BAMozzy

To be honest, I thought this would be one of the big Live Service games they would show as its been 'rumoured' to release 'soon' after LoU2 released. It was said to have gotten too 'big' to include at Launch and was expected in 21, 22 and even 23. I think I remember people expecting Factions and/or a stealth 'beta' drop before 2023 started.

As such, it was a surprise not to see it, but they made up for it with plenty of other 'live service' games that I won't buy either...

Definitely doesn't appeal to me...

It will be interesting to see how well this does but I don't think it will be 'successful'. Not only is it 'limited' to just the PS5 user base, its also likely to be a $70 game at launch so you asking a 'relatively' small group of gamers to buy into this, get their 'friends' buying into it and hope enough people buy into it to make the game 'work' well.

Its not as if there isn't other co-op games competing - some free to play as well...

@Trajan I have a RTX3080ti Laptop and DLSS not only gives the 'best' PQ, it often means I get to play games at Higher PQ and Performance from a 'mobile' GPU. The 'downside' is that it feels like Work - being sat in front of a 'monitor' size screen and a Keyboard.

I don't 'need' an External GPU to get 'better' than Switch/Steam Deck on my 55" 4k TV, but an 'external' GPU (the RTX 4090 is a 'beast' - even if its not as 'performant' as the Desktop version) will give me DLSS, RT performance boosts and the ability to play at '4k'. It still 'beats' PS5 and Series X.

On top of that, I can play Spider-Man or God of War anywhere - not just where the wifi is good enough (let alone all the 'emulators' to play PS1,2,3 games, Nintendo, Sega etc games on the go or at '4k/60' minimum on my TV). The external GPU is a 'great' way to boost a 'small' form factor device, be able to chuck a LOT more power at it than 'Batteries' can so when its 'docked', it not only Competes with high end consoles, it can leave them behind. Then when the TV is in 'use' (I can't game on PS5/Series X then either), I can still use the RoG Ally, sat on the Sofa with the family as they watch TV etc...

Streaming is not the 'best' option. It may well be a 'decent' option, but its still limited on res/frame rates with Compression and Lag/Latency, limited to where your Wifi is strong enough etc - good enough when the alternative is 'nothing' but not as good as playing 'Local' on decent hardware...

This is a PC in its own right - its not 'limited' to just Playstation and the games you have on that Platform, it also has Game Pass for PC and Game Pass Cloud, Epic, Steam and all the 'emulation' to play Nintendo games too. Its not 'limited' to 'streaming' only or 1080/60.

Of course, it costs a LOT but the RoG Ally and a RTX4090 external GPU cost less than my RTX3080ti Laptop and can replace my Series X entirely (all games release on PC too anyway) and play games from Sony and 1000's of games not on PS5 too.

Its not 'smarter' if you don't enjoy the full Desktop type set-up (it feels too much like being at work) and/or don't have the 'room' to get a 'full' set-up - hence I went for the Laptop, but that still feels too 'work' like.

The point is that the RoG Ally is more like a Console and the 'eGPU' dock makes it a 4k Console on a TV - like with Switch. I could buy a 'standard' dock/charger that acts more like the 'Switch' Dock for 1080p gaming but the eGPU boosts things so much further and brings DLSS and RTX to what is an 'AMD' based handheld Console that offers much more flexibility and versatility than a 'desktop' does. You can't play that 'on the go' and I'd rather take my RoG Ally and eGPU on Holiday than a Laptop, Desktop, Series S/X or PS5...

Just pre-ordered a RoG Ally and with Sony committed to releasing games on PC, I can play these 'locally' on the RoG Ally on the Go. Not only that, I can buy a dock to boost 'performance' and even Visual quality with an external GPU dock - an RTX4090 for example to 'dock' with my 4k TV and out-perform my Series X/PS5 hardware - at a huge cost of course.

Point is, being a handheld PC means I can play ANY PC game (inc Steam, Epic, Xbox etc games) on the Go and with its on 1080/120 VRR screen, (even able to use DS5 controller via Blutooth), I don't see the point in buying something to 'stream' only and 'locked' to PS only too...

It was varied, a mix of indie to AAA games, a mix of genres/styles, a mix of different Studio games and a mix of different 3rd Party Publishers too.

It felt more like a 'generic' show - like Summer Game Fest - not a 'Sony' Showcase. We all know that Sony will get a wide variety of games over the next year or so from 3rd Party Publishers - even if they are 'playable' elsewhere too or not. It just highlighted how 'weak' this year maybe from a Sony output.

No-one cared that MS had a LOT of 'great' games in 2022 - even if 'most' were on PS5, some 'first', all that mattered was AAA First Party exclusives and MS 'disappointed'. Now in 2023, it looks like Sony will have a 'lean' year bulked out by 3rd Party 'exclusives' (like Final Fantasy) and even Spider-Man 2 may 'slip' its Fall release..

I expected Factions to be shown - rumoured for 2022, then 2023 and now not even mentioned...

It just seemed like a waste of time - a 3rd Party Showcase when I was looking forward to seeing a 'Sony' showcase' but I guess if you have 'little' to release, you have little to show. I didn't expect much because their Studio's all released 'something' in the past 2-3yrs and with games taking 5yrs+ to develop (even Sequels), I didn't expect much, but still felt I got 'less'...

I had 'low' expectations for this show but even I was not impressed by this. I know games are taking 'longer' and 'longer' to develop but I had expected more than just Spider-Man 2 from Sony - at least 'Factions' that was 'expected' this year too.

I am not interested in Japanese games - like Final Fantasy or those 'live' service/co-op games either. Some of the Indies look OK, nothing particular stood out to me though. Most of the AAA games look 'great', but also like it could have been a generic Show from a decade or more ago. Nothing felt 'fresh' to me - certainly nothing I intend to play at/near launch, pay $70+ to be amongst the 'first' to play....

As I said, Sony have MANY IP's to compete in Cloud gaming to Compete with MS and any other 'streaming' service. In fact Sony have 'more' IP's, more 'history', larger Fanbase and of course, other 'Media' they can add to their 'Cloud' service to Compete.

Sony own Crunchyroll and Bad Wolf (Made TV shows like Dr Who, His Dark Materials etc) as well as their own Sony Movies/TV shows. These may not be of 'interest' to gamers, but as we have seen, TV/Movie and Game IP's are being used. Uncharted, LoU, Twisted Metal etc are not 'just' gaming IP's so Sony can use their TV/Movie IP's to make 'games' and vice versa.

What that 'could' mean is that Sony could start their OWN cloud service offering Games, TV and Movies to not only 'compete' with MS's Game Pass, but also Amazon and Netflix, Apple and Google etc. Their service, for ALL things Sony, could offer their Games as well as stream TV/Movies from their TV/Movie Library (inc Crunchyroll) so you can 'watch' Uncharted or Twisted Metal as well as play the games.

As for games, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Uncharted, Last of Us, Horizon, Gran Turismo, R&C, Returnal, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, Demolition Allstars, Infamous, Destiny etc etc are all Unique Selling Points that won't be on an others 'Streaming' service so Sony will Compete on Games too and as they have a 'larger' fanbase, the chances of them becoming the #1 Cloud gaming service is much more likely than MS - even if they 'keep' ABK games off of Sony's service. Sony can attract fans of Sony Movies/TV too to appeal to a wider audience than 'just' gamers.

The question was 'never' about MS dominating or monopolising Cloud, it was always about whether 'others' want to compete in such a 'new' way of delivering games. It does 'hurt' the 'SALES' based business if you give people a 'choice' not to 'buy'. Starfield won't break any 'pre-order' records or be top of the Sales chart for the year because gamers have a 'choice'. If Sony want to 'compete', they may opt to go the 'service' route, but could also still be 'Sales' based but delay the release on Cloud so that people have to buy PS5's, buy the Game to play it in the first 6-12mnths. Then when its sales are insignificant, drop it on PC/Cloud to boost PR and give the game a 'second wind' on Consoles...

Can't say I'm overly 'hyped' for the Show. Spider-Man 2 is the 'only' game I am expecting to be something of 'interest' to me and don't expect to see Wolverine too.

I have zero interest in Final Fantasy or 'remakes/remasters', no interest in Last of Us Factions or ANY PSVR2 games at all so I don't really expect this to appeal that much to me.

I may watch live - depends on what else is on at the time - but I will certainly catch up with the 'news' and watch any 'individual' game trailers that interest me at the very least.

Maybe as I am not expecting much, if anything, to be overly hyped or excited by, them maybe it will over deliver rather than expect to be hyped and then feel deflated by the show if it under delivers...

It's Beneficial to Sony's SALES based Business Model.

The game MUST release on Console 'First' to be ONLY on Playstation Hardware so if you 'really' want to Play the game, you MUST own a Playstation and the game is 'locked' to Playstation and now you are in Sony's 'ecosystem' buying games etc...

A year or two later, that game is no longer Selling 'Hardware' and barely selling Software so they can 're-energise' that IP by releasing it to PS+ to get people to Subscribe who still haven't bought it despite the 'sales' and can open it up to a 'new' market who so far hadn't bought or seemed inclined to buy a Playstation to bring in more 'SALES' Revenue - the 'extra' marketing often helps remind people to BUY on Consoles too so you see a 'jump' in Sales on their Platform too - even if 'Fanboys' resent the PC launch, it makes them MORE Money.

Its already served its purpose of being a reason to buy Playstation when it was 'fresh' and new. Its already 'exhausted' the Console gaming Market and certainly not going to affect people's decision to buy a Playstation because those people will still buy Playstation for these games as well as the 'other' games ONLY on Playstation at that time...

No-one cares about games a 'year' later - no-one cared when Ghostwire or Deathloop finally came to Xbox, they still got 'no' games released by 'MS'. Its that 'Old' game mentality, even if its 'new' to that platform, its still an 'old' game - not something fresh and exciting.

Therefore It only makes sense for Sony who are SALES based to try and find ways to 'maximise' sales - and 'releasing' to a Market a year or more later does that - those people who bought Hardware, still have that hardware, still probably game on it and spend more money on games over the years - even if they 'release' on PC later...

I have stated that £70 is 'too much' for me to spend on ANY game. In my opinion, no game is worth that much. At best, the game-play loop, the stories, the 'experience' is NO better than it was a decade ago (and more). At best, its wrapped up in 'prettier' visuals but the 'core' of the experience is the same...

On top of that, most games release with bugs/glitches, not well optimised to the hardware, and even with only a 'fraction' of the Content with the 'rest' to be drip fed over the next year or two in a 'Live Service' model. You are 'paying' more for less, more to 'beta test', more to be the 'first' to play when I can wait a few months (or more), get the game a LOT cheaper when its actually 'playable'.

I know Sony's Games are 'polished' at Launch, but I still don't think they are worth £70+ just to play them at/near launch when I can pick them up in a Sale for 'half' that price and still get to enjoy a Great game.

It's not as if we don't have a plethora of Great Games to play with Back Compat, Sales, Sub Services(inc Monthly free PS+ Essential games) etc all offering Great Games to play at a 'fraction' of the Cost until those 'new' releases drop to 'affordable' prices.

The Price hike has only affected my Purchases of 'New' releases. I still game just as much (if not more), I am just playing games I can access a LOT cheaper until these become a LOT cheaper too...

I don't subscribe to Extra/Premium and voted that way.

Looking through both lists though, there isn't anything coming that I would want to increase my Subscription from 'Essential' to 'Extra' or even 'Premium' tier to play. Every game I would want to play, I have already so it adds 'nothing' that I would consider subbing for to play when I can play them anyway.

I can't deny they have some great games to offer and I would probably be happy with these if I was 'new' to gaming or even 'new' to Playstation just to earn the 'trophies'. I have bought games - like the Tomb Raider Trilogy on both Xbox and Playstation so already played 'twice' - if not more as I also owned Tomb Raider on PS3/360 too...

It looks a decent selection to me and I'd be reasonably happy if I didn't already have those games I'd actually play. I just don't 'need' to supplement my Library with an additional Subscription service with 'older' releases I have already bought or played.

When Publishers Green Light a Project, whether that's their 'own' studio's or investing in a 3rd Party to make their game 'exclusively', they have a budget in mind based on how well they think that game will sell if it delivers on its potential.

At some point, they may reach that budget and reassess whether its worth putting more cash into it and potentially risk losing some of that 'profit' margin, that the 'extra' cost would make the project a big loss and better to cancel or can give them a 'bit' more time, get out what they have as quick as possible and recoup some 'cash'.

With Scalebound, MS had to make a decision and based on what we subsequently heard, MS realised that the game was 'too far' off to invest more money - to even get it 'out' and with XB1's 'poor' sales, were not expecting it to 'sell' enough copies to recover any additional costs having already delayed it...

The same could be true here. That Sony don't believe that this Product would sell enough to justify the extra costs necessary to bring the game out. They may expect it to sell just 2m for example if 'perfect' at launch and just about break even if it releases today but if you add another 'year' onto development, its still expected to sell around 2m, but now needs to sell 4m to break even due to extra 'costs' invested.

We will probably not here the truth behind these type of situations at all but my guess is that Sony doesn't think it would sell more to justify further investment...

@NinjaNicky Even though MS has clearly stated they have absolutely NO intention of pulling CoD and/or not releasing 'new' CoD games in the future on Playstation, even making deals to bring CoD to 'more' platforms, I can't see CoD going away.

That's not to say I don't think things won't change under MS - most likely the 'annual' cycle with 8+ studios involved in making that happen. Nothing guarantees that 'People' will still want to play CoD - especially not if something 'better' comes along.

Battlefield has often been 'poised' to take over, but then EA screw up with a 'buggy' and/or disappointing launch. Fortnite and PUBG looked 'poised' to take over from CoD, but then CoD evolved 'warzone' to compete.

Of all IP's, I think if Sony really wanted to 'compete' with their own military shooter, I think SoCoM would be their best option. The potential in this IP to be a Battlefield/CoD beater is there - but if its 'just' on Playstation, BF/CoD could still be 'more' popular due to a larger potential user base. It could still be more popular on Playstation though - have 10m+ regular players - but to be a CoD beater, I think it needs to be 'multi-platform' to compete in terms of Players/sales.

I still think it will go through. The CMA's argument is extremely weak and will have a tough time in Court proving that MS can 'monopolise' the Cloud with just its 'handful' of IP's.

Nothing is actually stopping Sony 'compete' in Cloud Streaming for example - offering their OWN IP's like Spider-Man, Wolverine, Uncharted, God of War etc - these games will NEVER be on MS's cloud service - neither will Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Zelda, Mario, GTA etc because MS doesn't OWN those or can prevent others from setting up their own 'Cloud' service to offer their OWN IP's

Netflix didn't stop Disney+ from 'competing' despite the massive start and extensive Library of Movies/TV content - but Disney owns Marvel and Star Wars so they can compete with their 'own' content. Unless Netflix owns the rights to the vast majority of TV/Movies content, they cannot 'monopolise' streaming, cannot 'dictate' prices etc - same with MS. Nothing, other than the fact that 'cloud gaming' isn't important to 'others' yet, is preventing Companies from being able to Compete as MS doesn't own EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Nintendo, TakeTwo, Capcom, Square Enix etc and cannot put 'their' IP's into their 'Cloud' service.

MS won't own the vast majority of gaming IP's or Studios to 'monopolise' Gaming. If they can't 'monopolise' Hardware with their 'limited' exclusive IP's, they can't monopolise Cloud for the same reason. Every Publisher/platform holder can compete with their own IP's, set up a 'competing' service with their own 'exclusives'. EA with Fifa, Madden, Battlefield, Mass Effect, Dragonage etc would 'compete' with Ubisoft and AC, FC, Division, Tom Clancy etc who compete with Sony and FF, GoW, LoU, Spider-Man etc, who compete with MS and Forza, Gears, Halo, Starfield etc...

If the EU passes the deal, the FTC will have a 'very' difficult time proving that MS could 'monopolise' gaming - especially as EVERY other state has passed the deal at a 'hardware' level and only CMA has 'concerns' around 'Cloud' gaming - which is extremely 'weak' and I expect very difficult to prove in 'court'. Its Speculation at best with no 'evidence' to support this 'theoretical' future...

I think its more likely to go through - but the UK will require ABK (as a 'shell' company) to 'publish' games in the UK and NOT allow them on any UK based Cloud service.

The UK is only a 'small' region - even if its an 'important' one. It alone cannot 'block' the deal and shouldn't really be able to 'block' deals between two 'foreign' companies...

Of the rumoured titles, Castlevania is my favourite IP. Silent Hill was 'OK' but never understood the 'fuss' and Bloober haven't really impressed me with their own games - the Medium wasn't 'great'.

I never liked Metal Gear series so I couldn't care less about that. I know a LOT of Kojima fans loved it, but whether they would buy another MGS game knowing how Konami screwed Kojima, we will see - but maybe would if its a 'remastered' Kojima game...

I never like hearing about Studio Closures and/or people losing their jobs so I hope the staff of Pixel Opus are not impacted for too long.

I must admit that I never played any of their games and that they didn't really appeal to me enough to warrant buying. There was always something that appealed more to play - so even if on PS+ and 'free' to play, there was always something I wanted to play 'more'...

That being said, I don't expect 'every' game to appeal to me and/or make me want to play. I do think that they added to the variety and seemed like they made 'quality' smaller games with their own unique 'charm' so its still a shame to see them closed.

@JustPlainLoco Another factor is that their 'next' game may not be as far along as Sony expected, meaning they are faced with funding the Studio for longer, increasing the 'cost' involved in making that game (Wages, Overheads etc etc) - meaning that it would need to sell even more copies than they 'predicted' initially or lose their profit margin.

They decide to cut their losses now instead of ploughing more money into something that isn't going to sell 'more' to justify the extra cost. If its expected to sell 2m, then spending another 'year' developing it, spending 'more' money on it to reach its potential and sell 2m could make it financially too 'expensive'.

I am sure that's why we see MANY games pushed out - because the 'costs' required to polish and optimise properly would eat into their 'profits' - its better to push it out and get money coming in to start recuperating their initial investment. If it doesn't recoup 'all' costs, at least its recouped Some and overtime, could become profitable - if not, post launch support is pulled (Anthem) or significantly reduced (Battlefield) to minimise losses.

Yet another 'broken' unfinished game with the typical UE4 issues we see this gen as well as numerous bugs/glitches and other issues that really shouldn't be in a 'released' game. I could be talking about Redfall, Gotham Knights etc but this is why I refuse to 'buy' AAA games at launch - let alone the fact that 'no' game, even polished, is worth that much to me just to play it on release. I don't need to be the 'first' to complete it, I want the 'best' experience when I do play it - so I can wait for it.

This will drop in Price, get patches to fix things, even come to EA Access eventually and will be a 'better' game, maybe even have extra 'features' and certainly better optimised to perform much more smoothly so I am glad I didn't 'buy' it. Its not as if I don't have numerous other great games to play, more than I can fill my gaming time on - whilst waiting.

It seems 'industry' wide (although Sony do seem more the 'exception') to release games in such an 'unfinished' state. Its almost as if they decide to release it on 'X' date regardless (in EA's case, its usually within the 'Fiscal year' they promised Shareholders to release in and won't delay beyond that) and a 'month' before, only start putting all the pieces together to 'form' the game structure, not allowing enough time for polish and bug fixing as that 'is time/money' when they want the 'game' out bringing in 'money' - not spending more...

I may pick this up in a Black Friday sale or wait for it come to EA Access if it's not fixed or at a price I'm willing to pay...

I will never pay £/$70 for ANY game! I am more than happy to wait for the inevitable price drops, sales etc for games to be more reasonably priced and/or at a price I am willing to pay for that specific game.

Its not as if I am 'desperate' for games to play that I must buy something 'new' the day it launches - especially with a huge 'Backlog' of games I can play thanks to Backwards Compatibility - and MANY older games I missed, now cheap. On top of that, I have 'access' to numerous games via a 'small' monthly fee (Game Pass/PS+), many of which are 'new' (if not brand new releases, new games to me) that I can play until games like God of War: Ragnarok, Spider-Man 2 or any other £70 game drop below at least £50, if not lower...

Its not as if I don't have LOTS of games I can play thanks to Back Compatibility and/or Sub Services that I 'never' need to pay £70 for ANY game and still have LOTS of great games to fill my gaming time up...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I know I don't know what they are paying '3rd' party Publishers - but the majority of 'new' games added are 'indies', low budget games made by 'small' studios with far less overheads and wages.

I can guarantee they are NOT paying the FULL cost of a AAA budget 3rd Party Game, not paying 100m 'per' game.

As I said, the money coming in is enough to keep open 100+ studios, each making games for Game Pass. If they had '30' studios, each requiring ~2m a month to keep making games, then you still have a LOT of money coming in. Even if they paid 5m per game, that's still a LOT of games that month they could add. Every Month, they have around $250m coming in from just subscriptions. 25 studios at $2m a month is 50m allowing $200m a month to pay Publishers to put their games in Game Pass. They aren't paying the 'full' cost, so every sale is 'pure' profit. They will get some of their money back from sales from all those 'non-subscribers' and other platforms too so its not paying the FULL 100m it cost EA, Ubisoft etc to make those games.

Anyway, the point is that Game Pass can bring in enough revenue to put their OWN games in day/date so that they don't 'need' to sell a single copy to be 'profitable'. That's without considering ALL those who would still rather 'buy' so will still get Sales revenue too, as well as all the 3rd Party non-game pass games they Sell (30% goes to MS), as well as all the DLC/MTX extras in games (£30 to 'upgrade' to the Bite Back edition of Redfall, DLC packs in FH5, Season Passes/MTX in Sea of Thieves/Halo etc all bring in 'revenue' too. Its not 'Subs' or 'Sales'.

Games take time and so you don't 'need' $100m up front to make H:FW, over time, it ended up costing $100m about $2m a month on average. Probably around 2m a month to make Spider-Man 2, 2m a month to make God of War etc So if you have 30 studios, you 'need' $60m a month coming in so that when it releases, its already 'paid' for. If you don't, then you need to sell 'enough' copies to recuperate that investment.

250m a 'month' or 3bn a year (If HFW cost 100m, 3bn would buy you 30 HFWs EVERY year) yet you'll be lucky to get more than 5 AAA games so that still leaves another '25' they could 'buy' outright, or maybe 100+ smaller and/or 3rd Party games that you are paying a fraction of the cost (meaning they can sell far less and still be 'profitable' and get that 'money' up front - not wait for sales revenue to start coming in to set them up well for their next project)

If they don't want to put their games in GP or MS think its not worth the 'cost' the 3rd Party expects, its not in Game Pass. It has to work for 'both'. With 25 studios costing about ~$2m a month to keep making games, that's $50m a month - yet have ~$250m a month coming in so have $200m to pay for 'indies' and maybe 1 or 2 'new AAA' 3rd Party games that month - that's still a LOT of money to cover 'Game Pass' costs. Some months they may not add 3rd Party games because their 'own' are ready too...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner What you are forgetting is a LOT of the games are 'OLD' games that have already been sold and/or recuperated their costs. You don't get 400+ 'NEW' games into a service every month and MS isn't paying the FULL cost of Game to put it in Game Pass - apart from their OWN games.

As I showed, you have 'enough' money coming in to keep your Studio's open and working on Games. H:FW for example took 5yrs to make which works out at less than 2m a month to make that game. If you have 30 studios, all costing around 2m a month to keep open and salaries paid, that's '60m' a month out of your 200m coming in every month - that's still a 'huge' chunk of change left over to pay 3rd Parties to put their games into Game Pass.

Once they are added, the 'next' month for example is funding continued development (another 60m) and whatever 'new' games come to the service. The OLD games are 'paid' for already to get them on the service in the first place. They aren't continuing to pay to keep HI, FH5, MSFS, HFR etc in Game Pass for example.

Don't forget that NOT every game comes to Game Pass so they are still earning income from Sales of games, Accessories etc too - just like Sony. They still get their cut from ALL games sold too.

Of the 450+ games in a service, you only need to look at how many new games come each month. Most are 'small' budget and/or OLD games that have been available to buy, already recuperated most/all of the investment costs for the Publisher and the Service represents a chance to increase their Profit margin and bring in players who may spend money on MTX, DLC etc - players that wouldn't have bought/played so its still 'extra' income to help increase profits for 3rd Parties...

For some, it maybe the fact that having 20m playing actually benefits them far more than 3m who paid $70 to play - especially for Online matchmaking and the lowest ping/latency...

@TommyNL The majority are paying $10 as they stopped the $1 intro for a Month deal and those on Xbox Consoles are more likely to pay $15 a month for Game Pass Ultimate as that also includes 'Gold' which is necessary for Online gaming. I expect there are some who get Game Pass for less than $10, but I think that's offset by GPU subs etc so I went for an 'average' of $10 to keep math's a bit easier for illustrative purposes.

As I said, Horizon cost 100m over the course of 'years' - an average of just 20m a year over 5yrs or an average of less than 2m a month. If that is 'average' and you are bringing in 200m a month from 25m+ subscribers (less than $10 a month per person) that's still a 100x more money coming in than you are paying out to that studio to make that game.

If it brings in $2.4bn a year, ($200m a month), that's still enough to pay for 24 H:FW a year if they cost 100m each to make. And that's ALL without considering any additional income from all those 'Sales' of games, accessories, hardware etc coming in from non-Game Pass subscribers and of course all the sales of games not in Game Pass - which MS also get a 'cut' of too.

Its just a different way of funding games - its not invest in product over 5yrs, put it out to Sell to recuperate the investment. Subs can pay for those games to be developed so that when they release, they can access them free. All others still have to buy and if you want to 'keep' a game, regardless of Subscription, you still have to 'buy' anyway - but the point is, if you have 200m coming in a month, that's 2 AAA games fully 'paid' for every month without considering any other income source...

@TommyNL If a game costs $100m to make and you have 25m+ Subscribers paying $10+ a month, that's $250m a month coming in to pay for that game.

A game like Horizon:FW was made over 5yrs - an average of $20m per year (Salaries, overheads etc) or $1.67m a month - considering you have $250m coming in from 'subs' alone (not including money coming in from Sales and all the other income sources), its a 'small' fraction of the 'cost'.

If you say it costs around $2-2.5m a month per Studio to make a game, you can literally fund 100 studios with the Subscription. $250m coming in from Subscribers and that being used to pay ALL the Studios making games so by the time it releases, its already 'paid' for, already funded with no need to sell to recoup those costs. Of course with MS, they need some of that Sub money to pay 3rd Parties to put their games in Subscriptions too so they can't run a 100 studios in reality - but that's the principal.

You are getting people to 'pay' for those games to be 'made' by Subscribing so you get them when they are 'released'. That 25m in Game Pass would give MS $3bn a year and if 'games' are costing 100m to make, that's technically 30 games a year paid for in advance so that when they release, any sales are 'pure' profit - they don't need to sell 5m to recoup their costs...

A different business model - service based, which is what MS have switched to, but Sony are a Sales based business and Subs affect Sales, won't get the Sales figures or be the 'best' selling games - even if it means not being the most played games. 10m sales vs 25m players in your game. Not saying one is better than another, just a 'different' business model and approach to how games can be funded in a Sub model versus Sales

Cloud is likely to be an Entry point for Gamers - it doesn't require the investment of Hardware and can be accessed basically anywhere - like Netflix or Disney+. That means that 'more' gamers can play 'Premium' games that require powerful Hardware to run..

Dedicated and/or eSport gamers would not want the associated 'downsides' of Cloud - increased Latency/Lag, compression artefacts etc and would rather 'buy' hardware to offer the 'best' PQ, Performance and/or the option to tweak settings etc.

Its like Music/Film - maybe the 'bulk' of people will use Streaming for their games, like they do for Music/Film, but there will always be a group that prefer the Quality offered by the best Hardware delivering the 'best' sound/PQ that you can't get via Streaming. They may prefer the sound of Vinyl running through their Hi-Fi with real Valve amps for example, the quality of Blurays through their Home Cinema set-up...

There will be gamers that want the 'very' best - not settle for the 'entry' level experience just because its 'more' affordable in general...

Fiscal year can still mean into 2024 - maybe a Big March release IF they need to take some extra time. I am sure they would rather have it out before Christmas to 'SELL' more consoles and dominate the Christmas Sales charts.

Again, people seem to focus on Jan 1st - Dec 31st, even though most Companies operate in a 'Fiscal' year system and really for most Consumers, the Start of the Gaming year tends to be June and E3 as it used to give us our first indications of the games expected in the 'Fiscal' year ahead.

Even if you get a Calendar year with 'no' major releases, If they release a lot Q3/4 the year before, and Q1 the year after, they still released their games in BOTH Fiscal years - haven't 'missed' a year of releases from their perspective, but from a Consumer perspective, that calendar year looks bad. If Sony don't release any AAA games between now & Dec 31st (not counting VR games) with GoW:R being the release for 2022-23 fiscal year, and Spider-Man 2 for 23-24 Fiscal year, it could seem like Sony had NO games - but their 'year' is different...

@Total_Weirdo Do Sony really need to make their OWN FPS game 'exclusively' for Playstation? Even if MS decided to make CoD exclusive, Sony still have VERY STRONG Exclusives to compete with MS.

Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us, God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo etc etc - all games that people will want to buy a Playstation to Play - therefore Sony has attracted gamers to their 'ecosystem' to play those games.

It's not as if Sony would be 'lacking' in any Online FPS games - Battlefield, Fortnite, Apex, XDefiant, Warframe, Destiny, PUBG etc. There are also a LOT of FPS games in development - I see a lot on Steam early access that Sony 'could' decide to invest in to bring them to their 'own' console, maybe buy the Studio too.

Maybe they do have their 'own' in development - one of the 'many' Live Service projects they are working on, maybe even LoU Factions could become the 'next' big Live MP game on Playstation.

All the 'focus' on CoD seems somewhat ridiculous. Its still just a 'Single' IP. If Sony can't sell it anymore, they still have a 'high' user base that will still buy games and maybe instead of buying CoD, they buy Far Cry or Hogwarts or Final Fantasy or Fifa or Battlefield or whatever other games come out. If Xbox gamers can't buy Final Fantasy to play, maybe they buy something else to play instead - in anycase, they still get 'revenue' coming in, just on 'other' games instead.

To 'compete' Sony has its own USP's - VR, Exclusives, Controller, UI etc. That is what gets people into their ecosystem, spending Time and Money on Games to Play in that ecosystem. If MS took CoD away, that would be a USP for MS - who doesn't have anywhere near the same number of USP's on Xbox.

I'd still NEED a Playstation if EVERY ABK, Zenimax and ALL the other Xbox owned IP's were 'exclusive' because I'd still want to play Sony's own Exclusives too. Spider-Man, Wolverine, LoU, GoW, R&C, GT7, Horizon etc etc - Award Winning IP's from Award Winning Studios will 'compete' for my attention, my money so Sony is still 'competitive'...

Of course games are taking longer and longer to make and 'big sprawling RPG's are perhaps the most 'complex' of games to make.

Visually, you have increasing complexity too - increased polygon counts with increased texture details, more '3D' objects on screens, improved lighting, improved object density etc etc.

Quests are also becoming a lot more 'complex' and not so 'superficial'. We expect them to have impact - The Bloody Baron quest for example can be quite different depending on what side-quests you have done and how you chose to resolve them for example.

As such, the time it takes to make a game goes up. Time is 'money' as they say so an 'extra' year, is an extra year of Salaries, an extra year of 'overhead' costs (all of which have increased) etc so an 'extra' year requires 'more' sales to break even.

Gone are the days of making a Game a year - even 'short' AAA games. According to Guerrilla, it took 12-18months just to make one of the 'Robot' dinosaurs for Horizon. Sucker Punch took over 6yrs between Infamous 2nd Son and Ghost of Tsushima releasing yet go back to the 360 era and Naughty Dog were able to make Uncharted 2, 3 and Last of Us in about 2yrs after Uncharted.

Point is, even with modern technology, even linear games story focussed games are taking much longer, made by 'bigger' studios today with larger Salaries/Overhead costs - all of which 'increases' the cost to make and bring a game to market.

Some Publishers would rather 'chuck' out an unfinished game to try and start recuperating those costs with Sales rather than invest another 6-12months of development 'costs' and hope that it generates 'more' sales to offset the increase in development costs. If they don't think it will translate into 'more' sales, it maybe better to put it out, try and fix 'post' launch, and hope you sell enough to at least cover what's been invested so far...

Subscriptions will always have a plateau - you'll not convince everyone to subscribe as gamers will have different reasons to subscribe (or not).

I don't see the point in Subscribing to anything more than PS+ Essential tier to be able to play ALL the content in the Games I buy - I have to Sub to play online content.I don't play the PS3 and older games I still have and not interested in playing the ones I missed. As for PS4/5 era games, I have bought all the games I wanted and would likely end up buying the games that 'eventually' come to PS+ so it has little/no appeal. Game Pass on the other hand gives me access to games I want to play the day they release so I don't need to pay $70 to try a game, don't need to 'wait' until it comes to a service to get my 'moneys' worth' from that service etc.

PS+ (at least tiers above Essential) doesn't suit me so I won't subscribe - and I can't be the ONLY one that it doesn't really suit so there is a limit to a service and you won't ever attain 100% of the potential - which for Playstation is really limited to the number of Playstation users

@jgrangervikings1 That's Rovio 'under' its current Management and whatever IP's etc they own. But what if Sega got them porting Sonic games to Mobile? Jet Set Future? Crazy Taxi? etc and these all go on now to be 'massive' sellers for Sega that 'Rovio' couldn't have done without SEGA's ownership & IP's.

Its not a 'one' way street so to speak that Sega is only 'buying' Angry Birds and that isn't the money spinner it once was, but they are buying talent and expertise that could allow SEGA to offer their IPs on Mobile and open up a whole new market for them to sell games to and that could help them recuperate that investment much quicker.

@NomNom Maybe NOT the same scale of Purchase but the SAME principal and desire to target the Mobile sector. Sony themselves set up a Playstation Mobile Division - a segment that will be devoted to releasing mobile games based on big PlayStation franchises and the new division will include Sony's studio acquisition - Savage Game Studios.

Here's what Hulst said in a recent PlayStation Blog update:
"Our mobile gaming efforts will be similarly additive, providing more ways for more people to engage with our content, and striving to reach new audiences unfamiliar with PlayStation and our games. Savage Game Studios is joining a newly created PlayStation Studios Mobile Division, which will operate independently from our console development and focus on innovative, on-the-go experiences based on new and existing PlayStation IP."

They also intend to have 20% (1/5th) of its releases to be Mobile based by 2025 - and 30% on PC - the other half to be Console releases.

Point is, Publishers realise that Mobile is a Massive sector and are moving towards developing 'Mobile' games. That's why Sony acquired Savage - not for any 'IP' specifically, but for their talent & expertise in the Mobile sector - having been set-up by ex Zynga employees. Its likely why Sega are buying Rovio too - not specifically for 'Angry Birds' but their talent and expertise in the mobile game development sector.

So whilst it may not be on the 'same' scale - its still the same Principal, same desire to get into the Mobile Gaming market!

@zupertramp Exactly - its like Sony buying Savage Games and setting up Sony's Playstation Mobile Division. Its about buying the 'talent' behind Angry Birds and their expertise in the Mobile sector.

It 'works' for BOTH sides as Rovio want to try and bring 'games' to other Platforms and SEGA wants to get into the Mobile sector so it benefits 'both'.

It's possible they could do 'cross-overs' - a Mario Kart style game or even a Movie with Sonic, Angry Birds etc. Both Sonic and Angry Birds have animated movies and therefore a cross-over could 'work'.

With MS purchasing 'King', Sony Purchasing Savage Games and setting up a PS Studios Mobile Division and Sega buying a Mobile creator, it would seem that EVERY company is targeting Mobiles in some capacity - maybe its because it actually makes more Money than console/premium games and has much more potential reach too as everyone these days owns a 'mobile'...

@WallyWest @RonnieL How many of those games were supported by MS and brought to Xbox as part of their ID@Xbox programme designed to help developers realise their games and/or bring them to more gamers by helping them Self Publish and/or port to Consoles. The whole point is to support these 'independent' developers to make games they wouldn't have had without MS's support and a platform to self publish and extend their reach beyond 'just' PC.

MS never took Redfall away from Playstation, they cancelled it before it was a 'Product'. Star Wars 1313, Prey 2, Scalebound and ANY game 'cancelled' before its released cannot be 'pulled' away. To Pull something, it has to be 'available' to those consumers.

Final Fantasy 16 hasn't been 'pulled' from Xbox - even if they had 'started' development with a plan to release on Xbox. As far as we know, Sony has 'paid' to 'delay' or even 'Cancel' any Xbox port but can't be 'pulled' away because its never been available.

If Sony decide to Cancel their 'Handheld' device that's heavily rumoured, that won't be 'pulled' away from you as a Consumer because you never had access to it in the first place. The ONLY Bethesda games that can be pulled are those that already 'exist' on PS - they could pull Minecraft, ESO, F76, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc - not bother updating or 'releasing' new content, stop supporting PS entirely - that would be 'pulling' games from Playstation.

People don't spend $500 to play CoD ONLY and if CoD remains on PS (if its 'THAT' big a deal, Sony would ensure continued access by signing a deal), they are not going to spend another $500 to switch to Xbox now. They buy PS because it has the 'best' exclusives and can still play CoD, Fifa and all the other 'junk food' games.

Gamers will still 'buy' Playstation because Sony has a LOT of the Best games released 'EVERY' year, often the Game of the Year 'winner', often the Publisher with the most Award nominations etc - its that 'strength' that will keep people buying Playstation. I know I'll buy a PS6 because I want to play Sony's Exclusives - whether CoD, Crash, Overwatch, WoW, Spyro, Doom, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Fallout etc etc are 'playable' on Playstation or not. I still want to play Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, GoW, GT, Horizon, GoT, R&C, tLoU, Uncharted etc etc.

If Sony were 'so' concerned about losing CoD, therefore losing the opportunity to sell to those 10-15m that buy it every year and therefore losing that 'revenue', they had the option to sign a deal guaranteeing they could still 'sell' CoD so it doesn't pull people away from PS and they still get their cut.

@Kevw2006 Whatever the details were, its irrelevant because Sony would still have the game on their platform, still be able to sell it and therefore still get money from it.

MS also promised to allow a 3rd Party independent analysis prior to release to ensure 'Parity' between PS5/Xbox - even though a 'bad' game hurts MS far more as Sony would be exempt from any negative PR and if the game isn't selling, its hurting MS more as its their reputation, their investment, their IP/Studio that's 'hurt' - not Sony or Playstation.

I jokingly said Suicide Squad as an example of a 3rd Party game that 'could' be purchased on Playstation by '1m' more gamers that have 'money' to spend if they can't buy CoD. They may 'lose' 15m sales of CoD for example, but those 15m people may buy something else on Playstation instead so the 'nett' loss to Sony is Zero.

Lets say Sony 'lose' 5m sales now because MS own CoD and/or because those '5m' actually prefer to play CoD elsewhere and now have the freedom to choose where they WANT to play, not feel forced/pressured to play on Playstation or miss out on something. They may buy other games instead on Playstation so still spending money, still 'contributing' to Sony's profit and/or replace those who 'leave' to go to Xbox with 'new' gamers coming in to play Spider-Man, Wolverine etc Its the USP's that bring gamers in to Spend Money on 3rd Party Software too...

If you have 50m users with an 'average' spend across ALL games contributing to their profits, those 50m users won't suddenly stop spending money just because CoD stops coming to Playstation - the 'average' spend won't drop much (if at all) - it will just be across other games so the nett loss is negligible.

@RonnieL You are one of those 'rare' exceptions then as most won't drop $500 on Hardware just because it has a 'Single' game they want to play and couldn't care less about the rest.

In any case, its still the same principal, weighing up the games you can ONLY play on Playstation and comparing to the games you can ONLY play on Xbox and the one that has the 'most' games you want to play (even if that is 'just' 1 game at the time) is still the Console you'll buy. Its still a Unique Selling Point that persuaded you to jump into that ecosystem.

The USP's are what sells hardware and Sony has far more USP's to entice people to buy a Playstation. Bloodborne and Demon Souls worked on you, was 'enough' for you to be 'sucked in' to buying a Playstation, going on to spend more money in Playstations ecosystem helping Sony to massive profits they can 'invest' back into making games.

The point of USP's is 'getting' you to buy their Hardware so you are 'in' their 'ecosystem so they can make money from 'you' and the games you buy. If you don't buy CoD, but buy Hogwarts instead, that's still money to Sony.

For MOST people, its the majority of USP's that will determine which platform they buy. Just knowing that Sony has a 'bigger' library of games, due to the fact that Sony has a LOT more games that are 'only' on Playstation, is another factor. So even if you don't care about 'Spider-man' or CoD games specifically, knowing that Sony will have 'more' Exclusive games maybe enough to get people in to the ecosystem buying games, spending money so Sony keeps growing their profits...

@Kevw2006 When it comes to deciding WHICH platform you want to 'buy' - Spider-Man is a much bigger and more recognisable IP than CoD.

All those people who are trying to decide whether to buy a Series X or PS5 are going to see 'recognisable' IP's like Spider-Man and that will be a 'bigger' influence than CoD. The point is that Spider-Man is a 'bigger' and more globally recognised IP so that has more pull to get people to buy a Playstation. CoD may 'sell' more - but I doubt the majority of 10-15m that buy it on PS would 'leave' Playstation if it went Exclusive (a few maybe) and they'd just 'buy' something else. If A/B push out a 'bad' CoD, decide to go F2P and/or not release 'annually', Sony wouldn't get 'their' CoD Profit, but wouldn't be hurt by it either as those gamers would still spend their money on OTHER games. It doesn't even need to be another 'single' game that sells 10-15m to 'replace' CoD, it could be 10-15 different games each selling 1m more copies to generate the 'same' income for Sony.

If you have 50m users who spend money buying games in your ecosystem, they may not 'buy' CoD anymore, but they are still 'spending' money on OTHER games, other services and content. They won't suddenly stop buying anything - instead of buying CoD every year, they may buy Battlefield or GTA or Final Fantasy or FarCry or Destiny or Fifa or MBL or Suicide Squad or Street Fighter or Spider-Man 2 so Sony still 'receive' money.

Sony could have signed a 10yr deal guaranteeing they could still 'sell' CoD so it doesn't suddenly 'disappear' and they don't get their 'cut' anymore. Thereby still earning a LOT of money from the Playstation based CoD gamers at NO cost to themselves - all of which they can 'invest' in their OWN content/studios etc or invest in keeping 3rd Party publishers from releasing games on Xbox. If their 'worry' is CoD being 'exclusive' and therefore pulling people away from Playstation, not selling the game anymore so not getting their cut, they can sign a deal with MS guaranteeing Parity so Xbox doesn't have 'Only on Xbox' content to pull those gamers away - they don't care as they know its in MS's interest to sell CoD on PS so will still keep making 'millions' off of an Xbox owned IP.

@WallyWest @Kevw2006 The fact that they are 'bigger' and more 'recognised' outside of gaming is the important metric here. Its that recognition that will bring people into the ecosystem they are on.

Its about the 'pull' of those IP's to get people to buy into your platform specifically. CoD may appeal to a 'large' subset of 'Gamers', but in terms of encouraging 'new' people to jump in to your Ecosystem, pull people in to get them playing and spending money, Spider-Man is a more recognisable and 'bigger' IP than CoD.

Sony can 'remove' CoD from the equation by simply signing a deal to 'keep' CoD on Playstation for the long term. People won't be counting CoD as a 'specific' reason not to buy Playstation because the Game is available on PS too - therefore it will not be included as a 'Unique Selling Point' in favour of Xbox. You don't get people abandoning Sony because games like MLB21, 22 and 23, Plague Tale, Minecraft, Back 4 Blood etc are all on Game Pass day and date because they are still 'available' on PS5 too - so its the USP's that matter.

Therefore IP's like Spider-Man, Wolverine - even Uncharted and the Last of Us (thanks to movies/TV shows) are vital to pull people into Playstation who will then go on to buy more games and contributing to Sony's profits. CoD may not bring as much revenue as it does, but that is NOT guaranteed anyway, its not Sony's IP and if A/B screw-up (Another Ghosts, Advanced Warfare or Vanguard or another buggy, broken mess) and that affects Sony's profit - but it doesn't really because those that don't buy, buy something else instead to play.

Sony shouldn't be relying on 3rd Parties to determine whether or not they can still make games. Those 3rd Parties only have their games to sell to make money and keep making games themselves - Sony takes money away from 3rd Parties as a Platform holder and/or retailer - as well as makes money from sales of their OWN games, Sales of Sub services, accessories, merchandising etc etc. Elden Ring probably made them as much as CoD did or GTA5 or Hogwarts etc

Spider-Man probably earns more EVERY year as an IP, not just 'gaming' but across all media, than CoD. Its a bigger, more recognised IP so all those 'kids' growing up today that will become gamers 'tomorrow' will know that Sony has Spider-Man, Wolverine etc and that will pull them over to Playstation.

As stated, CoD is just 1 IP that isn't as 'recognisable' globally as Marvel owned Spider-Man and so will pull people into buying Playstations to play ALL their games. Sony had the opportunity to ensure 'CoD' isn't competing as an Exclusive IP for Xbox to get people into their ecosystem and Sony can still 'earn' their Cut for at least the next decade. MS may have turned Spider-Man down, but at the time they had no option, no studio's to make the game etc. Its like turning down the opportunity to own a Ferrari but can't drive, insure or maintain it - it wasn't feasible.

You don't buy a Console just because 1 game is exclusive, you buy it because of the 'collective' power of those Exclusives. Its Sony's 'many' more IP's/Exclusives/USP's that leads to Sony having the 'largest' user base and therefore selling more '3rd' party games to supplement their Profits and CoD would still be a 3rd Party game on Playstation. The fact that Sony PS5 continues to SELL most hardware means that Sony also get 'most' 3rd Party sales (even if MS has marketing deals) and even if 'CoD' was 'exclusive', they'd still have the most 'users' still sell the 'most' 3rd Party games that 'help' fund their OWN games, help pay to keep other 3rd Party games away from gamers etc

@get2sammyb Spider-Man and Wolverine are much bigger IP's that go beyond gaming and much more 'iconic' than CoD. Kids will grow up with Spider-Man, see Spider-Man movies etc and then go on to be a 'Playstation' fan because Spider-Man and Wolverine are 'massive IP's' they will know.

If MS pulled CoD from Playstation, the vast majority of CoD gamers on PS would NOT suddenly leave Playstation. They would still want to play Sony's Award Winning exclusives and whatever other 'unique' experiences (VR for example) that are ONLY on Playstation.

The point is that these are 'just' IP's and its about the 'pull' of these to bring Gamers into YOUR ecosystem specifically to sell them 'more' products to keep making money for the Company. It doesn't matter if they spend $100 on CoD a year or spend that $100 on Hogwarts or Minecraft Legends or Suicide Squad in Sony's ecosystem as Sony will still get the same money.

The point I am making is that in terms of 'IP's' and their pulling power for a Console, Spider-Man beats CoD and would likely pull more people into Playstation than CoD would pull people to Xbox. That is the POINT. If PS6 didn't have CoD, it would still 'Sell', still be many gamers MAIN choice, probably still sell 'more than MS because of the Strength of its own IP's like Spider-Man and Wolverine.

Besides, Sony had a Contract on the table to KEEP CoD, Keep being able to sell the game so 'CoD' gamers on PS aren't 'forced/pressured' to leave and even an independent analyst to ensure Parity between Xbox and Playstation to alleviate 'concerns' about Sabotage. Therefore remove ANY possibility of CoD being 'pulled' and Sony can still get their Cut at NO cost to themselves.

In reality, this just shows that Sony aren't concerned about CoD or MS using it to 'compete' with Sony's Exclusives to pull people away, aren't going to 'sabotage' their own product or Studio as 'Poor' versions would reflect badly on them, not Sony.

When it comes to 'consumers', they 'decide' which console to buy based on the 'unique selling points' of each - for Sony, that's their Exclusives, their Ecosystem etc and that includes VR.

If CoD went 'exclusive' to Xbox, it 'alone' isn't going to persuade gamers to buy Xbox, but combined with Forza, Gears, Halo, Redfall, Starfield, Fable, Avowed, Hellblade etc etc, they are 'competing' with Sony and Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo etc etc as well as VR experiences.

Spider-Man probably makes more money a year across ALL media than CoD does - all the Comics, Spider-Man merch etc etc because its got much wider appeal than CoD, more 'fans' of Spider-Man than of CoD globally.

CoD may 'sell' well on Playstation - but if it went, those gamers would likely spend their money elsewhere in the Playstation ecosystem - buy other games/content. If they were that 'concerned' about the revenue they are 'making' from 3rd Party Software they NEVER own and could easily 'disappear', then they should Sign a deal with 'new' owners of the IP to ensure they can 'keep' selling, keep getting 'income' from something they don't OWN!!

@naruball That's not the point and you know it. The Point is that when it comes to people CHOOSING which console to buy, which console to spend their 'time' and MONEY on year after year after year, Spider-Man and Wolverine are 'BIGGER' IP's and whilst they may not generate the 'same' revenue per year as CoD does due to the way Activision run that IP by forcing ALL their Studio's to push it out 'annually' because it sells 'more' than any other IP they have every 'year' so better to make that than make something 'new', interesting etc..

But regardless, if Sony gamers aren't buying CoD anymore because 'CoD' goes exclusive, they'll still spend money on Playstation Games, still going to buy Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, Final Fantasy and whatever other '3rd' party games come to Playstation.

Most of those 'millions' of gamers wouldn't suddenly leave Playstation or buying games - that CoD money could buy Battlefield or be spent in Fortnite - especially seeing some of the 'creations' that could offer now too, maybe Apex or even Sony's 'own' IP's like Destiny or even their 'Last of Us' Factions MP expected soon. After the success of the HBO show too, that's another 'big' IP that would compete against 'CoD'.

The point is that Sony has its OWN Exclusives that will sell consoles and those gamers will buy Games every year, Sub to a service to play Online and/or get access to some/a lot of games and spend money in their ecosystem.

When it comes to choosing to buy PS6 or NextBox for example, if CoD was 'exclusive', it, along with ALL the other 'Xbox' Exclusives would still be competing against Sony's Exclusives and Sony's IP's are very STRONG - Award Winning in gaming and Playstation brand is STRONG, also only Console offering VR so another Selling point that Microsoft is trying to 'Compete' with.

Sony had a Contract on the table to keep CoD on their Platform for another Decade (that's basically this and 'next' gen Hardware time as it won't kick in until after Sony's current deal expires) AND a Guarantee on Parity that would be independently checked, assessed and verified before MS can release it ANYWHERE so both their concerns about MS making it Exclusive or releasing a 'Bad' version are redundant.

But 'Competition' isn't about how much money it makes Sony or MS or A/B, its about the choice for Consumers and if MS pulled CoD away and made it 'exclusive', however much money it makes is 'irrelevant', its about bringing people into Xbox to play games like CoD, Gears, Forza, Halo, Fable, Avowed, Redfall, Starfield, Hellblade etc etc - just like Sony are using games like Spider-Man (appealing to ALL Marvel fans - its not even their 'own' IP but still bigger appeal than CoD globally and probably earns more across all its products and merchandising) as well as Wolverine - another 'Marvel' IP, coupled with games like Last of Us, Returnal, R&C, Demon Souls, Final Fantasy, God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo, Ghost of Tsushima, Uncharted etc etc etc to get you into their Playstation Ecosystem, keep you playing 'there' and spending 'money' to keep playing there, keep buying 'new' games (even if CoD stops being a Choice). Its competing 'ecosystems', competing IP's to get you in - that's what Exclusives are for and if CoD left Playstation, those gamers will still spend money, still buy new games to play...

@Thumper So what if the 'casuals' and 'kids' all want to play CoD - Sony had the option to ensure CoD would remain on their Platform for the next decade beyond their 'current' arrangement, even have a 3rd Party independent source to 'verify' and ensure Parity before MS 'can' release their game at all to 'allay' their concerns about MS pulling CoD away OR releasing 'bad' version to 'harm' Playstation (even though that would backfire badly as Gamers don't blame 'Playstation', they blame the Dev/Publisher).

Therefore, those gamers would still be able to play CoD, Sony still sell it and still make 'money' from CoD at NO cost to themselves - MS will be funding the development, porting, optimising, manufacture/distribution costs, post release support etc so Sony can get their '30%' just for owning a Platform. Its not 'just' the base game sales, but all the 'extras' - Season Passes, CoD points etc etc too.

If 'CoD' is available on Playstation and Xbox, both 'known' to be the 'Same' game with same content and EVERYONE getting the content at the Same time, it stops being part of the decision making over Platform choice. It will still come down to the 'Exclusives', where their Friends/Family play, their Controller preference and even their back catalogue/trophies etc they 'could' lose by switching platform matter more than MS owning CoD and/or it being on Game Pass Day 1.

Over a 'year' its still cheaper to buy CoD than pay £12 a month for Game Pass Ultimate (to play ONLINE). So it will still come down to 'exclusives'. If they 'prefer' Playstation because of games like God of War, Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, Horizon, Last of us, Uncharted, Ghost of Tsushima, Returnal, R&C etc etc over games like Forza, Halo, Gears, Redfall, Starfield, Hellblade, Avowed, Fable etc etc

Sony own Destiny, Sony own Killzone, Resistance, SoCoM, MAG, Haze etc, Sony own the talent behind Halo and those IP's so 'could' make their own or commission their own. There are LOTS of alternatives (steam early access has numerous) too they could 'buy' and many in development they could buy up and develop fully to 'compete'. They don't 'need' their own as they could still keep CoD on their platform for at least another decade as well as offer Battlefield, Apex, DefiantX, Fortnite, PUBG etc etc

Point is, IF Sony were that concerned about CoD, they could have secured it for their Platform too with total parity to ensure no advantages to MS and remove any possibility of MS using CoD to 'compete' with Sony - the game is 'equal' on both - no-one gets anything the other doesn't to 'force' consumers to play on a specific platform (like today) and allows Consumers the 'freedom' to choose where they want to play without fear of missing out....

MS buying A/B - a Publisher that is relying pretty much only on CoD most years and their 'mobile' Candy Crush to keep them 'alive' in the gaming sector today is certainly not ANTI-COMPETITIVE.

In terms of Publishers, they ALL compete - MS, Sony, Nintendo, TenCent, Embracer Group, EA, Take Two, Warner Bros, Ubisoft, Capcom, Konami etc etc - the 'loss' of one isn't significantly impacting the Competition to Publish Games. In terms of Platforms, it doesn't reduce the Competition either as A/B doesn't have a 'platform'. In terms of Studios/IP's, it only makes MS more 'competitive' to compete with Sony/Nintendo and their Studio/IP's.

If MS took CoD away from Playstation - not that they want/intend to, that would only make Xbox more 'competitive' to compete with Sony's Spider-Man or Wolverine - 2 'bigger' IP's than CoD.

There is a MASSIVE difference to BUYING a Studio, owning the Talent, owning the IP, owning the Publishing rights and therefore JUSTIFIABLY keeping their OWN games exclusive than paying a 3rd Party Publisher to keep them from releasing their IP's on specific platforms, paying to keep it away from gamers.

If Sony bought SE, they would OWN FF, own the Studio and 'right' to make it 'exclusive' if they want to. They would OWN it outright - just like MS OWN Redfall, Starfield, Elder Scrolls, Doom etc NOW - just like Amazon own Tomb Raider NOW (not SE). Sony should use their Money to build up their OWN content, not go round paying 3rd Parties to block them from releasing their games on as many platforms to sell as many copies and reach as many people as possible.

Sony are 'dominating' - have the MOST console users, MOST 'exclusives' and have more IP's than MS to so for 'MS' to be 'more' competitive, to make gaming more Competitive, to push Sony to be more 'Consumer' friendly and 'better', They need IP's, Studio's etc - therefore, them buying A/B only makes a 'weak' Xbox that much 'stronger' to be 'more' Competitive with Sony - therefore its NOT anti-competitive!!!

@MattBoothDev I am NOT apologising at all - that is the Purpose of a predominantly SALES focussed business - like Ubisoft or Sony that also use 'Services' to get you in their game, get you trying them before you 'buy' etc.

You NEVER own these games so they attempt to get you 'playing', get you 'hooked' and then are more likely to 'buy' when it is rotated out. You, as a consumer, still have the Choice to buy or not, to play the games that 'replaced' these or even decide that a Sub service isn't really for you because you have NO control over which games will be rotated in/out.

Its still 'cheaper' than buying all the games you want to play, but you may find your access is 'removed' at some-point - to encourage you to buy and/or add something else to encourage people to Subscribe.

You paid your Subscription fee to access the 'Library' of games in that service for that 'month'. The library is subject to 'change' every month too so its up to the Publisher/Service Provider to decide 'how long' it suits THEM to offer a Game on that service for. With 3rd Party Publishers, they may decide that 2-3 months is 'enough' to get people to TRY before they 'BUY' - not try indefinitely so you are completely 'finished' and no desire to own long term.

With First Party, they may 'decide' that an IP is better served to encourage more Subscriptions so 'keep' it on that Sub service indefinitely but could want to try and get more Sales so they can reach another 'Sales' milestone (5m, 10m, 20m sales...) - it just depends on the Company and what is most 'important' to their Business model.

The vast majority are very SALES focussed - not service based - especially 3rd Party publishers like Ubisoft, EA etc. They 'need' sales for their Business model - the 'best' selling IP, the biggest selling entry in the Franchise, #1 selling game of the week/month/year etc. Sales to investors/shareholders also mean 'success' - even if they get a 'decent' income from Services.

Ubisoft ALSO have their OWN sub-service too - so pulling it from PS+ also may encourage some to Sub to Ubisoft+ to keep playing...

@MattBoothDev Well that's 'your' choice but for some, they may well be more tempted to buy than not be able to keep playing and/or finish the game.

There are people that want to finish these and/or be able to play at some point in the future, therefore its these that this practice targets. If you don't buy, regardless, then its no 'loss' to the them to 'remove' your free access they have probably been 'compensated' for via your Sub fee. They won't get 'more' from you but also you won't get 'more' access from them either.

Its literally now a case of Buy or 'miss out'. If you are satisfied, achieved or finished all you wanted to do then of course you won't buy just because its leaving - I never bought the Medium, the Great Escape, Gunk etc if/when they leave Game Pass either because by the time they leave, I have already 'finished' all I wanted to.

If you wanted to finish playing AC: Valhalla - you'd have no choice but to buy it as you can no longer 'access' it via PS+. The point is to 'entice' you to buy these games when they leave - but if you don't 'care' enough - either because the game isn't that interesting to you, you've already finished/played enough or just happy to play the games you can when you can, then its pointless buying, but they hope you want to keep playing so will 'buy'...

Removing games is often a way to boost sales to those who haven't yet played or only played by a Subscription service and now 'panic' they won't get to play it or finish it...

Sony may well be wanting to get 'more' sales than Subs in these games as they are going to be using 'new' games coming into the service to 'entice' you to keep Subbing and/or bring new subs in.

Games not in the service anymore can ONLY be played if you own a Copy yourself so removing games (even their OWN) is increase Sales on those products.

It makes sense if you are a Sales based company 'focussing' on being the 'best' selling in any charts and really only concerned by 'sales' figures. No doubt some/most/all of these will see an increase in sales when they leave.

If you 'keep' the game in a service permanently, its only to increase the player count as the service grows in Users and its still for sale too but its still cheaper/easier to have those in your 'backlog' on a service you can access anywhere than buy all those games you missed out on for 'reasons' - inc for all those who become 'gamers' on Console for the first time this year.

That's 'service' based vs Sales based - Why its 'different' to say Game Pass for example because different business models...

@Yozora146_ And that 'extra' latency/lag can be so insignificant that it actually has no 'noticeable' impact and can actually be better than playing 'Locally' on some hardware - and certainly better than nothing as some hardware would NEVER let you play these games.

Take 'Doom' 2016 as an example. On Switch, it runs at a 'low' resolution - not even HD quality and capped to 30fps. Streaming could play the game with all the RT and visual upgrades, downsampled to 1080p and running at 60fps to significantly reduce the Lag/Latency to be much more 'responsive' than the 'Local' experience and lets not forget that most mobiles/tablets etc wouldn't let you play Doom locally if you wanted.

Cloud doesn't necessarily 'replace' the 'Premium' experience some Hardware can offer. Its a way to reach 'more' people who can't necessarily afford to spend $500+ on Hardware to play a game and/or 'compliment' the premium experience by allowing you to play your games anywhere on a variety of devices instead of always having to wait until you get home and can use your Console to play. A lot of Consoles are connected to 'family' TV's so instead of waiting for the Kids or Wife to finish watching something, you can stream games and play anywhere.

I have Game Pass Ultimate and a Series X. Of course EVERY game runs better locally on Series X, but streaming allows me to play ANYWHERE, to try games before deciding whether its worth 'waiting' for the game to Download and install etc. If I want the 'best' experience, I will 'download', but some games are 'perfectly' fine to play via streaming - I completed Several 'Indies' via Streaming - mostly because I quickly 'forgot' I was streaming and just kept playing until I finished the game.

Streaming is either an 'entry' tier experience, allowing more gamers to experience 'Premium' games without the 'Premium' up-front costs OR to compliment a 'fixed' Premium set-up to allow you to play 'anywhere'.

Hardcore, dedicated gamers that can afford to buy Premium Hardware, as I guess most on Sites dedicated to Premium Gaming like PushSquare are, would be 'unlikely' to accept Streaming as their 'MAIN' way to play. I bought a PS4 Pro for example to get 'better' visuals/performance despite it not offering ANYTHING the PS4 doesn't offer because I want the 'best' but many others were satisfied with the 'level' PS4 offers.

Forza Horizon for example maybe 'better' via Streaming with its XSX tier visual settings and smooth 60fps game-play versus XB1 30fps, much lower tier Visual settings, lower texture quality, more pop-in, lower vegetation density etc etc etc and 30fps latency/lag. Set your TV up wrong too and its 'much' worse latency/lag than streaming. Anything under 20ms is basically imperceptible to most humans - that's 2/100ths of a second...

Down and should be kicked out of Sony - Jim Ryan!!!

Already in various places - inc Japan where Japanese FTC cleared the deal without ANY concessions as the deal doesn't 'significantly' Lessen Competition. It only makes Xbox 'stronger' to be more 'competitive' - increase the Competition on Sony, the 'dominant' player and Sony are throwing out all their toys to try and remain a 'top' player.

The FTC/CMA etc shouldn't care about Sony's profits, the way they run their business etc, just be concerned that the deal is not anti-competitive or Harmful to consumers - and getting CoD on MORE devices, into Sub services like Game Pass in Consumer friendly and only puts 'pressure' on Sony to ''compete'.

Even if MS had NO concessions and Cancelled CoD or any other A/B game from ever coming to PS, that is COMPETITION - to Compete against Sony's IP's - like Spider-man, wolverine, last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo, Horizon etc etc , to compete with VR and any other Unique Selling Points Sony has that MS doesn't...

Nintendo Competes by having its own USP's like the 'Hybrid' design and its own Exclusive IP's. Sony and MS compete too (although very one sided in Sony's favour) so this just makes MS more competitive and benefits the MAJORITY of gamers.

The sooner Sony realise that their BS in front of regulators is absolutely embarrassing, pathetic and completely expected from childish, pathetic, uneducated Sony Fanboys, not grown adults and CEO's. As soon as Jim said he didn't care about CoD, just wants to 'block' the deal, they lost any arguments they had and perhaps why EVERYWHERE realises that MS 'need' A/B to compete against Sony and all their anti-competitive BS they do to be at the 'top' - the bigger they are, the harder they can fall...

@UltimateOtaku91 The difference is that MS has 'several' tiers already - ranging from 'Entry' tier Streaming at 1080/60 on 'any' device with a limited library of games to an 'entry' level hardware option - the Series S, a Premium 4k tier Series X and the 'pro' tier PC market.

Sony have 1 tier - PS5 tier - albeit in two SKU's - one with and one without a disc drive. The 'Entry' and 'Premium' tier are literally the same - the only difference is one allows you to use Physical media (not just games but blurays etc too) and the other is digital only - but still comes at a 'Premium' cost.

The Series S is an Entry hardware option - 'affordable' but doesn''t offer 'Premium' graphical performance - lower resolutions, lower visual settings etc but ideal for all those 'HD' TV owners who don't own 4k HDR 120hz Premium TV's to 'benefit' from Premium Graphical quality and as I said, the PC market has the highest tier options all without MS needing to R&D a 'pro' console - they can let Asus make a 'RoG' windows Handheld to compete with 'Steam Deck' and Switch in the Portable sector, all their games will be on it as will Game Pass so don't need to waste their time and money on making a 'handheld' themselves. They could allow Asus to make a Windows 'Console' with Game Pass & Steam built in that blows PS5 Pro's away in terms of performance.

Sony don't release day/date on PC so the 'best' (and 'only') option is a PS5 - so you can't play at 'higher' tiers - therefore there is a 'potential' market and if it costs say the same (or more) than a decent 'nVidia' GPU that outperforms it, people will still buy the PS5 Pro because the nVidia GPU won't help to play Spider-Man 2 day/date at its 'best' visual/performance - whereas if you want to play Starfield at the highest graphical settings and/or frame rates, you can on PC.

I don't doubt that MS will likely want to keep in the Console market to cater to 'Console' gamers who prefer the simple plug/play and/or bang for buck a console offers - but they have Cloud (the entry and lowest cost tier), Series S (entry hardware tier with a 'low' entry cost), Series X (Premium Console tier up to 4k/120) and PC (Highest tier, biggest Library and 'Pro' gamer tier visuals/performance) so can perhaps look more to the 'next' gen than 'refreshing' this one. Maybe only do a 5-6yr gen with a 2-3yr cross-over period instead of a 7/8yr gen with a 'Pro' mid release to prolong a gen...

@UltimateOtaku91 Why would Xbox need a Series X 'Pro' console? Its not as if Xbox games can't be played with higher tier graphics, higher tier RT and/or Higher Frame Rates day and date on a decent PC.

A Series X/PS5 already costs $500+ and a Pro isn't likely to be as cheap or cheaper than a 'base' console so it may cost as much as a decent GPU that 'beats' PS5 Pro as it has DLSS and much better RT performance too. Sony may 'need' a Pro to keep up with Xbox on PC's as Xbox games release day/date on PC and can offer 4k, 120fps+ and much better RT options.

I'd consider a PS5 Pro - if it was 'affordable' and offered a 'significant' benefit over a PS5 - not just being able to play a 30/40fps mode with RT at 60fps when the game runs at 60fps without some 'RT' Shadows or reflections. 4k/60/RT vs 4k/30/RT or 4k/60 no RT - especially for such 'minor' impact RT shadows or reflections actually make to the game-play, the story etc. Over $500 for a Console is 'not' affordable either so it would really need to offer a sizeable upgrade over the base PS5 to make a difference but not be a sizeable price difference - although that would likely mean Sony taking a LOSS on every Pro Sold in the hope they can sell enough Subs, games, accessories etc to offset that loss long term...