Sony Playstation Marketing: a quiet place in days gone?

[MrFox]

Even if that were true, the writing is on the wall. MS spends 1 Billion USD per month on data centre builds. Sony's revenue as a full company is 6B per year. It's not comparable. Google will be moving at the same pace.

Wow. No this is ridiculous. They have 76B revenue for 2018. They invest 5B per year on R&D alone.

Comparing apples vs apples, MS gaming division is barely above half the revenue of Sony's playstation division.

You really should look up the real financials.

 

[iroboto]

Wow. No this is ridiculous. They have 76B revenue for 2018. They invest 5B per year on R&D alone.

Comparing apples vs apples, MS gaming division is barely above half the revenue of Sony's playstation division.

You really should look up the real financials.

Sorry I misspoke -- 2018 Playstation's profits were 6.7B by mid march. I'll look up Q4 numbers, I just spoke off the top of my head. Even then, it's not going to be comparable.

MS' data centre builds are for a lot more than just gaming they would invest that amount without Xbox streaming services.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You doubt me, sir?!

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/2201...ation_dev_relations_with_Sonys_Adam_Boyes.php

I didn't recall this and having read from Adam Boyes said, he was doing his well briefed PR answer. PR Questioning 101 is if you are asked to confirm something positive and you can't say yes (because it's not true) but don't want to say no then you can say it's being considered and/or that no final decision has been made.

One of the issues with this discussion is its founded entirely on people's personal perception of what Sony are doing. It may be content is more localised, like loads in London, none elsewhere in the country.

This may well be true. Sony are of course a long-term advertiser of the Champions League so any footie fans watching this (and for at least the next couple of years - Sony's current sponsorship runs until 2021) will see plenty of PlayStation branding.

Now as for elsewhere, like ads on the internet (incl. YouTube) different people will get very different experiences because this is how ads are served now. Sony will pay Google/other ad firms to target specific demographics and if you're outside you are far less likely to see their marketing. Similarly, if you blocking ads or tracking cookies, you probably won't be seeing these ads either.

Again though, I think the concern some have is that it's only about the games. Which may sound very backwards to some, but there's no pushing of the platform. Even when there are changes, like PSNow working on any PC and mobile, there's no real coverage of it. So MS have all these ideas that people talk about, and Sony also has them and had them first but it's not really talked about, or so go my hazy impressions. Why aren't Sony making more noise for their services? Why isn't PS2 BC being advanced, stopping months after launch at a handful of titles?

It's not totally backwards, with PS3 ("it only does everything!") they did cover some of the features but those features were far less prevalent in tech than they are now. But I'm not seeing any more MS advertising than Sony, actually I'm seeing way less because of the Champions League and Microsoft don't seem to advertise nearly as much on London transport as Sony do.

But promoting something like PS Now would need to be really well crafted campaign because it's not universally available, you still need a foot (at least a DS4 controller) in the PlayStation ecosystem and even if you want in there needs to be a bunch of caveats about internet quality and so on.

 

[itch]

Why do they have a 'what's coming for PS+ subscribers' announcement every month, but are silent on what they're doing with PSNow?

Looks like they announce new PSNow titles every month as well.
https://blog.us.playstation.com/category/ps-now/

 

[Nesh]

AFAIK PS Now is not available for mobile devices? Additionally it seems the functionality was removed from Smart TVs as well? It's only available for PS4 and PC now? Ok, the only reason I can see here is that Sony might see PS Now as an extension of the PS4. In other words, they don't see it as a way to bring new gamers to the Playstation Ecosystem, but they expect that it will actually be existing Playstation users who will use the service the most. That might explain the absence of external marketing. They might expect users to find about PS Now through the Playstation Store alone.

Anyway, this is more than a marketing issue, they clearly have no idea where they want PS Now to go. Without a clear objective and strategy for it, it is no wonder there is no Marketing.

I can's stream my own PS4 on my android devices either. Only if I had an XPERIA. Why? I can do it on PC. I can on my Vita. A product with low adoption and unsuitable controls. I had issues with a lot of PS4 games on Vita due to controls, and Sony never provided the option to connect a PS4 controller on it. But on Android devices you can connect a DS4 and enjoy a larger screen. It adds value to the PS4 remote play feature without sacrificing PS4 hardware sales. It may even help sales.

Yes, Now is not available anywhere except PC and PS4 currently. It used to be available on Vita too. But it could have been available on more devices.
Even if we assume they target PS4 users, they are not doing the right moves there either. They showed off PS2 BC via PS Now and they barely expanded it. It is a mediocre execution that barely made the impact it could.
The list is atrocious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games_for_PlayStation_4
PS1 games could have also been included in PS Now or PS Store. They were available for PS3, Vita and PSP. And it was a delightful feature that surely brought more revenue.
Then we have the PS Now games. There are strange omissions and inclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_Now_games
So Sony is not really sure what PS Now should be, who is the target and how it should build it's value. If Sony is targeting the PS4 owner with a service similar to MS's Game Pass, it misses a lot of important titles. So they aren't really offering the best they could to the PS4 owner. So is the main target someone else after all? If yes, why only on PC? Sony maybe is not adding the important AAA titles that define the brand in order to not cannibalize hardware sales. But since they are doing this, it would benefit them to open up access to more devices. Why deliberately under deliver for the PS4 owner without compensating somewhere from the non PS4-user?

Yes this the big problem I was trying to highlight. There are no indications that Sony has clear objectives and strategy. Even if they do, they give the impression that they dont. Or maybe they have structural or budget issues. The reasons are our guess.

 

[Xbat]

MS' data centre builds are for a lot more than just gaming they would invest that amount without Xbox streaming services.

Yup, this is the big advantage Microsoft have and if they had done more building a larger better more productive first party stable of developers they would definitely be the Kings of when streaming becomes more mainstream. That's still 5-10 years away I feel but it won't replace physical hardware for even longer than that I think

 

[Nesh]

Looks like they announce new PSNow titles every month as well.
https://blog.us.playstation.com/category/ps-now/

This is interesting. MS' Game Pass new additions are mentioned across many gaming news sites monthly.
The PS Now additions are barely mentioned anywhere. This is the first time I learn that Sony adds new titles monthly. It shows lack of communication or inability to convey the value equally well as MS did for their own service

 

[Metal_Spirit]

There was a graph floating around the internet that showed that PSNow generates more than 50% of all subscription game service revenues. I don't know exactly what that means to Sony, but it's sizeable I suspect. The unfortunate part comes down to understanding how much profit they are making off it. It's going to require heavy investment to expand their reach.

Below may not be accurate. Of this group however, only PSNow is a streaming service. The other models are purely licensing models, so lots of profit there since the operating costs are nil. The other services included as per the bottom note can profit from in-game purchases, DLC etc which aren't reflected in this graph.

I'm very clueless on what can be done with PSNow in relation to that.

Supporting images
superdata_sub_slides-2.png
Subscribers spend twice as much on in-game content

superdata_sub_slides-3.png
Price and catalog are the most important features for a person to subscribe

This chart... it can provide answers...and raise questions.

Accepting these numbers are correct, the chart has some hidden data that we can obtain!

273 millions total in 3 months and Microsoft with 15%. This represents 40.95 millions in three months. Thats 13.65 millions per month!
Since monthly payment is 10 euros, this ammounts to a maximum o 1.365 million fixed paying users. Less if we count game sales and other purchases.
So... At the very best case scenario, Gamepass on Q3 2018 had 1.365 million users!
Not really a success I would say!

BUT....

If we go by the supporting slide 2, we have that subscribers spend an average 25$ month in extra stuff. This makes the average spending 35$ since we have to add the monthly fee.
And with 35 euros month, the service would have, in this worst case scenário, 390.000 users.

In either case, if we accept these numbers, Gamepass is not doing so well, and at the very best reaching 3.5% of the Xbox user base! (estimated at 42 millions)

 

[iroboto]

This chart... it can provide answers...and raise questions.

Accepting these numbers are correct, the chart has some hidden data that we can obtain!

273 millions total in 3 months and Microsoft with 15%. This represents 40.95 millions in three months. Thats 13.65 millions per month!
Since monthly payment is 10 euros, this ammounts to a maximum o 1.365 million fixed paying users. Less if we count game sales and other purchases.
So... At the very best case scenario, Gamepass on Q3 2018 had 1.365 million users!
Not really a success I would say!

BUT....

If we go by the supporting slide 2, we have that subscribers spend an average 25$ month in extra stuff. This makes the average spending 35$ since we have to add the monthly fee.
And with 35 euros month, the service would have, in this worst case scenário, 390.000 users.

In either case, if we accept these numbers, Gamepass is not doing so well, and at the very best reaching 3.5% of the Xbox user base! (estimated at 42 millions)

I don't think that's respective of all users (might be UK only). And it's an estimate IIRC.

Through proprietary data partnerships we collect point-of-sale and event data from publishers, developers, and payment service providers. This allows us to base our analyses on the monthly spending of over 160 million unique, paying digital gamers, worldwide.

So it's a ballpark estimate, but the Big 3 aren't handing their data over to this group.

The graph does not incorporate slide 2. Slide 1 is basically the revenue from subscription services only.

If we use their data points then it's
Gamepass on Q3 2018 had 1.365 million users.
1.365 million users * 35$
47.475 M Euro per month.
or 52M per month with very little operating costs - just paying back to the developers and pocketing the rest.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

or 52M per month with very little operating costs - just paying back to the developers and pocketing the rest.

One would hope a sizeable part of that goes to the devs, and the service operate only takes a reasonable cut.

 

[iroboto]

One would hope a sizeable part of that goes to the devs, and the service operate only takes a reasonable cut.

That part is also a large unknown.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

If we use their data points then it's
Gamepass on Q3 2018 had 1.365 million users.
1.365 million users * 35$
47.475 M Euro per month.
or 52M per month with very little operating costs - just paying back to the developers and pocketing the rest.

Wait,wait... I don´t follow you.
In that case Microsoft would get 156 million over three months. From a 273 million total. That's way over 15%

Besides, reading a lot of articles about that study, and none seems to think those numbers are anything but worldwide. Estimated, but wordwide.

 

[MrFox]

I have questions...

What would sony gain from spending more to promote psnow before the next phase is unveiled?

What do gamers gain from sony spending more on psnow publicity?

 

[iroboto]

Wait,wait... I don´t follow you.
In that case Microsoft would get 156 million over three months. From a 273 million total. That's way over 15%

Besides, reading a lot of articles about that study, and none seems to think those numbers are anything but worldwide. Estimated, but wordwide.

as per your original calculations:

273 millions total in 3 months and Microsoft with 15%. This represents 40.95 millions in three months. Thats 13.65 millions per month!
Since monthly payment is 10 euros, this ammounts to a maximum o 1.365 million fixed paying users. Less if we count game sales and other purchases.
So... At the very best case scenario, Gamepass on Q3 2018 had 1.365 million users!

If you assume it correctly, the 40.95M in subscriber fees in 3 months or 13.65 Million per month. Working out to 1.365M subscribers.

If you add the average in-game spend with the subscriber fee of 10 euros, as per your calculation it becomes 35EUR per month.
Then you just multiply through.

The original graph does not contain in-game spend. Its only estimating the subscription revenue. If you wanted to look at the full business case as to why a developer may want to join game pass or why MS is pushing game pass, then you'd add up all the related spend per subscriber.

It's a very effective program, netting MS approximately 600M in revenue per year at that point in time.

 

[iroboto]

I have questions...

What would sony gain from spending more to promote psnow before the next phase is unveiled?

What do gamers gain from sony spending more on psnow publicity?

The same reason why MS gained from promoting Xbox when they had nothing to promote.
To assure their customer base of their commitment to the service. How many articles did I have to read and rumours about MS dropping or selling xbox, especially after the disaster of XBO launch... and since Scorpio we've never heard of such discussion.

Had they stayed silent all the time, perhaps more people thought that was going to happen, and would have left even earlier for Sony.

 

[MrFox]

It's more like digital vs physical. It's a third model. They don't care how you choose to play your games. There's no reason to publicize one more than the others. I think that's what they're going for next gen. How you pay is different but since it's a service model who cares? Continue to pay if you like it, stop paying if you don't. Just like psplus. They don't have to convince anyone about how to consume their games, just making the options available.

PSVR needs a lot of publicity because gamers invest into it and devs invest into it. The publicity is substantial. It needs critical mass to be healthy. Same for any console ecosystem.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

as per your original calculations:


If you assume it correctly, the 40.95M in subscriber fees in 3 months or 13.65 Million per month. Working out to 1.365M subscribers.

If you add the average in-game spend with the subscriber fee of 10 euros, as per your calculation it becomes 35EUR per month.
Then you just multiply through.

The original graph does not contain in-game spend. Its only estimating the subscription revenue. If you wanted to look at the full business case as to why a developer may want to join game pass or why MS is pushing game pass, then you'd add up all the related spend per subscriber.

It's a very effective program, netting MS approximately 600M in revenue per year at that point in time.

I see your point... You seem to believe all the indicated income is from the monthly fees only, and as such acepting my first calculation.

Then you multiply that by the 35 (in game purchases value+ monthly fee) to get the total income.

Regardless of that, 1.365 million users on the service is way bellow what I expected...

 

[PSman1700]

The fact is, we know that currently the major competitive advantage they have that is executed well to a point, is the few AAA exclusive titles that come each year.
And that's it.

This. About 20 exclusives, of which some are on pc or are coming to pc. For a 7 to 8 year if not longer life-span, a manufacturer could offer more then those exclusives. Lets say that about half interest me, if even that. If its only this PlayStation's advantage. MS is working heavily on the AAA/exclusives disadvantage they have now, the disparity between MS and Sony could be smaller next generation in that regard.

I think it started with cross platform gaming, censorship, PSN+ not being that interesting as it was, BC and PS2 emulator. No E3 etc showing, state of play being that dislikes that sony has to re-upload it. There's also people wanting more new IP's rather then successors. We don't really hear that much from Sony if they are improving on things, its too silent.

MS has a problem with exclusives this generation, but atleast they are signaling they are improving upon this.

 

[iroboto]

I see your point... You seem to believe all the indicated income is from the monthly fees only, and as such acepting my first calculation.

Then you multiply that by the 35 (in game purchases value+ monthly fee) to get the total income.

Regardless of that, 1.365 million users on the service is way bellow what I expected...

The graph would be overly confusing if it contained in game spend which is option and mixed it with subscriber fees (no optional) and grouped them together as being subscriber revenue. Not saying it couldn’t be that graph, but I can’t see it painting the picture currently.

1.365 million users may or may not be low. Unfortunately without target numbers I do not know. I think it’s pretty successful. They drummed up 600M in revenue with a single initiative annually if we assume they don’t net any more subscribers.

 

[Nesh]

That's quite optimistic, there is no doubt sony are way ahead.

Sony did not "just bought a streaming service". They developped rack hardware with 8 ps4 per U, deployed a hybrid edge/datacenter in many countries. Linked everything together as a playstation service.

They are now preparing to deploy the ps5 upgrade. They have years of gathering real world metrics to drive the correct deployment. Which MS and google don't have because they are late in the game.

There's a few interviews with engineers who designed PSNow and there's a lot more to it than putting hardware in racks. There's a massive micro-managing of edge deployment in multiple countries making deals with large ISPs etc... It takes years of ramping up to get the right data to figure out where and how much to install nodes. Because there's no existing model to base this on yet.

MS only decided to do this after Sony's plans was shown to work. Before that they were trying to give cloud processing power to local games, which failed.

Netflix is ahead because they have years of work gathering content and figuring out how to grow. Amazon Video and Youtube Premium are not ahead despite their major advantage owning a cloud infrastructure.

You brought some nice points. But I do doubt Sony is way ahead. A little bit ahead maybe yes. MS and Google have been investing in Cloud services and infrastructure for much longer and they also have the liquidity to massively invest in various integrations to form massive economies of scope and scale. MS and Google bet their whole future existence on cloud. Any business presentation/conference you may have the chance to attend they stress cloud enormously. The road map sees almost everything eventually migrating to the cloud someday whenever that is. Although Sony may have started earlier in a proper cloud based service for games, MS and Google aren't starting from scratch.
I don't think MS was ever planning to make cloud processing such a huge point. I believe Cloud was part of the plan to initiate it and set some foundations for the future. Tying every physical copy into a DRM protection and attaching a family access was also part of it I believe. Even if Sony does have the upper hand, they need to expand the service to maintain that competition doesn't catch up.
This shouldnt count only for PS Now but also the other features where MS is already building on for XBOX One.