I can see that happening with Bungie games, if Sony don't dissolve the current agreement and management structure.
Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy
- Thread starter QPlayer
- Start date
I can see that happening with Bungie games, if Sony don't dissolve the current agreement and management structure.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
There are been a fair few takes on this since the initial information broke yesterday, but if Microsoft are sincere about wanting to bring games all gamers regardless of platform, then widening your customer base is the way to do it and becoming a true third party publisher and releasing games on as many platforms as possible looks to be the way to achieve that.
I would be sorry to see Microsoft leave the console hardware market, but after 22 years, they're still in third place. I am utterly baffled how Xbox Series has sold less than the Xbox One consoles but here we are. Without a counter, I am concerned that Sony may become both complacent and lazy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Before I start, just to make sure everyone is on the same page with how I use competing and non-competing platforms. A competing platform is one where you are in competition for a limited pool of consumers (PS5 and Xbox Series consoles are obviously competing for the same pool of players). Non-competing platforms are ones where the pool of consumers is almost entirely (like say 95-99%) separate. IE - if you offer a title on X platform but not Y platform, the vast majority of Y platform isn't going to bother investing in X platform just to play the title that is exclusive to X platform. So, for example, PC is basically a non-competing platform to PlayStation and Xbox as is mobile. Now on to the meat of the post.
You've seen my posts so you know that I've been speculating for a while that Microsoft's actions the past few years have indicated to me that they've been moving towards diversifying their games to other platforms where it makes sense.
In this case, anything that requires a large player base for success (multiplayer games) is potentially a multiplatform game for MS while anything that doesn't require a large player base is potentially console promotion material (IE - remains console exclusive or becomes console exclusive in the case of acquisitions).
Of course, there's all kinds of caveats. Halo for instance is both a single player and multiplayer game. But it's interesting to look at that and see that the single player campaign in Halo: Infinite is basically just a DLC for the base multiplayer game. There is a possibility that part of why that was done is so that MS would have the option to release the multiplayer portion on competing platforms (like PlayStation) while keeping the single player campaign on non-competing platforms. I don't know how that would work out WRT public perception and that could face a fair amount of consumer backlash, but I'd certainly be interested in seeing that hypothetical scenario play out.
Anyway, back to the point, that's why I never had any doubt that COD would remain on PlayStation for as long as COD games are made (over 10 years if they are still making them over 10 years from now). As well, why it's not surprising that MS are considering releasing Sea of Thieves on PlayStation.
Here's where caveats to a multiplayer = multiplatform and single player = non-competing platforms becomes interesting.
MS wants to keep as much of the console hardware market as they can since they get a 30% cut of any 3rd party game sale. Hence why they want single player type games, which don't need huge on-going player bases in order to be profitable and remain relevant, to be exclusive to non-competing platforms.
However, what if the profit potential of a single player game sold on a competing platform is equal to or greater than (maybe even just has to be close enough) the 30% cut of all 3rd party games sold to the install base of the console hardware that you manufacture? Likely just one title wouldn't be enough to qualify, you'd need multiple titles to get to that metric.
And MS now has an opportunity to try to figure this out with all of their recent acquisitions. Starfield is a huge data point. Their data analysts are likely looking at the numbers to see if it was worth having it be exclusive when compared to the historical trend of revenue/profits of past Bethesda (developer not publisher) titles. They'll likely look at that an then try to extrapolate that to future Bethesda titles an compare it to data from the console hardware business. This will likely be happening with other big single player titles from any of their acquisitions.
That will likely determine if they want to transition away from making console hardware (which is becoming increasingly more difficult to manufacture at console consumer acceptable pricing levels) and if so, at what install base would it make sense to transition? IE - if you predict an EOL (end of life) install base of 60 million units, all of that 30% revenue from all games sales might be too much to give up. But what if you're EOL install base falls below 30 million? Suddenly it becomes a lot more attractive to have those big single player experiences available to a larger pool of potential customers. Especially if you have a LOT of studios, which MS now has. That can be leveraged as exclusivity to keep a large enough install base of console hardware, but it also requires a large install base of console hardware in order to justify making any of it exclusive to non-competing platforms.
TLDR: MS currently still wants to continue making console hardware due to the revenue generated from 3rd party game sales, however, there are scenarios where it could become more profitable for MS to go 100% multiplatform on competing platforms even at the risk of losing (or perhaps deliberately moving away from) their console hardware business.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I fundamentally disagree on this point. I am sure there are some people who game on console and would not consider a PC, or who game on PC and would not consider a console, devices are just a vector to demographics of consumers who play videogames. When you look at AA/AAA games, they seem to be more alike than different given most publishers are neutrally multi-platform.Non-competing platforms are ones where the pool of consumers is almost entirely (like say 95-99%) separate. IE - if you offer a title on X platform but not Y platform, the vast majority of Y platform isn't going to bother investing in X platform just to play the title that is exclusive to X platform. So, for example, PC is basically a non-competing platform to PlayStation and Xbox as is mobile. Now on to the meat of the post.
You also have to ignore Sony developing the PS4 Pro to mitigate PS4 users migrating to PC versions of games towards to end of that generation. Sony's Andrew House made this clear in his interview with The Guardian:
Regarding the PlayStation 4 Pro, Andrew House suggested the Xbox wasn’t even being considered its main competition. Rather, it was the PC. “I saw some data that really influenced me,” he said. “It suggested that there’s a dip mid-console lifecycle where the players who want the very best graphical experience will start to migrate to PC, because that’s obviously where it’s to be had. We wanted to keep those people within our eco-system by giving them the very best and very highest [performance quality]. So the net result of those thoughts was PlayStation 4 Pro – and, by and large, a graphical approach to game improvement.”
We don't know Microsoft's motivation for creating Xbox One X, but Sony were frank about losing PlayStation owners (and game purchasers) to Steam. And it was clearly a sufficiently large number to create this whole new product (PS4 Pro). And PS4 Pro was clearly successful enough to mitigate this that Sony are repeating the same strategy with the PS5 Pro.
This kind of suggests that Microsoft's bean counters didn't try to estimate the pros and cons of the acquisition relative to their position in the industry, particularly the console market, before spending $69 billion would be ludicrous. However, from internal documents released during the acquisition processes it really does appear as though not much thought was put into assessing the viability of retaining some/most/all titles are console exclusives on Xbox versus shifting to become more of an independent third party publisher. You've not mentioned GamePass which remains a blackbox of mystery in terms of economics but that it's most popular for Xbox owners and that's a shrinking market, unless GamePass becomes $30/month, I cannot see how GamePass revenue can fund the studios Microsoft now own if they intend to release the same quality games. The numbers do not add up.
It does feel like Microsoft's management, possibly even the board and/or shareholders, are taking a keener interest on seeing a return for this latest and massive investment in gaming. What we're seeing might just be leaks of internal analysis and not firm plan to bring more titles to other platforms, Sony and Nintendo consoles were both mentioned.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Almost every console player I know would never game on a PC and vice versa. I really agree with SB on this point. I don't believe the statement from Sony. I believe the One X was created because the One was somewhat weak compared to the PS4 and MS wanted to regain their perceived advantage. I agree with going multiplatform on a few key titles, especially GAAS titles like Sea of Thieves. Also this isn't the thread for GP economics, but we've gone over it a dozen times and I believe it's profitable and you don't. That's ok.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Why? And more importantly, if Sony didn't create PS4 Pro for that reason, what do you think the reason was?
Before I start, just to make sure everyone is on the same page with how I use competing and non-competing platforms. A competing platform is one where you are in competition for a limited pool of consumers (PS5 and Xbox Series consoles are obviously competing for the same pool of players). Non-competing platforms are ones where the pool of consumers is almost entirely (like say 95-99%) separate. IE - if you offer a title on X platform but not Y platform, the vast majority of Y platform isn't going to bother investing in X platform just to play the title that is exclusive to X platform. So, for example, PC is basically a non-competing platform to PlayStation and Xbox as is mobile. Now on to the meat of the post.
I see it a bit different. Some primary PC players buy a console based on exclusivities so for them a 2nd PS5/Nintendo(yikes) makes sense while XBox is an extension to PC/Windows. For primary console players PCs aren't really that interesting because they are using consoles for certain games or simply convenience/cost.
Milk a fanbase that'd pay for an interim console?
What data would Sony have that console gamers migrated to PC? There was only one generation where that probably could have been evaluated, PS3 with its largely connected userbase, But where would they get data that people playing PS3 less were moving to PC because PS3 wasn't powerful enough? For that I think you could only go on market research.
I dunno. What are your guesses where it comes from and so how reliable it is?
Edit: House's quote:
What data? How strong a suggestion? What was the numbers on those migratory players? What's their behaviour having left the ecosystem - do they come back next console, having now got a PC to invest in? It's very vague. I think it was a case of costing a mid-gen refresh, being on the fence, and then seeing this and saying, "yeah, what the hey." It's certainly not described as:
"There was clear evidence over several console cycles that mid-console players were migrating to PC and we had to give them a reason to stay with PS and stay in the ecosystem."
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I think to speed adoption. The hardcore buys new Pro units and sells or gives away their older units to little Jimmy. If you think about it, one solution to the lack of meaningful cost reductions is to sell a PS5 Pro to a guy that will sell his PS5 below cost to the next guy down the line. It's fairly clever on Sony's part really. Sony can't make PS5s for $300, but they can make PS5 Pros for $500 and then these users sell their PS5s for $300 to someone not willing to pay $500 or even $400 for a new one.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
If Ms really does put some of it's exclusives on PS5, I'm gonna be pissed. I bought a series S half to take advantage of the backwards compatibility for games, but the other half was to get the exclusives. If Ms just puts some of those on PlayStation anyway, half the reason I invested in the Xbox ecosystem again goes down the drain...
I have a PlayStation in my plans as my main machine for new games and third parties that are available. If Xboxs content starts intersecting with that it'll mess everything up
I have a PlayStation in my plans as my main machine for new games and third parties that are available. If Xboxs content starts intersecting with that it'll mess everything up
Microsoft could port 5 of the exclusives they released in 2023 to Playstation and still have 2x the (non-VR) first party exclusives than Playstation released.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
The two rumored ports make sense. Sea of Thieves to PS5 and Hi Fi Rush to Switch. I love the idea of MS having Sony and Nintendo fans paying for their games development so that they can be Day One on GP.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
That's nice. My point is I don't support them porting any of those over
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm not quite sure when the forum approach to debate was to assume everything stated was a lie and needed to be first proved, but I'll bite.
I think the most obvious datapoint would be attach rates over time. Prior to PS4, Sony launched three home consoles which sold well (to varying degrees), providing about almost two decades for consoles sold over time and, importantly, games sold over time. So a flattening or dip in attach over the second half of a generation combined with the platform sales that many publishers includes inter financials reports is a low effort way to take two data points and infer a draft off your playoff to another. No doubt Sony also get slots of data only available to industry, which we see glimpses off when leaks and court cases occur. These data points supplemented by the CS surveys that Sony send out periodically (assuming you've not opted out) which ask questions like which other platforms do you own. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's two things being discussed, the first is this Andrew House's statement just some oddly specific lie, and if so, what is the motivation and what was the real reason for PS4 Pro? The second question if you accept the statement at face value (he's not marketing guy), then if the data was sufficient for Sony to make a mid-get console once, and have another planned this generation, there has to be something in that data. Sony are not one to keep flogging at a dead horse which is why we don't have a third PlayStation portable.
Second hand consoles have also been available for next to nothing. At the time PS4 Pro, PS4 had already sold around 50m units.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Microsoft wants to buy any publisher or developer ever again, they know they need to show that they are willing to release games on competing platforms. What amounts to an indie game and a service game are prime candidates for this type of action. I wouldn't even be surprised to see larger titles eventually make their way to other platforms. Starfield GOTYE could get a release on PS5 as a full retail release, both to signal to the regulators MS' willingness to releases big titles elsewhere, but as I've augured in the past, the best way to demonstrate the value of Gamepass is to have it include games available elsewhere at full retail price.
Bit extreme. I'm just questioning, rather than taking at face value. Kinda hard to debate in a discussion forum if people are just taking everything written without asking questions.
Again, a bit extreme. No-one's said he was lying. I refer you again to the explicit quote you cited:
How specific is that and how much did it influence choice? Was it really a case that the only reason to release PS4Pro was to stop migration, or was that one reason and one that weighed the scales enough to make it happen?
AFAICS people are saying "the reason Sony made PS4Pro was to stop PC migration" based on the above quote alone, but it's not that explicit in my reading. There might be a dozen reasons where the PC was the standout, but being a standout might not mean a dominating presence. Maybe there were 8 reasons each worth 10% of the argument and the PC migration reason worth 20% - It's a standout reason, 2x as significant as each other, yet in itself not the only deciding factor.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Exactly. I might have been a little over the top when I said: "I don't believe Sony." What I really should have said was that "I don't believe it's the whole story about the PS4 Pro." Taking this statement from Sony at face value is naive IMO. The idea that PS gamers are jumping ship to PCs mid-gen doesn't make any sense to me. Outside of these forums I don't even know any gamers who game on both console and PC. There's zero crossover amongst the 100+ gamers I know. That's a small sample size I admit, but I'm still sticking to the idea that there isn't a lot of cross migration going on. Especially not due to graphics power.
Was Sony really worried that a PS4 gamer wasn't going to stick around for the Last of Us 2 because he wanted better PC graphics for $1000? I just don't see it. If anything they're incentivizing PC ownership by bringing all their games to PC. Doesn't seem like they're that worried about PC migration...
Someone around here was probably right when they thought the real reason was so that they could make money selling hardware to the same people again. It's that simple. You can't say that in interviews though....
Was Sony really worried that a PS4 gamer wasn't going to stick around for the Last of Us 2 because he wanted better PC graphics for $1000? I just don't see it. If anything they're incentivizing PC ownership by bringing all their games to PC. Doesn't seem like they're that worried about PC migration...
Someone around here was probably right when they thought the real reason was so that they could make money selling hardware to the same people again. It's that simple. You can't say that in interviews though....
That happened after PS4Pro decisions were made. Management could have changed attitude and direction.
I floated it as a possibility. That'd be clear if 4Pro had chunk margins. If not, it still expanded the ecosystem by pass-on for upgraders. I vaguely recall Sony telling us what proportion of 4Pros were selling to new customers. Am I wrong about that? That figure would help understand how it grew the ecosystem or not.
Actually Sony bringing PS games to PC may stem from the same worry that made them create Pro. Which is the same reason why they are delaying their games on PC instead of having day 1 releases.
In the scenario that Sony can't retain the large userbase on the consoles and are moving to PC or other platforms, they want to have the foundations on these other platforms as a fail safe. It may also be related to how Sony views game pass cross sale between XBOX and PC, where XBOX becomes platform agnostic and motivates migration from console to PC, s they want to build a presence there as well.
It's like diversifying your portfolio to manage future risk. The concept of Pro consoles do have the marketing ability to discourage some future potential or current customers from preferring a PC, potentially delaying the inevitable or by squeezing as much revenue out of the current platform as possible
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The quote of Andrew House says "I saw some data that really influenced me". I can only take for this that he said some data, and was influence by it. You could also say Andrew wHouse was influenced the data he saw. I really don't know lack clarity with these words? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Again. I saw some data that really influenced me. It suggested that there’s a dip mid-console lifecycle where the players who want the very best graphical experience will start to migrate to PC.
Where is your uncertainty coming from? He is literally say he saw some data show shows a dip mid-console generation where PS4 players start migrating to PC. He doesn't mention other data, other factors or anything else. If there were more persuading factors, why not mention them instead? Others in the gaming press re-reported this as I interpreted it.
I feel like it's time to draw a line under this, I'm not interested is debating the meaning of words so if what was said isn't convincing you then given that interview was eight years ago and Andrew House has left Sony, you're unlikely get any form of clarification.
Similar threads
- Poll