cireza
Member
Absolutely not.Exclusive sell more then multiplatforms games.
Absolutely not.Exclusive sell more then multiplatforms games.
Sony have repeatedly stated recently that they aren't doing fine.Such a weird discourse we are having at the moment. Sony is doing more than fine, same with Nintendo, and yet exclusives are bad just because the loser says so.
They are not doing fine in the sense that they are not earning as much as they expected. Why? Because where are the exclusives? Where are the games from the first party? Absymal 2023 output, garbage showcase. Also, if they are doing not fine with their console business, how could they be fine when they focus on 2 platforms? The rise in game sales will be compromised by the fall in console sales, I see no difference.Sony have repeatedly stated recently that they aren't doing fine.
When port a game to another platform I expect it to sell equally to the other platforms, you guys might be impressed by 5% of what those games sell on Playstation because it still money in the bank, but it's pathetic and not worth the effort.
Especially when their focus has obviously been redirected to do it.
By carving their own market, giving up on competing in the high end AAA space, with their games having the production values of PS3 games and by rarely discounting anything at all.Nintendo seems to do fine. Too fine actually wtf.
Can't wait to get more big budget Sony games on PC
Shawn Layden is so salty... this is guy greenlight all the budget from US Studios since 2014 until end 2019.
Other quotes I think are of interest.....
"We’re not doing enough to get heretofore non-console people into console gaming. We’re not going to attract them by doing more of the shit we’re doing now. If 95% of the world doesn’t want to play Call of Duty, Fortnite, and Grand Theft Auto, is the industry just going to make more Call of Duty, Fortnite and Grand Theft Auto? That’s not going to get you anybody else."
"It’s crazy how you can lay off 900 people and have 300 open recs on your website. There’s a mismatch between what companies think they need and what they actually have. What did they say, 12,000 or 13,000 last year and we’re already up to 7,000 just in February of this year?"
"I don’t want to sound like a broken record, because I’ve been saying this for five years, but it’s the rising cost of development. That’s the existential threat. It’s not “live service gaming is tricky” or anything else. When we’re in the $250-300 million to make a game world…I’m giving a talk about this tomorrow at Stanford. Gaming is reaching its cathedral moment. There was a world hundreds of years ago where they built cathedrals, massive edifices to God, throughout Europe and around the world. Eventually, indentured labor only takes you so far. Then it stopped. It became prohibitively time-consuming and expensive. They were wonderful and beautiful. You can look at any of them across Europe and think, “That’s a marvel.” But we don’t make them anymore. We don’t make them because the math doesn’t work. If you have four walls and a roof, you can call it a church, and God will come visit. You don’t need the cathedral anymore."
"I’m afraid that we’ve bought into the triple-A, 80 hours of gameplay, 50 gigabytes of game, and if we can’t reach that then we can’t do anything. I’m hoping for a return of double-A gaming. I’m all for that."
50 gigabytes of game? That's the patch size for a quick bug fix patch nowadays.Sony are usually much quicker to copy Nintendo but it looks like they're finally starting to get the message.
Non Exclusivity is short term profit. Exclusivity is long term brand and loyalty building for bigger profit.yeah but the genius's on GAF said non-exclusivity kills games.
who to believe!??!
This right here. Despite the outrageous cost of Spiderman and soon to be X MenNon Exclusivity is short term profit. Exclusivity is long term brand and loyalty building for bigger profit.
When Xbox was all about that they were golden. It’s their other efforts that ruined everything. GreedThis right here. Despite the outrageous cost of Spiderman and soon to be X Men
Microsoft would 100% go back and do that deal if they could
They actually checked the math on this with Spiderman 3. But the numbers actually werent as favorable so you think.I expect we will see AAA games cut in half and sold to us twice.
A very simple trick to pull with the next Last of Us would be to develop a 30 hour game and then sell it in two parts, each at full price.
People will moan.
But they will still buy it.
And it's two more games to remaster/remake, rather than one.
I mean, it’s simple math, the numbers are there.Bogus or not, Sony doesn't make enough money from those games to pay the bills. If it weren't for the 30% cut they get from third party sales they would be losing money at their current levels of spending. Expensive games need to do more than make back their development budget and marketing costs for them to be worth the investment these days.
Love how you cherry-picked a 2D GBA remake, to try and illustrate your point. As if that’s typical of a modern Switch era Nintendo game. . Versus like, ya know, TotK or Mario Odyssey.
Nintendo can make numerous games with the budget of one Sony game.
Nobody said they aren't making good money. What people are saying is that games aren't making enough money. They need to spend less on games they make so that what they earn is enough to pay for the business so they they can keep making games.I mean, it’s simple math, the numbers are there.
Possibly the most expensive marketing cost for any Sony game was for Niche-Man 2, and it was only $45m.
The data is also incomplete since a few games only have sales for 1.5-2 years, they do continue to sell after that.
But it’s understandable that a lot of people keep saying Sony doesn’t make quite some money from their first party games, even “respectable” people from the industry like Daniel Ahmad keep repeating this nonsense.
I mean, it’s simple math, the numbers are there.
Possibly the most expensive marketing cost for any Sony game was for Niche-Man 2, and it was only $45m.
The data is also incomplete since a few games only have sales for 1.5-2 years, they do continue to sell after that.
But it’s understandable that a lot of people keep saying Sony doesn’t make quite some money from their first party games, even “respectable” people from the industry like Daniel Ahmad keep repeating this nonsense.
Nobody said they aren't making good money. What people are saying is that games aren't making enough money. They need to spend less on games they make so that what they earn is enough to pay for the business so they they can keep making games.
Love how you picked cherry-picked a 2D GBA remake, to try and illustrate your point. As if that’s typical of a modern Switch era Nintendo game. . Versus like, ya know, TotK or Mario Odyssey.
Plenty more higher-budget games too, you’re just continuing to only mention the lower-end ones.There’s plenty more.
Switch Sports
Everybody Switch
1-2 Switch
Mario Tennis
Brain Training
Warioware
Games like Zelda are the exception not the norm, and it’s still a fraction of what Sony spends.
Would you buy The Last of Us 3 if it was shorter than 2, lower-budget, and still $69.99?Maybe the lesson is that we need smaller game budgets.
Nice stealth port begging thread.How former PlayStation boss views gaming’s tumultuous time | Shawn Layden interview
Shawn Layden used to run Sony Interactive Entertainment’s Worldwide Studios, a position that gave him unique insight into the whole industry and triple-A games. Layden is now an adviser for companies like Tencent Games, Streamline Media Group and Readygg. These consulting roles help him steer...venturebeat.com
Glad to see the former PS boss speak the truth about this.
Good to see Sony also came to this realization a while ago with the porting of their biggest PS franchises to PC.
Can't wait to get more big budget Sony games on PC
Huh, then I guess Sony should have made their PSP exclusives for the Nintendo DS since Nintendo DS games sold more.When port a game to another platform I expect it to sell equally to the other platforms, you guys might be impressed by 5% of what those games sell on Playstation because it still money in the bank, but it's pathetic and not worth the effort.
Especially when their focus has obviously been redirected to do it.
Plenty more higher-budget games too, you’re just continuing to only mention the lower-end ones.
And how do you know the budgets of the big high-end Nintendo games? You’re just making an assumption.
yes. Some PS First Party games have sold better than CoD (on Play Station)Absolutely not.
Would you buy The Last of Us 3 if it was shorter than 2, lower-budget, and still $69.99?
PS3:>87 millionthe cumulative consoles out there never gets over 250 million. It just doesn’t.
Ah. I see. So when Sony nearly shat themselves at the thought of CoD going exclusive its because they would be the market loser?The only reason supposedly exclusives are bad is because the market loser says so. Gotta let more people play is the spin.
Sony and Nintendo are doing just fine on that front.
The balance to PC is not making your home console irrelevant like Microsoft has done trying to chase the market leader.
He has an interesting point in terms of growth and sales, and also to his point. How many of those sales are double and triple dips. That 250M audience really does seem to be true.
PS1 grew the industry, Wii blue ocean strategy grew the industy. I have no idea if those consumers remained or bailed or went to mobile. I would think Xbox opened the console space to PC gamers even if only slightly or for a brief time.
Switch introduced a new paradigm, but even with it's massive sales, how many switches have people bought an owned?
PS3/Xbox/Wii is probably the most successful and balanced generation where all 3 companies sold well, 85M/85M/100M+.
Consoles are just swapping around that same 250M customer base now.
PlayStation has to put the gamer in the center of their mission if they want to make multiplatform happen.Without exclusives their hardware is obsolete, look at xbox. I can see instead of a PS6, PS7 etc, PS will end up just shipping a whole customisable gaming PC with a built in PS hub/launcher etc so you'd still have to pay for PS plus to buy + play current/future PS games and play them online. Then they'd just release upgrade components instead of whole new consoles
I wonder how often that actually happen; PC gamers buying a console because of an exclusive.It's all about expanding the console installbase and reeling in a portion of the PC demographic.