we both know this will not being as profitable for sony as 10million x $50 = half a billion for a single title you'll need a hell of a lot of PSN subscriptions to make up the difference
the maths doesnt work out. MS plan is different they are willing to take a major profit lose now for the long term goal of being the one stop gaming place on windows, i.e. they want to surplant steam.
I think when whatever gets revealed it wont be like MS gamepass, i.e. all sony titles appearing on day 1 free to play for subscribers
At some point we'll start to get a better idea of things. But currently there's greater than 30 million Game Pass Subscribers. Plans are from 10 USD a month to 15 USD a month. So that's between 300-450 million USD a month. Or 3.6 - 5.4 billion USD a year. That's also without the cost associated with physical media, although there is the cost of licensing which varies from title to title.
Of course, the real dollar amount isn't going to be that high as MS still has their 1 USD for 3 month promotion for new users. On the flip side, Game Pass subscribers spend on average 50% more than non-Game Pass subscribers on game purchases and content. So even while paying a monthly subscription Game Pass subscribers on average are also buying more games and game content (DLC, etc.) than Xbox gamers who aren't subscribed to Game Pass. So, it's not like someone subscribes to Game Pass and they suddenly stop buying games or content. Basically this means we don't know how much revenue MS averages per subscriber (who don't technically have to buy the exclusive) versus non-subscriber (who has to buy the exclusive).
What we do know based on what MS has said is that Subscriber Revenue - Subscription fee is 50% higher than Non-Subscriber revenue. So, is that potential loss of 1st party exclusive sales really hurting them?
Sony would have to sell ~42.86 million titles at 70 USD a piece to get ~3 billion USD revenue. Of course, retailers don't pay retail to Sony for physical resale, so the number of sell through would need to be a fair bit higher, say 60+ million units for the sake of argument. And that doesn't take into account that people spend more money on top of their GP subscription while they are subscribed. Basically do people that buy Sony 1st party exclusives spend 50% more money than people that don't buy Sony 1st party exclusives?
On top of that quarterly/yearly revenue is not as variable if you have a lot of subscribers versus boom years (when you release a lot of high selling exclusives, say 2+) versus bust years (where you only release 0-1 high selling exclusives).
This isn't by any means any sort of real comparison between putting your first party titles on a subscription service day one versus not doing so. We don't have the numbers and this really isn't something that is directly comparable.
All this is meant to do is illustrate that it isn't necessarily detrimental for a company to put their 1st party exclusives on the service on launch day. If it does generate a loss in terms of the sale of a 1st party title, it appears that this is more than made up for by subscribers spending more money while subscribed than they did when they weren't subscribed.
If there wasn't a compelling business case to be made for this (IE - revenue generation) then MS wouldn't be pursuing it and Sony wouldn't be potentially showing interest in doing it as well.
Myself, I'm glad that Sony are looking into something like Game Pass (if the rumor is true). I'd love it if game developers (especially indie developers) on PlayStation could also reap the benefits of greater exposure that a subscription service brings.
Regards,
SB