Cody from FroogleGeek.com wrote:
"The PlayStation Vita was debuted last night at Sony’s E3 keynote. It will have dual analog sticks, with an OLED touch screen as well as a touch sensitive back panel. When they showed of Drakes Uncharted for the PSV I was blown away, the game looks like it belonged on the PS3. With a $250 price tag stateside for the WiFi only model it should have no problems competing with Nintendo’s 3DS. The Vita is supposed to further connect gamers when they are away from their home consoles and that makes me assume there will be good online multiplayer functionality for it."
Mass Damage & Consumer Foundation in the Netherlands has filed a class action against Sony for inflating PlayStation Store prices.
My personal opinion:
Manufacturers and publishers have indeed inflated the industry.
From $700 million development costs for games like Call of Duty, to digital (store) prices for games and DLCs, online multiplayer fees on consoles (why can you play Helldivers 2 online for free on PC but not consoles?) or still preventing sell/lend digitally purchased games.
Sometime in the future, this bubble will collapse.
They should know better, but they just can't help themselves and suck even the last penny out of our wallets.
Because Sony knows people will be forced to pay those prices for single player and multiplayer games, not everyone prefers PC gaming. Sony also has a monopoly on PlayStation digital games. In 2019, they stopped allowing retailers and game key sellers to sell PlayStation digital games, making them available only through the official PlayStation Store
They should be suing the individual publishers increasing the prices to $80 instead of suing the store. There are plenty of publishers still selling game for like $50 with much success (like E33). But this proves that the publishers are the ones setting the prices.... so again nothing changes because they aren't even going after the main offender. How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD? Sony being the number one store in the market doesn't mean that publisher have to charge us an arm and a leg. Again the industry is laughing at us because consumers never get real representation. Just these fake platitudes that are meaningless.
"How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD"
Because Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, I can purchase Call of Duty at a huge discount from CDKeys or other gaming retailers. The only way to purchase digital PlayStation games is through the PlayStation Store.
Weird, I swore GoW, Stellar Blade, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLoU, etc. were on the steam store....uh.....
@djI3485
I'm talking about PlayStation games that you can only purchase on PlayStation. I can purchase Steam and Epic games from 3rd party retailers and key stores.
"Sony to stop selling full-game download codes at retailers"
https://www.videogamer.com/...
About time. There is zero fair reason why digitally distributed products that you cannot recoup any value when you want to dispose of them, should be priced higher than that of physical copies that entail all of the costs and the benefits of owning.
Sony CEO Hiroki Totoki and CFO Lin Tao talked about the state of the PlayStation business and the strategy and targets going forward, including how they're responding to the tariffs.
I think they take that into consideration when they announce their projections. Currently, after the xbox price increase, the PRO is cheaper than the series x! That is ridiculous, and it can’t last.
you keep saying that but the price of a PS5 Pro is S699.99 (US) and the price of a Series X is $599.99 (US)
The series x with 2 TB storage space is more expensive than PS5 PRO which also has 2 TB storage space.
Oh so you are pitting a regular Pro with a special edition X... got it. If you are going so far as trying to compare apples to apples... please add in the optical drive and stand to the Pro. Seeing as the X has both of those by default.
I will help you if you are unable to do so.
PS5 Pro 2tb: $699.99, Optical Drive: $79.99, Stand: $29.99 = $809.97
Xbox Series X Galaxy Black Special Edition 2TB: $729.99
The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. The series X with 2TB storage and much weaker, is… more expensive! So yeah, Im pointing out that fact.
Also, the PRO does not require a stand.
Ps: regular series 2TB is $749 (where did u get 729?)
Its right here on the official XB site: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/...
Okay, so no stand for the Pro, but you might still want the optical drive. So $779.98 vs $729.99. A properly outfitted Pro is still more $$ than a 2tb X.
Do I need to mention that the series x is not nearly as powerful as the PS5 PRO?
And no, the PS5 PRO runs just fine without a drive, and people don’t have to buy the drive right away, assuming they want it.
People are spending less time playing is a typical trigger for this.
The less time spent playing the less likely you are to spend more money on games and services including subs or even the next console.
Increased engagement equals more money.
Same reason Microsoft does it: it looks better to investors and it's a solution when unit sales slow down.
Personally, I'm not a fan of this metric; and by using it, you're kind of signaling that you're moving into the "This is a PlayStation" era.
"I wonder why they are shifting focus to MAU."
Because they´d finally realized that MS wasn´t wrong after all.
Sony announced its financial results for the fiscal year 2024, and things are certainly looking up, despite a decline in PS5 sales.
@neutralgamer1992
Not all of us. I'm a big PlayStation fan, and have been since the PSOne. But I can't begin to defend what's happening currently.
At least Nintendo release a large number of games from their major franchises. Sony is just not banking on their established franchises, and yet are raising prices. Not great.
Im pretty sure we are going to see a price increase for PRO. I mean think about it, its currently cheaper than xbox series x! That cannot last.
I'm absolutely sure we will not see a price increase. I don't think we should 'expect' to see price increase because it just adds validity to what Nintendo and Microsoft have done.
Sorry to pop that bubble but the Pro is not cheaper than a series x... generally speaking (like you are). It is cheaper than one specific version, and doing so by not including the optical drive and stand like the X has by default.
So keep on trying to convince people you are right when everyone knows it's quite the opposite. A stock Pro is $699.99 and a stock X is $599.99. A special edition galactic black 2tb X is $729.99. And if you really want to compare apples to apples... adding the aforementioned optical drive and stand brings that Pro to $809.97 and then they would be on equal footing.
Twisting truths to fit a narrative... I expect better from you S2.
The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. And the series X with 2TB is more expensive. Which in my opinion is insane conseidering how much more powerful the PRO is. The PS5PRO does not need a stand, it can be used without a stand.
It's still an expensive, niche product ultimately. And they exceeded their sales projections for units sold by half a million.
"18.5 million units have been shipped during the full fiscal year. This is actually ahead of the 18 million units target set by the company."
They beat their yearly estimate. It's not broken down by device, but it's clearly performing well enough. Since it's been released it's consistently been the second best selling SKU on Amazon only after the the Slim with disc.
18 million a year is in the toilet?
I remember when 10 was considered good
Hell Microsoft would take that right now.
Probably pay $100b for it.
If their profits fall next quarter, we'll probably see more price hikes. I can't imagine having to pay £20 a month for PlayStation Plus.
Decline in hardware sales.
Behind on lifetime sales and decline in first party sales.
Third party content and PSN came through to save the day.
Things will improve starting with the next Ghost game.
Hopefully a steady flow of first party content by end of '25
I guess you get downvoted for stating facts from Sony’s own lips. What I’m curious about is what their top games of the year were and how much Xbox games contributed to the increase?
Well, generally 3rd party publisher games contribute the most anyway, so no different to capcom, EA and so on contributing to this figure.
That's because the report is actually really good.
They beat the console sales estimate that they set last year March, they have increased users both due to the record numbers of PS4 users and strong PS5 sales which is leading to great profits in sales and user spend.
This report is about the financial health of the PlayStation brand and as a platform PlayStation is stronger than ever. Heck they even have Microsoft putting their biggest franchises on the platform.
Well, the facts in the article are positive. Nothing wrong with his comment, but in my opinion it doesn't correctly indicate all the facts and nuances that give context to the reality of things. I downvoted for that only.
Make sense?
This is exactly what happened to Xbox year's ago. They had no first party and started seeing decline in 1st party sales, which effected their third party games which eventually effected their console sales. A slow decline across the board.
Calm down PS fans I'm not saying PS is becoming like old Xbox. I'm showing examples of the importance of first party output. Look how Xbox finally has compelling first party and things are on a up swing(despite years going on a downswing). I know thanks to PS releases which helps a ton, (which is why Xbox hardware only dropped 6% instead of 30+% like it usually does) The point still stands despite what Genz Trends may go, first party and compelling games sell hardware and software still. Sony's financial quarter is an example of this, of what lower First party output looks like.
No matter they'll be right back on track in due time any time especially with DS2 (not my type of game but I know many like it) and Yotei. They're not Xbox and let things get bad for so many years on end.
"I'm showing examples of the importance of first party output. "
First party is mostly relevant for the sole purpose of creating EXCLUSIVES that are needed to stay competitive. With Xbox consoles collapsing and no more Xbox exclusives, first party is way less important. PlayStation as a platform now has free reign to profit without the high expense of needing exclusive first party titles.
Sony has been very lazy with 1st party games compared to the PS4 era. And even the PS4 era was nothing compared to the PS3 era in terms of games.
We have Ghost and Intergalactic coming. And then Marathon which is not exclusive to PlayStation. I think Covid and that chip shortage put a speedbump in game development because game manufacturers dont want even more risk that their game will arrive to too little hardware, but the games are starting to show up.
"With Xbox consoles collapsing and no more Xbox exclusives, first party is way less important."
Absolutely not. If that was the case then Nintendo would put Mario on Sega Genesis and Sonic on Super Nintendo. I know things are way different 30+ years later but not much has really changed in terms of exclusives and their impact on hardware. Especially early in the console life cycle.
Sony made all the money this quarter handover fist. Profits isn't a issue for them right now. I was just saying lower hardware sales and lower first party sales will hurt them or any console manufacturer of they don't have the compelling games in the long run. Just like it hurt Xbox. IF Sony keeps up not having lower first part output. Which we know they're not.
Well no big exclusives in the last two years yet PS is doing great. What are people gonna do? Buy an Xbox?
I agree with you. But they have had plenty of exclusives so far. Has it been ideal? Nope. I have a feeling we are seeing a resurgence with the effects of covid and that chip shortage now behind us.
No it's just like 360 where they had no games yet ppl still bought it because they sold ppl on the games early on that gen the fans were locked in and invested. They were riding the good will and was dubbed the shooter, racer box. The games dried up and they never recovered from it which hurt them in the long run. Same here with PS they still make the big bucks because they had games early on and the fans locked in and will continue to lock in for a little while longer despite lacking in first party.
I agree. But the problem with xbox was that for some crazy reason MS thought game development wasnt all that important to a platform holder. They literally did not fund games with their own studios. When they lost marketshare they couldnt justify paying for exclusives with large install bases making it too expensive. That is not the scenario with PlayStation.
Any thoughts on this?