Sony Playstation Marketing: a quiet place in days gone?

[Xbat]

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.

 

[BRiT]

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.

 

[Xbat]

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.

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.

BRiT what fantastic new IP is Microsoft releasing in the next two years? Also sarcasm wow you know you've hit the basement of discussion when you get answered with sarcasm.

 

[BRiT]

No. The basement of discussion is ignoring everything others have been saying all along.

 

[Xbat]

What have I ignored?
I have put forward what I think to be more important. Like what happens in a debate, not once have I ignored someone.

I have put forward why possibly Sony have been quiet and what I think will have more impact is that games that are coming out accompanied with the marketing that Sony has recently been giving there games is more important.

 

[orangpelupa]

meh, whichever comes with a new high quality VR, complete with NPCs that have natural-ish interaction (doesnt even have to be humanoid, animals are okay), will be bought by me, even before pre order/release.

Moss. That bog standard platformer... have little interactions with you as the player. It felt SO GOOOOD! when it gave me high five, etc.
Astrobot playroomvr "collectibles" where they will do their animation loop and when you look at one of them, they do special animation to take your attention.... whoa.

those small things in VR felt so awesome. Next gen console surely will have much better CPU, more ram, for much better interaction and simulation. Rather than this gen with abysmal CPU but relatively great GPU.

---

years ago, i watched playstation asia livestream announcing PSVR for Asia with around 70% price premium over US price, i instantly contact the local mixed-market (sells legit and illegal PS stuff) to secure one for me. turns out sony only release PSVR in very limited quantity with only ONE retailer. But this contact of mine can deliver it to me even before the official release.

 

[mrcorbo]

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.

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.

And, separate from that, I can see how people in the PlayStation ecosystem could be getting antsy as what is happening with Xbox is giving people more to talk about and look forward to in the short term.

 

[MrFox]

This thread has been spawned twice, and then renamed like an unwanted child.

It's like everyone would like to discuss a postmortem of the generation, but crap there's still over a year left! With lots of games! (from sony and nintendo at least, I don't follow xbox release schedule)

 

[BRiT]

It's like everyone would like to discuss a postmortem of the generation, but crap there's still a year left!

Hell forbid if there's still 2 years left.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

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. What was one of the big complaints this gen for MS? Lack of platform exclusives. What's MS done about it? Bought a number of veteran studios. So those thinking, "oh, MS now has some more studios. They're investing in exclusives," have one less reason to doubt MS.

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??

 

[Deleted member 11852]

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??

PR and marketing cost money. Unless you can be sure your marketing is hitting those you want to reach, it's hit and miss and this is the problem. As I've posted in this thread previously, marketing is both regionalised and targeted to demographics so how do Sony market to people like Nesh? If you can answer that definitively then you can solve one of the biggest dilemmas in marketing and make a pretty penny into the bargain.

What is it, in terms of Sony's existing marketing, that puts Nesh outside of those of us who are seeing plenty of PlayStation branding and marketing?

 

[Metal_Spirit]

It's up to developers to make those decisions. MS and Nintendo provide support for the underlying framework to make it happen.

Honestly, I think a keyboard and mouse on a Nintendo console will never happen. Much less on a portable one!

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.

Yes. Games sales drop a lot after a couple of months. But you have to consider that even so, you must give value for the money to the people who paid, Otherwise they will not buy. Even if games stop the huge amount of sales after some months, one should wait at least a year before making the same product available at 1/7 of the price. More if the game had patches due to problems!

About what you wrote next, I might agree on all of it. But I have questions on all of them. I warn all that read that I´m about to repeat some previous arguments.

Do note that these questions do not exist on a service like PSNow that runs in chain with normal sales, but only for a service like Gamepass that runs in parallel with it

"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."

Yes.. you can! Mouth to mouth works like a charm. But... When you have to chose what game to buy, that works wonders. When you have 100 available, will that really work the same way? And if it works, won't that damage the remaining 99 since you can only dedicate time to one at a time?

"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."

Is this a good thing??? Delivering content over time? Episodic content?
But lets accept you manage to keep a person locked to your game like that, the previous question arrises. Won't this damage the remaining games?
And if all games start doing this does your risk really decreases?
This point may have advantages to the game maker, but not to the general public. At least I see none!

"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."

Eventually yes... Some day! But has anyone ever managed to know how many people would have to subscribe to compensate for the loss of sales?
Horizon Zero Dawn sold 10 million, God of War sold 7 million, Spider man sold 11 million. In here I have 38 million copies sold on a 90 million consoles market.
But how many real persons bought this games? 38 millions?
What if, at least 7 million bought all 3 games?
This is just an example. But the point is that not all persons spend the same. The market tells you the world has X consoles, and that it has sold Y games, and then you average things and enter the attach ratio concept. But in reality this doesn´t work like that. Some people buy a lot, others hardly spend a dime.
Subscription is very good for those that spend a lot. That's were the savings are.
So... how many will really enter that market? And how many are needed to compensate for this unbalance created for the loss of sales from the big spenders?
Can anyone answer that?

"Game Pass doesn't require the labour of creating a demo."

This is a good thing, but is a demo really a big labor?

"Data points suggest that those on subscription services are likely to spend upwards to $25 EU on DLC"

As I already stated, I doubt these values. Not saying they are fake, just saying I find them normal due to the fact that the big spenders are the ones more attracted to this. But add the small spenders, and I see this number normalizing with the one in traditional sales.

"Most games are sold first traditionally, and they can now pick up trailing revenue on game pass after the initial sell."

For now...

Then you continue:

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.

Microsoft should care were we play games. In 2013 Microsoft didn´t care for the console as a console. And the results are there.
Now they go even further, but the Xbox fans are console gamers. They want the console to be the focus. Not just one of many means to play their games.

Above all, all your message mentioned was the profits perspective. It was almost a list of the advantages producers find that will exist in these services. And I know that's what counts to companies. But that is not the point (al least for me). I know that if I charge double for something I will get double the money. And in the economic perspective I may find that very attractive. But what I have to wonder is how many people are really wanting to spend double for the product. Because if they don't buy it, I may end up loosing money.
That's what I´m questioning here. Microsoft is doing all this to gain more. But all of this seems to good in the perspective of more money. But is it good for those who pay for it?

I have doubts... real doubts...

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.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

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.

I can see another *spawn coming up! Like you, I'm curious about monthly subscriptions like Game Pass. I'm not passing judgement on whether they are good or bad but if they prove popular with consumers that will certainly disrupt the existing economic development and publishing model in gaming and it's hard to say what this will mean for both of those roles in games in 5-10 years. Not all change is bad, equally not change is good. Sometimes change is just change.

 

[Xbat]

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.

But thats my point, that I'm obviously doing a poor job to get across. I feel the majority of people are more impressed by the exclusives and it's just a small tech centric minority bothered by the no news we having.

That's been the point I've tried to make the whole time, resources are finite and you have to choose the best use of them and I feel Sony chose wisely.

Let's say hypothetically Sony hit it out the park with Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding and the Last of Us part 2 I am positive it will have a much bigger impact and most people won't even remember the quiet non news period let alone let it effect there buying decisions.

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

Well that's what I'm arguing. That using all there marketing resources to actually market there games is a better choice.

That's my point and the other point is Sony won't announce any next gen features or possible backwards compatibility until they announce PS5.

That's as simple as I can put it so that's me done .

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's a fair argument. Let the games do the talking.

 

[PSman1700]

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.

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'?

Sony has actual AAA

And there it is again, it is the only thing i see in Sony's advantage being named for the most. Again, most people don't buy a PS4 for it's exclusives, otherwise those exclusives would sell much more then they do now.
I bought my PS4 last year just for Ghost of Tsushima, i happen to like the old Japanese setting. But that's it, most PS4 exclusives are very good, but so are many other games too.

The future is i assume more about services and the like, and less about selling hardware.
Sony seems to be sitting it out and rely on just a few AAA games, it would be the one of the few big companies that just sits it out without doing much. Their exclusives aren't PS2 or even PS3 era to some extend either.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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'?

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 only thing we can really say about PS3 marketing was Kevin Butler was brilliant and Sony leveraged a superb long-term campaign to win mindshare. Let's imagine for a moment Sony did everything the same for PS3 as they actually did, only without Kevin Butler, and staying silent and just doing their thing, quietly making games. There's no 'It Only Does Everything' and nothing more to sell on than the strength of the exclusives. Would PS3 have done so well? I don't think anyone here would believe so, meaning it should be self-evident how well marketing can help win people over to your platform.

 

[MrFox]

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??

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)

They need more good marketing that everybody likes, which has no negatives. That's easier said than done, anything will be disliked by some people, including (as this thread shows) nothing. Marketing that changes the current expectations can make them lose a fraction of the existing userbase. We don't know what kind of marketing will alienate the userbase without having a LOT of marketing research data. We are puny armchair marketing directors.

The image of sony succeeding because they are focussed on high quality games instead of services is a balancing act. If they start making a lot of publicity about psnow being the future instead of just an additional service, I'll be pissed. They didn't. So I'm not pissed. They talk more about upcoming games (including VR) which makes me confident this success will continue into the next gen. What you call strong marketing from 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.

What's the split among the existing 90 million user base who want sony to focus on games or on services? We don't have a clue, but sony does, because they are knee deep in marketing research for their revamped worldwide marketing plans.

https://www.adweek.com/agencyspy/pl...cy-review-to-pitch-against-one-another/151229

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.

They are definitely working on it, do you think this will be satisfactory?
We should make a ps5 marketing pitch competition on B3D. In haiku form.

 

[PSman1700]

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.

If every other then Sony fails, as you please, then Sony probably won't get any better for sure without competition. I for one don't want Sony to continue the path their going now. I don't want Sony, MS nor Nintendo to fail. The only advantage PS has now are a few exclusives. I really hope Sony doesn't believe that that will automaticly gain them another generation 'win' over MS. Could very well end up like 360/PS3.
Again, it's not the exclusives that make the system, most haven't bought or own a PS4 for them.

 

[BRiT]

Right now they are not, until the games start winning awards left and right, with 90+ metacritics.

That's a bullshit metric and you know it. So far Sony doesn't even meet that criteria for 2019. Care to revise your criteria now?