Why Sony is so focused with PS exclusive title?

[e22big]

Just wondering, if they already don't make any profit on PS5 (or even sold them at losses), why bother defending the platform at all? They could just follow Epic and make their games Sony Store exclusive or something and let people play them on whatever hardware they want.

[pythonmegapixel]

People will generally buy consoles based on whether the games they want are available to play. So if games  A and B are only available for PS5, then everyone who wants to play A and B will buy a PS5,

 

Once you have a PS5, if you want to play a game available for both PlayStation and Xbox, you will buy the PS5 version not the Xbox one - and Sony makes a commission from every PlayStation game sold, even if it's not an exclusive.

 

So even if they aren't making a profit from selling the actual hardware, it's still in Sony's interest for their console to be in people's homes rather than an Xbox or Switch. It's essentially about attracting people to the platform now to give them a source of income in the future.

[SupaKomputa]

Where have you been. Sony Exclusives are coming to PC.

And PS Now you can stream most titles to any devices.

They sold them at lost, yes, but the games profit will make it up for it.

It's a printer cartridge strategy.

[SupaKomputa]

Btw Playstation and Sony Camera department are the biggest profit maker in Sony's porfolio.

[e22big]

1 hour ago, SupaKomputa said:

Where have you been. Sony Exclusives are coming to PC.

And PS Now you can stream most titles to any devices.

They sold them at lost, yes, but the games profit will make it up for it.

It's a printer cartridge strategy.

only some of them, and only an older title from what I've seen so far - streaming titles also not the same as playing natively

 

I could understand their printer cartridge stragey but why bother with the printer part when you can have people just buying your castridges anyway even at insane markup because you're the only one who make that type of castridge 

[e22big]

1 hour ago, pythonmegapixel said:

People will generally buy consoles based on whether the games they want are available to play. So if games  A and B are only available for PS5, then everyone who wants to play A and B will buy a PS5,

 

Once you have a PS5, if you want to play a game available for both PlayStation and Xbox, you will buy the PS5 version not the Xbox one - and Sony makes a commission from every PlayStation game sold, even if it's not an exclusive.

 

So even if they aren't making a profit from selling the actual hardware, it's still in Sony's interest for their console to be in people's homes rather than an Xbox or Switch. It's essentially about attracting people to the platform now to give them a source of income in the future.

so they plan to make up a profit from none-exclusive titles? I guess that make sense if people only have PS to game on 

[Kilrah]

11 minutes ago, e22big said:

I could understand their printer cartridge stragey but why bother with the printer part when you can have people just buying your castridges anyway even at insane markup because you're the only one who make that type of castridge 

1) That "printer" allows them to sell the same game for more than on say PC

2) Consoles are cheaper than an equivalent PC and less hassle, the potential number of people who could buy/play the game would be much lower if they didn't have the option of a (relatively) cheap console. 

[SupaKomputa]

7 minutes ago, e22big said:

why bother with the printer part when you can have people just buying your castridges

Cartridges are not cross compatible, you can sell them with huge markup because you literally monopolize the supply.

If say canon make a cartridge for epson, epson will need a big slice in order to make profit out of it and recapitulate the lost sales, refusal is a copyright infringement.

 

Sony releasing older titles are a smart move. At least fans of the game will experience it with newer hardware. So 2x sales from the same person.

Old games are dead stock, releasing it is new money.

[e22big]

18 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

1) That "printer" allows them to sell the same game for more than on say PC

2) Consoles are cheaper than an equivalent PC and less hassle, the potential number of people who could buy/play the game would be much lower if they didn't have the option of a (relatively) cheap console. 

for the most longest time, you could build a PC with similar spec to console for cheaper, it's just this generation when that's no longer the case

 

beside, they could just sell the console and make PC version of PS Store and make profit from both the PC market and PS market, Microsoft-style. It could limit the needed sales volume to facilitate the gaming market (which they were selling at losses) and they can resale their game again as some sort of remaster title a year or two later, most publishers do it for 2x the sales as well

 

I could understand their strategy if they are profitting from their hardware as well but not when they are selling them at losses, it's kind of strage when it comes to the finance part of it

[Totallycasual]

They want people locked into the ecosystem, if i have a PS5 and buy Far Cry 6 or GTA 6, Sony get a healthy chunk of cash for each cross platform game purchased on their platform. 

[CerealExperimentsLain]

On 6/21/2021 at 5:16 AM, e22big said:

for the most longest time, you could build a PC with similar spec to console for cheaper, it's just this generation when that's no longer the case

Every time someone says this, they ignore the following caveats: Not factoring in the cost of the OS (unless you use shady $5 Win10 keys), not factoring in the cost of peripherals, not factoring in a cost of a display (People who don't already have PCs would need monitors where as you can safely assume that most people already own a television for non gaming purposes though admittedly not all).

 

Also a lot of people don't have a space for a PC.  I'm sure a bunch won't get this, especially if you don't work in an office, but if you worked in an office in March 2020 when most offices rapidly jumped to work from home, the gamers and nerds all had desk setups ready to go, but a lot of people were setting up TV meal trays, cardboard boxes, sitting at the dining room table and all, while eventually scrambling to buy office furniture, assuming they even had a place to put said office furniture,  A console on the other hand just goes under the TV entertainment unit.

 

I love my PC, I have PCs hooked up to my TVs for gaming, but a game console is an affordable, idiot proof 'box' that you just plug into a TV and games happen.  A lot of people want exactly that and none of the fuss of PC gaming and you have to understand why that's right for them even if it's not right for you.

[e22big]

42 minutes ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

Every time someone says this, they ignore the following caveats: Not factoring in the cost of the OS (unless you use shady $5 Win10 keys), not factoring in the cost of peripherals, not factoring in a cost of a display (People who don't already have PCs would need monitors where as you can safely assume that most people already own a television for non gaming purposes though admittedly not all).

 

Also a lot of people don't have a space for a PC.  I'm sure a bunch won't get this, especially if you don't work in an office, but if you worked in an office in March 2020 when most offices rapidly jumped to work from home, the gamers and nerds all had desk setups ready to go, but a lot of people were setting up TV meal trays, cardboard boxes, sitting at the dining room table and all, while eventually scrambling to buy office furniture, assuming they even had a place to put said office furniture,  A console on the other hand just goes under the TV entertainment unit.

 

I love my PC, I have PCs hooked up to my TVs for gaming, but a game console is an affordable, idiot proof 'box' that you just plug into a TV and games happen.  A lot of people want exactly that and none of the fuss of PC gaming and you have to understand why that's right for them even if it's not right for you.

Really? I think there are way more people with just a decent monitor and not TV (or if they did, it's the ancient model from the early 2000.) OLED cost a tons more than just some 24inch 1080p 144hz monitor.

 

As for peripheral, maybe but you can game on anything if you really wanted to - for the longest time, I have just an old Microsoft membrame keyboard and cheapo mouse to game on, it wasn't when I have to process a tons of text at work that I decided to get myself a mechanical keyboard and gaming mouse (which I still primarily use it for my professional job, gaming on it is just a side benefit)   

[CerealExperimentsLain]

1 minute ago, e22big said:

Really? I think there are way more people with just a decent monitor and not TV (or if they did, it's the ancient model from the early 2000.) OLED cost a tons more than just some 24inch 1080p 144hz monitor.

Sorry, are you attempting to argue that the only viable television to play a video game on is an OLED?

[Kilrah]

2 minutes ago, e22big said:

Really? I think there are way more people with just a decent monitor and not TV (or if they did, it's the ancient model from the early 2000.) OLED cost a tons more than just some 24inch 1080p 144hz monitor.

There's a vast number of people who don't have a desktop PC, maybe just a laptop at most. Almost every home has a TV though. What TV is irrelevant.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

There's a vast number of people who don't have a desktop PC, maybe just a laptop at most. Almost every home has a TV though.

I didn't even really appreciate this, I'm older and used to the late 90s and early/mid 2000s where when you bought a 'computer' that was big ol desktop taking a big ol desk.  I knew laptops and mobile/tablets had really taken huge market share, but I was blown away when my entire industry moved to WFH just how many people who, while sitting at computers all day at work, really don't have one at home.  Maybe they have an old laptop they use when they need a full desktop experience, or maybe the focus on using a tablet/iPad or something for most situations.  I use a computer primarily, even for 'internet while chilling on the couch' I have a 15" laptop for that.  The PC gamers at the company were of course setup, but I realized how 'out of touch' I was with how few people really had full desktop setups (Or even a nice desk suitable for a laptop) in their homes vs what I thought.  Company had an email thread on 'SHow your WFH setup' in the first week or so?  Wow, half those setups were dire and improvise.  Obviously with time, many made changes and expanded their setups but some didn't even have the space and just had a full setup on their dining table.  It was really eye opening to see that this big ol desk with three monitors I have at home puts me in the minority.

[e22big]

10 hours ago, Kilrah said:

There's a vast number of people who don't have a desktop PC, maybe just a laptop at most. Almost every home has a TV though. What TV is irrelevant.

That was my idea too, I think a lot more people would use laptop these days than a PC but that doesn't mean they will always have a TV - especially when they live in a dorm with limited space

 

And when I mean ancient I meant, CRT ancient or a 1080p 43inch from the bygone era. I think a lot more would rather game with integrated graphic on their laptop than use one of those but who know may be I was wrong or it was just the situatio here. I would personlly only use PS for Sony exclusive title, never feel too comfortable with a controller, I am mouse and keyboard kind of guy.

[e22big]

10 hours ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

I didn't even really appreciate this, I'm older and used to the late 90s and early/mid 2000s where when you bought a 'computer' that was big ol desktop taking a big ol desk.  I knew laptops and mobile/tablets had really taken huge market share, but I was blown away when my entire industry moved to WFH just how many people who, while sitting at computers all day at work, really don't have one at home.  Maybe they have an old laptop they use when they need a full desktop experience, or maybe the focus on using a tablet/iPad or something for most situations.  I use a computer primarily, even for 'internet while chilling on the couch' I have a 15" laptop for that.  The PC gamers at the company were of course setup, but I realized how 'out of touch' I was with how few people really had full desktop setups (Or even a nice desk suitable for a laptop) in their homes vs what I thought.  Company had an email thread on 'SHow your WFH setup' in the first week or so?  Wow, half those setups were dire and improvise.  Obviously with time, many made changes and expanded their setups but some didn't even have the space and just had a full setup on their dining table.  It was really eye opening to see that this big ol desk with three monitors I have at home puts me in the minority.

IKR, I think some older people around my mom age would prefer a desktop (she has one for ages and never ever use a newer laptop she got not too long ago even when I begged her to just switch to it) but yonger people or even older people (my dad, who was a true and proper boomer) would prefer a mobile device, either laptop or tablet. To this day, he've never learnt how to use a computer and the cloest thing to that is his ancient original iPad

[CerealExperimentsLain]

2 minutes ago, e22big said:

That was my idea too, I think a lot more people would use laptop these days than a PC but that doesn't mean they will always have a TV - especially when they live in a dorm with limited space

 

And when I mean ancient I meant, CRT ancient or a 1080p 43inch from the bygone era. I think a lot more would rather game with integrated graphic on their laptop than use one of those but who know may be I was wrong or it was just the situatio here. I would personlly only use PS for Sony exclusive title, never feel too comfortable with a controller, I am mouse and keyboard kind of guy.

1) Well over 90% of American homes own televisions.  Ther has been a slow decline from it's peak around 97% in the mid 90s, this is mostly due to competition from 'other screens' but the classic 'Livingroom TV' remains, by a large margin, the dominant display in the typical American home.

 

2) Your '1080p 43inch from a bygone era' and 'Integrated graphics on a laptop', those are both description of unremarkable TN panel displays.  None really has a major advantage over the other.  Thinking you need a high end 'Gaming TV' to play some Xbox on, is just you forming tunnel vision based on consuming a constant feed of 'gamer media' that touts high end products.  The majority of the game playing public plays on console and they're playing on generally unremarkable TN panels.  You can get a pretty large TN TV for not a lot of money these day and they are really popular.  Most people are not buying expensive OLED displays, they're cost prohibitive when USD$500 can get you a 65" TN screen in your living room.  They hook up their Xbox or PlayStation and boom.

 

While I do have a 165hz IPS Gsync/FreeScyne 27" monitor on my TV, I also have a 65" VA panel TV from 2016.  It's 60hz, only has one port that can do full RGB 4:4:4 4K @ 60hz, it's 'fake HDR', and in game mode does an 'okay' 20ms in Game Mode, more like 36ms in normal modes.  I happy play games on this and it's a TV I expect to keep in service at least until it reaches a decade in age.

[kaiju_wars]

I have a 58" 4K TV I bought for black friday back in 2019.  It's not the world's best TV.  It has two HDMI 2.0 ports, fake HDR, and something called motion rate 120, it ain't 120Hz, but it's something.  It has Android TV also, which is absolute dogshit.

But it plays games just fine.  I have an Xbox One S.  I can watch my 4K Blu Rays and it plays Halo fine.  I play my Switch on that TV.  They all look good enough to me.  

All this arguing about TVs and TVs vs Monitors is silly.

@CerealExperimentsLainis correct about consoles and TVs.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

3 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

All this arguing about TVs and TVs vs Monitors is silly.

@CerealExperimentsLainis correct about consoles and TVs.

I call it 'Gamer Vision', when someone follows so much gamer oriented media, especially about hardware, that they lose touch with the idea of what most people are actually gaming with.  The high end products make good content but when LTT is instead looking at three cheap 4K TVs, that's the kind of product most gamers are buying.  It's like reading a lot of stuff about performance car and you forget that most people are driving blue sedans or hybrid SUVs.

[kaiju_wars]

1 minute ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

I call it 'Gamer Vision', when someone follows so much gamer oriented media, especially about hardware, that they lose touch with the idea of what most people are actually gaming with.  The high end products make good content but when LTT is instead looking at three cheap 4K TVs, that's the kind of product most gamers are buying.  It's like reading a lot of stuff about performance car and you forget that most people are driving blue sedans or hybrid SUVs.

Exactly.  Hell I buy that stuff still.  I didn't need a $2000 OLED 4K tv.  I didn't need the biggest 4K LCD TV I could find either.  Honestly I've disconnected a lot from PC gaming in recent years cause the whole community is just. "gamer vision gamer vision gamer vision."

[CerealExperimentsLain]

3 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Exactly.  Hell I buy that stuff still.  I didn't need a $2000 OLED 4K tv.  I didn't need the biggest 4K LCD TV I could find either.  Honestly I've disconnected a lot from PC gaming in recent years cause the whole community is just. "gamer vision gamer vision gamer vision."

I admittedly want a nice OLED with VRR and 120hz but I figure I'm going to just run this 2016 TV into the ground first and see what the pricing landscape looks in 2026.  If you can't get at least a decade out of a TV anyway, you wasted your money.

[e22big]

3 hours ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

1) Well over 90% of American homes own televisions.  Ther has been a slow decline from it's peak around 97% in the mid 90s, this is mostly due to competition from 'other screens' but the classic 'Livingroom TV' remains, by a large margin, the dominant display in the typical American home.

 

2) Your '1080p 43inch from a bygone era' and 'Integrated graphics on a laptop', those are both description of unremarkable TN panel displays.  None really has a major advantage over the other.  Thinking you need a high end 'Gaming TV' to play some Xbox on, is just you forming tunnel vision based on consuming a constant feed of 'gamer media' that touts high end products.  The majority of the game playing public plays on console and they're playing on generally unremarkable TN panels.  You can get a pretty large TN TV for not a lot of money these day and they are really popular.  Most people are not buying expensive OLED displays, they're cost prohibitive when USD$500 can get you a 65" TN screen in your living room.  They hook up their Xbox or PlayStation and boom.

 

While I do have a 165hz IPS Gsync/FreeScyne 27" monitor on my TV, I also have a 65" VA panel TV from 2016.  It's 60hz, only has one port that can do full RGB 4:4:4 4K @ 60hz, it's 'fake HDR', and in game mode does an 'okay' 20ms in Game Mode, more like 36ms in normal modes.  I happy play games on this and it's a TV I expect to keep in service at least until it reaches a decade in age.

For 500 buck, I am pretty sure you can get even IPS for a screen that size if you are willing to use a more budget model of that TV (or VA at least)

 

But you can also get a smaller gaming monitor for as low as just a 100 buck or so of which if you are on budget I am pretty sure that will be where a lot of people go. That and I don't live in the US, while most home most definitely own a TV, not everyone live in a home - or have a family. More and more people are living in a condo and I doubt they even watch TV. If you have some old TV your parent bought so that you can watch films occasionally, cool, but otherwise unless I have a lot of money to throw around I don't feel like furnishing my newly bought room or home with a TV.

[e22big]

6 hours ago, Eviljuche said:

Console games rarely fit the PC gaming lifestyle. The controller-based gameplay makes games much more boring/unplayable with a mouse and a keyboard. For example, huge amount of modern console multi-platform FPS games has switched to the cover-style gameplay, where the enemies shoot mostly from the cover, and not as a well organized team - the enemy's AI has become so different from the games of 2000s, where the enemy NPCs were relying on team cooperation and lots of movement to keep the player surrounded (Stalker game series is one of the most notable FPS'es with this kind of AI) mostly because it would be extremely hard for a player to fight such enemies without some fast aiming device like mouse. This works vice versa - e.g., amount of combos in multi-platform or PC games is much smaller than in console exclusives. The worlds of PC gaming and Console gaming are the different ones, and combining them on multi-platform usually results in the games with lesser entertainment and replay value.

Sony is good a making Spider Man and Gran Turismo - definitely not at making Starcrafts, Stalkers, and  Mount and Blade-s, and it is better to be that way or else the gaming will be to compromising for the both worlds

hmn I see, I don't actually play a lot of FPS game but I can see your point in that. Much of the single players game on console that got port from PC is definitely made with a controller in mind (doesn't stop me from playing with a mouse and keyboard though - nothing a lot macro keys can't solve) 

 

in the grand scheme of things though, I still think it makes more business for them to simply sell them in a software rather than hardware exclusive platform, and charge just as much money for game for the people who can afford it - and continue to sell the PS5 for people who just want a console, there exist a market for both so why limit your sales potential to just only one? 

 

[RedDeath_]

The PS simply doesn't have anything else to offer.