Sony lost $124 m when they put Horizon on Ps plus.
I guess that's why Sony won't put their big hitters on their subscription service.
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Sony lost $124 m when they put Horizon on Ps plus.
Sony lost $124 m when they put Horizon on Ps plus.
I guess that's why Sony won't put their big hitters on their subscription service.
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
>horizon forbidden awards
>horizon forbidden sales
No one likes these games.
This is the thing. I played the first one and its one of the most boring and soulless games Ive ever played. Sony is fricking delusional
People buy Sony exclusives with the expectation that they will showcase what the console is capable of in terms of performance/graphics with at least passable gameplay. Quite a lot of CoD bros and Fifa Black folk willingly bought horizon just to break the tedium of playing the same game all the time.
Surely gamepass is different... right?
Microsoft is definitely not just fricking over everyone in the long run with an unsustainable business model, right?
Of course not my friend! Based Phil is a good guy and would never frick anyone over!
Gamepass is meant to destroy the rest of the industry, give Microsoft a monopoly, and then they can gut the service. Since it is Microsoft, it doesn't matter how much money they burn.
>gamepass
It's just as terrible. And both are unironically killing the medium of videoames.
t h i s
h
i
s
hope i live long enough to watch it all crash and burn
games past 2011 aren't worth booting up anyway my friends
unless it's a fighting game, they haven't changed since the 90s and are still kino
xbox may well bow out by the next console gen
sony's game division is going to crash and burn within the next ten years if they don't completely halt themselves and scrap all their current plans, NOW
japan meanwhile will be completely fine
The only solution for any of these organizations is to downscale, and downscale by a large margin. But capitalism doesn't work like that. They can only keep going forward and up, up, up.
yeah these are mongoloids that think they need to appease shareholders at absolutely all times and that THROUGH THE ROOOOOOF like a Ganker poster about to lose all his life savings is the only way to grow a company
even worse is when they chug their own koolaid and believe the only way to do business period is THROUGH THE ROOOOOOF
we're gonna see a western AAA crash that'll make the video game crash in the 80s look like child's play just from the sheer amount of money being wasted
Muh 13 gorillion starfield players contributing 10¢ to it's dev costs
no, literally everyone working with MS that will speak publicly on it has said it hurts sales. bobby kotick basically said MS would have to buy them out before they'd put their games on gamepass
>bobby kotick basically said MS would have to buy them out before they'd put their games on gamepass
and so they did
if the game is set to be a heavy hitter than sure it's going to hurt it. if the game is just "filler" to get people to constantly give them money with a sub I don't think they'd care
While Game Pass is clearly Microsoft trying to undercut a losing battle with how shit the Xbox is, it is not exactly the reason why Sony keeps trying to chase $300 million dragons and expecting fricking returns on them. They dismissed a cultivated audience from the first three generations and chased the mainstream and it sure as frick wasn't worth it
game development should have fricking paused during covid and sony should have fired everyone. Its clear now that nobody was doing anything of value during that time and just pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars
they were busy the whole time
sony is the problem in the first place, anon
the alarm is coming from inside the house
they don't hire developers that just do nothing, that's moronic
i dunno how you could even infer sony wasn't complicit in them doing nothing for years even if you believe the studios they own did nothing for years
most of microsoft's games do not cost nearly as much to make as sony's do. there are obvious exceptions, but MS allows most of their teams creative freedom, and that often comes with smaller groups forming and making smaller games. futhermore, its backed up by third party publishers fiscal reports that you make more money per user on Xbox than you do on Playstation. MS also sells games day and date on Steam, ensuring better PC sales 90% of the time rather than porting something 5 years later, the goodwill it builds is a small bonus here. finally, gamepass is likely at the point where it is starting to make sense financially independent of being a loss leader. MS made it their de facto subscription and never backed down, sony have a weird tiered system that is confusing and most will probably go to the cheapest tier.
MS signed a deal for People can fly to make a AAA game for them with a budget of 30-50 million. Compared to Sony where their definition of an AAA game is 300 million, it's easy to see how Xbox can recover their money easily compared to Sony.
assuming of course microsoft can actually sell anything in the attempt, starfield is a bust and can't move series consoles. their sales are down 15% this year and starfield was a very highly anticipated release
They just sell them on PC or get their money back from the 20 million paypigs putting 10$+ per month on GP.
selling them on PC is good for microsoft, it isn't good for Xbox
>20 million paypigs putting 10$+ per month on GP
yeah about that
Money coming into Xbox from PC game sales is still money coming in at the end of the day.
>selling them on PC is good for microsoft, it isn't good for Xbox
Ok, and? Microsoft is the one funding the game, they are the ones that care about the ROI.
>yeah about that
About that what? Even the lowest estimate is still well above 20 million.
Microsoft isn't Xbox in its entirety, dummy. Xbox is a wing or division of Microsoft.
Ok, Xbox Game Studios are the ones funding the game, they care about the ROI not where it comes from. Is that fine for your pendantic moronic ass?
There's not going to BE an "Xbox" if they have to recoup losses through PC sales every time, dummy.
They recoup their losses with PC sales and subscription fees you moronic mongoloid, not just one of them.
Gamepass needs a constant new influx of IPs to keep interest going, it's not sustainable. We have that FTC court case where Xbox itself says it's not sustainable since it entails a constant supply of studio acquisitions, predatory or otherwise.
Citation needed
>Compared to Sony where their definition of an AAA game is 300 million
It's important to note that is ALL sony makes now. no little indies, no Hifi Rush mid tier, just big, fat cinematic games. MS has their titans that cost comparably, but they are the minority of their releases.
>yeah about that
about what? dont tell me youre still on the
>MOST PEOPLE USED THE GOLD HACK OR $1 A MONTH
copes
It's fricking Gears of War isn't it?
>Outriders
Yeah there's a reason why they're not spending more than 30-50 million on it
>, its backed up by third party publishers fiscal reports that you make more money per user on Xbox than you do on Playstation.
Can you name some examples
>thread is about the failure that is horizon
>have to make it about gamepass
really makes me think
The thread is about putting games day one on PS+ and how it's unsustainable. Of course Game Pass is mentioned.
GAMEPASS isn't about making money
Lies of P devs said Gamepass worked for them but who know how much of that is them being nice. Game still sold a million and it’s basically a media darling with good word of mouth. Putting on GP probably helped allot more than hurt.
Gamepass is a good incentive for indie/AA studios because they get an upfront payment from MS, put on a service where users are more willing to try a new ip and spread word of mouth and isn't barred from selling on other platforms or services like EGS or Sony's walled garden. I loved Lies of P and I probably wouldn't have given it a chance if I didn't have a gamepass sub.
Word of mouth only does so much, Lies of P got outsold by Lords of the Fallen despite being a much better game with much better word of mouth. Everyone was shitting on Lords of the Fallen and praising Lies of P but not everyone wants to buy into GP, especially console warriors and people that think it's bad for the industry or want to own their own games. So at the end of the day, you're left with games that don't reach their full potential and reach more players that will do more than play it for 10 minutes before getting bored, because those not willing to buy into GP aren't going to buy a full price game that's $1 or $10 otherwise.
That's the true toll of GP, it's a short term gain for the developers at the cost of not reaching an audience more likely to BUY their future games in the long term, especially now that the precedent is set that their games are on GP. It creates a welfare state of sorts, where devs might be forced to put their games on GP just because that's the only way they'll be able to get money for them and users want their "free" games paid for by Microsoft so they don't buy games on their ecosystem meaning that unless Microsoft pays for their game to be added to GP, it's a complete waste of time to port their games on it. Case in point there is Octopath 2, Microsoft paid for the port of Octopath 1 but not 2, so Square didn't even bother with porting it.
TL;DR is basically that GP is death in the same way that EGS is death, even for indies.
Lords of the fallen had more mainstream marketing than lies of P which is why it sold more. Lies of P was getting more people playing and talking about it and now people are super excited for their future games.
The future game will most likely need to be on GP too or it won't sell because people won't have played the first game due to it being on GP, or if it isn't then those that played it on GP most likely won't buy it and will wait for it to be added in the future. The system creates a lot of awkward situations, even Sega is unwilling to put their biggest name titles on it like Yakuza 8 day one because they know it cannibalizes sales too much to the point where people would end up skipping Yakuza 9 if they don't end up playing 8.
It’s not different. But Microsoft earns a metric frickton from their GaaS games that console/game sales don’t matter to them. They know Sony can’t compete with their streaming model since they don’t have the GaaS revenue to compensate for the loses and the streaming model is way more consumer friendly model than the pay-per-game model. Why the frick would I spend $80 on a 12 hour single player game when I can get a massive catalogue of games for $100 a year plus online? It’s a no brainer for anyone that isn’t terminally moronic
>But Microsoft earns a metric frickton from their GaaS games that console/game sales don’t matter to them.
that's why, of course, they kept talking about how small their wieners were and how they were dead last in the console wars
Yeah they did that to get their activision deal to go through. Now that they actually own them they are the biggest video game publisher now.
i'm sure they committed extremely elaborate perjury and they're actually doing better than ever
>that's why, of course, they kept talking about how small their wieners were and how they were dead last in the console wars
You snoys only have yourselves to blame for that. Every single "BROS WHY IS NOBODY BUYING XBOX?!?!?!" shitpost thread you morons make is a point in their underdog facade's favor. Your marketing backfired in your face
Actually Microsoft is to blame for that. It's their console.
Like I said, console/game sales meaning absolutely nothing to Xbox. The entire point is to get people into Xbox ecosystem using Gamepass and create a market where the model that Sony uses (high-budget triple AAA) is completely unsustainable. Only way to survive in a market like that is GaaS revenue, something Microsoft has far more of compared to the rest of the market (especially after the Activision deal). It’s why Sony has tried to increase their GaaS output and, as the leaked Insomniac documents have shown, they’re terrified of the fact they’ve failed to compete in that area. Give it 5-10 years and Microsoft will have a complete monopoly over the gaming market.
There is no Xbox Ecosystem without a fricking console to warrant it, anon.
Which is why Xbox is so invested in the Series S. It is by no means a profitable console, but it is a great entry point for people to enter the Xbox ecosystem at a lower price point than the Series X. So again, even if Microsoft a couple hundreds of millions in profit on their console sales, they don’t give a shit so long as those consumers use the Xbox ecosystem (Gamepass, GaaS games) as their primary means of playing games. That generates far more revenue in the long run than those same players buying the occasional physical release
>in the Series S.
The least popular Series model that developers openly complain isn't powerful enough to bother developing for compared to the Series X? The Series model Microsoft has to hamstring emulator access for because it eats into GamePass? The Series S that gets laughed at by everyone in the market and can't sell for shit? That Series S?
>That generates far more revenue in the long run than those same players buying the occasional physical release
The problem is that nobody is buying xboxes even at deep discounts. They're getting outsold by PlayStation 3:1 and it costs much more to run a service like gamepass and licence content than it does to just develop individual games that are sold. Higher revenue but for far higher costs means games are less profitable.
PC gaming is literally 99% windows and you're looking at PC with a 2000s lens if you think MS is losing when they sell you a game on windows instead of Xbox.
who the frick do you think is buying and playing games through microsoft on PC? that's a space majorly controlled by steam, not microsoft. something they mald about constantly since steam really wants to go linux
Steam and MS are buddies now, even Gabe said that he trusts MS and believes them to be his greatest allies. This is why MS isnt worried about selling games on steam because it just means people staying on windows at the end of the day and more money for Xbox.
>Steam and MS are buddies now
you can call me moronic and that's all well and good, but trying to spit in my fricking face and tell me i like it like that is crossing the line
he's exaggerating but not by much. gaben has publicly stated that he trusts microsoft during that whole trial of sony vs MS over activision. he knows that MS isn't moronic to cut their revenue to promote some xbox's sales
If they were buddies then Microsoft would let them use Windows on the deck for free. They're not buddies, they're competitors for the PC market space. The windows store is still online and getting games added to it.
Do you want to pay 110$ extra for steam deck?
You can usually spot an OEM license by its price, which tends to run about $110 for a Windows 10 Home license and $150 to $200 for a Windows 10 Pro license.
Where's the bro discount? Is Microsoft not a friend to PC gaming? Windows on the deck would greatly benefit them but that's why it's not going to happen. Valve and Microsoft are competition.
gaben has seen embrace, extend, extinguish in action. he's not moronic enough to fall for microsoft's bullshit even if it was free. linux is the way to go so they don't get fricked in the ass. even if they gave them cheap licenses now, it's 100% not worth it.
Gabe has linux as an emergency exit but modern Microsoft is his friend now.
he trusts them on the call of duty deal, but it's more likely he simply doesn't give a frick. that's not trusting microsoft, it's "yeah if they want it to sell, they'll put it on steam. if not, whatever." read into it, he doesn't even think it's worth his time.
yeah, the man is a billionaire with a monopoly. he knows they can't ignore him. cod wasn't even on steam for some years. the man just does not give a frick about them and won't be pulled into shitty ms pr spins
PC gaming is 99% Valve. Microsoft is already an irrelevant 3rd party on their own platform. GFWL failed, the Windows Store failed, and to make matters worse Valve is pushing development of Linux, gaming on Linux has progressed an insane amount over the past few years Valve has been nurturing the OS.
No one will swap now but because most PC gaming happens on Steam, it is a concern for the future.
MS being the best performing publisher on steam isnt irrelevant to me. Steam's dominance is in Microsoft's best interest and they do their best to help and support steam because Gabe is an ex microsoft guy too.
>Give it 5-10 years and Microsoft will have a complete monopoly over the PC gaming market.
haha. fixed.
mobile: sony even has chink impact on ps5, while xbox get nothing.
cloud gaming:
Nvidia GeForce Now has 25 million users.
Window never get anything best in gaming
>Activision CEO says Amazon Luna has the most game streaming customers
>Read more: >https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91358/activision-ceo-says-amazon-luna-has-the-most-game-streaming-customers/index.html
>The entire point is to get people into Xbox ecosystem using Gamepass
Doesn’t matter if nobody is buying an Xbox
Games are fundamentally differently consumed than shows and movies. It might make sense for some people but not for the broader audience. I remember the TakeTwo guy talking about this. Most people play 2-4 games a month but watch like 100 things in the same timeframe so there is a significant value discrepancy.
Even if you play 2 AAA games a year, if those games are offered on gamepass, you’re still getting at the the very least an equal price in a gamepass subscription vs buying physical copies
Correct. Microsoft first party games are unpopular so the "lost" money maybe worth it for them to get new players .
Sony is doing the same though. Like how Spider-man 2's budget tripled Spider-man 1's, but they aren't even -expecting- triple the sales.
All companies from outside of gaming compete in a way that makes no sense for actual gaming focused companies.
/v really don’t understand where the budget goes?
motion capture/VFX/music is heavily used in movie. So Sony can sell its service to their studio at premium price.
Gamepass is different because Microsoft sells live service games and DLC and NOT single player movie games.
CoD being free means more people can buy the battle pass, which is good. Horizon being free means a homie got a free game and sony gets jack shit.
Starfield, hi fi rush, Doom etc are single player games not live service ones
>CoD being free means more people can buy the battle pass,
They already do this with warzone. They make more money charging for the single player and competitive multiplayer modes than making it all "free". Even Bobby Kotick said in his testimony that they he would have never put premium games like COD on a subscription service if it wasn't for the Microsoft deal
Yeah, GP is all about taking the free to play monetization method of games and removing the free part leaving just the cancer behind.
>AIIIIIEEEEE NOOO NOT THE HECKIN WESTERN MARVELESQUE GOYSLOPPERINO
SIRS PLEASE DO NOT BE DOING THE BAD TALKIGN ABOUT THE GAMEPASS MADARCHOD
The thing about Gamepass is that it actually makes money. PISSGAY5 has no games and just liberal funny money to advertise movie games with no form or function
Truly the moronic chimps idea of the superior console
If people really like your game, they will end up buying it. It's really that simple.
Also, HZD sales flatlined because HZD isn't a good game. Game pass, PS Plus minus squared, Nintendo X Y Z A S D F, it doesn't matter.
If people like your game, they will buy it because they like it.
HFW sales flatlined. HZD kept selling a year after release. Time aligned It was selling worse than HFW until HFW got put on PS+, only after that did HZD eclipse it.
>playstation killed kat in favour of aloy
Some day you're going to have to accept the gravity rush games legitimately flopped
That doesn't make them bad games, unless you're a moron who thinks popular=good
What in the world makes you think suits care about if a game is "good"?
while popfallacy is real, it isn't in the world of making money.
>That doesn't make them bad games
What makes them bad games is the games themselves.
Ok, not "bad" but they had some very serious issues.
A lot of shit quests, a lot of padding, and their moronic decision to not put lock on in the game, having you control the camera with the right stick the whole time, while all actions were assigned to face buttons, basically making it Claw: The Game.
Still, if Sony released them on PC i'd buy them again.
The first game did good on Vita, the PS4 port and GR2 though I doubt did any good, as much as I loved it.
>the gravity rush games legitimately flopped
and so did both horizon games but here we are getting more of that shit
The gravity rush games most likely had 1/5th the budget of the horizon games, so I'd believe they made money.
Yeah, because of Sony. They've been dicking over Japan Studios for years with grossly negligent levels of promotion for their games, even before California took over the Playstation platform. Souls games instantly becoming an overnight industry icon the minute FromSoft took the formula to a different publisher is proof of this.
Because the guy in charge of the Aloy games was the one telling them to shutter Japan Studio. Everything that moron touches turns to shit.
the fun part is I think, the one moment he DIDNT touch killzone merc (psvita), had a pretty kino merc story that you got to see both sides and can side with the helgast for once
You talking about the director or some other guy?
He's talking about the one guy Hermen Hulst, the current SIE director, formerly Guerilla studio's managing director, the Horizon devs.
what a homosexual
Gravity rush is bad and I'm tired of pretending it isnt. Horizon is slop though, il give you that.
>big hitters
Horizon and it's sequel and VR spin offs all sucked shit though. Even if they kept it from PS+ it still would have lost them around that much money.
Who actually bought this shit? I only got it because it was bundled with a PS5.
That's the revenue they're counting, I refuse to believe otherwise.
I genuinely don't believe anyone enjoys these games. I can only describe them as "nothing games". They look insanely derivative and boring, with the only thing going for it being nice graphics. Gameplay looks like shit, story doesn't seem interesting and the characters all look like fugly morons. Monster designs seem cool. These feel like the most pushed games in existence when I have never even ONCE seen anyone talk about them in real life or even play them at all .
Anon, maybe you should try out one of these game sometime instead of just looking at them and making assumptions
NTA, but I tried the first Horizon and it's pretty much exactly how he described it. The boss monsters were kind of cool but everything else about it was incredibly whatever.
I did. both games. THEY ARE FRICKING SHIT. they try so hard to copy witcher 3 or assassins creed odyssey but those games put actual effort into lore, monsters, characters and gameplay.
They're fricking horrible. If you played Killzone 3, which I bet you didn't, the open world encounters ARE THE EXACT FRICKING FORMULA AS THE STEALTH SEGMENTS IN KZ3- hide in tall grass, wait for enemy to walk by you, hit instakill button. If another enemy gets disturbed, you throw a rock to distract them elsewhere.
BIG FRICKING DEAL, that was the weakest segment in KZ3 and yet they decided to make THAT the majority of gameplay in Horizon? The higher-ups in Guerrilla have been fricking moronic for a long time and now you see it spilling over to Sony Worldwide Studios with Herman Hulst leading that.
the open world formula is essentially single player mmos for normalgays.
not when their dumb asses are paying like $40mil for pc ports.
>not when their dumb asses are paying like $40mil for pc ports.
So /v probably think porting games from PS to PC:
1. change compiler
2. tune parameters a little bit
3 hit “make”
it is done with 5 mins, right?
I played through the first one. Thought it was actually pretty fun for what it was, the story was weirdly good for this kind of game too. It wohldnt call it amazing, but as far as those open world games it's certainly a step above stuff like ubislop.
Story for the first one was really good
Never touched 2
>Horizon 1
>Men bad
>Women good
>If women bad it's because men
>Gaïa good
>Mars bad
>Gays and lesbos everywhere
>''teh toxic huhwyt males everywhere''
It was certainly a fantastic piece of current year propaganda, weirdly enough I encourage this kind of game, they at least had the decency of creating something new instead of perverting an IP from the past.
Yeah they werent that subtle with the propaganda in H1, peeps still lewded alloy, that made the busybodies seethe so much she they made her a lardex in H2.
>busybodies vs coomers
What a time to be alive kek
1st game was fun. Has a fairly standard origin style story, the pozz wasn't as bad yet, most people liked fighting the robots and it had a cool twist.
So they doubled down on the shit, added more pozz, more generic human enemies to fight, and shat the bed with the story they had built.
1st game had potential to build a fan-base. 2nd game killed it off.
>looks like
>seems
>look like
Yes anon, keep going on about the game you haven't played, we all here want your shitty opinion
I don't think there's any game that's astroturfed as heavily as Horizon
This game literally does not have an audience. Nobody plays it.
Yet there's ads for it E V E R Y W H E R E. There are statues being put up in public parks for it. Billboards advertising it on the highways. Best Buy always has an ad for Horizon running.
NOBODY FRICKING ACTUALLY PLAYS IT
You will never in your entire life hear anyone actually talk about it.
It's a personal project of sony execs. They want a big media property of their own like Star Wars.
Sounds like Microsoft with Halo
>predicting that you're going to make $124 million and then not is the same as losing $124 million
>create knockoff game pass
>Don't put any of your games on it
Kek
Say what you want about Microshit but ALL of their fricking AAA titles are on that service day 1
And now PS+ subscribers are dropping like flies because they keep raising the prices while having nothing to offer. Free monthly games have been shit, the game catalogue is devoid of anything interesting and requires at least a mid-tier subscription to even access—even more if you want to play 'classics' from previous generations. I genuinely don't know what the frick those idiots are thinking.
>PS+ subscribers
it is for multiplayer games or GT.
f2p multiplayer games don't need it, so sony is losing money as those become more popular. it's fifa,madden,nba,cod,and gt keeping ps+ afloat.
>And now PS+ subscribers are dropping like flies
No they're not lol
just put games on Steam and Sony can get money back.
they also gave the game away for free during the Pandemic
>gave the game away for free
>actually, ripped it out of my fricking library after pulling the OG version from the store
They did not. I don't have access to it anymore.
I still have it in my Library
Yea, that's why they "lost money" they never had.
Kinda moronic way of looking at things Sony, i mean you might have "lost" your potential sales but you gained in PS+ subscribers thanks to adding your game to it, which earns you more money over time rather than money immediately.
>earns you more money over time
Do you know what is Discounted Cash Flow? 10$t tomorrow is less than 10$ today.
Subscription services should only be for back catalogue games that have exhausted their sales. Putting AAA games there day one makes zero economic sense.
Tweet failed to point out the massive bump in numbers of players playing the game which means that you gain potential players spending elsewhere on your ecosystem over time which is mean meaningful if you're looking at it long term rather than caring about short term gains.
The real question is how do they properly monetize their player gains. You can get people to come but it doesn't mean they stay.
so Sony found SE which well match with MS.
In other words, DLC and stuff. Putting games on subscription services just means that if you make a good game, people are just gonna come back and spend money on it elsewhere. If.
They pay for PS+ moron, they are already monetized. What you and Sony are really asking is "how do we bleed a stone?"
This is not a free game, anon. The subscription is the monetization. But more than likely Sony will make a premium tier wherein the AAA releases will be playable earlier
This is Sony, they don't know the meaning of "long term"
More like they spend the rest of their money in Fortnite, FIFA/FC or CoD.
the number of players is meaningless because the ones getting it on PS+ are much less inclined to spend on the series as a whole. this game isn't some sort of niche franchise, the first one sold millions of copies and it's heavily shilled by sony. if people aren't buying the game you bet they won't spend money on it in other forms
Looking at that graph it looks like it was already flatlining before PS+. Sony probably made more money off the PS Plus subs and potential DLC sales rather then squeeze out a couple more sales at likely discount prices.
That's why you see so much GAAS shit on Goypass and why Sony is also pushing for this crap. MS has already pivoted most of its ips into this live service garbage.
It's cancer pushing cancer. Video games are seriously fricked.
MS has funded more small titles than anyone else, their gamepass strategy is to get as many games to cater to as many genres as possible and their strategy has worked out because sea of thieves and grounded are their biggest games now despite starting off as a small game for them.
I wish killing simps and gatchagays are legal
>it's because they put it on PS+
No, it's because it is an incredible mediocre, albeit pretty-looking, game.
This. Though I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony delibarately put HFW on PS+ just so that they can blame that for low overall sales. The Horizon series is only still around because it's the pet project of Herman Hulst, who is the head of Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios, and who is only propping up Horizon because it's made by the company he co-founded, Guerilla Games. It's just pure nepotism at this point.
I doubt it would've pulled those numbers. The first game was so boring you can't get me to play another one for free.
That gay ass fricking game was never gonna sell that much and they know it, that’s why they threw it on PS+ to begin with.
SHOT THOUGH THE HEART
AND SONYS TO BLAME
THE PS+
HAS NO GAME
>burka woman protagonist game
Sony can kill themselves with their mudslide outfits.
if sony is too stingy to put one of their big AAA games on their sub service a year after it releases, then what fricking incentive is there to remain subscribed to your service? anyway, their business model is antiquated, and they're fricked if they continue to think console sales are the only aggregate to measure success.
Stop making excuses and covering for Horizon. You can't keep putting it in every bundle and claiming them as sales. You can't keep releasing them during the same weeks as heavy hitters like BotW and Elden Ring and claiming that's why it failed. You can't keep shoehorning collabs with games like Genshin whose audiences clearly don't care about this trash.
No one cares about Horizon. The series is a failure. Get over it. Make Ape Escape 4.
Guerilla might be better off making Killzone 5 at this point or something.
I dont think Sony even measures sales as a success anymore, even though the hardware sells it doesn't mean much if users aren't purchasing additional services or games, let alone first party titles.
Sony shills this series like nothing else and yet all I know about it is the chick is some kind of caveman who looks like the fatty food butthole man.
>fatty food butthole man
The point of putting games on PS Plus isn't to increase their sales. It's to increase PS Plus subscriptions. Is this "journalist" moronic?
but it hurts game developers because developers cannot prove how many new subscribers comes because of their games, and lose negotiating power for better contracts.
The publisher paid for the fricking game, enough of this "DEV RIGHTS" meme. A producer PAYS a Creator to make a product, then takes the product and sells it at their discretion. It isn't Sony's job to protect Guerillas bargaining power.
Reminder that the Executive Director of Horizon is the person who pushed for Sony to shut down all of their Japanese studios.
That series deserves all your vitirol and more. It can't fail hard enough.
As far as I remember Horizon 1 was an overlooked dark horse did it really have the legs to go the distance and become this all-in franchise for Sony? I don't get it
>did it really have the legs to go the distance and become this all-in franchise for Sony
No, Horizon is the epitome of a forced franchise
>All the people that played the game without paying full price would have payed for it otherwise.
I hate the investor mind with everything I have
There's some big "one pirated download = one lost sale" energy in that headline
Is Horizon even a big seller anyways? Both games got hilariously overshadowed by games that came out at the same time.
Guerrilla Games just need to reboot Killzone and stop trying to make Horizon work
Why dont they just make games?
Games that aren't just a shitty movie?
Their whole revenue relies on somebody else making a game.
You need talent in the first place.
>horizon fw was gonna make 100million in sales in its second year
ps+ or no, youre fricking dreaming
>we assumed it would make 124m
>next we assumed it'd only make 35m
>therefore we lost almost 90m
i fricking love american semite math
can i write off my taxes for the 10m i could've made this year but lost
Has a single one of these stupid fricking poster ships actually made money
>Ratchet and Clank lost money
>Last of Us 2 lost money
>Horizon lost money
>Spider-Man 2 lost money
What fricking game hasn't lost money
-Man 2 lost money
Is this actually confirmed?
I mean I could be wrong but I really doubt they made any kind of a fricking dent in that budget to be even considered a profit. But you know what, I did state that with confidence and I could be wrong, so if anybody wants to correct me, I'm the homosexual for throwing out false information.
no but it's been two months and even with black friday sales it hasn't made its money back
>Game about ugly dyke
>Lost millions
What is a day and date strategy
>Sony thought Horizon Zero Players would sell 1 million extra copies a year after launch
The really truth of all these stories is that Sony is a company that dramatically overvalues its own properties. You cannot lose money you never had.
if only theyd built 10 more statues
>$124M projected revenue for hfw year 2
i want whatever sony smokes. shit must be very good.
It's the same "piracy made us lose 6 gorillion dollars" logic.
See
it's based off HZD's numbers.
still the people that didn't get game by buying it probably wouldn't have done it anyways. not without a discount at least
that is not the proper takeaway for this data. HFW sales flatlined after being added to subscription service, but how much has it boosted the subscription? For how long? Anybody who looks at this and thinks "HFW projection went down because it went on a sub service owned by the same company that produced the content in the first place" is an absolute moron.
>but how much has it boosted the subscription?
beats me, idk how quality of content affects sub counts, personally it feels like that would be sort of nebulous, sort of like magazine/billboard ads, how much do they truly affect sales? how can you prove that they affected sales? I'm sure there are ways to figure that out, but I'm not one of those data scientists. All I know is, thats the exact reason it went on ps+ and the fact that individual sales tanked was expected and shouldn't be looked at as an omen like the moronic OP is claiming.
The tag free copies of the horizon games in consoles bundles and people still don't play it. Like has Sony ever thought maybe people don't like the games?
If it was more like a well thought out map instead of full openworld and the main character wasn't an ugly 40 year old fridge I probably would have played it
Those estimates were probably moronicly optimistic and pulled out of their asses to make their shitty game look better by blaming PS+ as the cause for sales flatlining.
But that data is stupid. Of course the game won't sell as much if you put it on PS+. The goal is to sell PS+ instead. Did putting the game on PS+ increase the number of subcribers?
>Horizons on ps! subbed!
Why would it?
Anyone who wanted to play the game bad enough would have already done so.
I dont know if Sony changed it but if you add a game to PS+, you can no longer buy the game on PSN. Whereas on Xbox gamepass games have an option to buy if you want to. In other words, by putting it on PS+ where most of their users are subscribing to it, the only way they can get the game is by purchasing it physically instead of digitally which is why sales flatlined.
It didn't make any loss at all. The people willing to pay for it already have.
Those interested in the game, but not enough to put money down, played it on PS+.
Interest of the second group would not have increased to sheer unbearable levels with the passing of time.
It was outselling HZD before they put the sequel on PS+. HZD wasn't any less mediocre than HFW
Has it actually sunk in for sonybros yet that it’s genuinely fricking over? Playstation has nothing to offer anyone. There’s no reason to get one, and they’re haemorrhaging money on a failed VR kit, and underperforming releases. They’ve invested tons of money in shit that has failed.
February and March both have exclusives I want to buy. So I'm happy. Next year is stacked in general, looking to be a real good time.
Game had dropped to sub $30 within a month of release. If no one was buying it then then no one was gonna buy it before ps+
The same happened with the first game. The difference is it wasn't added to ps+ until much much later.
>Nikado Avacado transitioned
grim
For Fricks Sake, go back to Killzone already.
>people playing the game via a monthly paid subscription service results in 0 revenue
>projections are guaranteed sales
It must be fun having a job where you spin metrics to mean whatever you want them to mean, and nobody in the "games media" questions it.
they expected 2 million sales for the second year of a shitty franchise? kek
Turning a cutie into an ugly feminist wasn't the best decision too
These leaks seem like a really good springboard for someone to finally start doing digging on Playstation's financials and their public statements to their shareholders et al. Their shit's been fishy for YEARS and there could be some smoking guns here.
The adding stuff to ps+ is a strategy to make the platform seem more appealing, make people buy ps5's, sub to the service and so on. Like how gamepass is.
So obviously a game losing out on sales is expected, otherwise youd just put all games on sub service forever. I dont get the issue.
But these services aren't getting people to buy consoles more than they already would. PS5 is selling at the same rate as the PS4, and Xbox console sales are down year to year despite having the better and cheaper gamepass. And of course letting you play games without having to buy them is going to make the service itself more popular.
Because Sony doesn't market PS+ like that and their emphasis is on unit sales. Microsoft doesn't market the xbox at all so most people outside of a fanbase in the US don't even know gamepass exists. It's a marketing problem not a business one.
This isn't true at all. The problem with Gamepass services isn't a marketing one.
If Sony marketed PS+ how they market their console and games it would lead to many millions more subscriptions and awareness. If Microsoft marketed xbox at all the same thing also applies. I live in Europe, I see the marketing by Sony and the lack of marketing whatsoever by Microsoft. And this is a region where €80 games are a hot topic because that's very expensive here. We don't have good wages across most of Europe. But people don't know about these offerings because there's no marketing for it.
Sony markets PS+ more heavily now than they ever have. Microsoft even moreso with Gamepass. It hasn't boosted console sales or game sales. The problem with GP/PS+ isn't a marketing one.
They don't because PS+ subs have actually dropped even for the base tier which is mandatory for online play. And they recently said they're no longer announcing numbers for PS+ anymore and when that happens it usually means the numbers aren't good. And PS+ has more value than ever but there's no awareness for it.
They increased prices on all PS+ tiers anon. You're living in Europe you should know this.
That was after the chart ends.
Yeah which is why they stopped reporting on numbers. When you jack up the prices but don't meaningfully improve the service or the library, you're getting less value from it not more.
>they're no longer announcing numbers for PS+ anymore and when that happens it usually means the numbers aren't good.
they didn’t announce bloodborne number after 2mil.
It's stupid to put a game for free when it's still selling well. You're supposed to do that when it's not selling anymore.
this is with just 1 game. Now can you imagine the billions Xbox must be bleeding from goypass?
Big yikes from me.
Maybe they should have focused on gameplay instead of fully modeled female facial hair
I still don't get why snoys made such a big deal about that facial hair that 99.99% of players would never notice
Talk about a waste of resources
Graphics are all they have. That's also why they have to prop up deliberately de-beautified women as a "new normal", so that they can handwave such a blatant flaw from criticism and focus on other graphical aspects. (Not that it's worked, mind you.)
Was it the PS+ thing or did people just stop giving a shit?
>de beautified lesbian will make sell our game
American gaming companies were a mistake
>we project
>projection doesnt come true
>we project
>projection doesnt come true
>we project
>projection doesnt come through. this time its gamepass' fault
The game was outselling the predecessor before they put it on their own gamepass
Why did people magically stop giving a shit the moment they put it on ps+. Why did people keep buying the original even 2 years after it released
>Why did people keep buying the original even 2 years after it released
No gaems, literally.
No that doesn't make any sense. PS4 had plenty of games by that point.
it was bundled with all PS4s.
Not all PS4s, no. And Horizon also had a PS5 bundle.
I've yet to see a single argument in defense of Gamepass PS+ etc that doesn't just boil down to "all games should be f2p and run on gaas dlc and mtx to make up for it"
Defense from whom? Gamepass is pretty affordable way for gamers to consume shovelware slop.
Bring back Killzone your worthless homosexuals!
They made money from putting games on ps plus
Interesting, so making good games and putting it on a subscription service makes you more money over time.
go woke
What was the point of modeling her after a Dutch beauty and turn her into this monstrosity?
It's AAA console slop. That shit sells 90% of copies in the first few weeks and is then forgotten. Also, subscription service never helped anyone get better sales. Anyone who wanted to play the game has. Maybe don't frick up the game's release again.
How come this logic doesn't apply to Horizon Zero Dawn?
It does
The Horizon 1 numbers were massively helped by the fact that the game was getting bundled into PS4 hardware purchases. Same reason why Wii Sports has some 80 million units sold.
But Horizon Forbidden West was getting bundled into PS5 purchases too. Those also count as sales
Compare how many PS5s sold compared to PS4.
We're talking about sales over the first two years of the games launch. Not total sales overall.
there was no game for ps4 for first two years
So same with the PS5
at least PS5 got GT7.
Which is also on PS4. And PS4 had Bloodborne, Witcher 3, MGS5 etc
You guys don't really have a coherent explanation for why Horizon 1 only overtook Horizon 2 in sales after the latter got added to PS+, despite the fact it was outselling Horizon 1 up until that point.
I'm not sure what your point is
The broader point is that full-price AAA game purchases tend to drop off quickly after the first month of release. Then they either start getting discounted, price-dropped or bundled aggressively with consoles at no additional cost.
Now, the big thing is that given how much demand there is for the PS5 (since most PS4 owners will just want to upgrade to the next system as soon as possible), if the Forbidden West bundle is the only version of the console you can get (much like how GameStop and Amazon will often bundle their stock with controllers or peripherals), then most people would rather take that over the same inflated price but from a scalper. So people will pay $570 for a PS5+HFW bundle because it's a better deal than having to pay $570 for just a PS5 from a scalper
>Now, the big thing is that given how much demand there is for the PS5 (since most PS4 owners will just want to upgrade to the next system as soon as possible), if the Forbidden West bundle is the only version of the console you can get (much like how GameStop and Amazon will often bundle their stock with controllers or peripherals), then most people would rather take that over the same inflated price but from a scalper. So people will pay $570 for a PS5+HFW bundle because it's a better deal than having to pay $570 for just a PS5 from a scalper
This should have increased HFW sales over HZD. Instead the opposite happened, but only after HFW was put on PS+
>The Horizon 1 numbers were massively helped by the fact that the game was getting bundled into PS4 hardware purchases
So did Horizon 2 with the PS5
I mention below but a slight different is the price
In 2019, Sony released a holiday bundle for the PS4 which was sold at $200 and included the console, Horizon, God of War 2018 and TLOU remastered. Granted, it's the last year before the PS5 was released, but it shows the point that if you start just packaging it into extremely price-efficient bundles, you're basically giving it away
Why would it have increased the sales over HZD? HZD both launched on a larger install base and was basically bundled to hell and back in its first and second year, given away as part of PS+ and bundled AGGRESSIVELY in its third year. Forbidden West's bundling did help its sales in that many people could only get a PS5 if it came with HFW. But it's still constrained to how many PS5s Sony could pump out and how many people who already have a PS5 would choose to pick it up over Elden Ring in the same month or down the road
The basic assumption here is that, were it not for the PS+ Sub Service, a lot more people would have bought HFW in the second year of its life. But that's not really supported by anything. Especially if the idea was that people would be more interested in the Horizon franchise after Zero Dawn and all the people who played that on PS4 and PC. But it doesn't account for the fact that maybe
>People didn't like Horizon Zero Dawn after actually playing it
and
>2023 was fricking filled with tons of other games to play
That triple PS4 bundle was released more than 2 years after Horizon did, which is outside of the timeframe we're talking about here.
Oh, we're just looking at the first 2 years, my mistake.
Then I'd probably just say that the difference in sales is more due to 2023 being full and the PS4's installbase being way fricking bigger. Like, it seems more likely to me that the big push of sales for Forbidden West in its first year were bundle driven (+ some percentage of the existing PS5 audience picking it up).
Given that God of War Ragnarok also came out in 2022, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone into that sort of 3rd person action-RPG sub-genre would be interested in going back to Forbidden West when Ragnarok was right around the corner.
And again, I think the type of game that Horizon is is against a lot of competition either from games in the exact same sub-genre or even the player's own boredom given the glut of titles that try to have similar appeal
If that were the case, HFW should have never been outpacing HZD in sales even before it was added to the service.
>Why would it have increased the sales over HZD?
Because those HFW PS5 bundles count as sales and it was the cheapest way to buy a PS5 without paying scalper prices. And the install base was the same, PS5 has matched the PS4 in sales over 3 years.
>The basic assumption here is that, were it not for the PS+ Sub Service, a lot more people would have bought HFW in the second year of its life. But that's not really supported by anything.
It's supported by the fact that Horizon 2 sales flatlined and only got outsold by Horizon 1 after 2 was added to PS+
didn't like Horizon Zero Dawn after actually playing it
Then why didn't it flatline in sales? Bundles don't explain it because 2 was also sold in a popular bundle.
>2023 was fricking filled with tons of other games to play
So was 2017. This doesn't explain why Horizon 2 was selling better than 1 before it was added to Ps+
>It's supported by the fact that Horizon 2 sales flatlined and only got outsold by Horizon 1 after 2 was added to PS+
Ah, I read OP again. Then I'd agree that getting added to the sub-service did probably depress sales. But I contest the idea from Playstation that the game would have sold $120 million+ this year if it hadn't been. And that's mainly just based on how many other games have come out this year. 2018 was relatively quiet for games whereas 2023 has been packed.
I looked up the data and my basic assessment is this: it absolutely did affect HFW's sales but it's not clear to me that the interest around FW was that high after launch given that it hit PS+ right shortly after the holidays (and holiday spending) ended and it was going into a particularly packed year. Moreover, I wager I'd like to see the sales on the DLC. Because that at least tells me how many of the people who picked up FW felt any inclination to grab the DLC. Forbidden West doesn't have a demo so my guess is that people used its inclusion on PS+ more as a demo service to see how the game was. Burning Shore's sales would show how high the interest actually was vs just curiosity and a low barrier to participation with PS+
good. maybe they will learn that it takes more than saturation marketing to create a successful franchise.
It's Sony, when have they ever learned?
>Projected $124 million into the second year
I guess that's just 2 million sales but still, that's kind of generous no? Like, I would not expect Horizon 2 to take home an extra 2 million in sales
"projected"
>124M revenue in 2nd year
these homies wildin
what's interesting is that the same thing probably happen with the gamepass. I really wonder how much money Microsoft is losing with the gamepass.
But would people have really bought new copies of the game, or are people only bothering to play it because it's on ps+?
>Sony lost $124 m when they put Horizon on Ps plus.
They have plus for decades, and this wasn't the first game there. Slop sales only during 1-2 months so it's more like a damage control to justify low sales.
>projected lost sales
Yeah, sure, whatever.