By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony World Wide Studio Boss Hermen Hulst Q&A - Confirms Horizon Zero Dawn Coming To PC This Summer

Cerebralbore101 said:

MS spending money to fix the problem doesn't change the fact that many people were buying multiple 360's due to the RROD issue. 

My point is with healthy competition, the userbase divides, Sony went from 150m customers to 80m, Xbox went from 30m customers to 80m and Nintendo went from 20m customers to 100m customers. This gen the competition wasn't healthy until the S and Switch released however that was midway through the generation.

You still don't see the forest for the trees. Roughly 30 million of the sales loss from PS2 to PS3 had nothing to do with competition. It had to do with Blu-Ray not being as revolutionary as DVD, with many countries not getting an affordable PS2 price until 2004-2007, and with the following gen being disappointing early on (which led to people still buying and sticking with the PS2 until 2008). https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/05/ps2_most_played_2008_nielson_yearly_roundup/

10-20 million of the 360's sales had nothing to do with competition either. It had to do with RROD. 

And again with Wii. Nintendo didn't reach that 100 million number by stealing (A.K.A. Competition) gamers from Sony, or MS. They made it by getting Grandmas and Soccer Moms temporarily into gaming. As well as getting many people to buy Wii as a cheap 2nd system. 

If we take the historical context into account, the difference that competition made would be Xbox 360 gaining 40 million users, PS3 losing 30 million users, and Nintendo gaining 30 million users over GameCube. 

You remind me of rural Texans thinking they can secede from the union with just a citizen's militia. They'll say that the 13 colonies rebelled against the British Superpower and won, with just a simple militia, therefore Texas can rebel against the USA and win. 

But just like you they ignore the historical context. Britain was thousands of miles away, and fighting a war with another superpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783) Colonial times were unique in that the citizenry had weapons on par with the military of the time. Today, civilians do not have military grade weapons. 

Switch is definitely healthy competition, but the S? XB1 weekly sales numbers are still half to a quarter of PS4 weekly sales numbers. That's not healthy competition. Also remember that Switch has massive crossover appeal. Nintendo is rarely stealing sales from PS4 or XB1, but rather getting people to buy a Switch as a 2nd system. 

Anyway, my point here is that yes competition can even out sales, but it is not the be-all end-all of sales. There are other factors that come into play, and those need to be accounted for in order to see the bigger picture. 

P.S. I agree that 360 did indeed do more software sales. But it's console royalty fees that ultimately make more money for a console, not individual software sales. MS didn't have better profit margins than Sony because they were making a boatload of money directly from sales of Halo 3's, and GoW's. They had a better profit margin because every 3rd party dev had to pay a $10-$15 console royalty fee per game sold. And having games like Halo, GoW, Fable, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, etc indirectly helped them with that goal, by moving more console units, which lead to more 3rd party sales, hence more $10-$15 royalty fees racked up. 

I am referring to the Xbox brand and the decision making and next gen planning. 

Like I said, hazy, non-objective, marketing terms. 

Come now Cerebral, if you are going to make claims of RROD increasing 360 sales, can you prove it rather than just randonly make up numbers?

RROD was covered by warranty, so any one buying a new console while still under warranty sounds alittle unbelievable.

Also dont act like the PS3 had a clean bill of health, they also had there fair share of issues like the Yellow Light problems and the firmware update that bricked systems.

Those PS2 owners went on to buy a Wii or 360 at launch, not all of them waited for PS3, another speculation of yours. I knew many gamers who jumped from PS2 to 360 just like i know many gamers who jumped from 360 to PS4. Whoever holds the markering strenghts wins the audience.

Also you forgot to add that the 360 was also making billions off Live Subs which the PS3 didnt have including the fact it sold more software and accessories etc.



Around the Network
src said:

You don't get to declare whats popular. Numbers declare whats popular. The numbers show UC4 was a lot more popular as GOTY so you're once again wrong.

Oh and you are also showing how US centric you are. Gaming is a worldwide industry. US =/ the World

You basically proved my point. 

The entire point went over your head. Awards and reviews are all subjective, you can pick and choose what you like, popularity doesnt mean better. Much like a bad sports team having more supporters than the good sports teams having less supporters. Id choose quality choices over random, unknown or smaller sites etc. 

However like i said, i could care less what game wins what but if i did id go for the more trustworthy and history proven sites not a bunch of no names.



last92 said:
Random_Matt said:

One game and people explode.

One game is all it takes to set an important precedent.

Rumors about ND games coming to PC, as well as previous comments by Cory Barlog regarding GoW, strongly suggest that many PS games will come to PC. I'm not exploding. I'm just making informed decisions based on available information. PS exclusives were literally the only reason why a have a PS4.

You always buy the exclusives years later?If you have no problem waiting 3 years than yes you could play them on pc but i reckon the mayority of fans from those ip,s would like to play them earlier than that.

This is a good opportunity for Sony to make more sales and try to bring more people to PS for next installments.



src said:
last92 said:

One game is all it takes to set an important precedent.

Rumors about ND games coming to PC, as well as previous comments by Cory Barlog regarding GoW, strongly suggest that many PS games will come to PC. I'm not exploding. I'm just making informed decisions based on available information. PS exclusives were literally the only reason why a have a PS4.

Herman specifically said this is not a precedent though. There are also no credible rumours of other SIE titles coming to PC other than wild speculation. 

You say informed, yet the very basis of your decision is the opposite of informed: speculative. 

I'm honestly surprised that you have so much faith in a Sony executive's words. Of course he'll say this is not a precedent a few months before the release of a new console. But what he says is not important, especially because he technically didn't say that HZD will be an exception. What's important is that a Sony founded first party exclusive is coming to pc after months of rumors that also said that more games will follow and while ND is/was looking for programmers that can work on nVidia hardware.

This is more than enough for me. I'll wait a few years before buying a PS5 and if more exclusives come to the PC I'll skip it entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Sony's taking too many questionable decisions lately, and this is just the one I can't let slide, especially now that pretty much all japanese devs (bar Nintendo) are releasing their games on the PC.

 



Azzanation said:

FF7 is not made or own by Sony, behind the scenes is a company deal to make it console exclusive even through the OG FF7 is also on PC, Switch and Xbox. The entire Remake is anti-consumer because Sony is stopping it from appearing on other devices. Understandable if Sony owned or made the game but they don't and the game is locked from Nintendo and Xbox users. 

You can’t honestly think FF7 remake was going to be on Switch if it wasn’t exclusive.



Around the Network

This isn’t a game going to PC on day 1, it will be well over 3 years old by the time it releases.

I don’t know how far they are with HZD2, but I think Sony might be trying to get some attention for it in the PS5 launch window, maybe March 2021.



Sony's not going to put all their games on PC unless their few late ports add some extra 40%+ to the total copies sold, and only if PS5 hardware sales don't see a significant decline. There is a big difference between porting out of greed and porting out of desperation/necessity. Sony is being greedy here, not desperate. They would be sure to cancel any further porting ideas as soon as their profits decline.



Jabba89 said:
This isn’t a game going to PC on day 1, it will be well over 3 years old by the time it releases.

I don’t know how far they are with HZD2, but I think Sony might be trying to get some attention for it in the PS5 launch window, maybe March 2021.

Considering it’s a running joke that Steam users have massive back catalogs, many may just wait if some exclusives will eventually come to Pc. 3 years, 5 years...they got nothing but time and hundreds of unplayed games to keep them occupied. 

If Sony wanted to hype people up for the sequel they should keep it on PS Now instead of taking it off. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Azzanation said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

MS spending money to fix the problem doesn't change the fact that many people were buying multiple 360's due to the RROD issue. 

My point is with healthy competition, the userbase divides, Sony went from 150m customers to 80m, Xbox went from 30m customers to 80m and Nintendo went from 20m customers to 100m customers. This gen the competition wasn't healthy until the S and Switch released however that was midway through the generation.

You still don't see the forest for the trees. Roughly 30 million of the sales loss from PS2 to PS3 had nothing to do with competition. It had to do with Blu-Ray not being as revolutionary as DVD, with many countries not getting an affordable PS2 price until 2004-2007, and with the following gen being disappointing early on (which led to people still buying and sticking with the PS2 until 2008). https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/05/ps2_most_played_2008_nielson_yearly_roundup/

10-20 million of the 360's sales had nothing to do with competition either. It had to do with RROD. 

And again with Wii. Nintendo didn't reach that 100 million number by stealing (A.K.A. Competition) gamers from Sony, or MS. They made it by getting Grandmas and Soccer Moms temporarily into gaming. As well as getting many people to buy Wii as a cheap 2nd system. 

If we take the historical context into account, the difference that competition made would be Xbox 360 gaining 40 million users, PS3 losing 30 million users, and Nintendo gaining 30 million users over GameCube. 

You remind me of rural Texans thinking they can secede from the union with just a citizen's militia. They'll say that the 13 colonies rebelled against the British Superpower and won, with just a simple militia, therefore Texas can rebel against the USA and win. 

But just like you they ignore the historical context. Britain was thousands of miles away, and fighting a war with another superpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783) Colonial times were unique in that the citizenry had weapons on par with the military of the time. Today, civilians do not have military grade weapons. 

Switch is definitely healthy competition, but the S? XB1 weekly sales numbers are still half to a quarter of PS4 weekly sales numbers. That's not healthy competition. Also remember that Switch has massive crossover appeal. Nintendo is rarely stealing sales from PS4 or XB1, but rather getting people to buy a Switch as a 2nd system. 

Anyway, my point here is that yes competition can even out sales, but it is not the be-all end-all of sales. There are other factors that come into play, and those need to be accounted for in order to see the bigger picture. 

P.S. I agree that 360 did indeed do more software sales. But it's console royalty fees that ultimately make more money for a console, not individual software sales. MS didn't have better profit margins than Sony because they were making a boatload of money directly from sales of Halo 3's, and GoW's. They had a better profit margin because every 3rd party dev had to pay a $10-$15 console royalty fee per game sold. And having games like Halo, GoW, Fable, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, etc indirectly helped them with that goal, by moving more console units, which lead to more 3rd party sales, hence more $10-$15 royalty fees racked up. 

I am referring to the Xbox brand and the decision making and next gen planning. 

Like I said, hazy, non-objective, marketing terms. 

Come now Cerebral, if you are going to make claims of RROD increasing 360 sales, can you prove it rather than just randonly make up numbers?

RROD was covered by warranty, so any one buying a new console while still under warranty sounds alittle unbelievable.

Also dont act like the PS3 had a clean bill of health, they also had there fair share of issues like the Yellow Light problems and the firmware update that bricked systems.

Those PS2 owners went on to buy a Wii or 360 at launch, not all of them waited for PS3, another speculation of yours. I knew many gamers who jumped from PS2 to 360 just like i know many gamers who jumped from 360 to PS4. Whoever holds the markering strenghts wins the audience.

Also you forgot to add that the 360 was also making billions off Live Subs which the PS3 didnt have including the fact it sold more software and accessories etc.

MS Spent 1.15 billion on the RROD issue. That 1.15 billion was split between fixing broken units, and fixing machines already in stock. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2542455/xbox-360--red-ring-of-death--costs-microsoft-more-than--1b.html

"To pay for the anticipated warranty repairs, as well as evaluate and fix machines still in inventory, Microsoft said it would take a $1.05 billion to $1.15 billion charge against earnings for the quarter that ended June 30. Liddell said the charge would be equally split between repairs of already-sold systems and fixes to those still in stock."

The RROD was an issue until the launch of the S in June 2010. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-all-the-xbox-360s-broke-2015-8

"It wasn't until the release of the remodeled Xbox 360 "S" model in 2010 that the console was finally really fixed, despite years of attempts with behind-the-scenes chip changes."

By April 2010 MS had sold over 40 million 360's. 

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-360-sales-top-40-million/1100-6259832/

1.15 billion divided by two is 575 million. That's the cost MS spent to fix every 360 that was sent in. 

At a failure rate of 50% that means MS had to repair 20 million 360's at a cost of $45-$50 each. If all 20 million broken 360's had been sent in that would have amounted to 900 million dollars at $45 per repair. Far above the 575 million that was allocated to it. It gets even worse when you remember that after being repaired a 360 could still RROD. This means that a single 360 could have been sent in two or three times for a repair at $45 per repair cost to MS. From these numbers it's obvious that not everybody sent in their busted 360's. Otherwise the repair costs would have ballooned well past one billion. But as we've seen MS didn't allocate a billion to fixing the 360's sent in. 

Once the S model launched in June 2010 many people simply opted to buy a 2nd 360, rather than go through the hassle of sending in their bricked console. Lots of people like myself, sold their 360 to Gamestop before it could RROD on them, and bought an S model. 

Between the money gap, and many people opting to buy a 2nd 360 in order to avoid the RROD it's not hard to see 10-20 million extra sales appearing. 

Those PS2 owners went on to buy a Wii or 360 at launch, not all of them waited for PS3, another speculation of yours. 

I see you didn't follow my link. If you had, you would see that this claim of yours had already been refuted. 

Also dont act like the PS3 had a clean bill of health, they also had there fair share of issues like the Yellow Light problems and the firmware update that bricked systems.

Yeah it was something like a 10% failure rate, which is pretty good. The bulk of PS3 sales came after the slim model launched in 2009, which like the 360 S didn't have the failure rate of the launch model. PS3 was sitting somewhere around 25-35 million units sold before the slim launched.

Also you forgot to add that the 360 was also making billions off Live Subs which the PS3 didnt have including the fact it sold more software and accessories etc. 

I didn't forget, I just didn't feel like mentioning that. But thanks for helping my case that MS's profitability didn't come directly from software sales, but rather indirectly from console royalty fees, XBL subs, and sales of accessories. That refutes your claim that the bulk of a console manufacturer's money comes directly from software sales.



sales2099 said:
Random_Matt said:

One game and people explode.

At least for the diehard fans, imagine an entire culture imploding on itself.

The fans proudly claim that the pillar of their brand is the 1st party exclusives that set themselves apart from Xbox, especially with MSs initiative to put theirs on PC day 1. Now they can’t claim that, any exclusive is possible on PC now....people might just wait Sony out now. I’m anxious to see what the new emerging narrative will be to adapt to this new initiative. 

This is just the beginning of it. Eventually Sony will start adopting all of the initiatives MS had that were met with heavy criticism and concern trolling by the PS crowd. Big emphasis on services is already happening. First they started charging for online play, something the PS crowd swore they’d never do. Then other services like PS Vue, PS Now, etc. Their games have included the GaaS model just as much as Microsoft’s. Last of Us HD had disgusting micro transactions. Uncharted 4 had micro transactions and loot boxes IIRC. GT launched as an online service game. MLB has always been about selling Stubs. Now LoU2 will have a dedicated MP game, Im scared to see what kind of DLC stuff they’ll have in store after the first game.

As the tech advances you’ll see a bigger emphasis on cloud gaming just like we’re seeing from MS. You’ll see a big initiative towards BC now that they might be able to properly emulate PS3. You’ll see a bigger emphasis on stuff like cross buy and BC that not only works but can make vast improvements to older games. You’ll see a bigger push towards PC, because as us Xbox guys said all along, the cross over between the two userbases is just not that big. 

Even first party stuff, if this gen was any indication, will need a new narrative because Sony slowed way down and MS looks to be passing them by in terms of teams putting out quality content. ND is nice and all but if they put out two games a generation, meh? PD can make one GT game a gen, maybe two? 

It will be a very interesting generation.