Sony’s PR message has been loud and clear. ‘Gamers should have a choice.’ This has been a phrase that has been tossed around from several different PS4 representatives.
But was the camera decision based truly around making sure that gamers had a choice? Or was it simply a decision made because of financial reasons?
Is it possible that Sony and Microsoft had exactly the same game plan? And has Sony REALLY abandoned that plan? Or have they just decided to drag it out?
PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.
Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.
"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."
"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"
That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.
To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.
darthv72
"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.
To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."
Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.
What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales
Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense
What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.
Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.
I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.
I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.
For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol
I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.
Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.
During Sony’s recent business segment meeting and investor presentation regarding its game and network services, the PlayStation company revealed that PlayStation 5 is the company’s “most profitable generation to-date.”
It’s the top slide of the presentation, showing that in its first four years, the PS5 generation has already hit $106 billion in sales, having almost caught up to the PS4’s total $107 billion generated.
Operating income for the PS5 generation has also already surpassed that of the PS4, having now reached $10 billion.
I wouldn't doubt it. They released a high quality system. A lot of high quality games from themselves and their support of 3rd party developers and indies. They released many high quality remakes and remasters. They released a high quality GaaS game going against the naysayers thinking Sony would abandon single player games. And they most likely are profiting a lot more than PS1, PS2 PS4 and the loss leading PS3 that drained all their profits.
Now, I'll wait to see what's cooking tomorrow. But can you use some of those profits to better support your high quality VR headset? Because, by supporting it, you can sell more games and more systems and make more profits?
If it had some rpgs I would buy right fking now. It looks dope and alot of fun, but it's biggest game resident evil 4(maybe) I've got no interest in. I'm not a fan of racing games, even with that metro game coming i was never much into that series. Rpgs would be fantastic.
Lemme know if ya wanna play some Zenith 🙌
Bought it at release, but haven't played it more than 1-2 hours but for sure on my "todo list".
Normal when they released mostly cross gen games so far. That’s a lot of money saved..
We haven’t seen what PS5 can do yet. 4years in and PS4 games still look great to me. The gen leap isn’t quite there yet.
The interesting metric for me is the $106billion in operating income/profit (not sales as mentioned in the article) reaching the same as the PS4 did with only half the consoles sold.
In particular because they all are supposed to be making the most per hardware sold after a few years when manufacturing costs are down.
So even putting inflation aside(and the higher console price), it is interesting that they could reach PS4 $ with just half the consoles sold.
Maybe there is more to the metric thats whats seen at face value, but they have clearly been making a lot more money than before on the software side (with also less games released I suppose, given its only been half the generation so far)
The bulk of the money has to be coming from the 30% cut on all games and microtransactions. Especially on all the free to play juggernauts like genshin, apex, fortnight, etc.
@Versus
They are definitely making a lot on that for sure (which the $70 price increase factors into as well), but its not like many of those games werent around for the PS4 too.
They might be counting the gen as a whole and not just PS5 itself (so extra profit from PC sales, whatever that may be)
PS+ price increase and different tiers probably amount to part of that too.
But in general, its still quite a surprising metric. Half the time, half the consoles sold, less first party games released so far and still already making more of a profit than last gen is quite something, and as mentioned, there is probably more to it that we dont know, after all, since we are talking about operating income, all the expenses they have also factor into it, so it is also possible that they have found ways to significantly reduce that + all the means of increased revenue that appear to be factoring into the equation
All in all, just an interesting situation from a business perspective
It's for the whole generation, so it would likely be including PC. They also make much more profit on digital sales vs retail, and digital is far more prominent these days. The generation also started at the height of COVID when everyone was home, spending far more money on gaming/hobbies. It makes a lot of sense for this gen to be more profitable.
This will surely shut up all the new trolling accounts trying to spread lies and non facts in other articles comment sections before this article is posted.
Obscurely, those trolls or troll will not show in these articles as the truth is contradictory to his or their orchard-sized daily dose of copium and hopium.
Or... They're intentionally trolling you guys specifically. Because they know it upsets you so easily.
Name-dropping Orchard, after this many months? How long has it been and he's still in your thoughts?
I'm quite sure the individual is reading these positive comments downvoting & seething at the same time. Edit: It just downvoted my comment...lol!!
No I'm entertained by this individual. I love unhinged people, they are so interesting lol.
Wow! I am super impressed that in just 4 years, ps5 already caught up to the PS4's. Congratulations.
That happens when half of your games are cross platform. I'm still waiting to see what the ps5 is capable of, because they sure haven't pushed any limits.
And where are all these ps5 exclusive games?
The Xbox brand has done a lot of good over the years, but their various blunders are pretty wild to look back on in their magnitude.
Ironically number 9 can save them at this point (releasing games on multiple platforms)
By “save them” you mean make more profit for Microsoft. Xbox will still be a dying hardware platform.
You could add the naming scheme for the consoles, it just confuses customers. I know they wanted to avoid traditional numbering bc it would always be lower than their competitor, but this whole 360 then One then Series thing is confusing af. Imagine a Soccer Mom trying to figure this stuff out. I still mistakenly call the Series X the One from time to time on accident.
Don't forget about the Xbox One, Xbox One X and Xbox Series X! Good luck to Soccer moms around the world.
They did that on purpose to confuse and direct attention away from the generational numbering.
MS doesn’t like reminding people that they joined the industry after others had already been involved in gaming.
For instance, they called the xbox “360” to combat PlayStation “3” because they wanted to seem like “more” than “3”, so instead of xbox 2, they opted for xbox 360. Also this had the additional benefit of selling consoles to uninformed parents who might purchase a “360” instead of a “3” by mistake, or because they thought 360 was more than 3. Kind of a disingenuous move.
They have been continuing with their confusing naming patterns for pretty much the same reasons. Frankly, it fits with who and what they are as a brand.
I can understand their reasoning, but whoever came up with that naming scheme should be fired, bad naming schemes have killed consoles (I'm pretty sure it was the major reason for the downfall of the WiiU). They should have had unqiue names like Nintendo and Sega have had for their consoles, far less confusing for the consumer.
@FinalFantasyFanatic "They should have had unqiue names like Nintendo..."
lol, you mean:
NES, SNES
GameBoy, GameBoy Advanced, GameBoy Colour, GameBoy SP
DS, DSi, DSXL
3DS, 3DS XL, New 3DS, New 3DS XL
Wii, Wii U
Switch, Switch OLED
Phil Spencer is the worst that has happened to Xbox.
They built a respectable brand up to Xbox one. Then this guy took over and things became a joke
I didn't like either person, both people damaged their respective brands and produced worse outcomes, but Phil did save the Xbox brand from being retired by Microsoft. Although in hindsight, he should have just let it die, rather than languish in limbo like it is now.
Phil Spencer was also on the team back when 360 was around, alongside Shane Kim, Peter Moore etc. I think the damage that did the most harm was the Don Mattrick "Always Online" console (ahead of its time basically). They handed Sony and Nintendo a free-pass when that was revealed. It went downhill from there. Then the corporate machine went into full swing to try and recover. They have to a degree as a games company for the masses, and less so for the core gamer. Outside USA, the Xbox brand does not sell as well as Japanese based consoles (citation needed).
Want a decision maker. The always online and TV plans was a disaster yes, but they caught up by announcing 1st party games that gamers actually kept the hype going.. until this moron took over and introduced the PC day one release.. e all know where that ended..
I dont think they were ever a respectable brand, not since the beginning, when their goal was never to be involved and share in the gaming space. I think the OG xbox was an exception because MS as a brand was still getting its foot in and so the people behind that were people of the gaming industry.
The 360 was the brand in its prime though, everything went downhill towards the end of that generation. Its staple games like Halo, Forza and Gears are what kept the console relevant and afloat for so long.
Really good video.
I remember the days with RRoD was big news on here, N4G.
Microsoft had it turbulence number of years.
Looking at the success of Sea of Thieves despite being 6 years old, time to release Halo, Forza horizon 4 & 5 on PS5. It'll help their revenue
2 of the 4 games they did already sold really well. So it's definitely going down. Idk about halo or forza but I feel those studios they've bought in the last 5 years, their coming
I found this video painful to watch. Can someone list them out?
Top 10 for me from are:
1. 2013 reveal presentation
2. Bundling Kinect 2 with Xbox One
3. RRoD or why rushing to market with hardware is always a bad idea.
4. Buying studios only to close them.
5. Ads on the Home Screen
6. Letting Halo die.
7. Letting Geard of War die.
8. Every console name
9. Charging for Xbox Live on Xbox 360 when Sony let PS3 players play online for free.
10. Cancelling release of OG Xbox games after the Xbox 360 launched.
The "forced" PS eye wasn't going to affect the price
lol
this is turning into a witch hunt
Giving everyone kinect is not going to magically make devs shoehorn features into their games if it doesn't belong there or add any benefits to their game. Like the touchpad if it makes sense in their game then it will be used by devs knowing that everyone will have a kinect doesn't mean they will suddenly start using it. The touchpad proves just that.
Things will only be used if they fit the vision for a game bundling a peripheral wouldn't change that. Anyways MS bundling kinect is less to do with gaming and more to do with their *natural* user interface experience they're going for with voice control & UI navigation. Things like things like snap & the inclusion of IR to control your media centre where made with kinect in mind.
If the loss is only $60 they're going to make it up with PS+.