can just subscribe for a month when the games I want finally drop on the service instead of staying subscribed.
Very few games are Day 1 necessities now I'm getting older, I'm happy to wait for them to drop on PS+ extra.
@Triumph741 Why the need to play singleplayer titles day 1?
I will get them in time when on a sale when they have been patched (and in Starfield's case, modded) for a better experience.
@cburg Those underhand tactics you speak of have been used in the gaming market since way before PlayStation ever existed. Rightly or wrongly it's just the way the gaming market works and Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all engage in it. Yet somehow it's only when Sony do it they are "bullying" the competition.
@Kevw2006 Absolutely true.
It’s a smart move. As others have said, Sony don’t have the money to throw at a subscription service by doing day one first party releases. This way, those that want the games day one can buy them, those who aren’t as excited can wait for a sale, or wait a bit longer and they’ll eventually hit PS Plus down the road.
@Kevw2006 sure no problem Wouldn't it be great if you bought a game for £40 burned em on disk then handed them out like candy for like a fiver to wide eyed Gamers it would but you can't plus it could get the boys in blue making a visit....Well Microsoft with all its countless money usually donated by wide eyed gamers has done exactly that on a grand scale...now I know you aint stwpid and I respect that fact because I replied to you...but who's the Daddy?...and best of all its legal....any more questions just ask....I can kinda go into it in more depth Good day Sir.
Most seem to be overlooking the rather obvious side effect of subscription services: you don't own the game. That means that you could spend hundreds on a service over more than a year / two years, play several dozen games or more, but then have to buy those games anyway if you terminate the service. So it's the cost of the games on top of whatever you spent on the subscription model.
That could, theoretically, mean that you either spend £100 plus, say, £35 (given sales and such) multiplied by the number of games you might still want to play, or £70 straight up, multiplied the same way.
It works for everyone except Microsoft
@Number09 This would be the same Microsoft that tried to kill off the used game market and prevent you from being able to even take your disk round to a friend's house and play it on their console?
@mrbone what kind of reasoning is that? “What’s the point those small games on day one?”
Maybe because I love indies?!? WTH?
People always argue about games being "free" and about people "not buying games." Not only is neither true, but even if it were, the average consumer buys no more than 2 games per year. A GPU sub costs about the same as buying that 2 games per year, slightly more, but elevates the commitment to continue spending on 2 games a year, and predictable scheduled payments. It doesn't matter of those people are buying games or playing them on GP. The baseline revenue is the same into the platform either way. with fixed predictable monthly payments the money can be better managed, and it offers more opportunities to sell additional products and services through it. The numbers are well rounded. The only place the losses come in is during the growth phase with studio acquisitions and the like to feed the machine.
Just because people here may blow $2000 a year in video games, doesn't mean normal consumers which is most of who buys video games actually do that. The model is based around most consumers behavior and spend, not enthusiasts who live, sleep, breathe, and earmark paychecks for video game spend months in advance. But that kind of customer benefits from it regardless.
@get2sammyb Not a loss leader, it works like the 90's "unlimited internet" did (you didn't have that on your side of the pond at the time, you were still metered internet IIRC.) The model was basically, for every gamer who sits there downloading twenty megabyte(!) patches and playing online there's 10 people that just want to check their email once a day. Everyone pays the same price, so the power users are subsidized by people who pay and basically don't use it. Only in the subscription case it also generates add-on sales for games not on the service, DLC, etc. It's not about extinguishing competition or loss leading, it's about (at least attempting to) go with a high volume low margin sales model vs low volume high margin. The path of retail at least in the US tells us that's a winning strategy much of the time. If it works or not for them only time will tell, and it needs large capital and high risk to attempt to build the model up to required subscriber numbers to break even which is why few can really start into it. Sony's model is working for them so they have no need to try changing it to chase someone else's.
I get the cynicism, that's usually my shtick, but it's not a model without plenty of successful analogues.
Shouldn't really be surprising that this working. It's also not surprising that the day 1 model is very successful for xbox. Both models seem to work great and I don't really see either side changing tactics anytime soon.
@Kevw2006 oh i get it you think imma Microsoft fan...no just my PSone PS2 PS3 and PS4 and Switch..had a 360 too just an opinion thas all.
@NEStalgia The problem with the sub model though is that you don't have to stay subbed all year round so those regular fixed monthly payments aren't necessarily so regular. I've seen quite a few people saying that they just pick and choose when they sub depending on when something they want to play is releasing. In that scenario you could have someone sub for a month to play something like Spider-Man 2, complete it and then cancel their sub the following month, basically playing a new £70 release for around £10. Where it does work is in a game that someone is likely to play longer term, I wouldn't be too surprised if some of Sony's live service games they are planning on releasing end up being added to PS Plus if they aren't straight up ftp in the first place.
@Chaotic_Goat what i mean is do you need to play them day1?
Yeah, they get more money from consumers this way.
And sony doesn’t release enough games for a subscription model to work. One game a year, and a few 3d party exclusives aren’t going to cut it.
Great, keep it going.
Day-one releases are too good to be true. I mean that for us as customers they are great but are completely unsustainable for dev. I'd rather BUY the game and let the money, their cut, go to the developers directly rather than let MS just hand them out peanuts to cover the lost sales cannibalized by GamePass.
@NEStalgia The practice may not necessarily be a loss leading one in all cases- but in this one it is. Microsoft is explicitly losing money on game pass- it’s not even particularly close to breaking even (last I checked, at least).
@Ipslore That contradicts their own claims to investors, and they don't publicly release hard numbers. What numbers are you looking at?
Back of napkin math based on reported subscriber numbers paints a reasonable picture without knowing direct operational costs as well as what costs can be shared with other business (azure expansion etc.)
MS is losing money on it for sure. It's just bait before the switch.
I agree with Sony's standpoint on this. I don't understand the business model of this for-profit at all. Microsoft is a trillion-dollar company so they can afford to do something as ridiculous as this to remain competitive.
Glad to hear it.
@Snake_V5 Starfield is on a service and before that game was shown all i heard people say was GP will be AA and scaled back AAA games. This is simply the different of Sony VS Apple in the Walkman vs iPod years. Sony was happy to be the leader in the Walkman and have people buy discs and Apple was pushing digital in your pocket device and that was one of many markets that Sony in the end lost. This could be another. Sony likes to bread their butter monthly and thats ok, but they don’t take risks and thats why as a company outside of PS, everyone else has passed them by and Sony shut down their offerings.
@GodofCapcom “Ms will lose $ with Starfield“
Haha yeah a game that will sell for 10-15 years like Elder scrolls will lose them money, ok!!!!! So on one hand this site say’s MS is a monopoly (in 3rd place) and on the other their games won’t sell and won’t be profitable. Help me make sense of the hot takes from the couch.
@Green-Bandit
I never said MS is a monopoly but I don't like publishers being bought.
Yes. Starfield won't recoup the money they invested on it. Not on ps4/ps5 and gamepass are the reasons. It won't sell 10m before the generation ends. Yes I said it. The good thing about it is that it may sell consoles. This game is really telling if MS will focus on investing games as big as this one or they'll stick to 50m or less budget games.
@GodofCapcom publishers very often go for sale but when they do it’s open market, not MS fault Sony has billions and they have trillions. It will “sell” 10 million on Xbox and PC, but throw in the fact of how many millions of players will use GP at $15 a month to play a game like this and your statement don’t seem to hold up. MS & Sony will continue to budget games at what it cost to produce leading industry games, however MS has shown it’s smart to have them on more platforms and not “exclusives” to reach more gamers and Sony is slow to adopting that but they are coming around. Sony has shown they aren’t as committed after PS4 to single player games as those are the ones with higher investment. They have jumped on live service this gen and not by mistake but by seeing what the dollar line is. When you outsell Xbox 2 or even 3 to one and single player games that sold well is your strategy and you radical change ship next gen, it’s telling. Sony’s show showed they are changing and have little to show, single player games these days look more abundant one Xbox. Care to disagree?
@UltimateOtaku91 You seems to be forgotting fact that EA Play Pro has day one games. And Ubisoft Plus has also day one games.
But please, continue...
@GodofCapcom Can we stop pretending that Microsoft first-party games are not selling despite them being in the Game Pass day one?
Starfield is one of the top sellers on Steam currently. And I have no doubts that game will have 200k+ concurrent on Steam alone. Games like Forza Horizon/Grounded/Halo MCC were huge on Steam despite them being in Game Pass.
So yeah. Starfield will sell cluster*** of copies and will draw people into Game Pass. Which is win/win for Microsoft.
@Godot25 EA Play Pro isn't on consoles.....
Ubisoft Plus isn't on playstation and only just launched on xbox.....
@UltimateOtaku91 So we are ignoring biggest core gaming market (PC?) as irrelevant? And you did not specify platform. You just said that publishers are not releasing their games in sub services. Which is false.
Also. It's just matter of time when Ubisoft Plus will launch on PS, since Ubisoft confirmed it.
@Green-Bandit
Sony has released more single player games and is making more than ps4. They just added multiplayer games because... most people play multiplayer. Which is smart but people and their immature emotional entitlement will think otherwise.
You know when someone pays $15 for Starfield, they need to account the cost for Starfield and the other games during that month? No it will not 10 million.
Idc, publishers shouldn't be taken away.
Exclusives bring people to your console and you get 30% of every third party sale which is more than whatever you would be selling on PC lol. It's just plus PC. Not more platforms. Nobody on mobile or cloud will buy enough copies.
Doesn't matter how many single player games xbox show. They only showed one that is what I want from a next gen console. The other looked double A or were just CGI.
Ps5 has ff16 and spiderman 2 vs starfield for 2o23.
@Godot25
Lol.
Being top of the charts is not indicative of selling 10 million. I don't see any reports soooo
Well they release them on PC so not exclusive
@GodofCapcom Of course. Becuase Microsoft is not talking about sales of their games, but number of players.
SteamDB has Forza Horizon 5 at almost 4 million copies sold, Sea of Thieves at 6,5 million copies sold, Halo MCC at almost 5,5 million copies sold.
On Steam alone. Despite the fact that all of those games were available on Game Pass at launch on PC. And also not factoring sales on Xbox consoles.
People just looooves to pretend that if Microsoft releases their games day one on GP they are not selling by traditional means. Which is just pure lie.
Am I saying that they are selling as much as they would without Game Pass day one? Nope. But Microsoft will know that if they will release Starfield how many people will subscribe into service because of Starfield, how many people will stay subscribed and for how long. And it only take 4 months of active GPU subscription and you will get Microsoft as much money as if you bought Starfield.
@Godot25
Yes. Lets just follow what MS says. Believe in them.
@GodofCapcom Yes. Let's just follow what Sony says. Believe in them
(See how that works?)
It's funny that when Microsoft says that day one releases are working people are questioning that but when Sony says that they are not working it is taken at face value...
Despite the fact that Game Pass had 1 billion revenue in last quarter alone.
....What if they ARE working but Sony want's to maximise profits by double dipping? Is it really that unfathomable?
@Godot25
It's freedom of speech. You can believe whatever you want. 1 billion doesn't sound too much. Not going in circles.
@GodofCapcom I’m plenty aware of how it works with the 30% and i agree Sony still has some good games announced, but after that it could just be a bunch of live service attempts, which at the moment been getting no showed or canceled. Xbox is finally back to being good competition and that angers some. Not sure why this will make for a better market for all. Sony bought Bungie and is brining those games to other platforms, ABK games will be coming to more places under MS, i don’t see the harm in that, but then again i don’t fear monger for companies. I just buy all the consoles, wish them all well and play games. But certain fan’s take it way too serious. I love that it’s about to get good again between Xbox and PS.
@GodofCapcom i didn’t mention GP cause i can see you got an ear full from others. Smart gamers defend GP as the best deal in gaming. Good luck convincing them or me otherwise. By the way i finally bought SF6 and am loving it, minus the poor menu’s and modern controls. Not sure it’s a 10 like some say, but a solid 8.
@Green-Bandit
Smart gamers. Lol. You're saying free to play, with all the mtx and battle passes turned out bettee than ps3/360 multiplayers? Lol. Cheaper is not always good. You get what you pay for.
You're talking with so many assumptions lol.
@GodofCapcom speaking of assumptions, i started this topic with you from you saying SF won’t sell and make MS money, is that an assumption or do you know something Microsoft and Bethesda don’t? Smart gamers meaning ones that don’t complain about a deal, they either use it if it works for their needs or they don’t use it but don’t discourage others from it if it works for them. No one is forcing anyone to use PS+ or GP. last I checked you can still buy copies in physical or digital. No one knows better than me you get what you pay for, i live by the motto in all things in life, which is why i find my $15 a month on GP is a great example of getting what i pay for. PS+ isn’t worth my money, so i buy my games digitally on PS5 and find it to work perfect for me.
@Green-Bandit
It won't sell because games on gp sell less. There is no assumption.
I don't discourage people from using it. I just don't think it helps the industry besides indies. No assumption there either.
@GodofCapcom so will it not sell 10 million? And will it not make MS money? Cause if people sub to GP to play this game and stay sub to continue to play it that is a way MS makes money. I appreciate you don’t discourage others to use a subscription for games if thats what best suits their needs 😊, you realize Sony outsells MS console wise by a large gap, now do you realize the gap in money those ecosystems pulls in is not 3X more? MS is making money on Xbox, i think it’s unfair for us to even know what SF will make MS, cause the game has limited edition controllers, headsets and will be supported like elder scrolls for years, throw in the fact people are excited for it, the showcase was a success for Bethesda. As for if GP helps the industry, well it don’t hurt it cause it’s an option. It would hurt it if it was the only way to play. I am a GP user and i still buy my Xbox games digitally. I will buy SF even tho it’s on GP with the discount. Cause i want to own the game, there could be a day i don’t see GP as a good deal for me and i want to have my games on my Xbox the same way as i do on my PS5. One last point to consider is many people will buy a Xbox for just this game, we have even seen that on this site. Why would they pay $15 a month to play a $70 dollar game and nothing else on the console? There will be lot’s of those situations. They will buy the Xbox and the game. GP wouldn’t be a good deal for them to play just one game for the next 1-2 years. Something to consider. I think that will play a part in it’s sales, even if it’s only a few million 😊
@Green-Bandit
Halo is bigger on xbox and didn't get 10 million and people are more used to gamepass vs 2020. It's not a reach.
You and the focus on american money. I just can't. All I care is about good high quality and high budget games that push the system and that it continues the route.
@GodofCapcom well i ain’t really focused on money either until i seen you say it won’t make MS money, that just didn’t add up to me. This is shaping up to be one of their bigger games in a long and OVERDO time. Halo isn’t that big anymore. Everyone is on COD and Fortnite. Halo launched the Xbox, no doubt, it also helped developers to bring PC shooters to consoles. Cause that wasn’t a thing before Xbox/Halo. MS even had a huge hand in bringing games like COD, Quake and Counter strike from PC to console, but those days are over for Halo unless they rebooted it into something more modern that a younger kid would leave Fortnite for and i just don’t see it. I agree with you high quality high budget games are my interest and from the showcase we seen that with this game. Same for Spider-Man 2, everyone was so down on the Sony show and i am like sitting here going didn’t you see Spider-Man 2, that will be one of the most played and requested games this holiday season. SM2 and SF are heavy hitters 😊
@Green-Bandit
I'm just going to say I want more games like Starfield
@GodofCapcom I’m with you on that. There’s some good stuff announced by both Sony and MS and 3rd parties. 2023 and forward should be good. With Diablo 4 and Street fighter 6 i am good to go for a long time. I can’t complain.
@PenguinLtd They did recently confirm Horizon 3 is in the works...everything else is either a rumor or untitled.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...