"Personalization has a price. Throughout the PlayStation Meeting 2013, Sony's representatives keyed in on "personalization" as one of the main facets behind the development of the PlayStation 4. It seems like a benign, a thoroughly positive concept—that a company considers the preferences of its users and then tailors the user interface in the form of relevant searches and recommendations. The system learns your behavior, your likes and dislikes, and offers advertisements and products that fall within your general comfort zone."
~ Nick Tan, Game Revolution
PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.
Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.
"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."
"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"
That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.
To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.
What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales
Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense
What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.
Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.
I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.
I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.
I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.
During Sony’s recent business segment meeting and investor presentation regarding its game and network services, the PlayStation company revealed that PlayStation 5 is the company’s “most profitable generation to-date.”
It’s the top slide of the presentation, showing that in its first four years, the PS5 generation has already hit $106 billion in sales, having almost caught up to the PS4’s total $107 billion generated.
Operating income for the PS5 generation has also already surpassed that of the PS4, having now reached $10 billion.
I wouldn't doubt it. They released a high quality system. A lot of high quality games from themselves and their support of 3rd party developers and indies. They released many high quality remakes and remasters. They released a high quality GaaS game going against the naysayers thinking Sony would abandon single player games. And they most likely are profiting a lot more than PS1, PS2 PS4 and the loss leading PS3 that drained all their profits.
Now, I'll wait to see what's cooking tomorrow. But can you use some of those profits to better support your high quality VR headset? Because, by supporting it, you can sell more games and more systems and make more profits?
If it had some rpgs I would buy right fking now. It looks dope and alot of fun, but it's biggest game resident evil 4(maybe) I've got no interest in. I'm not a fan of racing games, even with that metro game coming i was never much into that series. Rpgs would be fantastic.
Lemme know if ya wanna play some Zenith 🙌
Bought it at release, but haven't played it more than 1-2 hours but for sure on my "todo list".
Normal when they released mostly cross gen games so far. That’s a lot of money saved..
We haven’t seen what PS5 can do yet. 4years in and PS4 games still look great to me. The gen leap isn’t quite there yet.
The interesting metric for me is the $106billion in operating income/profit (not sales as mentioned in the article) reaching the same as the PS4 did with only half the consoles sold.
In particular because they all are supposed to be making the most per hardware sold after a few years when manufacturing costs are down.
So even putting inflation aside(and the higher console price), it is interesting that they could reach PS4 $ with just half the consoles sold.
Maybe there is more to the metric thats whats seen at face value, but they have clearly been making a lot more money than before on the software side (with also less games released I suppose, given its only been half the generation so far)
The bulk of the money has to be coming from the 30% cut on all games and microtransactions. Especially on all the free to play juggernauts like genshin, apex, fortnight, etc.
@Versus
They are definitely making a lot on that for sure (which the $70 price increase factors into as well), but its not like many of those games werent around for the PS4 too.
They might be counting the gen as a whole and not just PS5 itself (so extra profit from PC sales, whatever that may be)
PS+ price increase and different tiers probably amount to part of that too.
But in general, its still quite a surprising metric. Half the time, half the consoles sold, less first party games released so far and still already making more of a profit than last gen is quite something, and as mentioned, there is probably more to it that we dont know, after all, since we are talking about operating income, all the expenses they have also factor into it, so it is also possible that they have found ways to significantly reduce that + all the means of increased revenue that appear to be factoring into the equation
All in all, just an interesting situation from a business perspective
It's for the whole generation, so it would likely be including PC. They also make much more profit on digital sales vs retail, and digital is far more prominent these days. The generation also started at the height of COVID when everyone was home, spending far more money on gaming/hobbies. It makes a lot of sense for this gen to be more profitable.
This will surely shut up all the new trolling accounts trying to spread lies and non facts in other articles comment sections before this article is posted.
Obscurely, those trolls or troll will not show in these articles as the truth is contradictory to his or their orchard-sized daily dose of copium and hopium.
Or... They're intentionally trolling you guys specifically. Because they know it upsets you so easily.
Name-dropping Orchard, after this many months? How long has it been and he's still in your thoughts?
I'm quite sure the individual is reading these positive comments downvoting & seething at the same time. Edit: It just downvoted my comment...lol!!
No I'm entertained by this individual. I love unhinged people, they are so interesting lol.
Wow! I am super impressed that in just 4 years, ps5 already caught up to the PS4's. Congratulations.
That happens when half of your games are cross platform. I'm still waiting to see what the ps5 is capable of, because they sure haven't pushed any limits.
And where are all these ps5 exclusive games?
"AI is not a substitute for human creativity. We position it as a technology that supports creativity. Creativity resides in people. We will continue to contribute to people's creativity through technology," the CEO said.
...not yet but 100% within the next 10 years!
..Then Sony will use it like the drop of a hat. They're no different to the others.
They used to be 😞 sure it was always a business, and money's always the priority, but they used to have a very strong stance on supporting artists and creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" was a phrase they touted a few times back in the ps1-ps3 era, a philosophy carried over from their music branch PlayStation was created from. It's not COMPLETELY gone, but it's barely there compared to what it was back then, i just want them to return to that.
I am highly encouraged by their statement about human creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" is exactly what they are saying. But at the same time, I don't think people understand that Sony is a corporation. If they don't realize growth, they don't get to exist. When you say 'Sony', you are talking about a bunch of investors. To speak about them any other way is a illogical and incorrect. They haven't changed. They have been a group of investors since they became a public business.
Ugh, i really wish people would stop gambling people's livelihoods by turning a project/game into their political soapbox. Im all for statements and having your own opinion, but there's more people working on this than just druckman, ham fisting your political beliefs onto just seems inconsiderate for everyone elses job security when it can result in a failure due to people avoiding it for that reason.
I play games for escape, im so tired of nearly every AAA game blatantly dragging real world issues to shove in my face when I'm trying to take a break from it all. They don't even bother to be subtle about it, quite the opposite, it's blasted and force fed to you and it's just getting exhausting
People are taking a whole interview and cutting it down to clips that make him look bad and take what he actually was saying out of context. For example he also said things like this AI has "ethical issues we need to address"
@Einhander
Why defend him at this point?
It’s not taking things out of context, he said what he said.
Old ND would never talk about soulless AI taking over so many creative things they are well known for. The whole “ethical issues” is just a good PR spin people who push this crap fall back on to make their statements not seem as bad. So many AI lovers do this.
AI has no place is so many creative based things.
Well yeah, because everyone else is using it so they need to stay competitive. It's the same as paid online, they didn't want to go that route but their competition was making so much money they needed to add paid online just to keep up.
AI will never replace humans in game development in terms of conceptualizing new games. Humans still need to come up with the ideas and what they want to implement. However much of the day to day menial coding could be AI driven to reduce production time and team size. I could also see AI being used for bug testing/optimization that could lead to better quality games at launch. I'm actually very optimistic about how AI can positively impact game development.
People that aren't software developers just don't understand the benefits of AI. People who's only exposure to A.I is the Terminator movie and other related sci fi films won't understand the benefits it provides.
It's not about replacing human labor. It's about making human labor easier.
Many years ago, I had laser eye surgery done. It was performed by a robot. The doctor took my measurements and calibrated the machine to make sure it would do what needed be done. And then the robot corrected my vision in 10 seconds.
15 years later and I still have 20/20 vision.
AI in and of itself is not a 'bad'. Money is bad. Money is evil, and corporations will do whatever they can to get more of it. They will find ways to implement AI to replace as may jobs as possible. This isn't even up for debate. It is the charge of the corporation to maximize returns for the investors. They have no choice. I'm a developer and I know that my job will absolutely be replaced. Therefore, I have decided to become an AI dev. AI has a lot of potential to help us solve problem on a scale most can't even imagine. The issue, as ever is that our monetary system only ever allows us to focus on greed and fiscal growth.
But I am a pragmatist. Perhaps an AI model can be built to help protect us from our most dangerous instincts and habits. And perhaps Congress can pass laws to protect us from people who would use AI to manipulate and control us (spoiler: they wont).
Progress is inevitable. Nobody driving cars today is complaining that the horse and buggy is no longer around. Yes, some jobs will be lost but guess what? With innovation comes new job opportunities. It's how the cycle of the job market works.
Yeah.... I hope I can turn all of that off.
You don't know me, you're not my real PS4!
They will be using the wrong kind of information to personalize the gamer's experience. It will be limited to business related data like genre, what you clicked on, number of hours spent on a game, etc. It's basically the data they are already receiving anyway.
What they need to do is add currently unmeasurable factors. It may not be the genre a gamer is interested in but rather the fact it has a focus on storyline. I like Metal Gear 4, Mortal Kombat 9, Ghostbusters, Deus Ex, etc. because of their storylines yet they fall into multiple genres. How can any company know what I like using the information data they currently get? I'd say they need to go to a deeper, and more accurate, level in order to truly personalize gaming.
I like Deus Ex because the storyline coexists with my beliefs...or I like Metal Gear Solid 4 because it coincides with my expectations of realism. I use fighter A because it fits with my gameplay abilities. I choose character A because I can do combos better than others....not because I like fighting games in general or because of my age. They need to understand why before they can understand how.
Also, maybe I like to be held in suspense. Unlike movies video games don't really use those to catagorize video games. Maybe I like Dead Space because it is scary not because it's survival horror. That doesn't mean I'd like Resident Evil 6.
What they need is a gamer to enter keywords in a database for a game that reflects his values about a game. For example, I liked a video game because it was funny, unique, artistic, involved heights, enjoyable environment 1st level. The keywords would be funny, unique, artistic, heights, and environment 1st level. I think this input would need to be preselected from a huge list of descriptions somewhat like LittleBigPlanet where the user inputs the data.