And this, all this right here, is exactly why I buy a ps for exclusives only.
I refuse to deal with Sony's service for any thing after my vaio had to be returned 3 times to get same video card change for half a year straight, at my own shipping expenses.
Even if this subscription fiasco was considered, for even a moment, they should have used their noggens and applied common sense. Maybe talked to a guy or two in the marketing or PR department.
This shouldn't have seen the light of day.
Reversal or no reversal, this shows what a greedy Sony is capable of.
@Flaming_Kaiser I think you need to pay attention to what i said Kaiser.
Point is, if law allowed it, it is what it is. There is no book out there that says what is and isn't right. If Governing body isn't working out, go for the governing body, and not the company.
Company is naturally going to look out for themselves. it is common sense.
That is between a company and its workers my friend. How company negotiates with them isn't based off of how much they charge us. Wages aren't magically increased because they are charging more for the game.
You are either paid competitively or you move on to companies that can better manage it.
I said no game is worth 70 bucks and "then microtransactions"
I didn't say that no game is worth 70 bucks on its own merit.
With that said, you know not every one can afford games at that price inflation and ***** isn't in people's favour. Where ever there is a discount possible, take it. Worry about your pocket and not some multi million dollar corporation. They are required to keep it going for their own sake. You are to manage your own pocket.
@Subsided I am not going to bet on any assumption that pushes a random thought in any direction.
No Polished game is worth 70 bucks and then microtransactions. You have simply made it to be the case, but not everyone has. Whether it is MS or Sony, it is a horrible practice.
Also, it is clearly not only me who is pissed off with it. Please research articles and read people who feel deceived by what was provided to reviewers for review, and what was given out to customers a day later.
@PlayStationGamer3919 You are right, however, the question is, will the revenue from subscriptions offset such a loss from unit sales?
I am quite sure that Sony has a massive team that assesses these numbers, and it may not be feasible for them until a certain number of subscriptions are achieved to break things even. Would it take time for them to reach such a number though that helps them break even? Yeh. Will they potentially lose money in the process until such a state is achieved? yes probably.
Your analogy again assumes that there is not a deal offered that mitigates this risk for the developer. It would be silly to assume that a developer is putting their games for free of charge on any subscription, just like the moviemaker allowing a subscription service to put their movies on said service "for free". If the forecast suggests that there is money to be made, a company has a choice of pursuing such a deal. No company does anything that doesn't benefit them. game makers or movie makers are established, maintained, and conducted for the purpose of making a profit. Profit is generated from any form of revenue. "Making Money" is necessary to see any form of profit.
Whether a person "buys" a game Or a royalty fee is procured by allowing a game to be on service is concerned, it has to provide enough rate of return to be considered a worthwhile venture.
Your "The only thing I'd push back on is that presumably a certain number of subscribers would buy games if they weren't subscribed. In other words, for subscriptions to drive game sales, they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose." this misses the scenario that is mine.
I constantly buy a game after playing its base version to have access to "everything". Playing a base game allows me to make my decision in a better light. Do Demos do the same? Sure. Is Gamepass version of "demo" better, yes.
"they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose" means you are speaking of opportunity costs. But you aren't assessing people like me, who buy the game to play everything. There are a few of us.
@Amnesiac Since we are going to behave like you understand any of this, here is some food for thought.
"No Amnesiac You are not looking at the full picture. Sales of any kind generates Revenue, which is directly associated with Making Money. Making Money is essential to making profits of any kind. Revenue is the money generated from normal business operations, calculated as the average sales price times the number of units sold or services rendered. The only thing being argued here is the definition of what 'digital units sold' means and what sort of activity generates it. Also it makes full sense to buy the game when all you are given is a base game as a demo. Then whether you wish to spend more money on extra things, or dlc is left entirely up to you."
Also, if you truly understand profit and loss, please stop giving stupid analogies like coffee beans and subscriptions to coffee per day. it is dumb and it doesn't fit the situation. Anyone with half the understanding of financial statements and transactions will let you know that your analogy doesn't describe the situation properly.
@ORO_ERICIUS How mighty of you to think that your financial situation applies to everyone?
What is the basis of your comment when you say that Gamepass is the worst thing that has happened to gamers? What sort of evidence do you have for stating this?
What "poor devs" are you referring to? And Do you want gamestop and similar companies to stop selling used games? do you want to lose the option to resell your games? None of those options help dev either.
Odd, because I keep getting told that I rather buy my game whether it is on a subscription or not at every turn.
Are we even talking about the same user base?
And I have explained it right above. In post #66. Read it again. It is not my problem if you can't seem to understand that you still "make money" if your game is downloaded, similar to royalty revenue.
You do not need people to explain this to you. Please spend some time educating yourself by researching, instead of asking people to beat their heads against a wall that doesn't intend to budge.
The exception is where you make a lumpsum deal for any downloads on gamepass and are paid up front.
There are divisional-based performances that are just as important and relevant. It is unfair to assume that Xbox division is designed to only leech off of other divisions.
In grand scheme of things, there has to be a reason why Xbox Division (a division primarily been seen as money sinking for Microsoft) continues to exist.
Do you think developers/companies making games do not assess their cost-benefit analysis when they are approaching gamepass to put their games on it?
What makes you think that they do not make money? Buying coffee from a shop means that you are giving money to Company A and not B.
A Game is made primarily by one company. You either buy it, or you play it through subscription. But one way or another, same company that made the game is going to see a sort of benefit. Benefit will largely depend on whether game was sold or was played on game pass. But It does open developing company to a bigger market share than if they exclusively focused on just "Selling" games.
Think of Leasing with a balloon payment at the end vs financing.
It is not just "math". There is science behind providing people with something at not a high-profit margin, to attract them to the other products. This is assuming that the "Game pass" model is never profitable, and is only breaking even.
Dude, let me make it simpler. Stick to gaming conversation. Please do not throw accounting and business-related terms.
Let's end the business related talk here and move on to other things moving forward.
No one "Demanded" non exclusive games. I am simply telling you that from a consumers perspective, exclusivity results in a loss for customer in long run. If you are a multi platform gamer, which I am, you will have to fork out more money than otherwise.
As far as personal property rights go, do you understand why the term MS is "monopolizing" was being thrown around? I can tell you that it had nothing to do with personal property rights, but ethics.
If you want to champion exclusives, then would it be nice for companies to buy each other and start making stuff exclusive to their own brand? I would imagine it to be a No.
I do not know exact detail, but I do know the principles that surround accounting and I have yet to see a company that willingly gets into a contract that makes their financial position worse.
For now, What ever deal is signed up, it is working just fine. In future if the deal is not beneficial, then i imagine businesses not agreeing to it. Until that happens, I am not going to start assuming Dooms day scenarios.
Naturally speaking, so far it appears that MS is happy with how things are, and since they are happy, i am assuming that the games made by companies who decide to put them on game pass, are doing alright too. Win Win situation for me.
Add my joy when i have to worry less about the money I have to fork out, i am even happier!
Paying full price for a game, and then having to either deal with an ugly grind or mitigating it by virtue of forking cash out, is not a good option.
I do not need you to validate my argument, your knowledge does not qualify you.
I am glad that you can tell me the "basic premise" around how business assesses their profitability and sustainability. I only do this for a living.
A business dealing with Microsoft/Sony will undoubtedly perform their own analysis before interacting with Microsoft/Sony about putting their games on their subscription. Unless you are egotistical enough to assume otherwise, trust the judgment of a company that has far more to lose in a deal that does not align with their "going concerns", than a random 3rd party that claims to understand "their" business.
A "big corporation" making a loss is not the same as a "Small company not making a profit". Please research this concept some more.
A "company not making a profit" is not the same as "a person not earning their salaried wage".
There is no "Ethical" view on this other than " I want them to do better ". But you would understand that if you studied business and accounting.
It is quite amusing to me when you talk about "a company and its ethical standpoint", because from that perspective, extorting money out of me by making a game exclusive, whether it be MS or Sony, is "unethical". I should not have to spend more than 1000 bucks and should be able to play both GT7 and Forza on the same machine. Companies should ethically do what is best for others too. This is a 2-way street. But we tend to ignore our own wallets when we talk about feeding others and helping a "multi million/billion" dollar company to stay afloat.
Both "entities" consider their own self-preservation and interest before others.
However complicated you want to get about business, you can't get around the fact that a company in its own "Self best interest" wouldn't put their product on a "subscription" if it didn't help them. This again is a "going concern principle".
claps At last, we are going to discuss "MS inflating their subscription prices", or "Sony increasing their game prices while introducing Spartacus". A discussion you should have been most interested in, instead of blabbering about accounting and profitability and other crap. Why? YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST. Your own self-preservation.
This was my entire bloody argument to begin with. Stick to your own Wallet, do not worry about what a multi m/billion dollar company has to do to stay afloat.
Whether the new model is "positive" for us is the concern we should be looking into. You have at last arrived at this point.
You as a single player, need to figure out if paying for a full game, while being extorted to pay for "items in game" or "grinding away at same lap for 20 hours" is a "fun experience" for you.
If you want to have a conversation with me, talk to me about your interests, and your self-interests. Talk to me about how you want to save money to the best your abilities while enjoying your favorite hobby. Please do not talk to me about a business making money.
Look for the definition of an "expert opinion". I am a subject matter expert. Please comprehend the following statement.
You are "Free to give opinions". But you aren't owed a "well his opinion matters because s/he is a human" argument. Your claims to understand will support you until you understand that you are speaking about general things with general people. I do not go to a mechanic to argue about his assessment of my car's health, and to a doctor to argue with him on why I have a stomach ache.
I listen to them and do not argue if they are a subject matter expert. If you do not understand this, then your sense of entitlement is through the roof, and continuing to have an argument with me on this is only going to make me drive this point harder.
I do not doubt that you like a good discussion. But you need to stop attempting to come across as a person with "good knowledge about business" while throwing in a bunch of financial terms without understanding what and how they impact.
I do not care about an argument being good-natured. But factually, an argument has to be supported by either "facts" cited, if you aren't a subject matter expert, or "listen" when a subject matter expert is telling you that you are wrong in your assumptions.
I do not want to make my case with you because you do not understand accounting. I do not argue with my mechanic about his conclusions, if i cannot comprehend them. I take the word of my eletrician when he tells me that wiring in my home is not done right if he has the right credentials. I do not tell him to show me a bunch of cords so I can "see" and pretend to understand them.
I cannot explain to you the context of my reasoning for saying why you do not understand how revenues and expenses are recorded. Why? because you do not have the foundation to understand it.
Profits are not about Revenues - expenses. It takes years to understand the accounts, the criteria, the standards, that dictate what that profit number is. Here is food for thought: Profit and Loss statements are entirely based upon "Estimates". These assumptions of these numbers are different from company to company because of the standards they opt to follow.
There is no concrete black and white "Revenue/Expense/Profit".
I do not need you to evaluate my comments because you do not have the credentials to assess my argument. The only reasonable response that I can expect out of you is "Uhuh".
When people say "developers aren't making money" they are referring to the company, not the individual.
Then "Developers" are no different than regular business. Stop making it sound like people give 2 ***** when every one talks about "returning games for 10 bucks less".
Let's not attempt to take the high ground on some half baked sense of morals. I don't care what million or billion dollar companies make. I care about if I can afford games. I haven't taken a responsibility for someone else's financials. My interest in games is as a consumer, the best possible means to get the games I want for the best price for me.
Feel free to argue with me on this.
"So the foundation for your critique of my knowledge is shaky at best."
I am giving you a critique "as an expert in accounting field". Your knowledge is shaky at best.
"Whilst I have a pretty solid understanding of business, I do not claim to be an expert."
As an expert in the matters that you are attempting to communicate, your arguments have so far held merit no more than that of a "pretty solid understanding of business" guy.
Accounting is my forte.
Also, understanding business, is not same as understanding accounting. But I am sure you knew that already.
"Telling people to stay in their lane with an appeal to authority is not an effective way to convince others or even educate them."
I find it amusing that you think this argument of yours means more than 2 pennies.
This is not me doing arm chair accounting for you. I am telling you that as an expert in the field of accounting, people in here have shown so far that they have no idea about how "recording of transactions" work. This is not about my opinion is more valid than yours. This is about an expert in the field telling you that you do not know how accounting and it's standards under IFRS are carried out.
"Your criticism needs to cite examples of what I or others said and give reasons why they are wrong."
I don't need to cite things because you do not have the basics required to understand cost accounting. I also don't need to cite examples to a person who hasn't cited any example to back their comments about revenues and expenses in first place.
I am a certified public accountant. I have studied accounting for 10 years, and I am a senior manager in finance and accounting for multi billion corporation. I have more than half a decade of experience in compiling statements.
You don't understand revenues, cogs, and operational expenses.
Tldr: no, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have patience to educate a person in field of accounting to get any validation.
What kind of a stupid argument is that? this has nothing to do with entitlement of opinion.
Entitlement of opinion is about being able to give one. There is no gurantee that your opinion is intellegent however.
I do not need to burn my hand or stay away from train tracks to know why something is potentially harmful for my health.
Use your head. @Stevey_Mac is correct.
It doesn't matter what game it is. If game is full-priced, it shouldn't give you "purchase this for x money" option, which this essentially is. Whether it is forza or GT7, the argument is same.
Last but not least. Locking behind any gaming component that is not cosmetic, whether it is Forza, or Gt7, is absolutely horrible for consumers (for Gt7, roughly calculated at supposed 8 bucks an hour payout) .
A car is not a cosmetic if the machine that goes in it is different than any other vehicle you might own in that game. It is a separate individual item that you really do not possess.
It may sound like "the grind is worth it", but really isn't when the payout is a miniscule number when compared to how easy it is for one to want to spend money. It's a gross practice and shouldn't be supported unless the game was a freemium at best. Even then an average consumer might end up spending more than what a full game may cost over the time played.
Monetization of a game makes enough money because people have a tendency to pay out for things that require a lot of grind. Cellphone games are a prime example of this model, and it is rather successful. The psychology of a customer is generally studied upon before massive changes like these are made to the games. A niche "self proclaimed gaming enthusiast" group tends to ignore the actual population while really talking about a small sample size of a specific mentality of a gamer.
Even if 10th of the population spent 30 bucks for a "10 million copies sold" game over an entire year, just one year (not more than one), they would generate 30 million dollars of monetization revenue, which even at 50% gross profit margins, will yield a 15 million in just one year. Think of how miniscule my numbers really are, to generate a possible. 30 million "revenue".
In most game's cases, that's more than 20% of possible investment into a game's developement cost... Incurred over many years.
It's mind boggling to even see people pretending to understand basics of accounting while behaving like an arm chair investor, when even an investor doesn't understand the nuances of accounting under most cases.
Because you are using a lot of financial and accounting related terms. while they make sense individually, you are missing the key component here.
Business and it's operations don't really account for expenses and revenues in such a black and white manner. There are aspects of fixed costs and variable costs that aren't really accounted for and you are throwing break even and other terms to sound like you know what you are talking about.
I understand that you are passionate about a company and don't necessarily understand how subscription model works other than rudimentary knowledge of it. And you do not understanding costing well enough to be mixing the two to make arguments.
It's not very different than when people randomly start throwing in "oh developers aren't making money" without realizing that developers are employees, and not investors. While they may be given bonuses depending on performances, they are skilled workers that, at the very least, earn a non hourly salary without the risk of worrying about profits and loss.
For taxation purposes, if they were treated like employees, they have to meet certain crtieras to be qualified as an employee. While criterias are different in each country to some extent, some are more common than others. One of them is to not bear risk associated with risk and profit.
But common public knowledge doesn't include these nuances for as how accounting treats them. They use random phrases to appear as if they are supporting these valuable individuals.
The amount of money that a subscription model can generate is ridiculous. The money generated by software sales almost pales in comparison. Every one throws in "revenue generated" as if they know the matching expenses, operating cost, and 10 other things associated with revenue.
You all honestly need to stick to gaming and focus less on whether a multi 100 billion dollar company can pay off a salary of maybe 150k one of its developer under best salary conditions... Over the span of an entire year. Or whether subscription model works or not. Or whether a company can "recuperate" billions "spent" (invested is correct term, nuances) on acquisitions without understanding asset related accounting.
The math behind a grind VS money spent argument isn't fully understood well enough for people to see opportunity cost associated with each of them. Throwing in "I am having a lot of fun while grinding the best case scenario lap" is also misunderstood if looked at from a common sense perspective. You can hardly have fun doing one lap that earns you roughly 50k credits every minute and a half. Doing such a lap means you aren't even playing the rest of the game. You are repeating same one ***** over and over and over and over and over, you get my drift.
Let's stick to game talk and as a gamer, worry about what stays in our wallets and not what a multi billion dollar company does to stay afloat.
The way I see it, good for the company's growth and for gamers too. Giving people option on where they wish to play, instead of holding things to one platform, was never the classiest of ideas.
Pc is generally an expensive market to get into, even if games may be cheaper. Those who have a pc won't have issues. Those who think that playstation is no longer required will have a very rude awakening when dipping their toes in pc graphics card market.
I have experienced it first hand, being second class citizen in Destiny 2, where a gun and a map is kept from you for an entire year, so you can “think” about going for Sony? Are you kidding me? Sony thought I would prefer their brand just because I do not have a gun or a map?
But I did pay for full game though? Why did I not get same game on xbox as I would on PS?
I am more than happy with Microsoft buying Zenimax, because from what I heard, Sony was on the table for it as well. So Sony DID intend to buy Zenimax then? Does that mean that they would have gone too far too had the talks been successful? Point I am making here for you is, Sony had same idea that Microsoft had. One company simply ended up buying it over the other.
There is no “buyer’s code” in this. There are no rules here. These are your philosophies. Acquisitions happen. But I do not start contemplating life and philosophies over this. I play games while looking at who treats me how.
I am the sort of person that hates sony’s form of communication. I am also the person who has owned every ps console since PS brand was ever created. What makes you think that I do not appreciate gaming?
And before you go on trying to educate me on giving up gaming for golf, back the hell off.
I have been playing games since I was 3 years old. I have played games on giant floppy discs. I have played games on Atari. I have gaves on Nes, I have gamed on Sega. I am a 37 years old guy with 34 years of gaming passion.
If you think you can come in here and make me question my gaming hobbies, then you are sorely mistaken.
It is YOU who must understand what being a customer means and what it is to be treated better. Exclusive games do not make me feel like I am treated better.
My entire experience is what that allows me to decide on when I am treated better.
That is perfectly alright mate. You do not have to understand me for what I have said to be any less real.
I absolutely do not disagree with you there. But I have Yet to see xbox “fanboys” hoping that Sony goes out of business. I have seen that on flip side tonnes! Issue has never been whether fanboys exist or not. Issue is the blatant fanboyism resulting in hoping for other company to stop being a competition, period.
I cannot disagree with about your feelings on JR and mixed messaging. It is not just about games. It is about my entire experience as a consumer. My experience, my frustrations. My enjoyment. It is not about games alone. It is about not being treated like an idiot who will buy into what ever misleading remark I am sold.
I am “only” going to be buying, like “every” previous PS console, new ps5. But not because I enjoy company, or because I enjoy console. As you said, it is because I also enjoy “games”.
However, me liking games is not going to change the fact that I dislike the approach of how I am fed the information or kept from it. It is not going to make me want to make it my base eco system to thrive on. This did not change when xbox one was released with Don Mattic being in charge of the messaging. It was absolutely horrible, but yet I got Xbox one just fine!. PS4 released with crappy software, but I got that as well!
I can assure you that I fully understand the ps5 having its significant advantages in areas that XSX cannot compete. It is simply not going to change.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about the corporate brand that meets our needs comment.
But when that corporate brand is not forcing you to want the competition to die, and you create that notion in your head your self, it becomes an issue. Unless, you wish to tell me that the corporate brand known as Sony is indeed making people want to see the competition dead?
I personally love the Game Pass for what it is. It allows me to test my games and gives me things without an addon, that I can then chose to buy while buying the base game, if it is something I enjoy!
I also like the fact that Xbox Game Pass model is not looking like crap based on today’s E3 presentation!
I absolutely have zero issues with buy what you do not have philosophy because competition has zero issues forcing the games and content to not appear on rival product. Time exclusivity is a nasty thing.
My opinion is very simple. I know there are people who firmly believe that Sony can do no wrong here. You cannot claim against it because there is more than evidence to suggest it. Whether you chose to ignore while wearing your tin foil hat, and calling Xbox an "eggsbox" and comparing "rental service" to game pass ultimate, is your choice. Your opinion.
My opinion stands, just like yours.
I understand that "media" can bend and twist truth, just like people who call Xbox an "eggsbox" while comparing a service they don't fully understand to a rental service.
You don't want drama? Understand that you prefer a plastic box with a logo that looks like "PS". It has nothing to do with liking single player action adventure games either. If it was simply about the games, you wouldn't talk about Phil good Spencer while telling every one that it ain't JR but Hurst instead.
You do not focus on games. You focus on every thing Sony.
You make fun of opposite side while constantly spouting nonsense. I am not making this up.
Look at your history.
I did.
You want to keep this ***** drama free jj? Then stop telling me to not give my opinions while your history with filled with yours.
You enjoy games like I do bro? Own multiple console or simply don't if it may not be in your budget. Which I can completely respect because people can't always have enough disposible income to do so.
I buy ps consoles regardless of how much I dislike the customer service, the return policies, the stupid warranty management and the constant lies.
I still buy playstation games. I am still waiting to get a ps5 when it can be easily available. I will be buying ratchet and clank.
I have a switch. I have an Xbox series x. I play games. I don't dump on consoles. I simply dislike people bleeding green or blue and calling names to consoles when their name calling is completely unjustified. Take your "eggsbox" for example.
People constantly say that "oh Sony never exactly said that the games will be cross Gen!".
Agreed. But they did let you think of it long enough without correcting your misunderstanding. To me, that is worse.
You have clearly stated enough times that you are a playstation gamer through and through.
I am a gamer, through and through.
Please do not lug me into same boat as those fanboys you come across twitter. I enjoy games. But I will call out a company being an ass, when that company is being an ass.
I got a ps4 and Xbox one both on launch. Didn't mean I liked what stupid executives did at Microsoft back in 2013. But I got consoles because they had games I wanted to play.
The day you understand the difference between liking playstation games VS liking Sony, come and have a reasonable discussion with me.
I don't care whether games are only being developed for current generation, or both current and past ones. As far as this issue is concerned, I am neutral.
Before any one tries to give me education on how business model works and how corporations make money, I have spent 10 years studying accounting and finance. I am a cpa. I understand how business works just fine.
My issue is not whether a game is being made for multiple generations. I also don't care if current generation is being held back by previous generation or not. I am simple a gamer who enjoys gaming.
I understand that this can be a cause for concern and they can certainly have an impact on lost opportunity when developing solely for newer machines.
With that said, my entire issue is about being misled.
Whether Sony "lied" or simply made you to "think" without correcting your assumptions, is what I have always found to be a cause for concern.
I was here last year when there was a drought of news regarding ps5. Quite a few people (including ones I see here in comments on this very article) were well convinced that Ps4 success was sufficient enough for them to make them want to invest into ps5.
I do not really think that it is a bad idea to follow a brand, generation after generation though. I also think it's quite al right to have consoles be good at backward compatible. It allows people like me with less lounge space to not want to keep multiple consoles [from same company] connected.
My concern is when a company leads its people by their nose hair and make them think that their console will be all about new experiences, and games will be targeted for new generations mostly, because they wouldn't be possible on prior generations.
As far as ps5 is concerned, I have seen enough trolling and enough egotistical arguments in past that supported Sony through thick and thin with their generational approach.
My honest question to those who blindly support Sony, is why do you allow your self to be in a situation where you constantly defend Sony? Why do you keep moving the goal posts to keep sony from being seen as the company that has misled you for last entire year?
Why not simply love the games and experiences of your preferred ecosystem, and hold them responsible for when they mislead you? Why bleed brand loyalty when it gains you nothing?
I think the same can be said for Sony's exclusives.
Regardless of how people feel about Microsoft's user base, it is not really a small number. Just a "smaller number" when compared to Sony's.
Those games can make more money as well if they are made available to an additional user base, not engaged previously.
I mean may as well throw them on pc while at it, since developers and publishers will make more money, right?
The point I am making here is, exclusives play a role in competition. They aren't in customers best interest, generally speaking.
They shouldn't be a thing.
Maybe a company claims to not like them for what ever reason, but if But if competition won't stop making exclusives and signing up timed deals, you can't just sit there while twiddling eith your thumbs, watching your competition making a fool of you. You will have to engage similar practices, regardless of how you feel, if you want to stand a chance.
@PowderToastMan #19 proven in comments of other articles on this very website few days ago, that tonnes of people will still wait and not buy it on day one. So let's not pretend to take the high road here.
There is nothing wrong with buying it later. But this "we are superior cause we can buy it for full price" nonsense needs to go away.
Xbox has the same option. It's just that game pass subscribers have, more than 1 option.
Also, People mentioned that they rather buy games on second hand, which honestly results in developer almost never seeing a penny of income than paay full price.
So did you dislike the game? Or did you dislike him?
Did you sell the game after you read his interview? Or before?
And if you did before reading his interview, then was his comment "really" the reason for you to become part of the problem that was he was complaining about?
@thefourfoldroot since you are usually quite sensible, I do need to point out to you that if developers took many risks to make different games, people will claim the same thing that they are saying in these posts above.
"we have no idea about the game! How do we know if we are going to love your game?"
There are times when developers simply do not want to take the risk because of thst very reason.
Why change the recipe if the final product keeps selling?
Tricky but both sides are quite valid and it is tough to find a common ground between the 2.
Not many developers can pull it off and then there is a factor of people's bias in favour or against a developer.
Last but not least, people keep crying over how "...rather buy games, and not rent from game pass" but doesn't it solve that very issue every one keeps moaning over?
You play the game. You like it? Buy it. Don't like it? Well continue trying another game.
But when it comes to game pass, narrative changes rather quickly around here. Every one is suddenly willing to pay 70 bucks for every game and no one is looking for any discounts.
I am literally just looking at people in here who are talking about their wallets and their choice on how they want to spend their money... While not wanting to support a developer unless game is half priced.
As far as bugs go, I am unsure how old people are in here but I can't remember name of games very well that released without bugs and glitches back in 1980s and 1990s.
I mean as a joke, we used to call em features. Because they extended the play time of a game by a significant margin. A glitch happens, and people lost progress, we used to start over. But now every one wants these perfect crafted games! Demanding every developer to spend ***** tonne of money on QA, WHILE not wanting to buy games at full price.
At the end of the day, yes half priced games are supporting developers, but you are cutting the budget for things like sequels and their potential QA costs when you decide to buy things for half price.
It doesn't justify cyberpunk like situations where developers had absolutely messed up on QA. But games like days gone shouldn't have been treated like 3rd rate commodity.
At the very least, game should have been priced around 50$ to begin one to attract sales.
At the end of the day, game pass makes sense to me for this very reason. I can try games without worrying about spending money up front. If I like it, I buy it full priced.
Regardless of harsh words used by developer in his interview, he has a legit point.
People just get too caught up with "I do things my own way" crap when his point is still valid, regardless of its bitter surface.
People need to grow the ***** up and stop behaving like its end of world when someone speaks out of frustration.
Understand the underlying problem, discuss it, and move on. No one is asking you to lick their boots.
@thefourfoldroot honestly, I haven't touched physical games in a while now since I play with multiple consoles in my home and my wife has hers, so sharing games when digital is very easy and we don't have to couch coop. We get our own gaming screens and enjoy one copy.
I do understand where you are coming from, but I would say that licensing thing is probably the biggest reason it doesn't feel as good when using physical media
>Whilst quick resume is good(when it works probably) I don't really use it as I just play one game at a time.
A person's own personal choices don't change the fact that console is capable of doing 10x more than what you have made it sound like in that post of yours above. That was my issue with it. You painted entire post in a tone that presented that console as if it had absolutely nothing worth looking into. You can disagree all you wish, but that was the general tone behind your writing.
Any time a person has ever wrote "collecting dust" for any console, it just makes them sound biased because every console has its strengths. You chose to recognize the weaknesses of xsx based on your gaming preference, and not on its own merit.
You enjoying one game is absolutely fine. But that doesn't change the things that xsx is still capable of doing, should you chose to utilize them.
>The only real advantage it has over the ps5 is the value of gamepass.
No. I disagree. As to why? Do your own research.
> Its still massively lacking in its 1st party gaming, has no reason to justify the upgrade from a one x(which I did).
I don't give a crap about 1st party gaming. I consider the entire ecosystem. All experiences.
To me, Sony is massively lacking in quality of ecosystem it provides when compared to Xbox. And it's 1st party can be played when it has enough exclusives that I care about and when it is available for purchase without engaging scalpers.
All my 3rd patty games will always be played on Xbox because of its ease in backward compatibility. I play with alot of family constantly who still do not have finances to deal with current generation of console.
It is a fantastic feature.
>I dislike the new series x controller so much (d pad is so clicky) that when I do play I use my old xbox one controllers.
I love the heft behind the controller and how compact it is.
D-pad being clicky isn't an issue for me. I use D pad mostly for options of games and even then it has a satisfying feel that gives feed back to me on when I press it.
I am used to keyboards with cherry mx keys.
Whereas the dualsense is a massive improvement over the dualshock.
Improvement over previous dual shock is great.
> When you play something like WR9 and you can feel the ABS kick in on the left trigger, that your engine is damaged just by the changes in the right trigger. Loose gravel hitting the bottom of the car can be felt by the haptic, and heard through the speaker. These things add so much to the game.
I understand that, but the addition doesn't make me want to buy a whole console,or change my evo system because I simply dislike Sony's ecosystem and how they behave. I am used to a comfortable refundable of games policy and have done many times in past. A controller isn't gonna change the fact that Sony's customer service is absolutely trash.
> And that's not the only game to use it really well. Then I go back to Forza H4 (my favourite driving game) and it feels just flat compared.
I can certainly say that by the description you provided me, I would play a driving game over ps and not xbox.
I would still not chose to engage every game on playstation
>Anyway I just enjoy playing good games, and I look forward to when xbox starts delivering on all its promises. But it still has a lot to prove.
To me, it proves plenty and is used alot in my house hold.
@thefourfoldroot I stopped playing physical a while ago. From what I have been told by those that do use it, swapping disc is just fine. Discs are only used to read license information and nothing more. So state of game is still preserved in system and having a disc in only allows you to get in fast. Otherwise you stay out, with msg that you need to buy license to access game.
From what I have seen, any game that is "online progression, can't be accessed directly because the game's server requires you to be connected to. Any multiplayer game like destiny for example will have same issue.
Comments 149
Re: PS Plus Members in Asia Irate As Sony Wipes Discounts on Tier Upgrades, Demands Upfront Fee for Stacked Subs
And this, all this right here, is exactly why I buy a ps for exclusives only.
I refuse to deal with Sony's service for any thing after my vaio had to be returned 3 times to get same video card change for half a year straight, at my own shipping expenses.
Even if this subscription fiasco was considered, for even a moment, they should have used their noggens and applied common sense. Maybe talked to a guy or two in the marketing or PR department.
This shouldn't have seen the light of day.
Reversal or no reversal, this shows what a greedy Sony is capable of.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Flaming_Kaiser I think you need to pay attention to what i said Kaiser.
Point is, if law allowed it, it is what it is. There is no book out there that says what is and isn't right. If Governing body isn't working out, go for the governing body, and not the company.
Company is naturally going to look out for themselves. it is common sense.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Flaming_Kaiser
Dude, companies buy companies. There are regulation committees to manage this. You do not need to stand there with your picket signs heh
If it is approved, regardless of what your basis for moral grounds is, it has been approved.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Flaming_Kaiser #135
You trust Sony after gt7 debacle?
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@TheRedComet wholeheartedly agreed!
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
That is between a company and its workers my friend. How company negotiates with them isn't based off of how much they charge us. Wages aren't magically increased because they are charging more for the game.
You are either paid competitively or you move on to companies that can better manage it.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@TheRedComet
Xbox one partially helped Ps4 become what it was.i think.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Flaming_Kaiser not sure if you read me well bud.
I said no game is worth 70 bucks and "then microtransactions"
I didn't say that no game is worth 70 bucks on its own merit.
With that said, you know not every one can afford games at that price inflation and ***** isn't in people's favour. Where ever there is a discount possible, take it. Worry about your pocket and not some multi million dollar corporation. They are required to keep it going for their own sake. You are to manage your own pocket.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Subsided I am not going to bet on any assumption that pushes a random thought in any direction.
No Polished game is worth 70 bucks and then microtransactions. You have simply made it to be the case, but not everyone has. Whether it is MS or Sony, it is a horrible practice.
Also, it is clearly not only me who is pissed off with it. Please research articles and read people who feel deceived by what was provided to reviewers for review, and what was given out to customers a day later.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Subsided How do you describe GT7?
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@PlayStationGamer3919 You are right, however, the question is, will the revenue from subscriptions offset such a loss from unit sales?
I am quite sure that Sony has a massive team that assesses these numbers, and it may not be feasible for them until a certain number of subscriptions are achieved to break things even. Would it take time for them to reach such a number though that helps them break even? Yeh. Will they potentially lose money in the process until such a state is achieved? yes probably.
They may simply not wish to take the risk.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Amnesiac #102
Your analogy again assumes that there is not a deal offered that mitigates this risk for the developer. It would be silly to assume that a developer is putting their games for free of charge on any subscription, just like the moviemaker allowing a subscription service to put their movies on said service "for free". If the forecast suggests that there is money to be made, a company has a choice of pursuing such a deal. No company does anything that doesn't benefit them. game makers or movie makers are established, maintained, and conducted for the purpose of making a profit. Profit is generated from any form of revenue. "Making Money" is necessary to see any form of profit.
Whether a person "buys" a game Or a royalty fee is procured by allowing a game to be on service is concerned, it has to provide enough rate of return to be considered a worthwhile venture.
Your "The only thing I'd push back on is that presumably a certain number of subscribers would buy games if they weren't subscribed. In other words, for subscriptions to drive game sales, they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose." this misses the scenario that is mine.
I constantly buy a game after playing its base version to have access to "everything". Playing a base game allows me to make my decision in a better light. Do Demos do the same? Sure. Is Gamepass version of "demo" better, yes.
"they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose" means you are speaking of opportunity costs. But you aren't assessing people like me, who buy the game to play everything. There are a few of us.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Amnesiac Since we are going to behave like you understand any of this, here is some food for thought.
"No Amnesiac You are not looking at the full picture. Sales of any kind generates Revenue, which is directly associated with Making Money. Making Money is essential to making profits of any kind. Revenue is the money generated from normal business operations, calculated as the average sales price times the number of units sold or services rendered. The only thing being argued here is the definition of what 'digital units sold' means and what sort of activity generates it. Also it makes full sense to buy the game when all you are given is a base game as a demo. Then whether you wish to spend more money on extra things, or dlc is left entirely up to you."
Also, if you truly understand profit and loss, please stop giving stupid analogies like coffee beans and subscriptions to coffee per day. it is dumb and it doesn't fit the situation. Anyone with half the understanding of financial statements and transactions will let you know that your analogy doesn't describe the situation properly.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@ORO_ERICIUS How mighty of you to think that your financial situation applies to everyone?
What is the basis of your comment when you say that Gamepass is the worst thing that has happened to gamers? What sort of evidence do you have for stating this?
What "poor devs" are you referring to? And Do you want gamestop and similar companies to stop selling used games? do you want to lose the option to resell your games? None of those options help dev either.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Sakisa I wholeheartedly agree with your post.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Amnesiac
Odd, because I keep getting told that I rather buy my game whether it is on a subscription or not at every turn.
Are we even talking about the same user base?
And I have explained it right above. In post #66. Read it again. It is not my problem if you can't seem to understand that you still "make money" if your game is downloaded, similar to royalty revenue.
You do not need people to explain this to you. Please spend some time educating yourself by researching, instead of asking people to beat their heads against a wall that doesn't intend to budge.
The exception is where you make a lumpsum deal for any downloads on gamepass and are paid up front.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@TheCollector316
There are divisional-based performances that are just as important and relevant. It is unfair to assume that Xbox division is designed to only leech off of other divisions.
In grand scheme of things, there has to be a reason why Xbox Division (a division primarily been seen as money sinking for Microsoft) continues to exist.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@Amnesiac That is a silly comparison.
Do you think developers/companies making games do not assess their cost-benefit analysis when they are approaching gamepass to put their games on it?
What makes you think that they do not make money? Buying coffee from a shop means that you are giving money to Company A and not B.
A Game is made primarily by one company. You either buy it, or you play it through subscription. But one way or another, same company that made the game is going to see a sort of benefit. Benefit will largely depend on whether game was sold or was played on game pass. But It does open developing company to a bigger market share than if they exclusively focused on just "Selling" games.
Think of Leasing with a balloon payment at the end vs financing.
Re: PS5, PS4 Exclusives May Get Worse if Free with PS Plus Day One
@TheCollector316 #36
Do not confuse sustainability with losing money.
It is not just "math". There is science behind providing people with something at not a high-profit margin, to attract them to the other products. This is assuming that the "Game pass" model is never profitable, and is only breaking even.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@Apfelschteiner
Dude, let me make it simpler. Stick to gaming conversation. Please do not throw accounting and business-related terms.
Let's end the business related talk here and move on to other things moving forward.
No one "Demanded" non exclusive games. I am simply telling you that from a consumers perspective, exclusivity results in a loss for customer in long run. If you are a multi platform gamer, which I am, you will have to fork out more money than otherwise.
As far as personal property rights go, do you understand why the term MS is "monopolizing" was being thrown around? I can tell you that it had nothing to do with personal property rights, but ethics.
If you want to champion exclusives, then would it be nice for companies to buy each other and start making stuff exclusive to their own brand? I would imagine it to be a No.
I do not know exact detail, but I do know the principles that surround accounting and I have yet to see a company that willingly gets into a contract that makes their financial position worse.
For now, What ever deal is signed up, it is working just fine. In future if the deal is not beneficial, then i imagine businesses not agreeing to it. Until that happens, I am not going to start assuming Dooms day scenarios.
Naturally speaking, so far it appears that MS is happy with how things are, and since they are happy, i am assuming that the games made by companies who decide to put them on game pass, are doing alright too. Win Win situation for me.
Add my joy when i have to worry less about the money I have to fork out, i am even happier!
Paying full price for a game, and then having to either deal with an ugly grind or mitigating it by virtue of forking cash out, is not a good option.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
Removed
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
I do not need you to validate my argument, your knowledge does not qualify you.
I am glad that you can tell me the "basic premise" around how business assesses their profitability and sustainability. I only do this for a living.
A business dealing with Microsoft/Sony will undoubtedly perform their own analysis before interacting with Microsoft/Sony about putting their games on their subscription. Unless you are egotistical enough to assume otherwise, trust the judgment of a company that has far more to lose in a deal that does not align with their "going concerns", than a random 3rd party that claims to understand "their" business.
A "big corporation" making a loss is not the same as a "Small company not making a profit". Please research this concept some more.
A "company not making a profit" is not the same as "a person not earning their salaried wage".
There is no "Ethical" view on this other than " I want them to do better ". But you would understand that if you studied business and accounting.
It is quite amusing to me when you talk about "a company and its ethical standpoint", because from that perspective, extorting money out of me by making a game exclusive, whether it be MS or Sony, is "unethical". I should not have to spend more than 1000 bucks and should be able to play both GT7 and Forza on the same machine. Companies should ethically do what is best for others too. This is a 2-way street. But we tend to ignore our own wallets when we talk about feeding others and helping a "multi million/billion" dollar company to stay afloat.
Both "entities" consider their own self-preservation and interest before others.
However complicated you want to get about business, you can't get around the fact that a company in its own "Self best interest" wouldn't put their product on a "subscription" if it didn't help them. This again is a "going concern principle".
claps At last, we are going to discuss "MS inflating their subscription prices", or "Sony increasing their game prices while introducing Spartacus". A discussion you should have been most interested in, instead of blabbering about accounting and profitability and other crap. Why? YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST. Your own self-preservation.
This was my entire bloody argument to begin with. Stick to your own Wallet, do not worry about what a multi m/billion dollar company has to do to stay afloat.
Whether the new model is "positive" for us is the concern we should be looking into. You have at last arrived at this point.
You as a single player, need to figure out if paying for a full game, while being extorted to pay for "items in game" or "grinding away at same lap for 20 hours" is a "fun experience" for you.
If you want to have a conversation with me, talk to me about your interests, and your self-interests. Talk to me about how you want to save money to the best your abilities while enjoying your favorite hobby. Please do not talk to me about a business making money.
Thank you.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@Apfelschteiner
Look for the definition of an "expert opinion". I am a subject matter expert. Please comprehend the following statement.
You are "Free to give opinions". But you aren't owed a "well his opinion matters because s/he is a human" argument. Your claims to understand will support you until you understand that you are speaking about general things with general people. I do not go to a mechanic to argue about his assessment of my car's health, and to a doctor to argue with him on why I have a stomach ache.
I listen to them and do not argue if they are a subject matter expert. If you do not understand this, then your sense of entitlement is through the roof, and continuing to have an argument with me on this is only going to make me drive this point harder.
I do not doubt that you like a good discussion. But you need to stop attempting to come across as a person with "good knowledge about business" while throwing in a bunch of financial terms without understanding what and how they impact.
I do not care about an argument being good-natured. But factually, an argument has to be supported by either "facts" cited, if you aren't a subject matter expert, or "listen" when a subject matter expert is telling you that you are wrong in your assumptions.
I do not want to make my case with you because you do not understand accounting. I do not argue with my mechanic about his conclusions, if i cannot comprehend them. I take the word of my eletrician when he tells me that wiring in my home is not done right if he has the right credentials. I do not tell him to show me a bunch of cords so I can "see" and pretend to understand them.
I cannot explain to you the context of my reasoning for saying why you do not understand how revenues and expenses are recorded. Why? because you do not have the foundation to understand it.
Profits are not about Revenues - expenses. It takes years to understand the accounts, the criteria, the standards, that dictate what that profit number is. Here is food for thought: Profit and Loss statements are entirely based upon "Estimates". These assumptions of these numbers are different from company to company because of the standards they opt to follow.
There is no concrete black and white "Revenue/Expense/Profit".
I do not need you to evaluate my comments because you do not have the credentials to assess my argument. The only reasonable response that I can expect out of you is "Uhuh".
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@Apfelschteiner
When people say "developers aren't making money" they are referring to the company, not the individual.
Then "Developers" are no different than regular business. Stop making it sound like people give 2 ***** when every one talks about "returning games for 10 bucks less".
Let's not attempt to take the high ground on some half baked sense of morals. I don't care what million or billion dollar companies make. I care about if I can afford games. I haven't taken a responsibility for someone else's financials. My interest in games is as a consumer, the best possible means to get the games I want for the best price for me.
Feel free to argue with me on this.
"So the foundation for your critique of my knowledge is shaky at best."
I am giving you a critique "as an expert in accounting field". Your knowledge is shaky at best.
"Whilst I have a pretty solid understanding of business, I do not claim to be an expert."
As an expert in the matters that you are attempting to communicate, your arguments have so far held merit no more than that of a "pretty solid understanding of business" guy.
Accounting is my forte.
Also, understanding business, is not same as understanding accounting. But I am sure you knew that already.
"Telling people to stay in their lane with an appeal to authority is not an effective way to convince others or even educate them."
I find it amusing that you think this argument of yours means more than 2 pennies.
This is not me doing arm chair accounting for you. I am telling you that as an expert in the field of accounting, people in here have shown so far that they have no idea about how "recording of transactions" work. This is not about my opinion is more valid than yours. This is about an expert in the field telling you that you do not know how accounting and it's standards under IFRS are carried out.
"Your criticism needs to cite examples of what I or others said and give reasons why they are wrong."
I don't need to cite things because you do not have the basics required to understand cost accounting. I also don't need to cite examples to a person who hasn't cited any example to back their comments about revenues and expenses in first place.
I am a certified public accountant. I have studied accounting for 10 years, and I am a senior manager in finance and accounting for multi billion corporation. I have more than half a decade of experience in compiling statements.
You don't understand revenues, cogs, and operational expenses.
Tldr: no, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have patience to educate a person in field of accounting to get any validation.
Stick to gaming.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@twitchtvpat
What kind of a stupid argument is that? this has nothing to do with entitlement of opinion.
Entitlement of opinion is about being able to give one. There is no gurantee that your opinion is intellegent however.
I do not need to burn my hand or stay away from train tracks to know why something is potentially harmful for my health.
Use your head. @Stevey_Mac is correct.
It doesn't matter what game it is. If game is full-priced, it shouldn't give you "purchase this for x money" option, which this essentially is. Whether it is forza or GT7, the argument is same.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
Last but not least. Locking behind any gaming component that is not cosmetic, whether it is Forza, or Gt7, is absolutely horrible for consumers (for Gt7, roughly calculated at supposed 8 bucks an hour payout) .
A car is not a cosmetic if the machine that goes in it is different than any other vehicle you might own in that game. It is a separate individual item that you really do not possess.
It may sound like "the grind is worth it", but really isn't when the payout is a miniscule number when compared to how easy it is for one to want to spend money. It's a gross practice and shouldn't be supported unless the game was a freemium at best. Even then an average consumer might end up spending more than what a full game may cost over the time played.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
Monetization of a game makes enough money because people have a tendency to pay out for things that require a lot of grind. Cellphone games are a prime example of this model, and it is rather successful. The psychology of a customer is generally studied upon before massive changes like these are made to the games. A niche "self proclaimed gaming enthusiast" group tends to ignore the actual population while really talking about a small sample size of a specific mentality of a gamer.
Even if 10th of the population spent 30 bucks for a "10 million copies sold" game over an entire year, just one year (not more than one), they would generate 30 million dollars of monetization revenue, which even at 50% gross profit margins, will yield a 15 million in just one year. Think of how miniscule my numbers really are, to generate a possible. 30 million "revenue".
In most game's cases, that's more than 20% of possible investment into a game's developement cost... Incurred over many years.
It's mind boggling to even see people pretending to understand basics of accounting while behaving like an arm chair investor, when even an investor doesn't understand the nuances of accounting under most cases.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@Apfelschteiner #129
Because you are using a lot of financial and accounting related terms. while they make sense individually, you are missing the key component here.
Business and it's operations don't really account for expenses and revenues in such a black and white manner. There are aspects of fixed costs and variable costs that aren't really accounted for and you are throwing break even and other terms to sound like you know what you are talking about.
I understand that you are passionate about a company and don't necessarily understand how subscription model works other than rudimentary knowledge of it. And you do not understanding costing well enough to be mixing the two to make arguments.
It's not very different than when people randomly start throwing in "oh developers aren't making money" without realizing that developers are employees, and not investors. While they may be given bonuses depending on performances, they are skilled workers that, at the very least, earn a non hourly salary without the risk of worrying about profits and loss.
For taxation purposes, if they were treated like employees, they have to meet certain crtieras to be qualified as an employee. While criterias are different in each country to some extent, some are more common than others. One of them is to not bear risk associated with risk and profit.
But common public knowledge doesn't include these nuances for as how accounting treats them. They use random phrases to appear as if they are supporting these valuable individuals.
The amount of money that a subscription model can generate is ridiculous. The money generated by software sales almost pales in comparison. Every one throws in "revenue generated" as if they know the matching expenses, operating cost, and 10 other things associated with revenue.
You all honestly need to stick to gaming and focus less on whether a multi 100 billion dollar company can pay off a salary of maybe 150k one of its developer under best salary conditions... Over the span of an entire year. Or whether subscription model works or not. Or whether a company can "recuperate" billions "spent" (invested is correct term, nuances) on acquisitions without understanding asset related accounting.
The math behind a grind VS money spent argument isn't fully understood well enough for people to see opportunity cost associated with each of them. Throwing in "I am having a lot of fun while grinding the best case scenario lap" is also misunderstood if looked at from a common sense perspective. You can hardly have fun doing one lap that earns you roughly 50k credits every minute and a half. Doing such a lap means you aren't even playing the rest of the game. You are repeating same one ***** over and over and over and over and over, you get my drift.
Let's stick to game talk and as a gamer, worry about what stays in our wallets and not what a multi billion dollar company does to stay afloat.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@TurkeyStink #106
There are massive number of upvotes on this post. It's not just him.
Re: Gran Turismo 7's New Approach to Microtransactions Isn't Going Down Well
@Apfelschteiner
I am curious.
What is your professional area of expertise? What do you do for a living?
Re: Sony Establishes PlayStation PC Label to Spearhead Porting Push
The way I see it, good for the company's growth and for gamers too. Giving people option on where they wish to play, instead of holding things to one platform, was never the classiest of ideas.
Pc is generally an expensive market to get into, even if games may be cheaper. Those who have a pc won't have issues. Those who think that playstation is no longer required will have a very rude awakening when dipping their toes in pc graphics card market.
Re: God of War Ragnarok, Gran Turismo 7 PS4 Versions Confirmed
I have experienced it first hand, being second class citizen in Destiny 2, where a gun and a map is kept from you for an entire year, so you can “think” about going for Sony? Are you kidding me? Sony thought I would prefer their brand just because I do not have a gun or a map?
But I did pay for full game though? Why did I not get same game on xbox as I would on PS?
I am more than happy with Microsoft buying Zenimax, because from what I heard, Sony was on the table for it as well. So Sony DID intend to buy Zenimax then? Does that mean that they would have gone too far too had the talks been successful? Point I am making here for you is, Sony had same idea that Microsoft had. One company simply ended up buying it over the other.
There is no “buyer’s code” in this. There are no rules here. These are your philosophies. Acquisitions happen. But I do not start contemplating life and philosophies over this. I play games while looking at who treats me how.
I am the sort of person that hates sony’s form of communication. I am also the person who has owned every ps console since PS brand was ever created.
What makes you think that I do not appreciate gaming?
And before you go on trying to educate me on giving up gaming for golf, back the hell off.
I have been playing games since I was 3 years old. I have played games on giant floppy discs. I have played games on Atari. I have gaves on Nes, I have gamed on Sega. I am a 37 years old guy with 34 years of gaming passion.
If you think you can come in here and make me question my gaming hobbies, then you are sorely mistaken.
It is YOU who must understand what being a customer means and what it is to be treated better. Exclusive games do not make me feel like I am treated better.
My entire experience is what that allows me to decide on when I am treated better.
Re: God of War Ragnarok, Gran Turismo 7 PS4 Versions Confirmed
@Oz_Momotaro
That is perfectly alright mate. You do not have to understand me for what I have said to be any less real.
I absolutely do not disagree with you there. But I have Yet to see xbox “fanboys” hoping that Sony goes out of business. I have seen that on flip side tonnes! Issue has never been whether fanboys exist or not. Issue is the blatant fanboyism resulting in hoping for other company to stop being a competition, period.
I cannot disagree with about your feelings on JR and mixed messaging. It is not just about games. It is about my entire experience as a consumer. My experience, my frustrations. My enjoyment. It is not about games alone. It is about not being treated like an idiot who will buy into what ever misleading remark I am sold.
I am “only” going to be buying, like “every” previous PS console, new ps5. But not because I enjoy company, or because I enjoy console. As you said, it is because I also enjoy “games”.
However, me liking games is not going to change the fact that I dislike the approach of how I am fed the information or kept from it. It is not going to make me want to make it my base eco system to thrive on. This did not change when xbox one was released with Don Mattic being in charge of the messaging. It was absolutely horrible, but yet I got Xbox one just fine!. PS4 released with crappy software, but I got that as well!
I can assure you that I fully understand the ps5 having its significant advantages in areas that XSX cannot compete. It is simply not going to change.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about the corporate brand that meets our needs comment.
But when that corporate brand is not forcing you to want the competition to die, and you create that notion in your head your self, it becomes an issue. Unless, you wish to tell me that the corporate brand known as Sony is indeed making people want to see the competition dead?
I personally love the Game Pass for what it is. It allows me to test my games and gives me things without an addon, that I can then chose to buy while buying the base game, if it is something I enjoy!
I also like the fact that Xbox Game Pass model is not looking like crap based on today’s E3 presentation!
I absolutely have zero issues with buy what you do not have philosophy because competition has zero issues forcing the games and content to not appear on rival product. Time exclusivity is a nasty thing.
Re: God of War Ragnarok, Gran Turismo 7 PS4 Versions Confirmed
@JJ2 thank you for understanding.
Re: God of War Ragnarok, Gran Turismo 7 PS4 Versions Confirmed
@JJ2
My opinion is very simple. I know there are people who firmly believe that Sony can do no wrong here. You cannot claim against it because there is more than evidence to suggest it. Whether you chose to ignore while wearing your tin foil hat, and calling Xbox an "eggsbox" and comparing "rental service" to game pass ultimate, is your choice. Your opinion.
My opinion stands, just like yours.
I understand that "media" can bend and twist truth, just like people who call Xbox an "eggsbox" while comparing a service they don't fully understand to a rental service.
You don't want drama? Understand that you prefer a plastic box with a logo that looks like "PS". It has nothing to do with liking single player action adventure games either. If it was simply about the games, you wouldn't talk about Phil good Spencer while telling every one that it ain't JR but Hurst instead.
You do not focus on games. You focus on every thing Sony.
You make fun of opposite side while constantly spouting nonsense. I am not making this up.
Look at your history.
I did.
You want to keep this ***** drama free jj? Then stop telling me to not give my opinions while your history with filled with yours.
You enjoy games like I do bro? Own multiple console or simply don't if it may not be in your budget. Which I can completely respect because people can't always have enough disposible income to do so.
I buy ps consoles regardless of how much I dislike the customer service, the return policies, the stupid warranty management and the constant lies.
I still buy playstation games. I am still waiting to get a ps5 when it can be easily available.
I will be buying ratchet and clank.
I have a switch. I have an Xbox series x. I play games. I don't dump on consoles. I simply dislike people bleeding green or blue and calling names to consoles when their name calling is completely unjustified. Take your "eggsbox" for example.
People constantly say that "oh Sony never exactly said that the games will be cross Gen!".
Agreed. But they did let you think of it long enough without correcting your misunderstanding. To me, that is worse.
You have clearly stated enough times that you are a playstation gamer through and through.
I am a gamer, through and through.
Please do not lug me into same boat as those fanboys you come across twitter. I enjoy games. But I will call out a company being an ass, when that company is being an ass.
I got a ps4 and Xbox one both on launch. Didn't mean I liked what stupid executives did at Microsoft back in 2013. But I got consoles because they had games I wanted to play.
The day you understand the difference between liking playstation games VS liking Sony, come and have a reasonable discussion with me.
Thank you kindly.
Re: God of War Ragnarok, Gran Turismo 7 PS4 Versions Confirmed
@JJ2 let's not take the high road and check articles and comments from last year this time around instead.
I don't need to do that research for you, look it up.
If you are going to pretend like it doesn't happen here then I will pretend like you.
Often people mislead themselves just fine without requiring media to support.
As far as "blind support" goes, there is plenty of that around here. Again, check articles from this time around, last year.
If you want me to point blind support in future though, I can tag you the next time I see it just to prove a point?
Re: God of War Ragnarok, Gran Turismo 7 PS4 Versions Confirmed
I don't care whether games are only being developed for current generation, or both current and past ones. As far as this issue is concerned, I am neutral.
Before any one tries to give me education on how business model works and how corporations make money, I have spent 10 years studying accounting and finance. I am a cpa. I understand how business works just fine.
My issue is not whether a game is being made for multiple generations. I also don't care if current generation is being held back by previous generation or not. I am simple a gamer who enjoys gaming.
I understand that this can be a cause for concern and they can certainly have an impact on lost opportunity when developing solely for newer machines.
With that said, my entire issue is about being misled.
Whether Sony "lied" or simply made you to "think" without correcting your assumptions, is what I have always found to be a cause for concern.
I was here last year when there was a drought of news regarding ps5. Quite a few people (including ones I see here in comments on this very article) were well convinced that Ps4 success was sufficient enough for them to make them want to invest into ps5.
I do not really think that it is a bad idea to follow a brand, generation after generation though. I also think it's quite al right to have consoles be good at backward compatible. It allows people like me with less lounge space to not want to keep multiple consoles [from same company] connected.
My concern is when a company leads its people by their nose hair and make them think that their console will be all about new experiences, and games will be targeted for new generations mostly, because they wouldn't be possible on prior generations.
As far as ps5 is concerned, I have seen enough trolling and enough egotistical arguments in past that supported Sony through thick and thin with their generational approach.
My honest question to those who blindly support Sony, is why do you allow your self to be in a situation where you constantly defend Sony? Why do you keep moving the goal posts to keep sony from being seen as the company that has misled you for last entire year?
Why not simply love the games and experiences of your preferred ecosystem, and hold them responsible for when they mislead you? Why bleed brand loyalty when it gains you nothing?
It is mind boggling.
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath for Bethesda's Starfield on PS5, PS4
@Salt_AU
Understood. Thank you for your kind response. I apologize for being nosy about your personal life.
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath for Bethesda's Starfield on PS5, PS4
@CKFilms agreed.
Try /s next time.
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath for Bethesda's Starfield on PS5, PS4
@Salt_AU #104
I honestly really wanna know what your educational background is.
I am specifically referring to "7.5B outlay" comment.
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath for Bethesda's Starfield on PS5, PS4
@Salt_AU #131
I think the same can be said for Sony's exclusives.
Regardless of how people feel about Microsoft's user base, it is not really a small number. Just a "smaller number" when compared to Sony's.
Those games can make more money as well if they are made available to an additional user base, not engaged previously.
I mean may as well throw them on pc while at it, since developers and publishers will make more money, right?
The point I am making here is, exclusives play a role in competition. They aren't in customers best interest, generally speaking.
They shouldn't be a thing.
Maybe a company claims to not like them for what ever reason, but if But if competition won't stop making exclusives and signing up timed deals, you can't just sit there while twiddling eith your thumbs, watching your competition making a fool of you. You will have to engage similar practices, regardless of how you feel, if you want to stand a chance.
It's just how things are.
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath for Bethesda's Starfield on PS5, PS4
@CKFilms
When I see a response like yours, it makes me chuckle.
Nothing to do with the fact that you have been enjoying exclusives.
But that structure of your response just pushes you into a fanboy territory.
I hope you were simply joking.
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath for Bethesda's Starfield on PS5, PS4
@Salt_AU #132
I am genuinely curious, what do you do for a living if you do not mind me asking?
You have a very strong opinion on this, so I am intrigued.
Re: Out Today: MLB The Show 21 Launches at Full Price on PS5, PS4
@PowderToastMan #19 proven in comments of other articles on this very website few days ago, that tonnes of people will still wait and not buy it on day one. So let's not pretend to take the high road here.
There is nothing wrong with buying it later. But this "we are superior cause we can buy it for full price" nonsense needs to go away.
Xbox has the same option. It's just that game pass subscribers have, more than 1 option.
Also, People mentioned that they rather buy games on second hand, which honestly results in developer almost never seeing a penny of income than paay full price.
Re: Days Gone Director on Skipped Sequel: 'If You Love a Game, Buy It at F***ing Full Price'
@Cheems 129
But he didn't get the 5 bucks.
So did you dislike the game? Or did you dislike him?
Did you sell the game after you read his interview? Or before?
And if you did before reading his interview, then was his comment "really" the reason for you to become part of the problem that was he was complaining about?
Re: Days Gone Director on Skipped Sequel: 'If You Love a Game, Buy It at F***ing Full Price'
@AdamNovice I don't agree often with you but your post 123 is spot on.
Re: Days Gone Director on Skipped Sequel: 'If You Love a Game, Buy It at F***ing Full Price'
@thefourfoldroot since you are usually quite sensible, I do need to point out to you that if developers took many risks to make different games, people will claim the same thing that they are saying in these posts above.
"we have no idea about the game! How do we know if we are going to love your game?"
There are times when developers simply do not want to take the risk because of thst very reason.
Why change the recipe if the final product keeps selling?
Tricky but both sides are quite valid and it is tough to find a common ground between the 2.
Not many developers can pull it off and then there is a factor of people's bias in favour or against a developer.
Last but not least, people keep crying over how "...rather buy games, and not rent from game pass" but doesn't it solve that very issue every one keeps moaning over?
You play the game. You like it? Buy it. Don't like it? Well continue trying another game.
But when it comes to game pass, narrative changes rather quickly around here. Every one is suddenly willing to pay 70 bucks for every game and no one is looking for any discounts.
I am literally just looking at people in here who are talking about their wallets and their choice on how they want to spend their money... While not wanting to support a developer unless game is half priced.
As far as bugs go, I am unsure how old people are in here but I can't remember name of games very well that released without bugs and glitches back in 1980s and 1990s.
I mean as a joke, we used to call em features. Because they extended the play time of a game by a significant margin. A glitch happens, and people lost progress, we used to start over. But now every one wants these perfect crafted games! Demanding every developer to spend ***** tonne of money on QA, WHILE not wanting to buy games at full price.
At the end of the day, yes half priced games are supporting developers, but you are cutting the budget for things like sequels and their potential QA costs when you decide to buy things for half price.
It doesn't justify cyberpunk like situations where developers had absolutely messed up on QA. But games like days gone shouldn't have been treated like 3rd rate commodity.
At the very least, game should have been priced around 50$ to begin one to attract sales.
At the end of the day, game pass makes sense to me for this very reason. I can try games without worrying about spending money up front. If I like it, I buy it full priced.
Regardless of harsh words used by developer in his interview, he has a legit point.
People just get too caught up with "I do things my own way" crap when his point is still valid, regardless of its bitter surface.
People need to grow the ***** up and stop behaving like its end of world when someone speaks out of frustration.
Understand the underlying problem, discuss it, and move on. No one is asking you to lick their boots.
Comments I have read here just boggled my mind.
Re: Poll: Is PlayStation Losing Ground to Xbox?
@thefourfoldroot honestly, I haven't touched physical games in a while now since I play with multiple consoles in my home and my wife has hers, so sharing games when digital is very easy and we don't have to couch coop. We get our own gaming screens and enjoy one copy.
I do understand where you are coming from, but I would say that licensing thing is probably the biggest reason it doesn't feel as good when using physical media
Re: Poll: Is PlayStation Losing Ground to Xbox?
291Serialsid6:34am
>Whilst quick resume is good(when it works probably) I don't really use it as I just play one game at a time.
A person's own personal choices don't change the fact that console is capable of doing 10x more than what you have made it sound like in that post of yours above. That was my issue with it. You painted entire post in a tone that presented that console as if it had absolutely nothing worth looking into. You can disagree all you wish, but that was the general tone behind your writing.
Any time a person has ever wrote "collecting dust" for any console, it just makes them sound biased because every console has its strengths. You chose to recognize the weaknesses of xsx based on your gaming preference, and not on its own merit.
You enjoying one game is absolutely fine. But that doesn't change the things that xsx is still capable of doing, should you chose to utilize them.
>The only real advantage it has over the ps5 is the value of gamepass.
No. I disagree. As to why? Do your own research.
> Its still massively lacking in its 1st party gaming, has no reason to justify the upgrade from a one x(which I did).
I don't give a crap about 1st party gaming. I consider the entire ecosystem. All experiences.
To me, Sony is massively lacking in quality of ecosystem it provides when compared to Xbox. And it's 1st party can be played when it has enough exclusives that I care about and when it is available for purchase without engaging scalpers.
All my 3rd patty games will always be played on Xbox because of its ease in backward compatibility. I play with alot of family constantly who still do not have finances to deal with current generation of console.
It is a fantastic feature.
>I dislike the new series x controller so much (d pad is so clicky) that when I do play I use my old xbox one controllers.
I love the heft behind the controller and how compact it is.
D-pad being clicky isn't an issue for me. I use D pad mostly for options of games and even then it has a satisfying feel that gives feed back to me on when I press it.
I am used to keyboards with cherry mx keys.
Whereas the dualsense is a massive improvement over the dualshock.
Improvement over previous dual shock is great.
> When you play something like WR9 and you can feel the ABS kick in on the left trigger, that your engine is damaged just by the changes in the right trigger. Loose gravel hitting the bottom of the car can be felt by the haptic, and heard through the speaker. These things add so much to the game.
I understand that, but the addition doesn't make me want to buy a whole console,or change my evo system because I simply dislike Sony's ecosystem and how they behave. I am used to a comfortable refundable of games policy and have done many times in past. A controller isn't gonna change the fact that Sony's customer service is absolutely trash.
> And that's not the only game to use it really well. Then I go back to Forza H4 (my favourite driving game) and it feels just flat compared.
I can certainly say that by the description you provided me, I would play a driving game over ps and not xbox.
I would still not chose to engage every game on playstation
>Anyway I just enjoy playing good games, and I look forward to when xbox starts delivering on all its promises. But it still has a lot to prove.
To me, it proves plenty and is used alot in my house hold.
hat tip
Re: Poll: Is PlayStation Losing Ground to Xbox?
@thefourfoldroot I stopped playing physical a while ago. From what I have been told by those that do use it, swapping disc is just fine. Discs are only used to read license information and nothing more. So state of game is still preserved in system and having a disc in only allows you to get in fast. Otherwise you stay out, with msg that you need to buy license to access game.
From what I have seen, any game that is "online progression, can't be accessed directly because the game's server requires you to be connected to. Any multiplayer game like destiny for example will have same issue.