@Someguyperson I will be that guy, I really hope the future isn't just "Steam" for PC. They provide a solid store front, but their size and anti-competitive practices are red flags for what would be to come, if they continue their dominance. What they do to devs will eventually start happening to players, its just a matter of time. Even if Gabe stays a white night, he won't be there forever. I buy games on EGS when they are there, just because I want the devs to get a bigger cut vs Steams cut for a games's sales. Some games I buy from that dev's launcher so they get the whole cut. Steam is a monolith, and history tells us what happens, generally, when consumers become dependent on them.
Since the start of the generation, Xbox has laid off somewhere between 6k-7k employees, and we know more are on the way. Most of that within the last few years, as their plans for this generation have not played out. Focusing on GP and multi-platform was an interesting gamble, but eroded the value of the brand and the studios. The worst part is, their choices for rebranding are all over the place, so I can't even decide if things feel like they might be able to turn around.
Buying Kojima's new IP, Physint, during these cuts is wildly hard to understand. I love both Death Stranding games, and his style of art and storytelling, but I also know its a niche opinion these days. Konami realized he spends too much money for the games he makes, Sony also realized he spends too much money for the games he makes, and now Xbox (who is making cuts all over the place), wants to invest in a game that is already signaled as being over budget and behind schedule. What is the logic here? Who is making these decisions?
Maintaining core customers requires maintaining the core business. Xbox has always been behind in terms of market share but you don't have to be the leader in your space to be strong company with a great reputation. Xbox feels like it wants to be on the level as its parent, Microsoft, who I'm sure shares some of the blame for that vibe. At some point, you have to accept where you are and what you are, make that solid, then you can start building outward again. Shutting down studios you bought, that people loved, because it turned out you couldn't actually afford them is not winning anyone over. It keeps people cold to your brand. Then making silly little heart felt posts about it is just unpleasant.
Working for Xbox has got to be a bipolar emotional ride. I'm sure the corporate perks are amazing, but wondering when you'll be next has also got to be horrendously stressful. I'm not naive, I understand that sometimes to keep the majority of people employed you might have to cut expenses. There are a lot of ways to do that. Sadly, sometimes cutting out redundant salaries is part of that. But almost 7k over a few years is just reaping terror because no one held you accountable for the expenditures along the way.
Gaming is in a crazy place right now, it's bigger than ever, but the oldest players are at odds of finding their place in the new landscape. Some of it isn't their fault, no one saw the AI boom coming on so fast, and raising prices so high so quickly. But the poor choices made prior to this shift are only highlighted by what has happened, not absolved by the "who could have guessed" situation the big players are in.
While I feel this is spot-on regarding Sony's underlying motives—cutting out retailers and killing the used games market is absolutely their endgame, here, I feel like framing the physical media argument around Resident Evil Requiem leaves out some important high-level context, and I hope not intentionally. For one, RE is an outlier; it's a 30-year-old legacy franchise with a massive, dedicated collector base. Naturally, it's going to skew heavier toward physical sales than the average release. While RE did well on disc in select regions, Sony’s broader ecosystem data still consistently shows digital accounting for 70% to 80%+ of total software sales. The overall consumer shift has already happened, and this "pick and choose" data selection doesn't change that. Further, dismissing the low 22% physical share in the US as purely a stock shortage issue ignores that the US has been aggressively leading the digital transition for years, this isn't just for Requiem. The article also doesn't even attempt to backup the assertion. Low physical attachment is the norm in the US now, not just a supply anomaly for every single game. It’s also not just platform holders pushing this. Third-party publishers are also eager to go digital because physical manufacturing, global shipping, and warehousing have become massive financial liabilities. Discs are expensive, and the justification for some of those more "flat" costs decreases the less discs are sold. Not to mention as games get more expensive to make, providing an expensive physical medium that will bite into the profitability of a game in terms of distribution and future sales makes even less sense. People want Sony to make more games, that are riskier projects, then get mad when they try to find ways to save money to make that possible. I bet people wouldn't be willing to pay more for discs to make up the difference.
I won't disagree with the very valid critiques of how Sony is handling the transition (and their lack of communication), but looking at the broader industry data, it's easy to see why they feel comfortable finally cutting the cord and an article like this that ignores the context of the data it is about doesn't help the disc(ourse).
I'm actually surprised that at the current tally, ~50% of voters would pay the more premium prices. I was one of those people, understanding that the price of components are outside of Sony's control, but I figured most wouldn't want too regardless of that understanding and figured it was best for Sony to potentially delay. While an extremely small sample size... it does still support the idea that perhaps Sony doesn't have to wait for a better outlook on components.
Comments 5
Re: Report: Activision Takes Over Halo, Sea of Thieves, Age of Empires as More Huge Layoffs Hit Xbox Studios
@Someguyperson I will be that guy, I really hope the future isn't just "Steam" for PC. They provide a solid store front, but their size and anti-competitive practices are red flags for what would be to come, if they continue their dominance. What they do to devs will eventually start happening to players, its just a matter of time. Even if Gabe stays a white night, he won't be there forever. I buy games on EGS when they are there, just because I want the devs to get a bigger cut vs Steams cut for a games's sales. Some games I buy from that dev's launcher so they get the whole cut. Steam is a monolith, and history tells us what happens, generally, when consumers become dependent on them.
Re: Report: Activision Takes Over Halo, Sea of Thieves, Age of Empires as More Huge Layoffs Hit Xbox Studios
Since the start of the generation, Xbox has laid off somewhere between 6k-7k employees, and we know more are on the way. Most of that within the last few years, as their plans for this generation have not played out. Focusing on GP and multi-platform was an interesting gamble, but eroded the value of the brand and the studios. The worst part is, their choices for rebranding are all over the place, so I can't even decide if things feel like they might be able to turn around.
Buying Kojima's new IP, Physint, during these cuts is wildly hard to understand. I love both Death Stranding games, and his style of art and storytelling, but I also know its a niche opinion these days. Konami realized he spends too much money for the games he makes, Sony also realized he spends too much money for the games he makes, and now Xbox (who is making cuts all over the place), wants to invest in a game that is already signaled as being over budget and behind schedule. What is the logic here? Who is making these decisions?
Maintaining core customers requires maintaining the core business. Xbox has always been behind in terms of market share but you don't have to be the leader in your space to be strong company with a great reputation. Xbox feels like it wants to be on the level as its parent, Microsoft, who I'm sure shares some of the blame for that vibe. At some point, you have to accept where you are and what you are, make that solid, then you can start building outward again. Shutting down studios you bought, that people loved, because it turned out you couldn't actually afford them is not winning anyone over. It keeps people cold to your brand. Then making silly little heart felt posts about it is just unpleasant.
Working for Xbox has got to be a bipolar emotional ride. I'm sure the corporate perks are amazing, but wondering when you'll be next has also got to be horrendously stressful. I'm not naive, I understand that sometimes to keep the majority of people employed you might have to cut expenses. There are a lot of ways to do that. Sadly, sometimes cutting out redundant salaries is part of that. But almost 7k over a few years is just reaping terror because no one held you accountable for the expenditures along the way.
Gaming is in a crazy place right now, it's bigger than ever, but the oldest players are at odds of finding their place in the new landscape. Some of it isn't their fault, no one saw the AI boom coming on so fast, and raising prices so high so quickly. But the poor choices made prior to this shift are only highlighted by what has happened, not absolved by the "who could have guessed" situation the big players are in.
Re: Do Resident Evil Requiem's Healthy Disc Sales Call Sony's All-Digital PS6 Strategy into Question?
While I feel this is spot-on regarding Sony's underlying motives—cutting out retailers and killing the used games market is absolutely their endgame, here, I feel like framing the physical media argument around Resident Evil Requiem leaves out some important high-level context, and I hope not intentionally. For one, RE is an outlier; it's a 30-year-old legacy franchise with a massive, dedicated collector base. Naturally, it's going to skew heavier toward physical sales than the average release. While RE did well on disc in select regions, Sony’s broader ecosystem data still consistently shows digital accounting for 70% to 80%+ of total software sales. The overall consumer shift has already happened, and this "pick and choose" data selection doesn't change that. Further, dismissing the low 22% physical share in the US as purely a stock shortage issue ignores that the US has been aggressively leading the digital transition for years, this isn't just for Requiem. The article also doesn't even attempt to backup the assertion. Low physical attachment is the norm in the US now, not just a supply anomaly for every single game. It’s also not just platform holders pushing this. Third-party publishers are also eager to go digital because physical manufacturing, global shipping, and warehousing have become massive financial liabilities. Discs are expensive, and the justification for some of those more "flat" costs decreases the less discs are sold. Not to mention as games get more expensive to make, providing an expensive physical medium that will bite into the profitability of a game in terms of distribution and future sales makes even less sense. People want Sony to make more games, that are riskier projects, then get mad when they try to find ways to save money to make that possible. I bet people wouldn't be willing to pay more for discs to make up the difference.
I won't disagree with the very valid critiques of how Sony is handling the transition (and their lack of communication), but looking at the broader industry data, it's easy to see why they feel comfortable finally cutting the cord and an article like this that ignores the context of the data it is about doesn't help the disc(ourse).
Just my two cents.
Re: Which PlayStation 3 Games Deserve a Full Black Flag Resynced Style Remaster?
The Resistance trilogy would just be fantastic. Really the only major games I miss that aren't anywhere else at this point, and could use some love.
Re: How Much Would You Pay For PlayStation 6?
I'm actually surprised that at the current tally, ~50% of voters would pay the more premium prices. I was one of those people, understanding that the price of components are outside of Sony's control, but I figured most wouldn't want too regardless of that understanding and figured it was best for Sony to potentially delay. While an extremely small sample size... it does still support the idea that perhaps Sony doesn't have to wait for a better outlook on components.