Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread

@Peach64

I downloaded it earlier and played a quick couple of rounds and had fun so looking forward to playing it more. Glad it's on PS Plus so it gets attention

@Octane

Your perspective on subscriptions is based on how it might affect developers?

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I'm calling your bluff on that. I don't think anyone is that selfless. Your opinion must surely be driven by your own interests in some way.

Besides, they're obviously not idiots. Each developer and platform holder will work to maximize their own benefit from it. They're not gonna just put a brand new game up on Gamepass if it loses them money compared to the regular retail alternative.

Subscription is supposedly not sustainable for music or film or games or anything, yet we're getting ever more subscriptions and every less of anything else in all of the above. Sales at scale matter, but more importantly, if there's anything investors hate, it's unpredictable income. Subs mean loyal, stable, income which does have value for investment versus the feast or famine traditional sales. I think that's the big thing with it going forward. Investors would rather throw money at stable scalable revenue streams (for now.)

I don't think it's inherently unsustainable, but I do think there's a lot of unkowns for the long term.

The numbers work worst for Sony than any other company though, IMO. Nintendo, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Ea, Activision.....they have a lot of evergreen titles. When you buy MK8, Splatoon, Halo, Forza, CoD, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, you're probably not going to be selling that game. It's an online environment, shared world, pick up and play arcade experience, big sandbox, etc. etc. So you're not going to sell the game, and thus y ou're going to keep subscribing to maintain access to it and keep picking it up.

Sony focuses on the single player cinematic games more than any other company. That's their strength, but it also means they're in the worst position to monetize subscriptions. You play through the game once and 10-50 hours later you're done with it probably forever. You can sell it (and others buy used games cheap) - and you don't have to sub for it anymore. So their sub retention would be much much worse than other companies as it would encourage more "I'll buy it for a month to play the new game, then drop it" more than encouraging unending subs.

So far Netflix and music services haven't upped prices despite everyone assuming they would. They added more premium services (hi rez audio, 4k video, etc.) at higher prices, but scale is apparently generating profit. Even Tidal didn't go down even though everyone thought it would. It's expanding, actually and introduces periodically a discount for a rare annual sub. I think subs will grow....but I don't know that Sony could really make use of it without changing their game design...which would probably be a damaging change.

Also, developers complain about high costs, but initial sales for 2 weeks that crash and then are followed by steep discounts to continue momentum, versus steady vailability and royalties for play might amortize different than we'd think over a longer term. Traditionally once the game launch hype is done the game just trickles along unless it's a hit. Then the discounts come. Even Sony 1P gets the handout treatment. HzD was half price in, what, a month or two? Verus subscriptions and keeping the game available means more pick up and try it and a cut of that continuous gamer revnue goes to you. So it's about keeping hype and attention out so more people try it than would have rather than generating that initial launch/holiday sales pattern. There's good and bad, but I see the angle on it. Plus Game Pass games come and go so it's like rental availability for a period of time in your local store with an all access membership. Phil Spencer has said Game Pass has actually lead to an increase in game purchases, and admitted it seems counterintuative but is true. Discounts to subscribers help spur the "well I get a discount, maybe I'll buy..." mentality. It's worked on me.

@Octane "I'm subscribed to Spotify (on a family plan), but I still buy vinyl every month."

@Dezzy No, how it may affect games. And since I play them, I care about them. So yes, it's purely self interest. Same reason as to why I think micro-transactions negatively impact game development, because publishers want incentives in their games that make us buy them. Therefore affecting the game in a way that wouldn't have happened if they didn't exist.

@Octane

Lol ok, well at least I can believe you now.

I don't really see your point though. Micro-transactions create an obvious bad incentive structure. But what's the new incentives that are created by a subscription approach as opposed to the standard retail approach? It seems to me from the developer's point of view, they'd end up being pretty much the same. I assume the service holder will deliberately structure their finances in a way so that it basically simulates the retail approach anyway.

The only risk I can see in that area is if they paid developers in a way that was unconnected from the downloads of their game. THAT would certain create a market distortion. But I don't see why they'd do that?

We'd need more actual info about the details of how it works, between MS & their studios to get further....

@Dezzy That's why I drew the parallel with Netflix. It's quantity over quality. Netflix isn't going to produce a big blockbuster film, because why bother? Those are expensive to make, and they're not asking movie ticket prices to watch them. You're paying a flat rate every month. They already know their monthly income, and will budget their projects in such a way that they're guaranteed to make a profit. In a way it's less risky. So with a game sub, a publisher already has a steady income, and budget their games accordingly. I think that there's less incentive to put a ton of resources into a game. With individual game sales it's a risk vs reward. A big expensive game can pay off if they manage to sell well (usually when they're good); and apparently the risk if worth it if you look at the industry.

I think it's no coincidence that Microsoft has released a bunch of B-tier games, like State of Decay 2, Crackdown 3, Recore, Sea of Thieves (definitely at launch at least). I don't think those are games people were highly anticipating. But since it's on GamePass ''I'll check it out''. That's the mentality I'm getting so far. And I get it. If I were subscribed I'd probably check them out as well, since it's basically ''free'' at that point.

That's why I can't see Sony doing a GamePass like service anytime soon. Not for that price at least, and not while they're still producing games like God of War, The Last of Us Part II, Horizon 2, etc. And personally speaking, I'd rather play The Last of Us Part II than State of Decay 2. I rather have them fight for my money with a high quality game, than something they can just release on a service and expect people to play it because they are already paying for it anyway. And maybe I'm exaggerating in some areas. But I do think it's inevitable that a future where game services are dominant, will start having an effect on game development.

@Octane

Ok, I see your point.

Although it's not necessarily quantity as much as it is frequency. It could be lots of B-tier games, or it could just be permanent service-type games. Like Sea of Thieves was. Or GTA online type stuff, which I imagine Halo will probably try and emulate. All they need to do is tie gamepass into the microtransactions for an online multiplayer in some way, and they're sorted.

You're probably right that they'll slightly move away from these big AAA releases like God of War and The Last of Us though. Which is sad if they do, because that's what I like. Although if you think about it, Nintendo does pretty well without having that many huge big budget games. I mean Nintendo only really has like 4 or 5 huge franchises, but then they have like a dozen B-tier ones below them to fill the gaps, and that works quite well.

Honestly after thinking about it a bit, I realize now that if Sony hadn't bought Insomniac while they still had the Spider-Man game license, the whole thing about Spider-Man being a PS exclusive character in the Avengers game probably wouldn't have happened. That is honestly the only logical reasoning for Spider-Man specifically being an exclusive character I can think of because while it's Crystal Dynamics making their own version of the character, Sony owning the developer who has the license to make games around Spider-Man probably meant they had an easier time working out the exclusivity deal in the first place. I bet they just rolled up with a big bag of money just for the other extra content.

It's honestly weird seeing Spider-Man games now basically being treated like a new PlayStation IP because it basically signals that Sony has some degree of control over almost half of the character's media presence since they already have the film rights.

@Dezzy Yeah, and to be fair. I only buy a handful of Nintendo games as a result. Not saying that ''big & money'' = ''better''. But I rather pick God of War, knowing they put a lot of care and detail in that game, than a throwaway title like Mario Tennis. Especially since they're both €60 usually. I feel like I get more for my money by buying the former. And it's been one of my critiques of Nintendo lately. Too much focus on filler titles and ports/remasters. The Wii U times felt more exciting IMO, as I'm just sitting here waiting for the next Pikmin, Zelda or Metroid.

@TheFrenchiestFry I don't think Insomniac ever had the rights to the Spider-Man IP. If anything, it's probably a deal between Sony and Marvel. Since Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man in movies, and Marvel wants to use Spider-Man in their films. So Marvel gets to use Spider-Man in films, and as a result Sony get exclusive rights to Spider-Man in games. That makes more sense to me at least. I think it's also in Disney/Marvel's interest to promote Spider-Man on PlayStation, fully knowing that Spider-Man: Miles Morales is coming up, and that the inevitable Spider-Man 2 is in development as well.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/indie-publisher-smaller-gam...

Wondered what the board thought of this? I know I haven’t bought an indie game since the Switch came out as the portability makes them far easier to play in short bursts. Plus I wonder if Sony can turn this around for the PS5?

@MrGawain can't really make a sound judgment based on one person's feedback. I know he said he "heard" it was bad from others but that doesn't mean much either really.

@MrGawain Never heard of the game TBH. It seems to have come out on Steam last year. Maybe that didn't help its launch either IDK.

Weird story though. They just released their first game on PS4, it didn't do so well, and then they're saying ''that the publisher will likely not put any additional games on the platform, moving forward.'' So that's pretty much EA's response to Nintendo systems

Right, well that lines up with my thread about graphics from last week. Feels like the 3 "biggest" games on the Switch all came out in the first year. Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade 2.

Pokemon and Fire Emblem are both quite big games but both felt a bit low-budget, and definitely can't compare with something like God of War in the production values on offer.

Looking forward though, we have the next Zelda which will be huge. Metroid Prime 4 and Bayonetta 3. The next Monolithsoft game, and the next 3D Mario game. All of those will probably be pretty big budget affairs. I'm also hoping the next Fire Emblem and Pokemon games are a bit more impressive presentation-wise. All of those are likely to be on the Switch.

@Octane Well the thing is some of the guys over at Marvel Games have actually been really vocal about how Insomniac is basically succeeding Activision as the official Spider-Man developer, going as far to acknowledge that got ahold of the license after Disney Interactive dissolved and in-house game development for stuff like Disney Infinity stopped. Based on the way they worded things, I doubt this is going to be just a short deal, especially due to the fact Miles Morales exists and they set up a crap ton of plot threads based on that secret ending in the PS4 game. Considering Insomniac was given the license to develop the IP in 2014, it's DEFINITELY not an extension of the deal with Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios sharing the film rights, because talks for that began in late 2014, but the deal wasn't officially struck until early 2015.

@Dezzy I'm willing to put Splatoon 2 on that list as well. Because the scope of the game and support rivals pretty much every other big Nintendo game. And it has a decent single player campaign as well (and even single player DLC).

@TheFrenchiestFry I guess it's just all a happy coincidence in that case. Sony acquiring Insomniac, having the Spider-Man movie rights and a deal with Activision. Looking back, that acquisition makes even more sense.

@Octane

The only reason I didn't include it is because it's so similar to the first game, so they probably didn't need to put that much of a budget into it.

@Dezzy Yeah, that's probably true. The basics of the game were already there.

Honestly hearing early impressions about the Avengers beta is making me really wary on this game. It just sucks that no other Marvel characters can get the video game treatment Spider-Man does on a near regular basis. This sounds like the kind of game that will only be worth its asking price like 3 years after launch.

@TheFrenchiestFry Yeah, it sounds like it's a Destiny type of game. Definitely a looter shooter type of deal. And I'm simply not interested in those.