D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
I think it was estimated to be around 3 million ps+ subs before ps4 launch. Pretty low compared with live gold.
- Status
I think it was estimated to be around 3 million ps+ subs before ps4 launch. Pretty low compared with live gold.
But not really low for what it did, of course. Obviously though early PS4 adapters now will want it for the onlne as well, so yeah, that's likely going to make a big difference.
Let's see if they can improve the voice chat though with that new money.
Let's see if they can improve the voice chat though with that new money.
Shouldnt that be for the better considering that people are paying for something they expect to get back in great value and also teh fact that more money can fund more games and for better quality?
I guess the fear is that presently, a top tier game can release on PS+ and only go to a few hundreds of thousands. If PS+ subscriptions increase dramatically, these top games will be given away for free to so many consumers who would otherwise buy it directly. Devs won't be so willing to release their higher quality games for 'free' and far less returns.
Yeah, that's another option, but considering they didn't really design a UI that has a lot of potential ad space, I don't see them doing that. Plus, their audience has show a lot disdain for it too. So, they risk upsetting their fan base.
One could look at it either way. They could have have used the heavy discounts & high quality free games to grow the service since it was small. Small user-base could have small losses that were worth it in the short term. But now that they jumped up in subscribers they may be less likely to take the potential larger losses. There's no way of knowing though. That's why I said it would be interesting to see how they evolve the service. This gen is going to be interesting for sure.
Tommy McClain
I've seen a paralel between Steam sales and third party Playstation Plus offerings, which to me suggests things won't necessarily change for the worse with higher subscriptions. Both are driven by similar interests - drive buzz and interests for sequels, drive dlc sales, etc.
That too, but do devs have a choice? I mean one would suspect they are getting paid for every copy either way since I suspect Sony is eating the cost & still paying the dev.
Tommy McCLain
I'm pretty cetain they do. Sony can't force them to give up their game for free on PS+ unless Sony has some pretty nasty T&C for their DD service. Although the publishers will receive some cash back, it has to be a small fraction per title relative to a full sale just going by the list prices of content given. PS+ gives as much as $100 of games away for free in a month at a cost of $10 or whatever is it to the subscriber. There's no way Sony can reimburse $100 of sales to the developers. The main balance is that a PS+ title can get money back from users who otherwise wouldn't have bought the title, which is good. As a developer, you can sell at full price at launch, discounted price some months later, and then a few nickels per user for the last PS+ subscribers. But if PS+ subscribers start becoming numerous and tight-fisted, relying on PS+ to provide their library instead of buying games at launch price, the amount of revenue going to devs will be greatly diminshed.
I'm sure it'll balance out somehow, but I can see how some are concerned that the balance will come from PS+ being reduced to B spec titles. QBert and Calling All Cars being given away because the devs realise they won't sell any more and the little cash from PS+ is better than nothing.
But of course. Sony negotiate a deal with the devs. They get paid for it.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I've always assumed that was one reason that the games offered in the Gold games for free offers weren't high profile games (unless published my MS). With the high number of Gold subscribers on Xbox, it would have potentially eaten into too many retail sales to justify the risk for publishers.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when PS+ approaches Xbox Gold Live subscription numbers. If for example 1/3 to 1/2 of PS4 owners also have PS+, what's the incentive to basically give your game away for free to 1/3 or 1/2 of the install base? And there's no way that Sony would be able to reimburse a publisher for that many free copies without potentially eating the cost themselves, thus negating any potential profit from PS+ subscriptions.
If the game sells like poo (low sell through) then there's no real harm in giving it away to people who aren't ever going to buy it anyway. But for higher profile games, it starts to not make sense for the publishers if PS+ subscribers start becoming a significant chunk of the install base..
I can definitely see the case for games that are 3-4 years old, however. Like MS giving away Halo 3 for free.
Regards,
SB
Not always.
In some cased devs don't get money.
This is an interesting read on the subject anyway: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191966/playstation_plus_good_for_.php
BTW months ago Sony sent a survey about PS+
It was a very in depth survey that covered every aspect of PS+ form quality of the service to "what features you want next" and it also asked if PS+ made me/us buy less new games.
In light of this I believe that Sony is already very informed about the risks and benefits of PS+ and that it knows what customers want/expect form PS+.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many alternatives for PS+, they can do more timed deals where the game is free for a specific amount of time and afterwards those who still want to play have to buy it at full or reduced cost. They could start releasing limited runs - first 50k get to download free to churn up time spent on the site and the associated ad revenue for clicks. Not to mention that publishers in some instances may like to know they can't count on some predetermined set dollar amount from allowing Sony to put the game up on PSN or even reimburse publishers a percentage of the monthly based on the amount of time and number of players who are playing their game.
If I had to guess I'd say there is a chance we'll more bolt on F2P stuff on PSN with micro-transactions going directly to the publisher which provides incentives both Sony and the IP holder to take the risk.
If I had to guess I'd say there is a chance we'll more bolt on F2P stuff on PSN with micro-transactions going directly to the publisher which provides incentives both Sony and the IP holder to take the risk.
For now, that's my point I think we'll see more of the PSN+ games migrate to a F2P model where you get basic access but to really experience the game you need to spend money.
Why ? ^_^
Just because Square Enix didn't pass along any of the money to the development studio doesn't mean Sony didn't have to pay to include the game on the service. They negotiate lump sum payments with whoever the rights holder happens to be. My assumption is that Sony budgets themselves a fixed percentage of the PS Plus revenue each month to negotiate these deals. One of the reasons Europe's offerings have been better is almost certainly because they have more subscribers and thus more money to spend acquiring titles for the IGC. As such, the more subscribers there are the more buying power Sony has which suggests to me that any fears of the IGC getting worse because there are too many subscribers are unfounded.
- Status