Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What content though. This is what I've been pointing out the whole thread, Sony has actual AAA new IP coming out and that to me is all that matters and is the best form of marketing and brand building for a games machine.
You know Xbat, you're absolutely right. Microsoft definitely has no new content coming from the new studios they acquired and opened. They did it for the lolz.
And that's pretty much where I've been since the beginning. I just don't see Sony’s messaging or lack thereof *now* mattering in the long run as long as they have enough to offer when people are making purchasing decisions.Certainly true, but that has little consequence now. What matters is what people know that will sway their decision when they chose their console and place their order / pre-order in the future.
It's like everyone would like to discuss a postmortem of the generation, but crap there's still a year left!
You still don't get it. There are more people in this world to convince than just you.Oh my mistake, any content now is good enough and all the leeway and money spent by Sony nurturing and growing there first party was all for naught because any old content will do. Obviously I mean quality content for Pete's sakes, Yes Microsoft's new studios might make the greatest games ever but based on history which for me is the only way to possibly predict the future Sony's studios have them beat.
Now, you can argue that Sony don't need to do that, but what's the harm in doing that? What's the cost versus benefit? Is there a benefit? Yes! Stronger brand and reinforcing PS's position. Is there a negative? Not that I can see. So what exactly are the arguments against stronger marketing from Sony??
It's up to developers to make those decisions. MS and Nintendo provide support for the underlying framework to make it happen.
So most games finish their sell in the first month of sales, and then there is a steep drop off entirely with very little ability to pocket additional revenue later in its lifecycle, especially with used games etc.
- When subscribed to game pass, because your model is more subscription based now, you can change the way you develop titles as well as how your budget. You can spend significantly less on marketing unlike the traditional models.
- Game Pass can help mitigate risk: Your profit arrives over time, you can deploy games earlier with less content or features and add more content over time instead of taking a massive risk to develop a huge game up front.
- Your games have much wider audiences, and many more people that would normally not purchase your title can try and play it now. Resulting in additional revenue that you'd never get.
- Game Pass doesn't require the labour of creating a demo.
- Data points suggest that those on subscription services are likely to spend upwards to $25 EU on DLC
- Most games are sold first traditionally, and they can now pick up trailing revenue on game pass after the initial sell.
The point is that MS doesn't care where you play your games.
They will lose some sales on Xbox yes.
But they will gain many more sales on PC since there are bound to be more people who own Sony or Nintendo consoles and PC but only want to play a game or two on xbox.
Thank you for your time iroboto, and for debating this. I find this a very important question! I´m not trying to rebate you, just showing the other side of the coin so that arguments may surface.
You still don't get it. There are more people in this world to convince than just you.You may well have faith Sony will deliver and Ms won't, but what's good enough for you isn't necessarily good enough for everyone else.
Now, you can argue that Sony don't need to do that, but what's the harm in doing that? What's the cost versus benefit? Is there a benefit? Yes! Stronger brand and reinforcing PS's position. Is there a negative? Not that I can see. So what exactly are the arguments
What matters is what people know that will sway their decision when they chose their console and place their order / pre-order in the future.
Sony has actual AAA
These sorts of comparisons should never be made because there are so many variables at play, it's impossible to determine which ones had what impact.The 360/PS3 generation clearly shows this doesn't work all the time. PS2 was Sony's most successful console, that didn't really help for the 'meh' PS3 though. Their E3 marketing wasn't anything to go by either, wasn't that E3 2005/6 with the 'ridge racer incident'?
MS fans would light up the forums saying sony are arrogant, and are jealous of MS studios. By answering with PR sony would make it look like those purchased studios are somehow a credible threat. Right now they are not, until the games start winning awards left and right, with critical success. (I don't mean it won't happen, but those studios have yet to reach that point, which will be a credible threat)If Sony were into strong marketing, when MS bought a few studios, Sony would have rolled out some PR about how awesome their studios are and how many millions of unit sales they've had. Now, you can argue that Sony don't need to do that, but what's the harm in doing that? What's the cost versus benefit? Is there a benefit? Yes! Stronger brand and reinforcing PS's position. Is there a negative? Not that I can see. So what exactly are the arguments against stronger marketing from Sony??
PlayStation is looking to switch up its marketing efforts in a big way.
According to three parties familiar with the specifics of the process, the Sony-owned company is looking to build a roster of 3-4 agencies to handle its marketing work around the world.
These winning shops will then be assigned independent projects. But–and this is the kicker–they will also be called upon to pitch against one another for approximately 6 big campaigns throughout the year.
And they’ll all get paid for each individual pitch, hence the absence of an RFP. A person who works with the company said PlayStation was initially looking for a single agency to promote all products including games, hardware, and more but realized that it would be too large an assignment for one shop to handle.
Given that the average cost of a pitch is around $250,000, this makes for a very unique setup. (And that number came from a consultant several years ago, so it’s almost certainly higher now.)
A spokesperson for incumbent BBH confirmed that they will not be participating but declined to elaborate.
MS is causing me to double down on my expectation of them trying again to change the industry in the wrong direction, and hopefully fail.