Support NeoGAF

[njean777]

Coming from somebody that bought the ultimate edition of Gears 5 (even though it is on game pass) I agree that some games should not be on a subscription service. If you even know the shit show that is gears 5 right now with the store, iron, scrap, etc... it is .... I just I feel ripped off. It is both a game that they charged 60-80$ and yet has a F2P battle pass like progression system and a micro-transaction store. They charge for 2xp and it runs out even if you are not playing....

Some games just do not belong on the Sub service if you are charging full price for people who do not have it, Unless you make special concessions for people who pay full price. For Example Gears 5 could give boost (xp) forever for people who paid full price and many other things, but lets not get into all the minutia of it.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Microsoft won’t keep doing it forever either as it’s not profitable. They have crazy expectations of:

Xbox boss Phil Spencer on the future of gaming: “The business isn’t how many consoles you sell”

A deeper look at xCloud and Project Scarlett.

www.theverge.com

When they discover that will never come close to transpiring they’ll be forced to switch course again.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

2 billion players??? LMAO. Is Microsoft going free to play? LOL.

It isn't about selling consoles? Says the head of the brand that's about to be in last place for the generation. For each generation, Xbox brand has been 2nd, 3rd and soon to be 3rd. 18 years in the console gaming industry and they can barely get second place. Come on Microsoft, step up your shit. At least TRY to be the best. SMH.

 

[Max_Po]

agree. MS should not do that either especially with their first party stuff.

They are de-valuing their IPs.

 

[Silent Viper]

Agree and he smart. MS is stupid as they devaluing their franchise. Gears already going downhill in sales, soon it will be Halo.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

This is correct stance to take. Don't devalue your ips by giving them away for basically nothing, that's why Nintendo rarely puts first party games on sale. Keeps the IP strong and gives off the sense that what you're dealing with is a quality product that you should be paying a premium price for.

Not sure how people come away from this thinking arrogant Sony. They are a business trying to sell a product not a charity. Their are other things that make them seem arrogant, this isn't one of them.

 

[Fitzchiv]

They are a 100% right. Gamers have become so entitled they want $50-100 million games for a dollar nowadays. Typical millennial generation.

Wow, wow, wow...don't blame us Millennials..we were cool with buying our games from an actual physical building, or renting it from another one. It's the Generation Z fucknuts wot done this..

Anyway, just onto this subject - it amazes me how many people don't understand the business model MS has employed with gamepass. The devaluation argument is daft, too. Sony and MS will go after things their own way, but don't think for a moment the state of play today is representative of their plan for 5 years time. MS is firmly in penetration pricing mode for its gamepass service and will increase cost / kill sign up offers once they hit a particular phase of adoption, but the subscription model will maintain a high retention rate because people on that service won't actually "own" a lot of the games they've played.

Sony's traditional price skimming model has a sharper curve, but whilst enough people are willing to pay the premium one-off price it works a treat. The issue with this is you're reliant on a relatively small initial group of buyers willing to pay top whack for the product in order to subsidise price reductions later in it's lifecycle, which means it has to be a great product. Right now that's all great for Sony as they have that. But how many of you wait a few weeks to buy the latest Sony first party title because you have a backlog and would rather see £10/$10 fall off the cost?

They're two different ways of going after business, but the devaluation argument is actually only Sony specific as they're reliant on premium buyers at the early stage. Premium TVs, cars etc aren't devalued because you can buy them on finance..just more people can buy them today, rather than next year - and over the lifetime of the finance offer you end up paying more..

 

[yurinka]

It would be super dumb to give away at launch day AAA games that sell over 10 million copies when being sold for $70 at launch, and at the same time your console is selling at the same record speed than the best selling console ever and your digital services are generating record revenues dominating each one of them their own market.

I don't know if it's worth for MS, I highly doubt it may be profitable at least for the short and mid term. I think MS just prefers to lose a lot of money with their 1st party games and Game Pass with the idea of getting some attention to sell some consoles because compared with their competition they have weaker revenue and sales numbers in games, consoles and services, and they want to have some nice selling point to increase their userbase for the future. I assume that it Game Pass ends working very well and get a ton of subscribers (not the $1 ones, the other ones) then in the future will increase its price and stop reeasing all 1st party AAA games there and maybe would include some.

In addition to that, even if they have stuff like LBP or Dreams, Sony prefers to make single player games with no GaaS approach, and these type of games are only a good fit for subscription models only when they don't sell anymore after being disconted and price cutted, to get an additional residual revenue. But instead, for companies like Ubi who have several GaaS focused games it may have a good option to put there their games, maybe not at launch, but more or less soon, because GaaS games get most of their revenue from DLC instead of game sales so they may prefer to have a lower entry point decreasing the entry price to wider their userbase, so amount of potential DLC buyers.

 

[Lort]

Netflix makes content so valued the awards bodies argue they need to release it in cinemas for at least 90 days exclusively first so they can give it the awards it deserves.
Instead Xbox is going to do the same .. they wont release every valued exclusive (noone can) they will release quite a number and use it to drive subscriptions and market dominance ... and just like netflix they have a chance of owning %50 of the market before everyone else realises the “game” has changed.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Netflix makes content so valued the awards bodies argue they need to release it in cinemas for at least 90 days exclusively first so they can give it the awards it deserves.
Instead Xbox is going to do the same .. they wont release every valued exclusive (noone can) they will release quite a number and use it to drive subscriptions and market dominance ... and just like netflix they have a chance of owning %50 of the market before everyone else realises the “game” has changed.

That could change the game alright (or risk imploding under a mountain of debt and all big publishers screaming for their distribution platform...), ushering the great smartphone era of games’ perceived value cratering next to nothing and gameplay changing to drive revenue through extensive player tracking, private data selling, and rapacious micro transactions turned up to 11... yeah, no thanks.

Not looking forward to console gaming becoming the next area the pervasive gameplay changing F2P infestation spreads to next and takes hold of people’s minds.

 

[ZehDon]

Thread has been... interesting.

Long post incoming:

Ultimately, it depends on what the objective of the exclusives are. Sony are using their AAA current-gen exclusives to drive hardware install base, which in turn drives up first and third party software sales through the economies of scale, earning Sony their revenue.
This means they want to restrict access to those AAA current-gen exclusives to a per-licence basis. Every 1 licence sold roughly - and I stress roughly - equates to a sold unit of hardware in the wild. You either buy the licence - either via the disc or digital download - and play it on the machine you purchased, or you don't get to play the game. After that initial hardware purchase, you're in their ecosystem, and buying new content. This strategy puts Playstations under TVs, and will continue to do so.

Microsoft lost that game when the Xbox brand imploded under Mattrick. Much like Nintendo, they've indirectly acknowledged that they just cannot break Sony's stranglehold on the home console market. And you don't spend billions hand over fist to come out second.
So, wisely, they're now playing a different ball game. Nintendo did the same, and they leaned into their niche, and have the stranglehold on the handheld market - and God help whoever wants to compete with Nintendo there. Because Nintendo's strategy is ultimately the same as Sony's, Nintendo won't be offering up their exclusives for pennies any time soon.

This leaves Microsoft in the not-great position of being unable to compete in home consoles, or in handhelds. So, they've leaned into their own niche - Xbox is multi-platform, while Sony and Nintendo are single-platform.
The end result is, effectively, Microsoft attempting to create the mythical "Netflix for Games". The console is simply an access point for their service. Can't afford a gaming PC? Buy an Xbox, get their service, play all the games you want. Do have a gaming PC? Cool, just buy their service anyway, and play all the games you want.
This gives their service the potential customer base of all of Windows 10 - which is more than every console Sony and Nintendo have ever made combined.
The benefits of this are obvious and enormous - Sony needs to convince you their latest 10 hour mostly-cinematic game is worth AU$100.00. Microsoft just needs to convince you that their latest title is worth AU$20.00, with the added benefit of the entire back catalogue of the Xbox brand thrown in. And once you're in Microsoft's ecosystem, and realise the value on offer, you're much more likely to throw them another AU$20.00 then fork out another AU$100.00 to Sony.
Microsoft are banking on sheer volume - that they can convince millions more people to pay AU$20.00 than they ever could to pay AU$100.00. And make no mistake - while Stadia is going to crash and burn, Microsoft are banking on local compute for their service - you download and execute the game on your local machine, giving you the full-fat experience.

Sony need the absolute highest quality exclusives - enough to justify the full price tag - to drive their business model. And so far, they're doing pretty darn well, so they have no reason to change.

Microsoft with their service, on the other hand, really just needs decent quality releases, but at a much higher volume. New releases every month to keep you paying that monthly fee. They can fall back on the full price sales for a while, but they're banking on gamers thinking getting a full play through of Gear 5 for a few bucks is such crazy value that Microsoft have lost their minds. Judging from this thread, Microsoft know their market.

Interesting times ahead, but you'd be a fool if you think Microsoft aren't going to make some serious money in the days ahead.

 

[Azurro]

nah, I would feel better if people started to look at games like TLOU as what they are... the most generic gameplay imaginable with the most uninspired leveldesign, wearing some pretty makeup. like an old hooker trying to get business.
and everyone is just looking at the walls of pretty makeup and call them masterpieces, when in reality noone involved was out to make a good game, they were out to make a pretty looking dumbed down piece of software that is easy to consume

Hey buddy, we are your friends and just want to make you some questions. You see this doll? Please show me on this doll where the Playstation exclusive touched you.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Thread has been... interesting.

Long post incoming:

Ultimately, it depends on what the objective of the exclusives are. Sony are using their AAA current-gen exclusives to drive hardware install base, which in turn drives up first and third party software sales through the economies of scale, earning Sony their revenue.
This means they want to restrict access to those AAA current-gen exclusives to a per-licence basis. Every 1 licence sold roughly - and I stress roughly - equates to a sold unit of hardware in the wild. You either buy the licence - either via the disc or digital download - and play it on the machine you purchased, or you don't get to play the game. After that initial hardware purchase, you're in their ecosystem, and buying new content. This strategy puts Playstations under TVs, and will continue to do so.

Microsoft lost that game when the Xbox brand imploded under Mattrick. Much like Nintendo, they've indirectly acknowledged that they just cannot break Sony's stranglehold on the home console market. And you don't spend billions hand over fist to come out second.
So, wisely, they're now playing a different ball game. Nintendo did the same, and they leaned into their niche, and have the stranglehold on the handheld market - and God help whoever wants to compete with Nintendo there. Because Nintendo's strategy is ultimately the same as Sony's, Nintendo won't be offering up their exclusives for pennies any time soon.

This leaves Microsoft in the not-great position of being unable to compete in home consoles, or in handhelds. So, they've leaned into their own niche - Xbox is multi-platform, while Sony and Nintendo are single-platform.
The end result is, effectively, Microsoft attempting to create the mythical "Netflix for Games". The console is simply an access point for their service. Can't afford a gaming PC? Buy an Xbox, get their service, play all the games you want. Do have a gaming PC? Cool, just buy their service anyway, and play all the games you want.
This gives their service the potential customer base of all of Windows 10 - which is more than every console Sony and Nintendo have ever made combined.
The benefits of this are obvious and enormous - Sony needs to convince you their latest 10 hour mostly-cinematic game is worth AU$100.00. Microsoft just needs to convince you that their latest title is worth AU$20.00, with the added benefit of the entire back catalogue of the Xbox brand thrown in. And once you're in Microsoft's ecosystem, and realise the value on offer, you're much more likely to throw them another AU$20.00 then fork out another AU$100.00 to Sony.
Microsoft are banking on sheer volume - that they can convince millions more people to pay AU$20.00 than they ever could to pay AU$100.00. And make no mistake - while Stadia is going to crash and burn, Microsoft are banking on local compute for their service - you download and execute the game on your local machine, giving you the full-fat experience.

Sony need the absolute highest quality exclusives - enough to justify the full price tag - to drive their business model. And so far, they're doing pretty darn well, so they have no reason to change.

Microsoft with their service, on the other hand, really just needs decent quality releases, but at a much higher volume. New releases every month to keep you paying that monthly fee. They can fall back on the full price sales for a while, but they're banking on gamers thinking getting a full play through of Gear 5 for a few bucks is such crazy value that Microsoft have lost their minds. Judging from this thread, Microsoft know their market.

Interesting times ahead, but you'd be a fool if you think Microsoft aren't going to make some serious money in the days ahead.

Possibly, but in a Netflix style approach I cannot see how they can make money and the developers they rely on for diversity, volume, and quality of content without this turning into a predatory smartphone-land like F2P micro transactions and user data mining (and reselling) business to stay healthy and thrive.

As a consumer I try to be aware of the business model of the game because ultimately it impacts the games I buy: if a game (say Marvel’s Spider-man, God of War, the first Shadow of War, Cuphead, Super Mario Odyssey, Zelda: BotW, etc...) makes the bulk of its revenue on the actual game sale, this game will likely focus on me having fun and enjoying the ride of a lifetime afterwards; if I get a massive AAA produced F2P games I can expect an experience designed to keep me engaged and spending money at every possible turn as me starting the game up is only the beginning of the developer/publisher trying to make its money back.

 

[Kagey K]

But could we see all PS4 exclusives launch onto the service in the future? “Our stance on the inclusion of first-party games in PlayStation Now in terms of what we've done this month is very different to our stance 12 months ago,” said PlayStation boss Jim Ryan. “Right now, given how some of our first-party IP is incredibly special and valuable, we just want to treat them with amazing care and respect, and have those launches be clean and pure.”

This is the most important part of the response ,and sounds much different then then the title of the thread says.

Who knows what happens in another 12 months at this rate?

 

[Gerdav]

Coming from somebody that bought the ultimate edition of Gears 5 (even though it is on game pass) I agree that some games should not be on a subscription service. If you even know the shit show that is gears 5 right now with the store, iron, scrap, etc... it is .... I just I feel ripped off. It is both a game that they charged 60-80$ and yet has a F2P battle pass like progression system and a micro-transaction store. They charge for 2xp and it runs out even if you are not playing....

Some games just do not belong on the Sub service if you are charging full price for people who do not have it, Unless you make special concessions for people who pay full price. For Example Gears 5 could give boost (xp) forever for people who paid full price and many other things, but lets not get into all the minutia of it.

Exactly it doesn’t add up, the other thing is I don’t know how representative this is but I got Gears 5 through game pass ultimate, it’s been sat on my Xbox since launch and I haven’t so much as touched it, if it wasn’t on game pass I would have pre ordered it and at the very least devoured the campaign over the launch weekend, and assuming the F2P shit wouldn’t have been a thing played a lot of multiplayer, by giving the game away it’s almost like in my mind it devalued the game it’s didn’t feel to me like a AAA release, the same thing also applies to smaller scale games too, at E3 I loved the look and promise of Blair Witch so I pre ordered it, then I found out it was on game pass day 1, pre order cancelled, it’s been on my Xbox since day 1, how much have I played of it? Zip nada I haven’t even launched the game whereas if I had payed for it I would have played through the campaign.

MS realistically gave up on this gen a long time ago they are positioning themselves ready for Scarlett, of course it’s in a different way but it’s a bit like Sony did with plus towards the end of the PS3 era, I have suspicions they always planned it out to charge for online, the only thing they didn’t anticipate was MS screwing up this gen so badly.

 

[odhiex]

Nintendo will say the very same thing.

There goes my hope to play LOZ Breathe of the Wild and Mario Odyssey on switch for $10 or less

 

[Shaqazooloo]

There goes my hope to play LOZ Breathe of the Wild and Mario Odyssey on switch for $10 or less

A new copy of Mario Kart Wii and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are still close to full price (only $10 cheaper then at launch) even though they are 10 years old at this point and can only be played on two dead consoles. The lowest BotW and Odyssey will go is about 40 dollars.

 

[Jigsaah]

No, opinion, actually far from a fact.....Your opinion that XCLOUD is more ahead of the game and will position itself as the perfect sub service business model is naïve at best...….You are simply promoting a service that does not exist as superior to a service which does exist......

In essence, you believe in MS's hype for this un-launched service over what exists...….Even history is not on your side tow hat MS hypes vs what they deliver...…..Yet I would love to see what XCLOUD delivers, I really hope you don't backtrack when it's not the gold service you anticipate that will trump all in it's path......

Service doesnt exist? Theres tons of people using xCloud in beta? By the way...the beta...offers more in terms of accesibility and quality then PSNow does right now. What does tell you about PSNow?

You know what it tells me? It tells me Sony has done damn near nothing of merit with the service since its release. They had the time, they had the money...how is it that service still lacks? The math doesnt add up.

 

[Kagey K]

This is bullshit, if Sony convinced even a fraction of their base to subscribe to an extra 10 dollars a month, they would have their playerbase funding their games.

Their sales numbers might be lower, but their monthly income could be up.

This is so short sighted, IMO.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Possibly, but in a Netflix style approach I cannot see how they can make money and the developers they rely on for diversity, volume, and quality of content without this turning into a predatory smartphone-land like F2P micro transactions and user data mining (and reselling) business to stay healthy and thrive.

As a consumer I try to be aware of the business model of the game because ultimately it impacts the games I buy: if a game (say Marvel’s Spider-man, God of War, the first Shadow of War, Cuphead, Super Mario Odyssey, Zelda: BotW, etc...) makes the bulk of its revenue on the actual game sale, this game will likely focus on me having fun and enjoying the ride of a lifetime afterwards; if I get a massive AAA produced F2P games I can expect an experience designed to keep me engaged and spending money at every possible turn as me starting the game up is only the beginning of the developer/publisher trying to make its money back.

I strongly agree.

To make clear, I obviously don't really care about the profitability of a company I buy products from. If they want to give me a good deal at a loss on their end, then I would take it.

However, as Panajev pointed out, there is a price to pay when something is given away. I personally have issues with nearly all free-to-play games, even those I enjoyed. Cheap games that were made cheap is understandable, but when you have expensive games sold cheaply, then something had to give. Some part of the game had to be compromised to ensure profitability.

Outer Worlds is a full AAA game, but it was not made with Game Pass in mind. And I struggle to find a way that Outer Worlds 2 could be financially viable under a Game Pass system. Game Pass is likely not making a profit, but lets assume it IS; would it be profitable enough to support AAA game production?

Being skeptical with free deals with major corporations is something everyone learn these days. Nothing is truly free. Personally, I rather pay my fees upfront, than to not know what the catch is until later.

This is bullshit, if Sony convinced even a fraction of their base to subscribe to an extra 10 dollars a month, they would have their playerbase funding their games.

Their sales numbers might be lower, but their monthly income could be up.

This is so short sighted, IMO.

The only reason any customer would want Sony to put their 1st party games on PS Now, is if they want to give Sony LESS money. No one is ever telling Sony to do this under the assumption that THEY personally would pay more. It is always assumed that some other sucker would pay for it to make up the shortfall.

 

[Kagey K]

I strongly agree.

To make clear, I obviously don't really care about the profitability of a company I buy products from. If they want to give me a good deal at a loss on their end, then I would take it.

However, as Panajev pointed out, there is a price to pay when something is given away. I personally have issues with nearly all free-to-play games, even those I enjoyed. Cheap games that were made cheap is understandable, but when you have expensive games sold cheaply, then something had to give. Some part of the game had to be compromised to ensure profitability.

Outer Worlds is a full AAA game, but it was not made with Game Pass in mind. And I struggle to find a way that Outer Worlds 2 could be financially viable under a Game Pass system. Game Pass is likely not making a profit, but lets assume it IS; would it be profitable enough to support AAA game production?

Being skeptical with free deals with major corporations is something everyone learn these days. Nothing is truly free. Personally, I rather pay my fees upfront, than to not know what the catch is until later.

It is not given away, you pay for it. I joked with friends earlier this gen that I would pay 100 a month if I could play every game released. Xbox did it better and only charged 10, but not access to every game released.

 

[Kagey K]

I strongly agree.

To make clear, I obviously don't really care about the profitability of a company I buy products from. If they want to give me a good deal at a loss on their end, then I would take it.

However, as Panajev pointed out, there is a price to pay when something is given away. I personally have issues with nearly all free-to-play games, even those I enjoyed. Cheap games that were made cheap is understandable, but when you have expensive games sold cheaply, then something had to give. Some part of the game had to be compromised to ensure profitability.

Outer Worlds is a full AAA game, but it was not made with Game Pass in mind. And I struggle to find a way that Outer Worlds 2 could be financially viable under a Game Pass system. Game Pass is likely not making a profit, but lets assume it IS; would it be profitable enough to support AAA game production?

Being skeptical with free deals with major corporations is something everyone learn these days. Nothing is truly free. Personally, I rather pay my fees upfront, than to not know what the catch is until later.


The only reason any customer would want Sony to put their 1st party games on PS Now, is if they want to give Sony LESS money. No one is ever telling Sony to do this under the assumption that THEY personally would pay more. It is always assumed that some other sucker would pay for it to make up the shortfall.

If Sony released 2 good games a year and that customer stayed subscribed, they would make the exact same amount of money. Either way.

if Sony released Days Gone and a Death Stranding and the customer bought neither of those, they get 0. At least with the Subsciption they would have still gotten 120.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

If Sony released 2 good games a year and that customer stayed subscribed, they would make the exact same amount of money. Either way.

if Sony released Days Gone and a Death Stranding and the customer bought neither of those, they get 0. At least with the Subsciption they would have still gotten 120.

Except, Sony is already making money on PS Now. So they are currently earning money on both PS Now and normal 1st party games.
While MS is losing money on both 1st party games AND Gamepass.

MS is offering you a better deal, but you know full well the deal is temporary. Sony is making money on games and PS Now, so if you like either service you know it isn't going to get worse.

I am happy to be proven wrong when MS started truly charging full price for GamePass. Until then it is just an endless money pit. Sony learned last gen to NOT sell anything at a loss. And it worked well for them this gen. PS4, PSVR, PS Now, and everything else about the whole ecosystem is sold at a profit. You had to price your product at what it is worth.

 

[Kagey K]

Except, Sony is already making money on PS Now. So they are currently earning money on both PS Now and normal 1st party games.
While MS is losing money on both 1st party games AND Gamepass.

MS is offering you a better deal, but you know full well the deal is temporary. Sony is making money on games and PS Now, so if you like either service you know it isn't going to get worse.

I am happy to be proven wrong when MS started truly charging full price for GamePass. Until then it is just an endless money pit. Sony learned last gen to NOT sell anything at a loss. And it worked well for them this gen. PS4, PSVR, PS Now, and everything else about the whole ecosystem is sold at a profit. You had to price your product at what it is worth.

I don’t think you can prove any of that, but I’d like to see you try.

Tell us more.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I don’t think you can prove any of that, but I’d like to see you try.

Tell us more.

Prove what? Profitability?

PlayStation Now Has 700,000 Users, Use Contributed to Sony’s Increase in Sales

PlayStation Now's continued growth was one factor that led to Sony's ¥2.3 trillion yen in Game and Network Services segment sales in 2018.

variety.com

Wait... You really think PSNow is losing money? Is that what you believe? If Sony want to lose money, they wouldn't have restricted the PSNow to a slow roll out. Until the price cut this year, Sony was charging $99 a year for PSNow. And there was 700,000 paying subscribers in April.
Note i said PAYING, as in, they are not people who were gifted PSNow or was given 1 dollar a month deals. And since Sony isn't giving away any 1st party games on PSNow at launch, there is basically no extra costs than running the servers.

Just as Sony refuse to sell PSVR at a loss, Sony is doing the same with the rest of its business. Parts of Playstation need to pull its own weight. They should earn their budget.

 

[Kagey K]

Prove what? Profitability?

PlayStation Now Has 700,000 Users, Use Contributed to Sony’s Increase in Sales

PlayStation Now's continued growth was one factor that led to Sony's ¥2.3 trillion yen in Game and Network Services segment sales in 2018.

variety.com

Wait... You really think PSNow is losing money? Is that what you believe? If Sony want to lose money, they wouldn't have restricted the PSNow to a slow roll out. Until the price cut this year, Sony was charging $99 a year for PSNow. And there was 700,000 paying subscribers in April.
Note i said PAYING, as in, they are not people who were gifted PSNow or was given 1 dollar a month deals. And since Sony isn't giving away any 1st party games on PSNow at launch, there is basically no extra costs than running the servers.

Just as Sony refuse to sell PSVR at a loss, Sony is doing the same with the rest of its business. Parts of Playstation need to pull its own weight. They should earn their budget.

That’s not what I said, maybe you should go read it back slowly this time.

 

[JimiNutz]

Halo/Gears/Forza multiplayer should be on game pass day one (basically following a F2P model) and their single player campaigns should arrive on game pass 6-12 months after launch (depending on how they're selling).

Sony should do the same, except they don't have many MP experiences at present so maybe they should just stick all of their single player games on PS Now 6-12 months after release.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

That’s not what I said, maybe you should go read it back slowly this time.

Then tell me what I can't prove. I am not going to read your mind.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It is not given away, you pay for it. I joked with friends earlier this gen that I would pay 100 a month if I could play every game released. Xbox did it better and only charged 10, but not access to every game released.

Even 100 a month would not get you the ecosystem you have now without the nasty side effects mentioned before and nobody, well aside from you and your friend possibly , would realistically pay anywhere close to that for a subscription.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Halo/Gears/Forza multiplayer should be on game pass day one (basically following a F2P model) and their single player campaigns should arrive on game pass 6-12 months after launch (depending on how they're selling).

Sony should do the same, except they don't have many MP experiences at present so maybe they should just stick all of their single player games on PS Now 6-12 months after release.

Sony has plenty of multiplayer experiences... From 3rd parties.
You had to understand their differing strategy. MS is trying to make the most profitable GaaS games, but Sony realised that they are already getting 30% cut from all the third party GaaS games that are running on PS4. That any 1st party GaaS game would just undercut sales of third party titles and thus overall not getting them more money. So Sony decided to make all the single player games that are not being made, to not directely compete with their third party partners.

As an example, Sony has Fortnite just like everyone else. But if Sony make a Fortnite clone for PS4, at best they would undercut Fortnite sales and thus not really earning more than they already were making.

MS is trying to make money from the games they make, while Sony is trying to maintain the ecosystem using their games. Because Sony decided that ecosystem health is the real money, that competing with third party studios is like robbing themselves.

As an aside, Nintendo is basically on their own and had to make almost all their own AAA games. Because their third party partnership is just weaker and everyone know that. So Sony had to make both single player AND multiplayer games for Switch.

 

[Boss Mog]

Good for Sony, subscription services are garbage.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Good for Sony, subscription services are garbage.

Yeah.
It generates a different kind of game. Some people might like what comes out the other end, but most traditional games couldn't survive that way.
The way money is earned, affect how the game is produced. It doesn't mean the game has to be bad, but it would only have certain types of appeal.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

All XGS releases have been confirmed by Spencer to go in GamePass day and date.

Some will be AAA, some maybe single A.

Can they get AAA 3rd party titles? I think they do and will get better here too. I'm betting GamePass will have some good nuggets added at XO19 next week.

My post didn't make it clear. I am well aware of what MS said was going to happen in terms of first party titles being available day 1. That is correct.

What I meant was I think that it is a big if that the quality of first party titles will continue to remain high. Gears 1, Outer Worlds/etc. were in development before Gamepass was announced. Unless the subscriber numbers get sky high (Hulu has 28 million) after the $1 honeymoon period, it makes little financial sense for MS to justify big budget games if they are going straight to the subscription service. Shorter games with shorter development cycles will be pretty much be the norm.

While I appreciate your optimism, I don't see the quality of first party games remaining high like you do. From a purely financial standpoint, it just doesn't make sense even if gamepass pulls in good numbers at full paying price.

However, the second part where you say Gamepass will get 3rd party AAA titles day 1 is nothing but pure fanboy fantasy. Unless MS pays $100+ of millions of sales lost from Day 1, there is absolutely no way any publisher would agree to allow such a thing to happen. Even if MS offered a lot of money, I am not sure any publisher would agree to it for the precedent it would set. If a publisher was going to even consider such a thing, that publisher would likely start their own subscription service that was available on any platform.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

The part of all of this that I see being ignored, but will be a real issue for MS, is how they will be able to deal with subscription service saturation.

With Disney announcing their service and other studios likely to follow, the subscription service industry is getting (if not already there) heavily saturated.

By the time many of these $1 honeymood periods and end and customers are expected to shell out $15 per month, who knows where Gamepass will end up on the priorities of which services to keep.

 

[JimiNutz]

Sony has plenty of multiplayer experiences... From 3rd parties.
You had to understand their differing strategy. MS is trying to make the most profitable GaaS games, but Sony realised that they are already getting 30% cut from all the third party GaaS games that are running on PS4. That any 1st party GaaS game would just undercut sales of third party titles and thus overall not getting them more money. So Sony decided to make all the single player games that are not being made, to not directely compete with their third party partners.

As an example, Sony has Fortnite just like everyone else. But if Sony make a Fortnite clone for PS4, at best they would undercut Fortnite sales and thus not really earning more than they already were making.

MS is trying to make money from the games they make, while Sony is trying to maintain the ecosystem using their games. Because Sony decided that ecosystem health is the real money, that competing with third party studios is like robbing themselves.

As an aside, Nintendo is basically on their own and had to make almost all their own AAA games. Because their third party partnership is just weaker and everyone know that. So Sony had to make both single player AND multiplayer games for Switch.

Oh I do understand the strategy and I'm not suggesting that they abandon their single player experiences or try to clone successful third party multiplayer games.

That being said, Microsoft also have all of those third party multiplayer games as well as their own and if you're a multiplayer mainly gamer then Xbox would be a more attractive system. You're also at the mercy of third parties if you rely on them entirely for your multiplayer games. What happens when Epic/Activision/EA get moneyhats from the competition and decide to make certain multiplayer maps or modes exclusive to your rival system?

Obviously Sony's strategy has worked out just fine for them this gen and I'm not saying that they need to completely mix up their strategy but there's certainly no harm at all in putting some resources into your own exclusive multiplayer experiences. Sony themselves have already acknowledged that it's a weakness and something that they are working on (in the same way that MS are working on their lack of single player experiences).

 

[Stefan.North]

When I want movies, I turn on Netflix. So NO thanks to your precious exclusives.

 

[ethomaz]

DAT thread.

Gamepass after reach the size MS expect will start to decrease the number of day one titles until it become some deal one a year of more.

It is clear MS is only trying to build the Gamepass subs and the name of the service.

They definitely don't want to lose the day one revenue in a lot of term... and Gamepass will start to receive new releases after some months.

It is not a bad business... if you want to play at release... pay $60 if not to can wait to play on Gamepass.

 

[Three]

There is absolutely zero reason to censor any game in 2019 when the ESRB exists and it's not censored on other competing platforms. This is like Nintendo censoring the blood in Mortal Kombat.

All platforms have a policy outside of ratings.

So did MS make Office a subscription because no one was buying it?

Yes actually, it was because google sheets started to offer the office suite with their corporate mail.

 

[phil_t98]

It's a sub service you can no longer wait on 3-5 years to develop a big game just to put it on gamepass day one......There's no logic and financial sense there, especially if you cant sell a sub at the $15 per month you're asking...MS themselves have said that they want their devs to churn out new gamepass content every 3 months...…...It's the only way the model can work, for their first parties....

The point is, with such a low dev cycle, quality will and funding of said games will go down massively...…..Just be aware that you had games like Crackdown 3, SOD2, SOT which had years of development and look how they turned out, just imagine if you give these devs 3 months....

Erm forza horizon 4 gears 5 are quality games

 

[JLB]

Microsoft loses millions with the pass. Sony is not dumb.

I guess HBO and Netflix are dumb as well.

 

[FranXico]

I guess HBO and Netflix are dumb as well.

Last I checked, Netflix and HBO were not selling subscriptions for $1.

 

[Vawn]

agree. MS should not do that either especially with their first party stuff.

They are de-valuing their IPs.

I think they're doing that more with increasing lack of quality of their games over the last 7 to 10 years.

 

[Azelover]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

yeah right, they're so special, I love all the different ways to hide in a bush in all those special 3rd person shooter-stealth games with some dumbed down climbing mechanics thrown in there...
and all the different special ways to slowly walk next to or behind an NPC while all your controls, except for walking, get taken from you...

so special! I can't wait for The Last of BushHidingWalkingSlowlyImmersionBreak 2!

yeah.. kinda feel the same way..

The games are high budget, I'll give them that. But I'm in this hobby for the gameplay. And I don't like the Ucharted/TLOU/NewGOW style. Sorry if you were only being sarcastic. I'm not.

 

[Panajev2001a]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

yeah right, they're so special, I love all the different ways to hide in a bush in all those special 3rd person shooter-stealth games with some dumbed down climbing mechanics thrown in there...
and all the different special ways to slowly walk next to or behind an NPC while all your controls, except for walking, get taken from you...

so special! I can't wait for The Last of BushHidingWalkingSlowlyImmersionBreak 2!

Yup they are special, keep them coming and sell by the truckload (as they already do). Single player focused, non micro transaction infested F2P crapola,... keep them coming .

I will give you credit for taking the usual trolling trope and stretching it quite thin .

 

[onQ123]

Right now they should be working on games that will make people want to join PS Now and at the same time benefit more from a large user base than from day one sales.


Make the next Fortnite/Candy Crush /League of Legends type of games while making PS Now the lowest hanging fruit to play these games.

 

[Tranquil]

Sony: Our Exclusives Are Too Special and Valuable to Giveaway Day One with PS Now

"No one is going to argue against the value of Xbox’s Game Pass service, but Sony and Microsoft are in different places with their first-party games. While the former has been breaking long-standing records all generation long with releases like Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End, God of War, and...

www.neogaf.com

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I guess HBO and Netflix are dumb as well.

In a thread full of ignorant posts, this ranks near the top.

Last I checked, Netflix and HBO were not selling subscriptions for $1.

Not only that, Netflix had a very different business model before they became what they are today. Netflix started out as DVD rental service, then evolved into streaming by buying up the rights to old TV shows, movies etc. Stuff which many studios assumed had little audience. Once the studios realized that there was a demand for their older content, they gradually restricted what they licensed out to Netflix. As such Netflix started to develop their own content to keep people in their service.

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

PS Now will forever be "wrong" until they eliminate the input lag.

 

[mitch1971]

Right now they should be working on games that will make people want to join PS Now

Or, work on games that sell in their millions at $60 a pop first.

 

[onQ123]

PS Now will forever be "wrong" until they eliminate the input lag.

You can download games also.

 

[alienator]

Nobody cares for (game) streaming for the next 20 years, if there is one way to devalue your AAA system seller, its to put it up 'for free' day one as a streaming title.