Sony Explains Why 1st Party Games Won't Debut Day 1 on PS Now

[0D0]

About the other matter, the $70 matter: I won't pay $70. I refuse.

Games shouldn't cost $60, it should cost $50 or $40.

These days they have things like:

- DLCS

- Season passes

- Deluxe editions

- Collector stuff that adds royalties

- They have game engines

- They can reuse textures, assets, etc. They can reuse lots of things. They can make one single engine and reuse it for multiple games.

- They have multiple games on their portfolio that support the company. Ones expensive and others cheaper to develop. They can even add big whale games to their portfolio. MMO games that require monthly payment and keep the single player ones still $50.

- The cost doesn't come in a single year. A game that costs $100m is developed over 5-7 years. They've got between $5-10m yearly cost that is covered by constant cash flow from released games, season passes, deluxe editions, DLC, etc.

- They re-release games. Old games that are already developed and still make profit.

- They remaster games. It's not costly to do and they usually charge full price.

- They make cheap costing games and charge top price, like in sports games where they reuse everything for years. They basically just replace character names.

- Technology usually gets cheaper over time. MS office used to be very expensive 20 years ago. Now it's cheap. They're also $100m or more software projects.

- They're already too rich and very profitable.

We shouldn't accept $70. Games should go $50 to say the least. They can get the extra $30 from deluxe editions and DLCs and overpriced remasters.

If games go $70 and $80 in a couple of years, I'll start thinking about leaving the hobby behind or only buying old games.

Let alone the fact that this price tag is impossible in low income countries (or even in some European markets). We can say that it's a luxury hobby anyway, but actually it shouldn't be. Doesn't make sense.

Machiavellian said:

gamingsoul said:

My point is, that model is only sustainable with lowbudget production(which can end up creating good products every once in a while)m but it is not sustainable with high budget blockbuster productions, I can live with the fact that we could have both models, but people pushing for companies like Sony and maybe eventually Nintendo to put their big games there will just kill the high budget aaa gaming market, and we will end with low budget productions just like Netflix.

people always tell me, but you don’t understand the market...well the Sony ceo just said what I have always said about gaming subscriptions, and where’s is nintendo why are they so silent about gaming services when it’s such a great deal?

Actually you are incorrect.  Let me ask you a question.  How much do you believe it cost to develop the Office Suite of software from MS.  I can definitely tell you it cost way over 5 of the most expensive game titles combined to this date.  Why do you believe that MS has 365 which is a software service that allows you to get the office suite for a sub price.  The thing is gamers have no clue about the business model and how it makes money.  Since I work and develop software within this field, I understand that when you get to a certain level of subs for your subscription, all development cost is payed for in advance and it basically pays for itself.  In order to maintain the service you must have big budget high profile games and those games pay for mid tier and smaller games.  You are thinking way to small and in the wrong way.  You see games like GTA5, GOW and all these big budget games costing a lot of money but those games cost that much money over the amount of years in development.  Sub services is always bringing in money monthly and yearly basis over that cost.  So if GTA 5 cost 100 mill over 4 years to make in development and this also include a lot of other MISC cost, during that 4 year development, the gamepass subs will be bringing in over a billion dollars every year once it reaches a certain level. 

Do you understand how this works because the business I work with the cost of developing our main software cost way over a video game but we sell it in a service sub as well as at retail.  Why do you believe a lot of the high profile big name software suites have gone to a sub base service when those software cost way more than a 60 dollar game.  The reason the business model works because money is always coming in each month and every year.  Its much easier to actually take risk and fun big budget games when its already paid for then make the game and hope it sells enough copies to make its return. I could go deeper but hopfully you are getting the picture a little better.  MS isn't experimenting with gamepass, its a proven successful model and they are 100% committed to bringing content and not low budget content but high quality big AAA because the service will pay for those projects in advance.

Yeah, I had thought about MS Office and other big software products and I saw your post. Spot on.

Last edited by 0D0 - on 28 September 2020