Support NeoGAF

[Bryank75]

Put simply, PS Now needs a relaunch. Too many people are under the assumption that it is only a streaming service and are completely unaware of the fact you can download most of the games and also the sheer quantity of games.

However beyond a simple relaunch and possible renaming, it also needs some key changes to create an image that reflects its value proposition.

• No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

• Use market leading position to secure exclusive 3rd party game rights among subscription services... targeting Assassins Creed, FarCry, Resident Evil, EA Star Wars games.

• Should also cover GAAS / online games such as Destiny's latest expansions, Monster Hunter etc.

• Many Telltale / Quantic Dream / Supermassive games type games

• Bolstered by an excellent Indies selection

• Fund 10-20 million dollar projects to add unique experiences to the service

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.

• Put major focus on downloading games. With streaming simply being an added perk.

This allows Sony to recoup the investments in their 1st party games and keep the larger margins on them, it also allows them to keep major games like COD and Fifa outside the subscription as major sellers.
Most money is made on microtransactions and this will not effect that and may actually result in more spent on mtx.

It undercuts the competition on their final pillar of strength... lower cost 3rd party games and also maintains the model for 1st party games and the major sources of income.

 

[Hendrick's]

Game Pass

 

[NEbeast]

I don't mind first party coming later. The question then is: will that hurt sales? The answer is probably yes. Do those subscriptions make up the deficit though? Only Sony know the answer.

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

First reply has it right. PSNow will become Game Pass eventually. Sony's first party properties aren't too precious to hold outside of the service.

Games will still have traditional launches and plenty will continue to exist outside of subscriptions but exclusive original content is essential to a compelling subscription model-see Stranger Things, Halo, Mandalorian, Game of Thrones, etc.

For Sony it might be a gradual process, on PS Now 6 mos - 1 yr later but that time span will shrink over time and games will eventually end up releasing on the service.

 

[meech]

It doesnt have to be exactly like Game Pass. But How about this: All Playstation exclusives, base Version without Dlcs are availabe at PS Now 6 months after release.

 

[mckmas8808]

Put simply, PS Now needs a relaunch. Too many people are under the assumption that it is only a streaming service and are completely unaware of the fact you can download most of the games and also the sheer quantity of games.

However beyond a simple relaunch and possible renaming, it also needs some key changes to create an image that reflects its value proposition.

• No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

• Use market leading position to secure exclusive 3rd party game rights among subscription services... targeting Assassins Creed, FarCry, Resident Evil, EA Star Wars games.

• Should also cover GAAS / online games such as Destiny's latest expansions, Monster Hunter etc.

• Many Telltale / Quantic Dream / Supermassive games type games

• Bolstered by an excellent Indies selection

• Fund 10-20 million dollar projects to add unique experiences to the service

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.

• Put major focus on downloading games. With streaming simply being an added perk.

This allows Sony to recoup the investments in their 1st party games and keep the larger margins on them, it also allows them to keep major games like COD and Fifa outside the subscription as major sellers.
Most money is made on microtransactions and this will not effect that and may actually result in more spent on mtx.

It undercuts the competition on their final pillar of strength... lower cost 3rd party games and also maintains the model for 1st party games and the major sources of income.

I think I'd put tentpole 1st party games on there after 2 years. And keep some on there for 6 months, depending on the game. For some, I'd even only wait a year. Like this game should be on there after one year.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

First reply has it right. PSNow will become Game Pass eventually. Sony's first party properties aren't too precious to hold outside of the service.

WTF

PSNow already offers more "value" than Game Pass, it has more games, better games (the exclusives MS has aren't anything to write home about, unless you want to write a complaint letter)... and games are "day and date" for only a day, after that the value they add to the service drops very quick.

The only reason xbox/pc gamers prefer it is because it's on their platform (even then, PC gamers have access to so much free content, why do they even bother?).

Anyway, it seems there is enough pressure... so Sony is bound to make a move and you'll be happy.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Game Pass

Fix your dev kits first.

 

[Topher]

I'd be happy if they made the streaming part of it worth something. I've tried playing some games and the streaming service is just horrible. Hopefully the move to Azure will help.

Beyond that, I would like to see the option to download PC versions of PS games through the service, but that will probably not happen.

 

[Bryank75]

I think I'd put tentpole 1st party games on there after 2 years. And keep some on there for 6 months, depending on the game. For some, I'd even only wait a year. Like this game should be on there after one year.

Finished it recently, this is exactly the type of project that I was thinking of them funding specifically for the service.... 20 million or so (maybe was more expensive) projects...

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

WTF

PSNow already offers more "value" than Game Pass, it has more games, better games (the exclusives MS has aren't anything to write home about, unless you want to write a complaint letter)... and games are "day and date" for only a day, after that the value they add to the service drops very quick.

The only reason xbox/pc gamers prefer it is because it's on their platform (even then, PC gamers have access to so much free content, why do they even bother?).

Anyway, it seems there is enough pressure... so Sony is bound to make a move and you'll be happy.

I think you will find that there is some excitement for future first party MS titles.

PSNow and Sony's first party titles will be available on PC as well.

 

[Bryank75]

First reply has it right. PSNow will become Game Pass eventually. Sony's first party properties aren't too precious to hold outside of the service.

Games will still have traditional launches and plenty will continue to exist outside of subscriptions but exclusive original content is essential to a compelling subscription model-see Stranger Things, Halo, Mandalorian, Game of Thrones, etc.

For Sony it might be a gradual process, on PS Now 6 mos - 1 yr later but that time span will shrink over time and games will eventually end up releasing on the service.

They sell too well and they just increased the base price.... that really signals to me the opposite, that they want to make more money from 1st party stuff and make it more valuable, not lower the barrier and cost to entry.

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

They sell too well and they just increased the base price.... that really signals to me the opposite, that they want to make more money from 1st party stuff and make it more valuable, not lower the barrier and cost to entry.

It boils down to attach rate and the price that people purchase the game at. If all of their first party sales were made day one at $60 then perhaps it makes sense to leave them off the service for a while. I think reality is a little bit different though. We already see Ghost of Tsushima and TLOU 2 at $30-40 price points. It doesn't mean they aren't fantastic games. Sony is working their way down the demand curve and maximizing revenue. Maybe they wait 12 months to put the games on the service at first, maybe 6. They'll figure it out but over time that timespan will shrink. It doesn't make their games less valuable at all. The potential income from a subscription model is significantly higher than traditional sales. If anything Sony's first party lineup is going only get even more important as they move it into a sub.

There are very, very few titles that would make sense to hold outside of a sub. They are huge games that people will buy at full price in addition to their subscription and they have to keep selling at that same rate for months even years after launch. Titles like Mario Kart and Smash come to mind. Sony's games are fantastic and they probably have one or two titles that fit that description but games like that are few and very far between. I don't anticipate it will happen all at once but we will see more and more titles end up in a subscription sooner or later.

 

[mckmas8808]

It boils down to attach rate and the price that people purchase the game at. If all of their first party sales were made day one at $60 then perhaps it makes sense to leave them off the service for a while. I think reality is a little bit different though. We already see Ghost of Tsushima and TLOU 2 at $30-40 price points. It doesn't mean they aren't fantastic games. Sony is working their way down the demand curve and maximizing revenue. Maybe they wait 12 months to put the games on the service at first, maybe 6. They'll figure it out but over time that timespan will shrink. It doesn't make their games less valuable at all. The potential income from a subscription model is significantly higher than traditional sales. If anything Sony's first party lineup is going only get even more important as they move it into a sub.

There are very, very few titles that would make sense to hold outside of a sub. They are huge games that people will buy at full price in addition to their subscription and they have to keep selling at that same rate for months even years after launch. Titles like Mario Kart and Smash come to mind. Sony's games are fantastic and they probably have one or two titles that fit that description but games like that are few and very far between. I don't anticipate it will happen all at once but we will see more and more titles end up in a subscription sooner or later.

6 months is crack head stupid. Unless......the game just didn't sell well. There's ZERO reason for TLOU2 or GoT to be on PS NOW, right now.

 

[LeftThumbstick]

No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

Can i see the source or evidence that big budget first party games can't be sustained on a Gamepass model? I see this notion spreaded around these parts all the time but as far as i recall, there have been no Gamepass models to state anything like this as if it's a fact. As far as we've seen, Xbox have went full steam ahead and PROMISED to launch all FP games day one on GP, surely they've seen the numbers and potential and saw it as more than worth it.

Even at that, they're doing 7.5 billion buy-outs and they too will be Gamepass day ones, so i laugh at anyone doubting the viability of high quality first party games on Gamepass, and the notion that removing one of the main selling point of the service makes it better is laughable and sad, like shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you not want that as a player?

For PS now to compete with Gamepass, it's got to match or best GP's offerings and perks, not take them away in the name of bolstering a companies profits for them.

 

[Bryank75]

6 months is crack head stupid. Unless......the game just didn't sell well. There's ZERO reason for TLOU2 or GoT to be on PS NOW, right now.

Yup, 2 years minimum.

Games like Uncharted, TLOU, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon, God of War, Death Stranding, Bloodborne and Demons Souls are way too expensive to just dump on a service.

They must extract value over a significant time, to make the buyers feel like they got their money's worth...... you cannot make someone buy a collectors edition for 200 euro and then give it away 6 months later, it is spitting in the eyes of your best customers.

 

[Bryank75]

Can i see the source or evidence that big budget first party games can't be sustained on a Gamepass model? I see this notion spreaded around these parts all the time but as far as i recall, there have been no Gamepass models to state anything like this as if it's a fact. As far as we've seen, Xbox have went full steam ahead and PROMISED to launch all FP games day one on GP, surely they've seen the numbers and potential and saw it as more than worth it.

Even at that, they're doing 7.5 billion buy-outs and they too will be Gamepass day ones, so i laugh at anyone doubting the viability of high quality first party games on Gamepass, and the notion that removing one of the main selling point of the service makes it better is laughable and sad, like shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you not want that as a player?

For PS now to compete with Gamepass, it's got to match or best GP's offerings and perks, not take them away in the name of bolstering a companies profits for them.

Xbox would have to put out some quality games first to prove your assertion.

Spider-man 2018 alone has sold over 21 million on a single platform, Sony get a bigger cut of 1st party games than 3rd party....
GOW has sold close to 20 million too, these are more than RDR has sold on PS4, so I believe my theory is correct in general terms.

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

6 months is crack head stupid. Unless......the game just didn't sell well. There's ZERO reason for TLOU2 or GoT to be on PS NOW, right now.

Not every sale is made at $60.

Not every game makes sense to go into a sub model day 1 but those exceptions are few and far between. $180 in annual revenue/user for a sub model vs. whatever the average price per unit sold multiplied by the number of sales. You also have to consider the lack of a retail cut, flexibility with release windows, eliminating the resale/rental market, and constant revenue vs the traditional model of 1 year of profitability offset 3-4 years of loss. Subscriptions are largely more financially viable and lucrative for companies.

Yup, 2 years minimum.

Games like Uncharted, TLOU, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon, God of War, Death Stranding, Bloodborne and Demons Souls are way too expensive to just dump on a service.

They must extract value over a significant time, to make the buyers feel like they got their money's worth...... you cannot make someone buy a collectors edition for 200 euro and then give it away 6 months later, it is spitting in the eyes of your best customers.

You are thinking too much from your perspective as a big fan and collector vs. the perspective of the market. The average person who buys TLOU or Horizon isn't buying a collectors edition. Most of them aren't playing full price, some of them trade their games in or to their friends, some of them buy the game used. You can buy Ghost of Tsushima for $40 and TLOU 2 for $30 right now brand new. These games don't stay at $60 forever. That doesn't hurt people who buy collectors editions anymore than a subscription model. The average revenue per user in a sub model is higher than in a traditional model. There is a reason so many other forms of entertainment have moved that direction. I don't think it is one size fits all model but you need to have both a really special game and a sub with a ton of great exclusive content to be able to afford to hold it outside of your sub.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Xbox would have to put out some quality games first to prove your assertion.

Yeah that's the funny part, how many huge games has Microsoft even put out since Game Pass started? And the ones they did need to have articles like this written about them:

How Gears 5’s Confusing Microtransactions Work

Unlike Gears of War 4, Gears 5 technically doesn’t have loot boxes. But don’t have a party just yet. It has a convoluted system for unlocking cosmetic rewards that can be used to outfit the characters in Gears 5’s many multiplayer modes. It’s not intuitive, partially involves microtransactions...

kotaku.com

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

Yeah that's the funny part, how many huge games has Microsoft even put out since Game Pass started? And the ones they did need to have articles like this written about them:

How Gears 5’s Confusing Microtransactions Work

Unlike Gears of War 4, Gears 5 technically doesn’t have loot boxes. But don’t have a party just yet. It has a convoluted system for unlocking cosmetic rewards that can be used to outfit the characters in Gears 5’s many multiplayer modes. It’s not intuitive, partially involves microtransactions...

kotaku.com

I wouldn't use Microsoft as the barometer for everything. They get some things right and some things wrong. Games like Halo and Gears which have identity crises, unoptimized monetization models, and lack healthy online populations are probably not a great comparison. Microsoft has a Halo and Gears issue. They have done really well with Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon 4, and The Outer Worlds in Game Pass all of which have vary different dlc/micro models. I imagine they will do well with Avowed and Starfield in the service as well.

 

[Iced Arcade]

6 months is crack head stupid. Unless......the game just didn't sell well. There's ZERO reason for TLOU2 or GoT to be on PS NOW, right now.

zero reason? wouldn't the reason be to entice people to buy into a recurring subscription and handing you over money every month instead of dropping you $60 every now and then.


I'd offer 2 tier
- lower price as streaming service only.
- premium price offering streaming or download and the inclusion of day one 1st party titles (or even a month or 2 later)

 

[mckmas8808]

You are thinking too much from your perspective as a big fan and collector vs. the perspective of the market. The average person who buys TLOU or Horizon isn't buying a collectors edition. Most of them aren't playing full price, some of them trade their games in or to their friends, some of them buy the game used. You can buy Ghost of Tsushima for $40 and TLOU 2 for $30 right now brand new. These games don't stay at $60 forever. That doesn't hurt people who buy collectors editions anymore than a subscription model. The average revenue per user in a sub model is higher than in a traditional model. There is a reason so many other forms of entertainment have moved that direction. I don't think it is one size fits all model but you need to have both a really special game and a sub with a ton of great exclusive content to be able to afford to hold it outside of your sub.

You are thinking too much as a fan of Gamepass. Don't forget that Sony and Nintendo are the "World's" market leaders when it comes to console gaming. They are making the most revenue and profit on planet Earth. It's their business model that should lead things, not Microsoft's.

zero reason? wouldn't the reason be to entice people to buy into a recurring subscription and handing you over money every month instead of dropping you $60 every now and then.


I'd offer 2 tier
- lower price as streaming service only.
- premium price offering streaming or download and the inclusion of day one 1st party titles (or even a month or 2 later)

Like the poster above that I responded to, don't forget that Sony and Nintendo have the "correct" business model. They are the leaders. MS is doing something different/new strictly due to them "NOT" being the market leaders. It's MS that's chasing a new business model and hoping that it works. There's no reason for Sony to chase behind them when we don't even know if it'll work long term.

 

[Metnut]

I just hope it doesn’t turn into gamepass. Then we’d likely be stuck with Microsoft quality level exclusives. Yikes.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

I wouldn't use Microsoft as the barometer for everything. They get some things right and some things wrong. Games like Halo and Gears which have identity crises, unoptimized monetization models, and lack healthy online populations are probably not a great comparison. Microsoft has a Halo and Gears issue. They have done really well with Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon 4, and The Outer Worlds in Game Pass all of which have vary different dlc/micro models. I imagine they will do well with Avowed and Starfield in the service as well.

What do you mean don't use Microsoft as the barometer, they are the only ones you CAN use as a barometer. They are the ones who say that you can give away all your AAA games in a subscription. If they can't do it without filling them with microtransaction garbage, then no thank you to the business model.

God of War and TLOU2 don't have a single piece of DLC at all. Literally nothing in the store to even sell.

 

[mckmas8808]

I just hope it doesn’t turn into gamepass. Then we’d likely be stuck with Microsoft quality level exclusives. Yikes.

It won't be. It's honestly why Sony is selling $70 games. They have a totally different business model from MS. It's also why Sony has 1st party exclusive games at launch and many heavy hitters coming out next year.

 

[Iced Arcade]

You are thinking too much as a fan of Gamepass. Don't forget that Sony and Nintendo are the "World's" market leaders when it comes to console gaming. They are making the most revenue and profit on planet Earth. It's their business model that should lead things, not Microsoft's.



Like the poster above that I responded to, don't forget that Sony and Nintendo have the "correct" business model. They are the leaders. MS is doing something different/new strictly due to them "NOT" being the market leaders. It's MS that's chasing a new business model and hoping that it works. There's no reason for Sony to chase behind them when we don't even know if it'll work long term.

oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't using Microsoft entirely as an example. it's almost every other business/product out there.

if they are happy and profitable with 1 and done sales then that's good too, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[pixelation]

Having it available in all regions would be an excellent start!

 

[mckmas8808]

oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't using Microsoft entirely as an example. it's almost every other business/product out there.

if they are happy and profitable with 1 and done sales then that's good too, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

That's the thing. They already do have more than one way to skin a cat. It's called PS NOW. It's there now and working. And they also now have PS Plus Collection for PS5 owners.

 

[Iced Arcade]

That's the thing. They already do have more than one way to skin a cat. It's called PS NOW. It's there now and working. And they also now have PS Plus Collection for PS5 owners.

and that's why I said it.

my bad though, I got all confused thinking this was a discussion of change. lol

 

[megreotsugua]

Yup, 2 years minimum.

Games like Uncharted, TLOU, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon, God of War, Death Stranding, Bloodborne and Demons Souls are way too expensive to just dump on a service.

They must extract value over a significant time, to make the buyers feel like they got their money's worth...... you cannot make someone buy a collectors edition for 200 euro and then give it away 6 months later, it is spitting in the eyes of your best customers.

I'd say when Sony is ready to sell their games at $20 is the time they should consider putting them on PS+ Premium Ps Now as well. So it depends how well the title is doing.

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

You are thinking too much as a fan of Gamepass. Don't forget that Sony and Nintendo are the "World's" market leaders when it comes to console gaming. They are making the most revenue and profit on planet Earth. It's their business model that should lead things, not Microsoft's.
Like the poster above that I responded to, don't forget that Sony and Nintendo have the "correct" business model. They are the leaders. MS is doing something different/new strictly due to them "NOT" being the market leaders. It's MS that's chasing a new business model and hoping that it works. There's no reason for Sony to chase behind them when we don't even know if it'll work long term.

Yes. I forgot that Sony has all the answers. They shouldn’t consider any other options.

Netflix shouldn’t try anything new because Blockbuster is the leader in movie rentals.

Apple shouldn’t try iTunes by the song because full albums at record stores are how people buy music. Spotify shouldn’t try streaming because people buy their music on iTunes.

Microsoft shouldn’t offer 365 because businesses buy a ton of new Office licenses every time there is a new version.

What do you mean don't use Microsoft as the barometer, they are the only ones you CAN use as a barometer. They are the ones who say that you can give away all your AAA games in a subscription. If they can't do it without filling them with microtransaction garbage, then no thank you to the business model.

God of War and TLOU2 don't have a single piece of DLC at all. Literally nothing in the store to even sell.

A subscription can contain plenty of different games. No reason they need to have DLC or micros. Microsoft missing with Gears 5’s borderline F2P model doesn’t indicate that Game Pass doesn’t work. Microsoft makes some good decisions and some really foolish decisions. Just like Sony. Just like Nintendo.

 

[MadchesterManc]

It's fine as is. For the price of one game you access hundreds for a year

 

[megreotsugua]

Put simply, PS Now needs a relaunch. Too many people are under the assumption that it is only a streaming service and are completely unaware of the fact you can download most of the games and also the sheer quantity of games.

However beyond a simple relaunch and possible renaming, it also needs some key changes to create an image that reflects its value proposition.

• No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

• Use market leading position to secure exclusive 3rd party game rights among subscription services... targeting Assassins Creed, FarCry, Resident Evil, EA Star Wars games.

• Should also cover GAAS / online games such as Destiny's latest expansions, Monster Hunter etc.

• Many Telltale / Quantic Dream / Supermassive games type games

• Bolstered by an excellent Indies selection

• Fund 10-20 million dollar projects to add unique experiences to the service

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.

• Put major focus on downloading games. With streaming simply being an added perk.

This allows Sony to recoup the investments in their 1st party games and keep the larger margins on them, it also allows them to keep major games like COD and Fifa outside the subscription as major sellers.
Most money is made on microtransactions and this will not effect that and may actually result in more spent on mtx.

It undercuts the competition on their final pillar of strength... lower cost 3rd party games and also maintains the model for 1st party games and the major sources of income.

I agree with all of this. I'd also say they should keep it at $60. That way, the lack of day and date AAA games is justified. And maybe PS Plus Premium (PS+ and PS Now combined) for $90.

Put more AA games or indie games in there day and date. Also smaller multiplayer and GaaS focused games day and date.

 

[Gone]

Judging by Sony execs recent interviews, they're not going to put thier 1st party games on any service any time soon.

 

[Wizz-Art]

As long as PS fanboys keep worrying about the poor poor corporation called Sony and if they make enough of profits...well something good as Game Pass will never find an audience on the platform and Sony can keep their new slogan in tact.

 

[megreotsugua]

The way Disney does it: blockbuster movies are a separate release altogether and are an event of themselves. Disney don't give them away in their Disney+ subscription day and date of release.

I don't want the day to come when Sony games are gimped and less polished because they have to release to a subscription service. Keep them premium. Double down on their budget and make them as much as blockbuster as they are now.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

A subscription can contain plenty of different games. No reason they need to have DLC or micros. Microsoft missing with Gears 5’s borderline F2P model doesn’t indicate that Game Pass doesn’t work. Microsoft makes some good decisions and some really foolish decisions. Just like Sony. Just like Nintendo.

Ok, well I'll be waiting for a Microsoft game with the budget of GoW or TLOU 2 to be released without DLC. Looking forward to it.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Can i see the source or evidence that big budget first party games can't be sustained on a Gamepass model?

Can I see the evidence that your can prove a negative?


You make the claim that they are sustainable on a subscription service, make some table cloth math and demonstrate it.

I think that the incentive fora service like gamepass is shovelware or smaller titles to raise your number of games and show regular press release. Given Microsoft's history with games studio I suspect that they will drive these new studios to the ground within a few years... Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

As long as PS fanboys keep worrying about the poor poor corporation called Sony and if they make enough of profits...well something good as Game Pass will never find an audience on the platform and Sony can keep their new slogan in tact.

I don't pay for the games I don't want, in case this is not clear:
Sony has a gaas service that jas more and better games on it than game pass... We just are not stupid enough to think it makes sense for everyone all the time, and we know that a recurring fee (i.e. subscription) is paid, the games are by no means "free".

The worry is that these Sony exclusives would not make sense under such a model, not day and date.

Have fun.

 

[Brofist]

So basically the same with a few 3rd party money hats lol. We know why you are making the big bucks now.

 

[FeldMonster]

What it needs is an app on Android / Android TV, so those of us who have zero interest in purchasing a Playstation console can access the games on its service, even if they are in lower quality and come to the service long after the game's sales release.

 

[Agent X]

Those are some good suggestions, Bryank75 . I just want to address a few of them.

• Many Telltale / Quantic Dream / Supermassive games type games

Yes, these types of games are an extremely good fit for streaming game services (and make great downloadable games, too).

• Bolstered by an excellent Indies selection

They've got plenty of great indie games now, and lately they've aimed to get at least one good high-profile indie game on PS Now each month. What they need to do work on is getting newer indie games. Sony should consider convincing some indie developers to bring their games to PS Now on the day of release.

• Fund 10-20 million dollar projects to add unique experiences to the service

I'd like to Sony produce episodic games and debut them on PS Now.

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.

I'd say that's way too long, especially if they might still remove the games after 3 months. If they're going to wait 3 years to add a first-party game, then it might as well be a permanent addition to the library.

Sony should seriously consider putting up first-party games within 6-12 months of release (even if only temporarily), and anything that's over 2 years old ought to be permanent. There's no good reason why PS4 games like The Last of Us Remastered, inFamous: Second Son, Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection, Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, Ratchet & Clank (2016), and Wipeout Omega Collection shouldn't be permanent fixtures on PS Now.

Here are a few other changes they need to make:

• Bring PS Now to mobile phones, tablets, and especially smart TVs and streaming media devices. Frankly, most console games don't work well on mobile phones with touch controls, and it's inconvenient to tote around a physical controller, but you might as well offer the option, since competitors are doing so. The real battleground will be streaming media devices like Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, and Android TV.
• Sony normally drops a batch of games at the beginning of each month, and then there's nothing until the next month. Instead, stagger the game releases throughout the month. They should aim to have at least one new game each week. If the games are spread out, then subscribers have something to anticipate more frequently. This keeps PS Now as a subject of constant conversation on forums like this, instead of just a spotlight on a single day and then radio silence for the remainder of the month.

 

[Craig of War]

PS NOW need to be available in more countries first.

 

[Wizz-Art]

I don't pay for the games I don't want, in case this is not clear:
Sony has a gaas service that jas more and better games on it than game pass... We just are not stupid enough to think it makes sense for everyone all the time, and we know that a recurring fee (i.e. subscription) is paid, the games are by no means "free".

The worry is that these Sony exclusives would not make sense under such a model, not day and date.

Have fun.

Another multi billion dollar company apologist spotted.

My point is for YOU as a consumer WHY does is matter if offering their exclusives day one on such a service? It's not out of your pocket right? It only benefits you as a gamer for the better. I don't understand what's your problem with that and why you defend the big poor company so that they take more of your money. I'd rather pay 15 a month and have acces to all their games then 70+ a game.

 

[SaturnSaturn]

I agree on all you points except for this

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.
• No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

I have both the ps5 and xsx ordered, but im considering selling my ps5 for the simple reason that i actually would have to buy most of the games on the platform.

i know that with my xsx i dont have to buy games as im already subscribed until 2022 to gamepass, it makes a huge difference for me, as the games cost 80€ now on the ps5 as i dont really like the current day output of sonys first party ips other than gran turismo. The same can be said about microsofts ips (other than forza and halo) but at least i get them "free" youknow, and thats a great strength of ms to keep me in their ecosystem.

Would also like them to add the option to naitively play the ps3 games on the service instead of streaming, if they do that its a good start.

 

[FeldMonster]

Another multi billion dollar company apologist spotted.

My point is for YOU as a consumer WHY does is matter if offering their exclusives day one on such a service? It's not out of your pocket right? It only benefits you as a gamer for the better. I don't understand what's your problem with that and why you defend the big poor company so that they take more of your money. I'd rather pay 15 a month and have acces to all their games then 70+ a game.

Not a Playstation fan, but as an Xbox fan, I can explain why I hate GamePass. The same aspects should apply.

- Financially, it only makes sense if you would otherwise buy all of those Day 1 releases (or enough to break-even). And I don't. I buy the ones I want, and put in serious hours into them.
- I don't want to provide money to games/publishers that I have no interest in.
- I want to directly support the games/publishers that I love.
- There is a concept of "crowding out" in economics. If the first party aspect becomes too strong, you push out 3rd party publishers/games. There is already direct evidence of this in Nintendo, as Nintendo gamers do not support 3rd party games and thus 3rd party support dries up. I personally dropped Nintendo after the horrid Gamecube console/controller/games. Games either wouldn't come to it, or would be seriously gimped. Similarly, you are already seeing gamers state "I'll wait for it on GamePass". You want further consolidation in the game industry? Stop buying game outside these subscriptions. (And pushing for more).

 

[Wizz-Art]

Not a Playstation fan, but as an Xbox fan, I can explain why I hate GamePass. The same aspects should apply.

- Financially, it only makes sense if you would otherwise buy all of those Day 1 releases (or enough to break-even). And I don't. I buy the ones I want, and put in serious hours into them.
- I don't want to provide money to games/publishers that I have no interest in.
- I want to directly support the games/publishers that I love.
- There is a concept of "crowding out" in economics. If the first party aspect becomes too strong, you push out 3rd party publishers/games. There is already direct evidence of this in Nintendo, as Nintendo gamers do not support 3rd party games and thus 3rd party support dries up. I personally dropped Nintendo after the horrid Gamecube console/controller/games. Games either wouldn't come to it, or would be seriously gimped. Similarly, you are already seeing gamers state "I'll wait for it on GamePass". You want further consolidation in the game industry? Stop buying game outside these subscriptions. (And pushing for more).

Game Pass doesn't block me from outright buying the games that I want. As a matter of fact I bought several that are or were on Game Pass.

I understand what your mindset is and respect that. But it needs to be said too that a Game Pass Ultimate sub is 180 bucks a year. Cancel the 60 bucks you pay for XLG and that's 120 bucks. If you can't find two AAA games a year on the service to get even with the 120 bucks, you frankly should find a new hobby as games are not the thing for you.

Knowing all that and still refusing to subscribe to Game Pass and buying your games outright is a thing on principal which I won't comment on further because I want to be repectful.

Having a Game Pass Ultimate sub didn't stop me from buying Dirt 5 UE when it released for 80, simply because I want to play the game and it's not on Game Pass.

Gamers that say; "I'll wait when it's on Game Pass." aren't really interested in the game for launchprice but would maybe pick it up when it hits the 10-20 region on sale. I know I have many such games.

Gears 5 is on Game Pass and still I'm tempted to buy the game because I enjoyed it so much, but I really don't have to because I will keep my Game Pass sub running so I will have acces to the game whenever I want. But sometimes I still buy games outright, I always buy the ultimate editions from the Forza Motorsports and Horizon series, not that smart maybe but I want to own those games how strange that may sound.

As for me Game Pass provides way more entertainment value then Netflix ever did for me and I was subbed to that service for almost 10 years straight before I canceled it this summer. Game Pass for many is a no brainer because it offers so much value. At the moment I'm going through the MCC, Tetris Effect, FF7, Battletoads and I have a whole lot more pinned on my dashboard too many to namecall at the moment.

 

[N1tr0sOx1d3]

Game Pass

There’s no denying Gamepass value proposition. The best in gaming.

Now if only Sony would consolidate Plus and Now with a few extra bells and whistles I’d be a happy chappy!

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Another multi billion dollar company apologist spotted.

Who is giving excuses?

I get how things work, and I don't like giving money for stuff I'm not sure to get, I want to be able to replay my games whenever I decide to. Imagine you get a series x, pay all Gen for gamepass... Then one day MS drop support for series x, you now own a brick, can't use it to replay anything, even if you spent hundreds of dollars on the service, or imagine whatever you favorite piece of shovelware is, they take it off the service (they do it all the time)... You are not playing it anymore.

Xbox Game Pass Is Losing 5 More Games Soon

Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass program is getting a bunch of new games soon, but with every new set [...]

comicbook.com

GamePass has few games, and you don't get to choose what you play, they do. It's money down the drain, it's even worse than 100% digital.

 

[Jigsaah]

Put simply, PS Now needs a relaunch. Too many people are under the assumption that it is only a streaming service and are completely unaware of the fact you can download most of the games and also the sheer quantity of games.

However beyond a simple relaunch and possible renaming, it also needs some key changes to create an image that reflects its value proposition.

• No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

• Use market leading position to secure exclusive 3rd party game rights among subscription services... targeting Assassins Creed, FarCry, Resident Evil, EA Star Wars games.

• Should also cover GAAS / online games such as Destiny's latest expansions, Monster Hunter etc.

• Many Telltale / Quantic Dream / Supermassive games type games

• Bolstered by an excellent Indies selection

• Fund 10-20 million dollar projects to add unique experiences to the service

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.

• Put major focus on downloading games. With streaming simply being an added perk.

This allows Sony to recoup the investments in their 1st party games and keep the larger margins on them, it also allows them to keep major games like COD and Fifa outside the subscription as major sellers.
Most money is made on microtransactions and this will not effect that and may actually result in more spent on mtx.

It undercuts the competition on their final pillar of strength... lower cost 3rd party games and also maintains the model for 1st party games and the major sources of income.

Didn't they say 70% of users who bought XSX also subscribed to GamePass? We've already seen that the whole $1 for the first month argument does not hold water and GamePass just prints money right now. That's with lackluster exclusives. What do you think is gonna happen when Halo, Hellblade 2, Starfield, TES6, Avowed and Fable come out? Forza, Project Mara, The Medium, Scorn.

Your first point begs to be reconsidered sir if you expect PSNow to gain this kind of popularity. If you are really talking value, Sony will need to bite the bullet on this to stay competitive in the services market.

I do think the PS Collection is a nice touch and something I wish Xbox had especially with it's robust BC options.