News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

Status
Not open for further replies.
ERP said:
I think that if there were a lot more PSN+ subscribers publishers might have been more reticent to sign up.
The bigger issue will be how they can do it on PS4 without the back catalog.
Click to expand...

Is that true? I thought Sony would just be paying larger lump sums to publishers if there are more current users. Isn't that how the model currently works? I thought having more subscribers gives Sony more money to spend on PS+ material provided. I'd have guessed publishers would be more willing to provide content then.

Depends how it works I guess. At least for Battlefield 3, the reason to put that on PS+ is to get people to spend on DLC. More subscribers would be more incentive to put content on PS+, provided Sony is paying more for the content.

Having a moderate delay between release until content goes on PS+ I think benefits publishers more than without also.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
So buy a PS4, buy a £40 PSN+ subscription so you can play online games, and get a £40-50 game free? Anyone else think the PSN+ subscription is going to increase in price? It doesn't strike me as economically viable to give premium content like that away.
Click to expand...

I think we need to know more about the actual business model. Its not uncommon for businesses to offer discounts in exchange for a guarantees and in the case of PSN+ that is sort of how it works.

If I am the publisher, would I prefer to know that I will atleast get 'x 'or can count on 'x' when I am building my business plan? In many cases yes.... You can also factor in the used game slippage as well, typically the games available are not new, they are older titles which are widely available at discounted prices at Gamestop whereas new copies may not even be available at retail anymore so allowing Sony to add a title to PSN+ and get a tail wind might be a net positive to a publisher especially if the title is due for another in the series and exposure might help attract interest in the IP.

Indies probably like it even more since they are looking for working capital and struggling with liquidity so the influx of cash and exposure could be a positive.

Movies have several ways to churn their IP, the theater, streaming, cable TV deals, rentals and DVD/Blu Ray whereas game publishers have retail and internet so PSN offers more ways to churn the IP and make money.
 
ERP said:
The bigger issue will be how they can do it on PS4 without the back catalog.
Click to expand...

Bundle 1 or 3 months of PSN+ with the console instead of a disc with a launch title (you get the limited Driveclub title)
People will get the first taste for free and next your not sleeping because your cellmate Bubba likes em fresh :p

In all seriousness, I guess the emulated titles on PSN will most likely will work on PS4 from day 1 or at least very shortly after, so there is some sort of back catalog.
If crossbuy does not mean there will be a PS4 version to, well then I will be surprised. If they can get a game to run on PS3 + Vita, then it can't be a big deal to compile if for PS4 especially if their based on the PhyreEngine. Which already supports Windows PC, PSP, Xbox 360, PS Vita and PS3 again PS4 is a logical step.

At least when your arm charing the development process like I am doing now :p

And the business model of PSN+, sorry if it already has been posted, I do not remember where I found this link first, could have been here.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191966/playstation_plus_good_for_.php
 
rockaman said:
Is that true? I thought Sony would just be paying larger lump sums to publishers if there are more current users. Isn't that how the model currently works? I thought having more subscribers gives Sony more money to spend on PS+ material provided. I'd have guessed publishers would be more willing to provide content then.

Depends how it works I guess. At least for Battlefield 3, the reason to put that on PS+ is to get people to spend on DLC. More subscribers would be more incentive to put content on PS+, provided Sony is paying more for the content.
Click to expand...

The issue with the PS+ model for publishers is what happens to sales after it's no longer free. It turns out at least with current subscriber numbers that there isn't a substantial change and sales actually increase marginally.
But the number of PS+ users is only 2-3M users rather than the Gold 30M+. Now if that holds true as the PS+ user base grows that will be all well and good, but if giving away free to a much larger group of people kills or greatly reduces future revenue then it become financially unviable.
Obviously selling DLC and microtransactions can offset that, but today as I understand it few pieces of DLC actually break even, and it will be interesting to see if that trend continues.

I actually don't think it will change FWIW.
 
ERP said:
The bigger issue will be how they can do it on PS4 without the back catalog.
Click to expand...

Well Sony could choose to offer free DLC with PS+ opposed to full games for the first months, then offer full games as soon as PS4 reaches a suitable back catalog.
PS+ could also give free online content (starter packs) for the various free-to-play that are coming on PS4.
Elusive demo of upcoming PS4 titles could also work.

ERP said:
But the number of PS+ users is only 2-3M users rather than the Gold 30M+. Now if that holds true as the PS+ user base grows that will be all well and good, but if giving away free to a much larger group of people kills or greatly reduces future revenue then it become financially unviable.
Click to expand...

Gold now offers free games to 30+ million players.
If the system is not sustainable with 30+ million players then the MS is going find out sooner than Sony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cjail said:
Gold now offers free games to 30+ million players.
If it works for MS then why not for Sony?
Click to expand...
That's a time limited giveaway of old titles. PSN offers a guaranteed flow of top tier titles that PSN+ users know they going to get, so they can decline to buy a new game expecting it to appear some time later on PSN+, and basically change their game buying and playing habits from buying new games to playing whatever they get for £40 a month. A PSN+ subscriber could consumer £200+ of games a year for £40. This article says the first year of PSN+ gave away $1800 worth of games (launch retail prices).

If I'm required to get PSN+ for online play, I'd certainly change my buying habits. I'd probably just play whatever PSN+ offers. It's like having access to NetFlix for $50 a year instead of the ~$100 it costs.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
That's a time limited giveaway of old titles. PSN offers a guaranteed flow of top tier titles that PSN+ users know they going to get, so they can decline to buy a new game expecting it to appear some time later on PSN+, and basically change their game buying and playing habits from buying new games to playing whatever they get for £40 a month. A PSN+ subscriber could consumer £200+ of games a year for £40. This article says the first year of PSN+ gave away $1800 worth of games (launch retail prices).

If I'm required to get PSN+ for online play, I'd certainly change my buying habits. I'd probably just play whatever PSN+ offers. It's like having access to NetFlix for $50 a year instead of the ~$100 it costs.
Click to expand...
Thats a very good point.

I believe puplishers/developers will change their strategy once they see drops on sales due to the "free rider" effect. I expect they will be offering less games for free, or they will be delaying to offer their biggest titles for free
 
Nesh said:
Thats a very good point.

I believe puplishers/developers will change their strategy once they see drops on sales due to the "free rider" effect. I expect they will be offering less games for free, or they will be delaying to offer their biggest titles for free
Click to expand...

I can't see them offering very many PS4 games for a while.
 
I think they will offer first party games initially (well about a year) until the likes of EA will start giving stuff away again.

I know lots of people with plus and they all buy DLC for games they got for free (Well the ones they enjoy anyway), surely this is seen as a bonus for publishers?

People who had no intention of buying the game, being delivered at Sonys expense and buying numerous (and often pointless) DLC addons, and what better advert for a sequel than giving away the predecessor for free?
 
@Shifty

Players might change their habits but there will be always titles that don't appear on the PS+ that you might want to buy.
One would either have to wait X years/months to get that very game he wants with PS+, and there's no guarantee that PS+ will offer it, OR buy that game anyway and don't wait at all.
Patience might reward those that can wait but the majority of players will not wait.

I am quite sure The Last of Us will be a PS+ title in 1-2 years but I bought it anyway because by then I will not be gamign on PS3 anymore.

Some devs/publishers that agree to offer their game on PS+ gets payed anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DJ12 said:
I know lots of people with plus and they all buy DLC for games they got for free (Well the ones they enjoy anyway), surely this is seen as a bonus for publishers?
Click to expand...
That's the upside, almost like an extended demo. But then that's basically a F2P model.

Cjail said:
Players might change their habits but there will be always titles that don't appear on the PS+ that you might want to buy.
One would either have to wait X years/months to get that very game he wants with PS+, and there's no guarantee that PS+ will offer it, OR buy that game anyway and don't wait at all.
Patience will reward those that can wait but the majority of players will not wait.
Click to expand...
The problem is the uncertainty. If I were to get PSN+, I'd be putting off buying games indefinitely because I'd hate to buy it only for it to appear on PSN+ within a month (being a cheap b******). If I knew no game would appear on PSN+ for at least a year, say, then I'd be more willing to buy tier 1 games at launch and wait until tier 2 games appear on PSN+ some time later.
 
I don't think it would change the way you buy games, you are going to want to play the same games as soon as possible, so you are going to buy them. If in 6 months time they give it away, you sell/gift the disc and keep the digital download.

PSN only games excluded, I don't think there's been anything less than a year old available for download previously. Would you not play Uncharted 4 for over a year?
 
Shifty Geezer said:
That's the upside, almost like an extended demo. But then that's basically a F2P model.

The problem is the uncertainty. If I were to get PSN+, I'd be putting off buying games indefinitely because I'd hate to buy it only for it to appear on PSN+ within a month (being a cheap b******). If I knew no game would appear on PSN+ for at least a year, say, then I'd be more willing to buy tier 1 games at launch and wait until tier 2 games appear on PSN+ some time later.
Click to expand...

It's hard to know the impact of PS+ without knowing how many people have a membership. 2 million is different from 20 million in terms of how it affects game sales. Plus with PS+ being required for multiplayer, something tells me we won't see nearly that many free games for the instant game collection and instead relying more on deep discounts. Sony has also never talked numbers.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
So buy a PS4, buy a £40 PSN+ subscription so you can play online games, and get a £40-50 game free? Anyone else think the PSN+ subscription is going to increase in price? It doesn't strike me as economically viable to give premium content like that away.
Click to expand...

Trenton confirmed in IGN video interview today that PS+ price will remain the same.

DriveClub PS+ Eddition is not a full game. It will have few tracks and few cars only.

In the early days of PS4, only indie games will be offered for PS+ Instant Game Collection.
 
temesgen said:
my guess is most of the first year PS4 stuff will be from Indie developers
Click to expand...

You will have big games on plus at E3. You can bank on that. They do it every year.

We are getting driveclub at launch which is pretty awesome. It not the full game but still is pretty awesome.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
The problem is the uncertainty. If I were to get PSN+, I'd be putting off buying games indefinitely because I'd hate to buy it only for it to appear on PSN+ within a month (being a cheap b******). If I knew no game would appear on PSN+ for at least a year, say, then I'd be more willing to buy tier 1 games at launch and wait until tier 2 games appear on PSN+ some time later.
Click to expand...

Well it is in the interest of publishers not to release games on PS+ soon after the street release.
One might be a cheap b****** an not want to buy anything but they are greedy b****** too and they won't let us exploit the system to their disadvantage ;)
They won't discourage the purchase of new games.

Also one might want to actively shape his library and not be at PS+ mercy.
There are several selected games I really want to play even if I know that there's a chance that they could appear on PS+ and I buy them anyway because to me that is still money well spent...stingy tightwads might think otherwise of course.
Then I get everything PS+ throws at me anyway.
PS+ can be your main library, I don't see anything wrong with it, but personally I am not letting PS+ choose for me.

Now there is a good change that Shadow Fall on PS4 will at one point be a PS+ title BUT do I want to wait X months/years to get it or I wan to play it at launch?
The answer for me is: I want to play it at launch, for several reasons.
On the other hand I might just not buy Watch Dogs on PS4 and wait, hope, for it to arrive on PS+.

P.S.
I have though to confess that I like to think that by buying games I support developers so my first choice is always to buy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drive Club and the 4 indie games were mentioned at E3 - this is nothing new.

If Sony were smart they would offer a PS+ pack for £370 (effectively half price PS+ for the first year).

At launch that means everyone gets Drive Club PS+ edition (like GT5 Prologue) and a new indie game every month as well as online play. They couldn't go wrong, after a year folk will have a dozen games and understand what good value it is. I've had PS+ since day one and it's awesome.

I agree with Shifty, I tend to buy games I really must have at release only (The Last of Us being a great example) - I then tend to pick up games after the initial price-drop or eventually from the bargain bin. However I don't mind games eventually being on PS+ and here's why, I have an asset to sell - in fact I'd say that PS+ has been effectively free to me, InFamous, RDR, Just Cause, LBP and loads of others - all games I managed to shift on so effectively put towards PS+

Out of interest (and I know it's off topic) but 30m gold subs? Really? nearly 50% of all X360s have a gold sub? I'm shocked, surely that stat is that they have had 30m sub at some point...they can't all be active?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top