240°

Adding First-Party Games to PS Plus Negatively Impacts Sales, Sony Data Confirms

In a leaked Sony Interactive Entertainment presentation, the company declares that including first-party games on PS Plus has had a “big” effect on “traditional sales.” As an example, the company mentioned that Horizon Forbidden West‘s sales “flat-lined” immediately after being added to PS Plus.

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
XiNatsuDragnel162d ago

That's smart Sony knows what's up with that.

Reaper22_161d ago

They are just stating the obvious. Of course a game is not gonna sell as much when gamers can get it for a fraction of the cost because of subscription service. On the other hand, a subscription service can extend the life of a game by making it available to gamers who want to play it but not necessarily willing to pay full price.

What works for Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to work for Sony and vice-versa. I'm glad we have some variety. Personally, I don't want 2 consoles who are doing the exact same thing.

Crows90161d ago

Price cuts do the same thing your describing. Subscriptions aren't bringing anything new to the table.

Crows90161d ago

It's not that smart. In fact...it's not smart at all. A dumbass could figure that out. If you give a game for free or for peanuts...why would anyone pay a lot for it instead?

It's like if you had the whopper menu at 7.99 and then the whopper menu at 1.99
Same damn whopper! What item you think most will choose?

The only ones that will choose 7.99 option are those oblivious to the 1.99 option.

Hedstrom160d ago (Edited 160d ago )

Yea! And to make more money if you are selling the 1.99 whooper you will have to lower the quality and make the ingredients as cheap as possible and take away the sallad and cheese. But you could pay extra to get that.

proudly_X161d ago

Clank was profitable after all

DarkZane161d ago

Would have been a lot worst if it was on PS Plus day one.

FIELDMARSHALL_P160d ago

How much does Sony or Xbox pay the devolpers to put the games on the services? Do they take that into account for profit, I don't know just asking. If we pay for online giving out some games is cool either platform. The companies must think it helps in some sort of capacity for accepting the deal I would think.

purple101161d ago

Oh dam
I even commented on someone who said it wasn’t.

Load of hallabaloo on the site indeed

REDGUM161d ago

To add to you're point, this is what I don't understand about the MS subscription service. If you're getting all the day one released games for next to nothing by using thier service how on earth are the developers supposed to make enough money back to create their next game/s?
Myself, and I might be of the few, but I prefer to purchase a game from a store or digital store at the recommended price, or wait for a discount if not completely sold on what I've seen of a game so far and get what I paid for than pay monthly, yearly etc subscription & get everything while the games themselves become less in all aspects due to less funds/resources. (Not sure if I've explained that properly or not)
If every company goes down the subscription based path in the future I see gaming overall dying to some degree for the non diehards I mean. Putting up older games etc that are inc in the service fees I agree with but not day one releases. Again, just an opinion.

Hedstrom160d ago

@REDGUM
You lower the quality of the games to make the process of making them as cheap as possible. You make them like f2p games with season passes and microtransactions. And over time you will make subscription more and more expensive.

BlackCountryBob161d ago

Also really interesting to see through to one of the sites they link to (Resetera) that the 2 cross gen titles in Miles Morales and Ghosts of Tsushima sold over 40% each of their first year in year 2, almost double what even the best performing games like GOW 2018 and Spider-Man did. Kinda seeing the cold hard numbers makes it really clear why they did cross gen games and remastered some of the later PS4 games to PS5 Directors Cuts.

Glemt161d ago

"“In year 1, Horizon Zero Dawn and Horizon Forbidden West were very comparable,” the presentation reads. “HFW was included into PS Plus at the start of Year 2. HFW saw an enormous influx of PS Plus players, but at the cost of flat-lining the game activations from retail sales.”"

So, the data shows there were fewer traditional sales, but it doesn't show us anything about how many people joined PS+? It does say there was an influx of HFW players, but it doesn't state how many of these players owned PS+ to begin with.

To conclude that it negatively sales is correct, but it doesn't mean less money is made. We cannot draw that conclusion until we know how many more people joined PS+ because of HFW.

mkis007161d ago

Well each ps plus account is only good for what? $15 per month max if they go monthly? There are a lot of reasons why even if a million new signups happened loosing out on the $60 gamesales is a worse.

Glemt161d ago

I think that's a good assumption, but that's what I was referring to. It's an assumption. If someone comes with hard data, we need the complete picture. The way it sits now we might draw the right conclusions, but we've proven nothing.

Crows90161d ago

If sales flat lines and subscriptions don't equal the same as said purchasable game then no matter how you spin it...less money is made on that game per player

TheCaptainKuchiki161d ago

MS's bet is that although it lowers traditional sales, it makes the services more appealing and millions of new people will subscribe if they see that good games are added to the service. And in the end, the subscription profit (not revenue) will outpace that of the traditional sales.

However even after 6 years they still haven't reached that point lmao

Shane Kim161d ago

Sadly it's just Netflix of gaming. They saturate the service with garbage just to keep releases on a regular basis and to keep players hooked to the service. It won't be sustainable in the long run.

Reaper22_160d ago

There are some really good games on gamepass. That's the problem with you guys who only think one way. I'm playing Remnant 2, Dead space remake, Tomb Raider, Forza, Far cry 5, Gears Judgement, Mass Effect 3 and MLB The Show. Now please tell me which one of those are garbage?
You sound like a hater or is it you are jealous at the success of Mictosoft with gamepass.

Crows90160d ago

@reaper

Far cry 5 and mass effect 3...also gears judgment was horrible

DEEHULK88158d ago

Netflix is the ONLY streaming service that is making a profit right now. In fact others are back to licensing their content to Netflix because that's a great revenue stream for them.

Crows90161d ago

Except that works for MS because most of their games barely break 1 million in sales ... They know this and try to throw shade and brag about how great subscriptions are because they were already not making much money at all.

Reaper22_160d ago

Nah, that's not true. Their games do sell. Games are getting more expensive to make and sometimes selling millions still don't make up for losses. Services like gamepass can be good for developers and the publishers. Games do sell on gamepass.

Crows90160d ago (Edited 160d ago )

@reaper

Nope. It is true. Just look at estimated sales for lots of their games across the board. Except for major titles like GTA most games barely sell on Xbox. At least back when physical was the majority...now with mostly digital maybe it has changed but their audience hasn't gotten bigger.

A few outliers but the majority barely sold.

DEEHULK88158d ago

If they didn't put their games on PC and Gamepass day 1 their games would be on the charts like the 360 days, but they don't want to do that and that's okay.

Show all comments (44)
250°

Take-Two CEO Doesn’t Think AI Will Reduce Employment or Dev Costs; “Stupidest Thing” He’s Heard

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.

lodossrage1d ago (Edited 1d ago )

They already have AI trained to do coding.......

How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.

CS722h ago

Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.

Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.

Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.

I actually agree with this concept.

Huey_My_D_Long22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.

Darkegg22h ago

Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.

BlackOni21h ago

AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.

- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.

Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.

Einhander197218h ago(Edited 18h ago)

CS7

In the ideal world yes.

In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.

Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.

Edit:

Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.

In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.

The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.

hombreacabado6m ago

that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 6m ago
Number1TailzFan22h ago

You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time

1Victor22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI

senorfartcushion20h ago(Edited 20h ago)

He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.

porkChop18h ago

Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 6m ago
jambola1d ago

Ceo says stupid thing
Part 5837384

Zeref23h ago(Edited 23h ago)

I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.

DarXyde3h ago

I think you mean candor, not intelligence.

If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.

I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.

romulus2322h ago

As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.

RNTody22h ago

Hahaha yeah trust the CEO suit over the actual developers making the games. Good one.

Show all comments (30)
100°

Every PlayStation Studios game available now on Windows PC

Windows Central writes: "Many PlayStation Studios games that are ported to PC get dedicated PS5 DualSense support, which allows users to experience haptic feedback and adaptive trigger support without actually having to own a PS5.

According to Hermen Hulst, head of PlayStation Studios, it's still the company's intent to launch the bigger single-player games on PS5 first, before later bringing the games to PC. This might not be the case for multiplayer games however, which are considered okay to launch simultaneously on console and PC."

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
ocelot072d ago

My guess is after god of war. Probably last of us 2 that's a almost 4 year old game now and by the time it's released on pc it will be more than 4 years old or close to 5.

Elda2d ago

Every old Playstation game that is now on PC.

shinoff21831d 15h ago

Right. I definitely see what a headlined from a website named windows central was trying to do though. It's cute little wordplay to help out the green box

Flewid6381d 14h ago

Are PlayStation games no longer good or worth playing once they are old?

Elda1d 13h ago

I'm guessing my comment went over your head.

XiNatsuDragnel1d 23h ago

Good at least they can sell hardware

220°

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie. This is something of a homecoming, as Microsoft owns Activision.

Read Full Story >>
engadget.com
Obscure_Observer2d ago

Very very early in development. Still, fantastic news!

Let´s GO!!!

Lightning772d ago

I guess.

How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )

At least it wouldn't be MS of all ppl destroying them.

MS really should let go Tango go like they did TFB here.

darthv722d ago (Edited 2d ago )

one was under Bethesda (Tango) the other under Activision (TFB). Clearly each one handled the separations of their subordinates differently.

Obscure_Observer2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

"How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )"

Perhaps because Zenimax and ABK handles such matters differently based on their own internal policies as "independent" publishers.

Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future. Which could also be the reason why they ensured an exclusive partnership with TFB and its new game, before anyone else.

Sad and disgusting. But it is what it is.

Lightning772d ago (Edited 2d ago )

"Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future."

MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB.

It's inexcusable, they have options on how to handle studios they don't want anymore with killing jobs. Not just MS but the rest of the industry also.

Sad and disgusting sure how many will get shut down next year or this year even?

I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another.

Obscure_Observer2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

"MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB."

Imo, MS separated from TFB because they didn´t had a game associated with Xbox yet, unlike Tango.

"I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another."

Fair enough. It was indeed an epic dumb move from them to close Tango.

Still, all to be forgotten, like always have. This is not the first time a big publisher shuts down a beloved and/or successful studio out of nowhere and certainly won´t be the last. Do you remember Lionhead? Do you remember Evolution Studios? Yeah... both were beloved studios and yet, those companies kill those studios in q blink of an eye and got away with it.

anast2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

The studio boss made some money from this transaction. Once the game releases, the studio will get chopped up.

-Foxtrot2d ago

Manages to buy their freedom especially after all the shit Microsoft has been doing with its studios lately

...

Goes right back to them as partners.

Okaaaaaay...

darthv722d ago

Id venture a guess that TFB working directly with MS was a better outcome than working through Activision to get to MS.

VersusDMC2d ago

From the article...

"Toys for Bob spun out as an indie back in February after Microsoft instituted sweeping layoffs that impacted 86 employees, which was more than half of the staff"

I doubt those 86 employees enjoyed the Microsoft experience over Activisions.

Inverno2d ago

MS shuts down studios because of lack of resources and then helps these guys by giving em resources. Also MS is what forced them to buy their freedom in the first place? What kind of logic 😂

Chevalier2d ago

The best thing is that the company that is worth $3 trillion and owns the company instead of Xbox lacks resources. How the hell does a company worth $3 trillion making a measly $70 billion purchase they 'can't' support. Lol

romulus231d 21h ago

Stockholm syndrome, maybe?

BlindMango1d 16h ago

The reason they would need to "partner with Microsoft" is simply to make a game that's part of a franchise that Microsoft owns. Meaning they're probably going to make a new Spyro game - they're still an independent studio, but are making a game in a franchise that Microsoft owns. It's kind of like Remedy partnering with Rockstar to be able to make the Max Payne remakes.

shinoff21831d 15h ago

It was probably the deal to get released from Ms

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1d 15h ago
Sciurus_vulgaris2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Xbox’s gaming division seems to still function as 3 semi-autonomous sub-divisions, Xbox Studios, Bethesda and ABK. The three main sub-divisions can seemingly shut down or build studios and set up partnerships independently. This would explain why Bethesda can recently shutdown studios, while ABK spins off one studio, while building a new one. Plus, Toys for Bob could be spun off by ABK, only to immediately re-partner with Microsoft.

Chevalier2d ago

That's absolutely 💯 BS. Any sane 'autonomous' company would NOT put their games on Gamepass day 1 like COD will lose probably billions.

Also they're all under Xbox game studios so any autonomy is an illusion.

PhillyDonJawn1d 21h ago

No, I'm sure MS can and does step in when they want something done specifically but I'm also sure they let them also work independently

shinoff21831d 15h ago

I highly highly doubt this. Ms controls all. The guys aren't gonna be allowed to just shut something down like that without approval. No way

Elda2d ago

Either a kiddie game or something uninteresting.

Obscure_Observer2d ago

Don´t worry. You won´t be playing it anyway since their next game will possible be a next gen Xbox console game.

Elda2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Don't worry about my comments.

PhillyDonJawn1d 21h ago

Right probably something like astrobot

romulus231d 21h ago

Nah he said "uninteresting", lots of people are interested in Astro Bot.

Elda1d 19h ago

Never Astro Bot. Astro Bot looks better than any exclusive released on XB this entire generation & believe there hasn't been much.

Asplundh1d 18h ago

Crash 4 was good, so I'm hopeful.

PhillyDonJawn1d 17h ago

Hey you said that about SOT and looks like many ppl on PS is playing it. You also found bugsnax interesting ffs your opinion hold no weight lol.

Elda1d 16h ago (Edited 1d 16h ago )

Bugsnax is BS, tried it & quickly deleted it. It's a game that fits right on Gamepass. PS5 owners that are probably playing the boring SOT you could count on one hand. LMAO!!...don't try to come for me.

PhillyDonJawn1d 14h ago

So you admit bugsnax interested you enough to try? 😂 someone gotta call you out on the foolishness.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 14h ago
Show all comments (35)