PlayStation 4 Console Thread

[DocG]

Not that I'm claiming this is a particularly likely scenario, but it's an interesting thought experiment, I think. Suppose the CoD, FIFA, and Battlefield franchises went exclusive to a console with no preowned. Do you think consumers would ignore it? I don't think so, personally.

[b00dles]

If FIFA could go 'one purchase and then just buy team upgrades / little tweaks each year' and was exclusive but no preowned, people would go for it I think.

You wouldn't need to trade in FIFA 2014 for 2015 anyway as you could just get the team changes for a tenner or something.

In fact, knowing EA, they'll make it so you buy one player for £35 and then use IAP to buy the rest of your team and all the teams you play against and the stadiums and a ball will be DLC.

[LiMuBai]

And the ref will be on loan each game. Meaning if you can't afford to rent him, games will soon turn into a Battle Royale rendition of the beautiful game. Or as we called it as kids: fouling footie

[DocG]

There would be a fixed pool of refs, half the number of copies of the game that had been sold; they would be available via auction-style IAP, so you have to outbid three Hungarians at 3am just so you can get a game in.

[Harsin]

I see Netflix have released average speed stats for the regions they operate in. For the UK the average is about 2mb. I appreciate that figure will rise as fibre becomes more readily available. But I do wonder if all of Sony's fancy internet plans are going to be pretty niche and of no use to the 'average' household.

[Smitty]

. What if that was forced into every game.

That would be terrible.

[Spacehost]

I see Netflix have released average speed stats for the regions they operate in. For the UK the average is about 2mb. I appreciate that figure will rise as fibre becomes more readily available. But I do wonder if all of Sony's fancy internet plans are going to be pretty niche and of no use to the 'average' household.

They're playing the long game with streaming, I reckon. They want it part of the console's services so that in two years or so when speeds catch up they aren't trying to engineer it in after the fact.

[NecroMorrius]

Yep. They're knitting a jumper to grow into.

[Spacehost]

Yep. They're knitting a jumper to grow into.

But what if they get their metaphorical head in one of its metaphorical arms because it's too big? Metaphorically speaking?

[squirtle]

It amazes me that Fifa hasn't simply gone the yearly team DLC update route yet. How much money does it cost to make and release a new game, pressed on to disc etc in comparison to just releasing a yearly DLC that updates all the teams for the game you already own. Charge 1600 points or something for it...

Would they save money? Release a brand new disc version every three years or so...

Just thinking aloud, but would doing it that way be more profitable for them?

[bradigor]

That's terrible.

Yes I know... it was a joke

Anyhoo, been thinking more about how they could do PS+ at the start of the PS4's life.

Still paying your normal sub, but instead of getting a bunch of free games (which you still would for the PS3 and maybe down the line for the PS4). They do a game of the month. Which all subscribers get to play for free for the month. If they finish it, then great, if not they get the option to buy it at a heavily discounted price direct from the store.

So for example, there are 10 games released on day 1. Drive Club is the game of the month. All PS+ subscribers get access for free to Drive Club, then at the end of the month it is available to them for (eg) £24.99 instead of £49.99 for the next 30 days. Then the following month another new release game is set for the Game of the Month.

Could be a way to keep people rolling the subscriptions and feeling like they are still getting something for it, despite the lack of a decent sized library in the opening year.

[SMD]

It amazes me that Fifa hasn't simply gone the yearly team DLC update route yet. How much money does it cost to make and release a new game, pressed on to disc etc in comparison to just releasing a yearly DLC that updates all the teams for the game you already own. Charge 1600 points or something for it...

Would they save money? Release a brand new disc version every three years or so...

Just thinking aloud, but would doing it that way be more profitable for them?

They make more money this way, plus not everyone is online. Not to mention the people who trade their copy in every year and pay a premium for the new copy that's hardly a huge leap.

Also don't they have to release a new game annually as part of their deal?

[Dudley]

It amazes me that Fifa hasn't simply gone the yearly team DLC update route yet. How much money does it cost to make and release a new game, pressed on to disc etc in comparison to just releasing a yearly DLC that updates all the teams for the game you already own. Charge 1600 points or something for it...

Would they save money? Release a brand new disc version every three years or so...

Just thinking aloud, but would doing it that way be more profitable for them?

I'm wondering if you genuinely think each new Fifa is literally just a names update and not an updated game, often dramatically.

[squirtle]

They make more money this way, plus not everyone is online. Not to mention the people who trade their copy in every year and pay a premium for the new copy that's hardly a huge leap.

Also don't they have to release a new game annually as part of their deal?

No idea. I did say I'm not sure why.

I'm wondering if you genuinely think each new Fifa is literally just a names update and not an updated game, often dramatically.

That's kind of the point I was making. The yearly updates do contain new features and the like, but if that was to shift to a three year proper disc version update, would EA make or save money? In the interim would people be happy with yearly team and kit updates via a big piece of DLC?

The point I'm trying to make is what's the costs involved in developing a new game every year that costs a shit load in development costs over one every three years and just releasing player and kit updates as DLC in the interim?

[mushashi]

No idea. I did say I'm not sure why.

That's kind of the point I was making. The yearly updates do contain new features and the like, but if that was to shift to a three year proper disc version update, would EA make or save money? In the interim would people be happy with yearly team and kit updates via a big piece of DLC?

The point I'm trying to make is what's the costs involved in developing a new game every year that costs a shit load in development costs over one every three years and just releasing player and kit updates as DLC in the interim?

How many people buy FIFA games?, about 12-15+ Million per year.

$60x15 Million x 3 = $2.7 Billion in revenue

$60x15 Million + $20x15 Million x 2 = $1.5 Billion in revenue.

I think, even if you figure that a few more people might buy the 3 year disc release, you'd still be down a fair amount in profit by doing such a move, EA do employ people to figure these kind of scenarios out, because they have been making the game for the best part of 20 years now.

[squirtle]

Fair enough. That's some nice sums. I guess the 1.2 billion would cover the costs of development and stuff.

[DocG]

Whoa whoa whoa. This part of your argument is compelling:

I think, even if you figure that a few more people might buy the 3 year disc release, you'd still be down a fair amount in profit by doing such a move, EA do employ people to figure these kind of scenarios out, because they have been making the game for the best part of 20 years now.

But this part is badly flawed because revenue isn't the same thing as profit:

$60x15 Million x 3 = $2.7 Billion in revenue

$60x15 Million + $20x15 Million x 2 = $1.5 Billion in revenue.

Out of the $20 figure for hypothetical annual DLC, EA only has to pay platform holder rights fees. Whereas out of the $60 for a disk release, EA has to pay the platform holder fees, retailer, wholesaler, duplicating company, shippers and logistics, distributors, credit card processing fees, and so on and so forth. Plus the on-disc scenario has (to the publisher's perspective) some loss of sales due to the preowned market too.

[mushashi]

For the $60 disc release, EA's margins are north of 50%

For the 1600MSP/$20 DLC, EA's margins are 70% (XBL supposedly follows standard industry practice)

So you are looking at ~$30+ versus $14 going to EA, FIFA is fairly front loaded so most sales at retail will be at a higher price.

The figure I used to calculate new sales is what EA state for shipments (which is what they get paid for).

FIFA 13 sales stats for the first 3 months:

Electronic Arts has confirmed that FIFA 13 shifted 12 million copies during the publishing giant’s Q3 FY2013.

The company revealed that the footie outing beat out its predecessor in terms of revenue by 23 per cent compared to the same period last year.

FIFA 13 also recorded a 98 per cent increase in digital net revenue when stacked against FIFA 12, topping $100 million.

Released in September 2012, FIFA 13 moved a whopping 4.5 million units in its first five days on sale. In the U.K. alone, it sold 1.23 million in just 48 hours, becoming the biggest-selling sports launch title of all time.

[Spacehost]

Let's deduct the fact that only half of the people with an Xbox are connected to the web and that's c. $15 going to EA rather than c. $30.

[mushashi]

Don't you mean lost sales for the DLC which requires an internet connection to download?, unlike the physical disc release. Which would only stack the financial case further in favour of the fullpriced disc release, unless people want to pay EA 3200MSP/$40 for the DLC release to make up the difference in actual money received per unit of product sold.

[NecroMorrius]

There's a juicy rumour on vgleaks this morning, which got a bit buried under the Durango leak. Apparently, Final Fantasy 13 Versus has been 'next-genned' and renamed FFXV. But here's the kicker, Sony are co-developing it, and it's a PS4 exclusive.

[Dandy_Sephy]

I was expecting a Versus announcement at E3, such a move would not be a bad one given how little was ever mentioned of Versus's details.

For the record there are rumours about the FFX HD 'remaster' also containing FFX-2 on ps3, so it seems to be a Square rumour day.

[verbs]

For the record there are rumours about the FFX HD 'remaster' also containing FFX-2 on ps3

:omg:

[Larsen B]

Is the Square Enix behind Versus/FF15 the same one behind FF13 and FF14 that everyone seems to despise?

I liked FF13 but it's amazing that, if they can be used as a pawn in the console wars, they're suddenly hot property again.

[Dandy_Sephy]

The power of the brand still carries weight even if the recent games have been somewhat debatable quality and design wise.

[Broker]

Is the Square Enix behind Versus/FF15 the same one behind FF13 and FF14 that everyone seems to despise?

No, it's Nomura's team, who made the Kingdom Hearts games.

[Dandy_Sephy]

oh god they actually are making a new Drakengard

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Drakengard_3

Piss off square

I gather both Drakengard/Drag On Dragoon games did very well in Japan.

[Larsen B]

No, it's Nomura's team, who made the Kingdom Hearts games.

I'm on board the hype train.

[Broker]

Can they get the Final Fantasy 12 team back on the next one? And also then make a new Final Fantasy Tactics

And another Tactics Ogre. And Vagrant Story 2.

Yasumi Matauno, who directed FFXII and created the Tactics Ogre and FF Tactics series' and Vagrant Story, has left Squeenix and said he doesn't want to work on games set in Ivalice anymore, which would kind of tear the heart out of any sequel to those games.

[mushashi]

Yasumi Matauno

He did take one for the team on that project, no wonder he left, his health suffered as a result of that undertaking. Amazed Yoshinori Ono hasn't quit Capcom aswell, what with his recent hospital stay due to overwork.