Support NeoGAF

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I already corrected the “luck” part in my comment. The PlayStation brand is like a tank with adamantium armor, but no one’s invulnerable to the damage from consecutive bad decisions.

For each bad decision they get a Helldivers 2, Astro bot etc...they will be fine.

 

[skyfinch]

These tariffs are seriously impacting Xbox's stronghold on the gaming industry.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It’s what I love- seeing Phil Spencer claim that by having “his” games on more devices means that games will be better! How in the fuck do you come to that conclusion? More games on more devices means better games?! Please tell that to Nintendo who have consistently made the greatest games of all time and only releasing them on Nintendo consoles exclusively!

All I wish for is that Sony don’t completely abandon their Japanese roots. They’ve lost those unique games that made them special pre ps4 days. It’s not all about last of us, uncharted, god of war, horizon etc…

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what he means.

I'm not one to back up Spencer, but his logic is sound. It's about sustainability. He's running a business, studios have to be profitable in order to keep making games and making better games. More devices means more software sales.

Nintendo has been making games since 1985. Their IP has had more time and exposure in the industry than pretty much anyone else starting with bundling Super Mario Bros with the NES.

The Wii U was a failure and so was the Gamecube, and the N64 wasn't far behind it. Nintendo games haven't always sold as well as they have on the Switch and if their games cost what it took to create AAA games across the industry and the Switch hadn't sold as well, yes, they'd be looking at making games for other platforms too.

If the Switch 2 struggles to gain steam and the cost of development increases for Nintendo, yeah, I'd expect there to be a shift in their strategy too. They don't go for super realistic graphics though, so they should be able to reign in costs regardless. The problem with realistic graphics is that everything has to be realistic. Making cartoonish grass is a lot easier than making realistic grass, the same is true for clouds and puddles e.t.c.

Sony didn't abandon any Japanese roots, those games and their creators simply became untenable. Case in point, name the games and their directors who you think Sony abandoned and tell me where these creators are now.

 

[Gambit2483]

OK. Tell me who is Nintendo's competition?

Is it ps5? If Ps5 is competitng with the switch, that means by default, the ps5 has a competitor in the Nintendo Switch.

Narrative 1
Xbox is dying. Playstation has no competitor. Oh noes!!

Narrative 2
Nintendo Switch needs exclusives because it's competing with ps5!


So whether the ps5 having a competitor or not depends on the ongoing narrative right?


I'm still waiting for triangle strategy to release on ps5. It was exclusive to the switch for quite a long while wasn't it?

So which is it?

"Nintendo doesn't count because they are doing their own thing and not really directly competing"?

Or

"Nintendo counts because they don't have competition and that's going to hurt the Insustry"?

Seems like the narrative and goal posts are constantly changing and pivoting when it comes to Nintendo, to fit whatever narrative currently hurts or downplays them the most.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So which is it?

"Nintendo doesn't count because they are doing their own thing and not really directly competing"?

Or

"Nintendo counts because they don't have competition and that's going to hurt the Insustry"?

Seems like the narrative and goal posts are constantly changing and pivoting when it comes to Nintendo, to fit whatever narrative currently hurts or downplays them the most.

Nintendo competes for your time, but not the higher-end graphics market.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Xbox hardware division better change course fast

They did the Xboxship is sinking, even putting theyr games on PC day one did not move the needle so they put theyr games on PlayStation and Switch and on "every screen is an Xbox

 

[Woopah]

Nintendo competes for your time, but not the higher-end graphics market.

This.

They want the money people spend on PC/PS/XB, but they go after it with flexibility rather than graphics.

 

[Crayon]

I've had nintendo, sony, and valve all hooked up to my tv competing for my time and money on a daily basis.

Status of the competition:
PS and Steam - neck and neck
Nintendo - the most distant third. a dot on the horizon.

If I only had a switch, I could get a ton of gaming done on it. Also, if I used the portable aspect, I would be buying and playing more games on it. But I never used that a ton to begin with (tried, though) and then the side rails failed so it's useless that way now. To be honest, the thing overall kind of sucks.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

As I said it's mental illness trying to remove a game from PS5 that was released in the PS5 era because it was also released on PS4.

How does that affect someone playing the game on PS5?

Does that also apply to Breath of the Wild, that was released on both Wii U and Switch, and any games that may come out on both Switch systems, or does that only apply to Sony's cross-gen games because reasons?

Mental illness? Dense is trying to compare two console lineups and use games on both.
You want to hold on to those PS4 games O onQ123 cause Sony's PS5 only output pales in comparison to PS4.

Mel it absolutely applies to Wii U and Switch.
Why wouldn't it?

 

[onQ123]

Mental illness? Dense is trying to compare two console lineups and use games on both.
You want to hold on to those PS4 games O onQ123 cause Sony's PS5 only output pales in comparison to PS4.

Mel it absolutely applies to Wii U and Switch.
Why wouldn't it?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

What am I distracting from?

 

[onQ123]

What am I distracting from?

The original topic

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

The original topic

Why would I do it for that reason?
I play multiple gaming platforms with PlayStation 5/Pro being my main.

 

[onQ123]

Why would I do it for that reason?
I play multiple gaming platforms with PlayStation 5/Pro being my main.

Maybe you feel it's undeserved

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I'm not one to back up Spencer, but his logic is sound. It's about sustainability. He's running a business, studios have to be profitable in order to keep making games and making better games. More devices means more software sales.

no necessarily

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Maybe you feel it's undeserved

If I main it....it's the best option so why wouldn't it be deserved to me?

My argument is exclusive quality has taken a dip because of no real competition.
You say there is competition,I disagree and instead see them as terrible alternatives.
Sales reflect this.

 

[nowhat]

PS3 - They were cheap Blu-Ray readers. That's why people bought those

This is true, but not the kind of flex one would think it is. When PS3 was released, it was among, if not the, cheapest Blu-Ray players around. Sony was making a loss of about $200 per console sold, and home theater enthusiasts are not necessarily buying any games in addition to the console. So that damned near bankrupted the company. Yes, full hardware BC (an actual "Emotion Engine" was within the chipset) with PS2 was great. It also was hugely wasteful, which is why that was quickly dropped in later hardware revisions.

 

[onQ123]

If I main it....it's the best option so why wouldn't it be deserved to me?

My argument is exclusive quality has taken a dip because of no real competition.
You say there is competition,I disagree and instead see them as terrible alternatives.
Sales reflect this.

But none of that has anything to do with the subject at hand & there is a thread about PS5 being the worst generation if that's what you want to talk about . So yes you're distracting.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

no necessarily

It kind of does...

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It kind of does...

... not necessarily.

if you put a turd everywhere, is not going to sell better than a great on a single platform.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

But none of that has anything to do with the subject at hand & there is a thread about PS5 being the worst generation if that's what you want to talk about . So yes you're distracting.

It kinda started with...

Would you like to name the 1st party PS1 games that was better than Astro Bot , Helldivers II , Horizon Forbidden West , Spider-Man 2 , God of War Ragnarök , Gran Turismo 7 , Returnal , Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart & so on?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

... not necessarily.

if you put a turd everywhere, is not going to sell better than a great on a single platform.

That isn't the question at hand here.

It isn't Game A vs Game B

It's Game A on one platform vs Game A on multiple platforms.

Access to additional platforms quite simply means more sales than otherwise. Microsoft realizes that porting their games to other platforms are the only way they can afford to continue making games. 3rd part publishers can't afford their games being exclusive to Xbox and neither can Microsoft. The userbase isn't large enough and they've been too conditioned not to buy games.

 

[onQ123]

It kinda started with...

How can it start there if I was responding to another distractor.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Access to additional platforms quite simply means more sales than otherwise. Microsoft realizes that porting their games to other platforms are the only way they can afford to continue making games. 3rd part publishers can't afford their games being exclusive to Xbox and neither can Microsoft. The userbase isn't large enough and they've been too conditioned not to buy games.

You are conflating two aspects of the issue.

1.only way they can afford to continue making games. 3rd part publishers can't afford their games being exclusive to Xbox and neither can Microsoft.


MS as third party publisher (no store front); they have to put their games everywhere. it's not a realization but a business imperative. BUT putting "Game A" everywhere is not a guarantee of "more sales" (the implication here is being profitable). Game A can flop regardless. (DA The Vailguard for example)


2.The userbase isn't large enough and they've been too conditioned not to buy games.

MS as a platform holder fucked themselves real good. They ABSOLUTELY NEED EXCLUSIVES IF they want a chance to be a successful platform holder (store front). But they can't literally afford what Sony or Nintendo do. Game Pass killed Xbox's game economy.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

You are conflating two aspects of the issue.

1.only way they can afford to continue making games. 3rd part publishers can't afford their games being exclusive to Xbox and neither can Microsoft.


MS as third party publisher (no store front); they have to put their games everywhere. it's not a realization but a business imperative. BUT putting "Game A" everywhere is not a guarantee of "more sales" (the implication here is being profitable). Game A can flop regardless. (DA The Vailguard for example)

Being on multiplatforms and flopping doesn't mean that you still sold more copies.

If Dragon Age was Xbox only, it still would have flopped, only worse.

2.The userbase isn't large enough and they've been too conditioned not to buy games.

MS as a platform holder fucked themselves real good. They ABSOLUTELY NEED EXCLUSIVES IF they want a chance to be a successful platform holder (store front). But they can't literally afford what Sony or Nintendo do. Game Pass killed Xbox's game economy.

Chicken and the egg and at this point they've done as much as they can to grow their storefront and it's too late to keep attempting to grow it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Being on multiplatforms and flopping doesn't mean that you still sold more copies.

If Dragon Age was Xbox only, it still would have flopped, only worse.

Chicken and the egg and at this point they've done as much as they can to grow their storefront and it's too late to keep attempting to grow it.

the point is this:

people need to realize something about Xbox as a publisher:

ABK and Zenimax as independent businesses have already existed for a long time

They were putting their games in all devices.
Xbox + PS + Nintendo + PC + mobile=

More devices means more software sales.

right?

now as part of the MS, xbox as a platform as, "another device" is dead, so:

-Xbox + PS + Nintendo + PC +mobile =

one less device means fewer software sales. right?.

effectively, ABK and Zenimax are making fewer software sales than before because of Xbox (GP and the decline of hardware adoption)

Xbox Game Studios' quality and relevance have been sub-par for a while now. And I bet the core three (Halo, Gears, and Forza) were making more "software sales" when they were exclusive than they are today, even with PC. How is that possible when "more devices means more software sales?


Because it is not about more devices, more software sales; but rather about higher quality, bigger chance of more software sales (regardless of the number of devices).

 

[Kings Field]

I love them both.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

How can it start there if I was responding to another distractor.

 

[Ashamam]

How is that possible when "more devices means more software sales?

I'm sure someone knows the correct way to describe what you did there, but you put forward an opinion with no evidence then asked how it was possible. Point being you need to prove the opinion first before asking that question of someone else. Firstly you don't actually know what they are doing sales wise console/vs PC, secondly they haven't gone multiplat in the sense of the discussion as they are not yet on PS, and thirdly you have injected a major lifecycle issue in to your argument as you are doing a vertical time comparison vs a horizontal platform comparison.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I'm sure someone knows the correct way to describe what you did there, but you put forward an opinion with no evidence

Halo Series:

• Xbox 360 Era: "Halo 3" (2007) sold over 14.5 million copies, becoming one of the best-selling titles on the platform.
• Xbox One Era: "Halo 5: Guardians" (2015) sold over 5 million copies within three months of its release.

Gears of War Series:

• Xbox 360 Era: The original "Gears of War" (2006) sold over 5 million copies.
• Xbox One Era: "Gears of War 4" (2016) sold over 1 million copies shortly after its release.

Forza Series:

• Xbox 360 Era: "Forza Motorsport 3" (2009) sold approximately 5 million copies.
• Xbox One Era: "Forza Motorsport 5" (2013) sold over 2 million copies.

The decline in quality and relevance is real; therefore, sales are affected.

then asked how it was possible.

Point being you need to prove the opinion first before asking that question of someone else.

It was a rhetorical question using his own flawed argument.

"more devices means more software sales"

i said:
not necessarily.

Firstly you don't actually know what they are doing sales wise console/vs PC,

I know, everyone knows if they have been following all this drama around Xbox. (since Xbox one)

secondly they haven't gone multiplat in the sense of the discussion as they are not yet on PS,

and thirdly you have injected a major lifecycle issue in to your argument as you are doing a vertical time comparison vs a horizontal platform comparison

the only thing im saying is:

The quality of a game is more important than the amount of devices.The quality of a game increases the chances of selling more.

Xbox Game Studios' quality and relevance (how big their games are) have been in decline; porting games to PlayStation will not lead to exponential increase on sales.

as an example, sea of thieves is not in the best selling games of the year or Hellblade one performing better than Hellblade 2.


Xbox Games Studios:

Halo
gears
Forza Motorsports
(in decline)

Forza Horizon (the best one)

Fable
Project Dark
(troubled development)

all the rest:
Niche, AA games.

i bet Xbox Games Studios collection of studios are not profitable at all. Xbox Game Studios as a publishes is dragging down the entire publishing aspect of MS gaming.

 

[Ashamam]

The quality of a game is more important than the amount of devices.The quality of a game increases the chances of selling more.

Xbox Game Studios' quality and relevance (how big their games are) have been in decline; porting games to PlayStation will not lead to exponential increase on sales.

as an example, sea of thieves is not in the best selling games of the year or Hellblade one performing better than Hellblade 2.

Well it sounded like you were disputing the idea more platforms means more sales. I take that as basically more seats equals more potential sales. Which is pretty logical to my mind. The question of quality etc obviously informs individual titles, but assuming the same title the theory holds, even for poorly received titles. Which if I read him right was the core point of Mibu.

So even if you are pushing out mediocre titles on more platforms it will net you more revenue than if you were just on one. The quality of titles really comes into play when recommending one platform over another, or final publisher revenue etc. Whether it's worth being on other platforms depends on actual costs to port or opportunity cost in not building your own platform exclusively. But that's a different argument.

 

[Felessan]

Sony's luck, or rather their well-established hardware security and PS Plus subscriptions, are what save the day given all that money that went down the drain with the cancellations. They've got a very successful product, but if this happens again in the next generation, they won't survive. I still don't get why they haven't urgently changed the software leadership (games), especially that damn Hermen Hulst.

The whole gaas venture (1st+3rd party) is highly profitable for Sony, so they will be fine even if they made similar decisions next gen.

I already corrected the “luck” part in my comment. The PlayStation brand is like a tank with adamantium armor, but no one’s invulnerable to the damage from consecutive bad decisions.

And what "bad" decision they made?

Down 18% and Sony is looking at their PC centric strategy and thinking that it’s a good idea.

There is no "PC centric strategy" in Sony, it's Playstation centric, even their PC part.

PS and Steam - neck and neck

 

[Yoboman]

Is he counting Firesticks though?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Well it sounded like you were disputing the idea more platforms means more sales. I take that as basically more seats equals more potential sales. Which is pretty logical to my mind. The question of quality etc obviously informs individual titles, but assuming the same title the theory holds, even for poorly received titles. Which if I read him right was the core point of Mibu.

So even if you are pushing out mediocre titles on more platforms it will net you more revenue than if you were just on one. The quality of titles really comes into play when recommending one platform over another, or final publisher revenue etc. Whether it's worth being on other platforms depends on actual costs to port or opportunity cost in not building your own platform exclusively. But that's a different argument.

He was talking in relation to Phil Spencer running a sustainable business, and he (Spencer) "realizing" that putting games on more devices means more sales

In a vacuum, we could agree that such a statement makes sense. But of course, we are talking about Phil and Xbox, which have a lot of baggage. In this context, the biggest issue for Xbox and Phil is making big and high-quality games first. releasing mid/niche games at all is a waste of time and money.

given Xbox's size (and the amount of money spent) their games have to perform (in terms of revenue) like peak MCU movies ($700M to $1 Billion)

 

[Ashamam]

the biggest issue for Xbox and Phil is making big and high-quality games first. releasing mid/niche games at all is a waste of time and money.

I understand. Hmm, generally yes? But spreading to more platforms lets them kick the can down the road. Maybe far enough that the content firehose kicks in and therefore more chances for breakout success on a single title. Those mid/niche titles aren't inconsequential in my mind. They will pay the bills.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

So which is it?

"Nintendo doesn't count because they are doing their own thing and not really directly competing"?

Or

"Nintendo counts because they don't have competition and that's going to hurt the Insustry"?

Seems like the narrative and goal posts are constantly changing and pivoting when it comes to Nintendo, to fit whatever narrative currently hurts or downplays them the most.

A lot depends on perspective.

For the first statement, it's mainly due to PS vs Xbox, as both companies are competing directly over the very same demographic, which is different from Nintendo's.

Nintendo counts as a competitor in the console market/gaming industry in general.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I understand. Hmm, generally yes? But spreading to more platforms lets them kick the can down the road. Maybe far enough that the content firehose kicks in and therefore more chances for breakout success on a single title. Those mid/niche titles aren't inconsequential in my mind. They will pay the bills.

It's not that they are spreading to more platforms; it's that their games are not performing at all to begin with.

 

[xanaum]

The whole gaas venture (1st+3rd party) is highly profitable for Sony, so they will be fine even if they made similar decisions next gen.


And what "bad" decision they made?


There is no "PC centric strategy" in Sony, it's Playstation centric, even their PC part.

There have been so many bad decisions under Hermen Hulst and Jim Ryan that you can just pick your favorite.

For me, the worst was the ridiculous amount of resources wasted on Concord without even a proper quality check to see if that so-called "professor" was making something remotely marketable.

But there's way more, this dumb push for live-service games led to a dozen cancellations, wasting time, people, and money on nothing. There might’ve been an argument for it if they had built new studios dedicated to GAAS, but putting Bluepoint on some God of War live-service project and dragging Insomniac and Bend into this mess? That’s just shockingly bad management from a company as smart and waste-conscious as Sony.

Financial and operational analysis is part of my daily job, and when I come to NeoGAF, the last thing I want to think about is work. But this whole situation reminds me of a brutal analogy:

Imagine a big, strong, healthy guy. Out of nowhere, he gets hit with relentless diarrhea, losing everything he’s got. It goes on for days, but he doesn’t care—he keeps eating and hydrating, thinking he’s fine. But the brutal diarrhea doesn’t stop, and eventually, his body just shuts down. The losses outpace his recovery. He ignored a simple issue that could’ve been diagnosed, treated, and fixed and something like that can kill a person fast, before they even make it to a hospital. In other words, even though he was taking in food and water, he failed to account for how much he was losing, assuming he’d be fine.

That said, as I mentioned to someone else in the thread, I think Sony is smart enough to course-correct before this turns into a full-blown crisis.

 

[Felessan]

But there's way more, this dumb push for live-service games led to a dozen cancellations, wasting time, people, and money on nothing.

They got HD2 out of it.
And they are perfectly aware that mastering live services requires sacrifices and failures are inevitable.
If anything live service push is anything but dumb. Market rapidly getting swallowed by live services and if you not adapt, you'll be forced to be a niche player at mercy of others. You might not be successful in adaptation, but if you decide not to do it at all, you'll loose for sure.

That said, as I mentioned to someone else in the thread, I think Sony is smart enough to course-correct before this turns into a full-blown crisis.

There are literally no proof yet that they are correcting course.
"Correlation does not imply causation". They review and cancel their live service initiatives for years (spiderman gaas was cancelled in 2022, tlou faction in 2023) - didn't stop them to proceed with others

And market dynamics doesn't really tell them to stop, it's vice versa - live service games expansion and ongoing penetration into SP space (games like Genshin directly compete with traditional SP games) ensure stimulus to continue as even if Sony try to stay loyal to SP games they still will be threatened by gaas.