Jump to content
IGNORED

PlayStation Plus Premium - Out Now


Sarlaccfood
 Share

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, rgraves said:

MS presented data on this really recently - they officially said that folks with GP seem to spend more time playing games, and spend more in the process - I can't fathom why this is continually ignored by people who apprently seem to know the business and financials better than MS themselves.

I think it's more about being wary of data presented by a company that has a vested interest in presenting their service in a particular light. I mean, that presentation was literally to sell developers on signing their game to Game Pass, so not exactly an impartial source.

 

Without being able to see the actual data their percentages are based on – which obviously they've no obligation to release – it's hard to judge how much spin is being applied. For example, what constitutes a non-Game Pass having 'look-alike' user? In terms of demographic signifiers my brother would probably be plopped in the same bucket as me, but whilst his Xbox is just a Warzone machine I spend around £1000 a year on a variety of gaming purchases; this disparity in interest was true before Game Pass existed. Anecdotally I'm spending less in the Xbox eco-system than I used to before Game Pass, although I'm a more 'engaged' user of the platform.

 

Internally I'm sure Microsoft have excellent data scientists putting together academically rigorous reports; they'll know exactly how Game Pass is doing, projected growth, etc. That research is for their edification, though, not ours: externally they can present whatever massaged statistic best suites their messaging. And maybe they aren't, maybe those statistics as presented are totally in-line with their internal figures. We have no way of knowing either way. All we can say is that they're selling product, not providing a public service, so a certain degree of scepticism is warranted.

 

In short, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect Game Pass is still in the fake-it-'til-you-make-it stage of growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rgraves said:

But they were previously not subscribed (so they were in the non GP bucket), and then when they are, they spend more (on average). They know what people who sub spend, and what people who are not subbed spend. They've got both sides of the data at their fingertips.

 

Obviously looking at averages is going to mean you get people on the extremes - but the data is there - MS getting you to spot their 'error' and 'get one over on them with the £1 trick' means they get your £1 +  you are, on average, likely to spend more with them than you were before.

 

Audience A: Does not subscribe = spends X

Audience B: Pays £1 to subscribe = spends X+5%

 

Clearly B is worth more to MS (instantly in terms of the sub, and long-term in terms of the revenue) - it's not really the £1 they are chasing (but the billions it brings in aren't exactly a bother).

 

It's the "pays £1 to subscribe = spends X+5%" that I'm saying the data doesn't back up (or at least I think is very hard to believe).

 

The chart above that shows spending by GP subs being higher than "lookalike gamers". But as per your linked article how do we define lookalike. If they were truly lookalike they'd both be subscribed to Game Pass wouldn't they? So they're considered similar enough to say that GP subs spend more than those without GP. More interesting is what was an average GP subs spending last year when not subscribed vs spending this year as a subscriber?

 

I also think we need to take care over MS' reason for painting a certain picture. It's good for them for publishers and others in the industry to see GP as increasing general spending on gaming, or at least not adversely impacting it. They don't want/need publishers to be shy about putting things on GP over fears that it's going to damage sales of their full price games, DLC and in game stuff. If they can show GP subs spend more on gaming outside of GP then that's a win for them and everyone.

 

I'm not saying MS don't have this right. Or are loss leading it particularly. Or that people don't spend more on gaming in general. But the data I can see doesn't say that people who take up GP start spending more than they did before or that they keep spending what they did before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, deKay said:

 

Three announcements were rumoured for this week. It has been suggested the three announcements were the three tiers of the new PS+, and not PS+ and two other things.

Oh, is that it? I thought I’d heard they were buying From or some other studios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JPL said:

Oh, is that it? I thought I’d heard they were buying From or some other studios.

 

I've no idea, but it's plausable.

 

The three front-runners for the rumours were PS+, PS5 pro, and buying From/Capcom/Konami/Something else. But really, the only evidence was "new PS+ service" (which we knew about, just not the details) and "three rumours" (which could have come from the three tiers, or be just made up by someone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JPL said:

Oh, is that it? I thought I’d heard they were buying From or some other studios.

 

If they were going to, they should have done it before Elden Ring sold far more than expected. I imagine the valuation just changed significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure are a lot of people in here trying to convince the rest of us that clearly MS must be lying about gamepass numbers and how much more people buy when subscribed. Must be all made up.  Would MS really try that given the credibility damage it would entail if they were found out?  Not to mention that they'd probably be in serious shit with the SEC for lying to shareholders? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if it includes me it completely missed my point.

 

I love GP. It's basically all the gaming I do other than Switch. Saves me a tonne but then I'm probably in an odd place. I read about games and game news more than I play. So I know about these things but don't spend much.

 

I just don't think we should take graphs and other statistics as the whole picture. MS, like any organisation, present the best for the people they're talking to. Not lying, presenting the a view of the data and one interpretation of without methodology. I've no issue with that but I don't like to see it present without critical analysis.

 

The relevance to Sony is only so far as whether day one or delayed releases onto their subs platform will hit bottom lines. We're saying that no, subs mean people spend more and nothing has shown that to be true. Spend more than non-subs maybe. But spend more than before they had a sub, god knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rgraves said:

 

You think MS are 'turning a blind eye' to that, lol. How amateur do you think they are? It's all planned in, it's not some 'mistake' we're all secretly in on (but they've not spotted yet so shhhhh lads). They know that bringing you into the ecosystem is well worth it for them even at that level (see the fact that a member spends more with them in the data above). The idea it's costing them and they are just totally carrying on and ignorning it, is mental. Corps like that *pore* over the data, they know what's going on. They know more about your buying habits than you do in all likelihood.

Absolutely.... :) And people are spending 3 years of money upfront in many cases - so what £120 (3 x 12m XBG subs). Lots of money upfront. Certainly better than what an initial £8 or £10.99 monthly sub money anyway. Also once people have paid out using the conversion trick they think the games are "free" so well spend on getting some more content and games anyway. I guess. 

 

It a great way of getting people into the ecosystem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

And if it includes me it completely missed my point.

 

I love GP. It's basically all the gaming I do other than Switch. Saves me a tonne but then I'm probably in an odd place. I read about games and game news more than I play. So I know about these things but don't spend much.

 

I just don't think we should take graphs and other statistics as the whole picture. MS, like any organisation, present the best for the people they're talking to. Not lying, presenting the a view of the data and one interpretation of without methodology. I've no issue with that but I don't like to see it present without critical analysis.

 

The relevance to Sony is only so far as whether day one or delayed releases onto their subs platform will hit bottom lines. We're saying that no, subs mean people spend more and nothing has shown that to be true. Spend more than non-subs maybe. But spend more than before they had a sub, god knows.

It was more the annointed forum edge lord raffoman who is hilarious and I love his posts for entertainments sake. SEC lol!

 

Point is nobody knows, without seeing the exact metrics of verified data from an independent source, nobody can say shit. If people present it as gospel, well they believe whatever it is, fine (probably becoz console wars) Marketing is marketing. Whether its from sony/ms/amd/nvidia/intel/apple. I have zero clue about the true profitability or conversion metrics of either service. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rafaqat said:

Sure are a lot of people in here trying to convince the rest of us

Nope

 

1 hour ago, rafaqat said:

MS must be lying about gamepass numbers

Nope - no one said that

 

1 hour ago, rafaqat said:

Must be all made up

Nope - no one said that

 

1 hour ago, rafaqat said:

Would MS really try that given the credibility damage it would entail if they were found out?

Nope

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pelekophoros said:

"A lot of people" is, what, two or maybe three?

 

19 minutes ago, Stavi said:

Nope

 

Nope - no one said that

 

Nope - no one said that

 

Nope

 

 

Stavi meet Pelekophoros. He has eyes. Please obtain some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

Stavi meet Pelekophoros. He has eyes. Please obtain some.

 

*sigh*


- 2 or 3 isn't "A lot of people"

- Who said "MS must be lying about gamepass numbers"?
- Who said "It must be all made up"?

 

So what you're saying is a bunch of nope. All that was pointed out that they published the stats and numbers that it suits them to post using an undefined term (lookalike). 

 

My eyes are fine. But thanks for your genuine concern.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, teddymeow said:

 

What's GamePass?

 

Asking for a friend.


I think it’s a bit like the new PS Plus but not as good. It’s on that other console that I can never remember the name of, not the Switch, the other one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scoobysi said:


I think it’s a bit like the new PS Plus but not as good. It’s on that other console that I can never remember the name of, not the Switch, the other one.

 

The Xbox One S/X Series SX?  That name is so confusing I'm not sure how many parents have bought the wrong console for the kids this xmas.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "people who have gamepass spend more money" is an irrelevant argument. It's a self selecting group who probably would buy more games anyway. It only becomes interesting if *after* they buy gamepass they suddenly start spending more money on the same platform than they would have done otherwise. But, of course, that's never actually stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Uzi said:

It was more the annointed forum edge lord raffoman who is hilarious and I love his posts for entertainments sake. SEC lol!

 

You don't think they'd get their arses sued off for misrepresenting GP numbers and sales?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

 

You don't think they'd get their arses sued off for misrepresenting GP numbers and sales?

 

I'm sure the Securities and Exchanges Commission would be very interested in accusations from strangers online that some very generic graphs and meaningless vague data about a videogame subscription service published on a games industry blog could be skewed to present a positive narrative from said company

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, footle said:

The "people who have gamepass spend more money" is an irrelevant argument. It's a self selecting group who probably would buy more games anyway. It only becomes interesting if *after* they buy gamepass they suddenly start spending more money on the same platform than they would have done otherwise. But, of course, that's never actually stated.

 

Did you read my post? I quote my second chart - that's NOT FROM MS and that people seem to be ignorning again:

 

Quote

However, Ampere Analysis’ Piers Harding-Rolls, whose firm has a ‘game subscription’ research service - did an excellent GDC presentation last week (.PDF mirrored here, thx Piers!) including the following slide. It agrees on the direction of travel, if not the exact numbers:

 

3d1fbee5-7421-49b7-8a1a-6659d99ef82d_800

 

It's really odd how we've got really recent, industry conference delivered, data from both the manufacturer and a third-party analyst - but people still prefer to ignore or hand-wave away as they don't suit. It's like a <drops political hand grenade> Brexit discussion.

 

EDIT: Folks should take a look at the PDF by the way, some interesting stuff in there about the market and the dynamics at play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Did you read my post? I quote my second chart - that's NOT FROM MS and that people seem to be ignorning again:

 

 

3d1fbee5-7421-49b7-8a1a-6659d99ef82d_800

 

It's really odd how we've got really recent, industry conference delivered, data from both the manufacturer and a third-party analyst - but people still prefer to ignore or hand-wave away as they don't suit. It's like a <drops political hand grenade> Brexit discussion.

 

EDIT: Folks should take a look at the PDF by the way, some interesting stuff in there about the market and the dynamics at play.


Surely that graph would be more informative if it compared GP users to other formats rather than Xbox owners without GP? Are Xbox users really spending more on games than Sony and Nintendo with their £70 games and full RRP 5 year old games?


Also does that “non gamepass” group include a bunch of dormant Xbox ones with just FIFA 16 on the hardrive in the attic somewhere? 


I can see why people are cynical, the Xbox threads are awash with people happily announcing they haven’t spent a penny on games in months and the reason it compares so well to Sony’s offering is value for money for the consumer. It can’t really go both ways can it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graph I use is the amount and type of games on offer worth the money I am paying for the service? Those work quite well. I thus have a 3 year bar for xbox right now, waiting to see sonys offering if it goes beyond the 1 year in PS now I have. Xbox has the bigger graph by 3x, so they win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t get me wrong my PS+ has lapsed and I’m a card carrying gamepass member,  I just think it’s fair to view a marketing slide from a company that’s just tried to shove adverts in file explorer with just as big a pinch of salt as you would from a Sony that turned up GT7 micro transactions after the reviews came out or Nintendo who….well they don’t even wait till your not looking to put their hand in your pocket. 
 

They’re all dishonest, sneaky pricks that would trick you out of house and home if they could get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Did you read my post? I quote my second chart - that's NOT FROM MS and that people seem to be ignorning again:

 

 

3d1fbee5-7421-49b7-8a1a-6659d99ef82d_800

 

It's really odd how we've got really recent, industry conference delivered, data from both the manufacturer and a third-party analyst - but people still prefer to ignore or hand-wave away as they don't suit. It's like a <drops political hand grenade> Brexit discussion.

 

EDIT: Folks should take a look at the PDF by the way, some interesting stuff in there about the market and the dynamics at play.

 

No one is hand waving it away (or most aren't) or that it suits some narrative. Just acknowledging that it does not in any way show GP causes users to spend more money.

 

It shows only that those with GP spend more than those without. Okay so GP users still spend money. Great. But if those people spent twice as much as average before GP and now only 1.5 times then their spending is down.

 

And anecdotally it fails the sniff test doesn't it? Do you see "most" people with GP talking about how they're buying more or even the same number of games as before? I don't. I see people saying they e spent fuck all. Maybe that's skewed by people here (I imagine we are a bit different to average) but back to nothing shows people have increased their spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

No one is hand waving it away (or most aren't) or that it suits some narrative. Just acknowledging that it does not in any way show GP causes users to spend more money.

 

It shows only that those with GP spend more than those without. Okay so GP users still spend money. Great. But if those people spent twice as much as average before GP and now only 1.5 times then their spending is down.

 

And anecdotally it fails the sniff test doesn't it? Do you see "most" people with GP talking about how they're buying more or even the same number of games as before? I don't. I see people saying they e spent fuck all. Maybe that's skewed by people here (I imagine we are a bit different to average) but back to nothing shows people have increased their spending.


this. Unless you have before and after, for that group of users, it doesn’t show what you think it does. The only people who have the information is Microsoft.

and they only know the difference *on their platform*: it might have taken money away from other platforms so third party publishers are actually worse off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sarlaccfood changed the title to PlayStation Plus Premium - Out Now

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.