SteelCurtain 59
Member
Why are y’all comparing PS+ to gamepass like Xbox Live Gold doesn’t exist?
Because it lets them downplay the success of Game Pass and they can remain in their echo chambers
Why are y’all comparing PS+ to gamepass like Xbox Live Gold doesn’t exist?
Also because if they compare like to like i.e. Game Pass to PSNow, Xbox has like 10 times the number of subscribers PS has.Because it lets them downplay the success of Game Pass and they can remain in their echo chambers
No, the rumor is:If it exists as rumored it's going to flop spectacularly, but we will never know, because they will report all users as 1 number regardless of what tier they are on.
As the rumors exist its:
Ps+
10/month
Ps+ Now
12/month
Ps+ Now and Trials and classic games. 16/month
The 16/month seems like a mix between EA Access demos and Nintendo Online.
Because it this Spartacus stuff is real, both Plus and Now would be merged becoming a single multi tiered service. And since GPU also includes Gold and there is a $1 upgrade to migrate from Gold to GPU, people assume most active Gold subs migrated to GPU because it's an awesome deal very hard to miss.Why are y’all comparing PS+ to gamepass like Xbox Live Gold doesn’t exist?
Think you got that the other way around. Gold was just a paywall for online and apps that Nintendo and Sony let people use for free, including Netflix, YouTube, and F2P games. PS+ started out by giving out free monthly games, as well as other benefits, like discounts. After XBO got curb stomped, MS started making Gold more like PS+. Hell, they finally removed F2P games and party chat from the paywall just last year.Gold is always left out of the discussion even though that's the model PS+ based itself on.
Remember when trials used to be free? Of course trials are being rolled into a subscription plan in 2022. Of course.* Day 1 Trials
Can’t wait to play day one exclusives!
* Day 1 Trials
Remember when trials used to be free? Of course trials are being rolled into a subscription plan in 2022. Of course.
No, the rumor is:
-Tier A: PS Plus $10/montth (same content as of now: monthly games, PS Plus Collection, onlline MP, cloud storage, discounts...)
-Tier B: PS Plus + PS Now (only downloadable games, no cloud gaming) $13/montth *
-Tier C: PS Plus + PS Now (complete, both dowloadable and cloud gaming)+extended demos of new games $16/month *
*= They would add hundreds of games more to the almost a thousand games that PS Now already has from PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, PS4 and in a near future PS5. They would include newer games, but won't include all their 1st party games there day one. Day one would only feature some indie or AA game from time to time, something they already do.
The demos stuff isn't clear but seems to be similar to EA Play, to play pretty likely full new games but time limited to a few hours.
Because it this Spartacus stuff is real, both Plus and Now would be merged becoming a single multi tiered service. And since GPU also includes Gold and there is a $1 upgrade to migrate from Gold to GPU, people assume most active Gold subs migrated to GPU because it's an awesome deal very hard to miss.
I always think this is so funny when I hear this. Ehh whatever helps you sleep better. Unless Sony gives first party, day 1 tier, its still going to struggle against Gamepass. This coming from a PSNOW subscriber. Hope they bring some good stuff but it's Sony so i doubt it.PS+ and PS Now = 50 million subs. Checkmate Game Pass.
What about Switch? That seems to be "#1" unless you just don't count it. And did you forget Xbox Gold cause that has more than 50mil subs. Just not sure what you're getting at?That and/or a group of people who just do not understand how things would actually work in the business world. I don't want to talk down a company or its strategy with this commentt, but let's look at it realistically from Sony's POV:
- PlayStation is on first position, while Xbox is on the last.
- PS+ has almost 50 million subscribers, while Gamepass has 25 million subscribers.
- PS+ is profitable, while the Gamepass model still hasn't proved itself to be self-sustainable and profitable in the long term.
Considering the above, there is 0 reason why Sony would want to create a Gamepass when Microsoft itself hasn't been able to prove the success of this model even after 5 years.
What comment got him banned finally? In this day and age a VPN is all it takes unfortunately
And now your banned forever. Can’t say they didn’t give you plenty of chances here. Don’t come back with an alt I don’t want to have to see your dumb comments again.
1. It’s not close at all lol. Nintendo make like twice the profit Sony do, and now have the top selling console for the current and previous generation. There’s no way in which Sony is number one other than in your head.
2. No they weren’t lol. You need to stop spreading this outright lie. Do you legitimately think that there are no Gold Subscribers anymore? You’re saying that literally every Xbox live gold subscriber upgraded to game pass for $1 not just once, but somehow are getting free game pass forever lol. It’s complete bullshit and you need to stop spreading it.
3. Try to define it however you want, you’re still just making shit up. Microsoft are on record saying it’s sustainable. The way game pass works is that the subscription cost alone is not intended to make a profit - the profit comes from pulling people into the ecosystem, buying games, buying dlc, buying micro transactions, and being a constant source of reliable and predictable revenue.
I think BC is like gyms. Many people say it's great, some pay for it and then only a small portion of the ones who paid for it use it.This is one of theses things where I don't know how badly many really, really...REALLY want to play old games enough to pay for a whole service to get it. One of the biggest things we've heard regarding this is simply those older titles being able to be played, but i just don't see enough data to even show that many really want that content that badly tbh.
We saw something like 2% or something regarding BC on XB (I don't recall the data if anyone has a link) , I'm sure many PS gamers love old games, but I just don't see the data to suggest that if it has all the old line ups, that many will care as much as we think here on Gaf or something. Most gamers want new content.
More people played BF 2042 on Steam, then all the other BF combined when it released even with knowing how bad its beta was, that should show many that people will literally play a bad NEW game vs a great old game, even if its one of the best old games or something. So I don't know how this will play out, but i don't really feel that the whole PS1, PS2, PS3 etc will really be enough. Having a massive catalog doesn't mean the majority will really care besides us tbh. I say that as a massive PS fan btw.
Maybe that whole catalog if presented in a certain way can really make this work. Take Netflix's update to add in collections of content, if they do it that way, maybe that can change things, using their lineage as way to get those subs or something.
like "Only place to play all Persona games" shows Persona 1, 2, 3,4 and 5
or "Only place to place whole MGS series" shows Metal Gear Solid 1,2,3,4,5 etc
So it can work, but I have my own doubts if the majority really care about old content to that degree to carry this service.
What comment got him banned finally? In this day and age a VPN is all it takes unfortunately
They will most likely be incomparable as one is designed with one of the core tenets of attracting people to a platform (GamePass) and the other will be designed as an an almost needed service on a specific platform. There are people that have probably bought an Xbox specifically due to the amount of offerings on GamePass. If the rumors are true about the Playstation service offerings, this isn't going to make people to want to buy a Playstation, but as a requirement at some level for people who already have the console (for online play). They really aren't competition at all and both can exist in different spaces.Because it lets them downplay the success of Game Pass and they can remain in their echo chambers
What about Switch? That seems to be "#1" unless you just don't count it. And did you forget Xbox Gold cause that has more than 50mil subs. Just not sure what you're getting at?
I always think this is so funny when I hear this. Ehh whatever helps you sleep better. Unless Sony gives first party, day 1 tier, its still going to struggle against Gamepass. This coming from a PSNOW subscriber. Hope they bring some good stuff but it's Sony so i doubt it.
In my subsequent comment, I mentioned: third-party support, total gaming revenue, most current console units sold. PS comes on top on all those metrics. Nintendo does come on top in terms of ROI though.What about Switch? That seems to be "#1" unless you just don't count it.
You're a little late to the conversation; I explained earlier by Gold shouldn't count anymore as a separate sub. My reason being that a large majority of Gold subs would have been converted to GP by now. Just like PS Now subs shouldn't count once they are merged with PS+. Otherwise, we run into the issue of duplication.And did you forget Xbox Gold cause that has more than 50mil subs. Just not sure what you're getting at?
"We are gaining console share, as gamers recognize the value of our broader ecosystem. Xbox Live has more than 100 million monthly active users, while Game Pass now has 18 million subscribers. And, we are transforming how games are distributed, played, and viewed, bringing cloud gaming in Game Pass to iOS devices and Windows PCs over the next few months," - Satya Nadella
If by a small portion you mean 50% of players on Xbox use BC, then sure. There's a reason Nintendo charges a subscription for access to their back catalogue on Switch. Don't underestimate the draw of high quality games, regardless of their age - especially if they're able to offer up improvements like Xbox has.I think BC is like gyms. Many people say it's great, some pay for it and then only a small portion of the ones who paid for it use it.
So I think they'd use it as you say more as marketing tool than for the real usage: it's appealing to say 'we have a gazillion games on this service', 'games from the entire history of PS', or as you said 'the whole X series' etc. So people may be appealed by stuff like that, get the service and to play mostly PS4 (and soon PS5) games, maybe only playing a bit a few old games.
And well, they would remove anoher thing of the list of things that players complain about/ask them to do (even if when implemented then nobody cares about it).
It’s breaking even for my wallet .. all I need to know
Except it's likely to have a significantly wider catalogue of games.
This is your claim to back up. Receipts please.Older games maybe, which makes it not really a direct competitor to gamepass.
Link to proof it loses money? Are you mathematically challenged? 4 billion a year in revenue plus regular sales, add ons, etc, is a automatically a loss? Please.
I think you mean used* BC =)If by a small portion you mean 50% of players on Xbox use BC, then sure. There's a reason Nintendo charges a subscription for access to their back catalogue on Switch. Don't underestimate the draw of high quality games, regardless of their age - especially if they're able to offer up improvements like Xbox has.
This is your claim to back up. Receipts please.
Regarding previous gen gen I assume the percentage is high specially during the first years. I mean, I assume right now many/most PS5 and Xbox Series users may be using BC to play PS4 and XBO games. We also saw that due to price cuts, big discounts and GaaS/DLC focus now many companies have a good chunk of revenue coming from 'catalog games' these that are older than a year.If by a small portion you mean 50% of players on Xbox use BC, then sure. There's a reason Nintendo charges a subscription for access to their back catalogue on Switch. Don't underestimate the draw of high quality games, regardless of their age - especially if they're able to offer up improvements like Xbox has.
Players in the past - wow I wonder what the future will bring-Tier A: PS Plus $10/montth (same content as of now: monthly games, PS Plus Collection, onlline MP, cloud storage, discounts...)
-Tier B: PS Plus + PS Now (only downloadable games, no cloud gaming) $13/montth *
-Tier C: PS Plus + PS Now (complete, both dowloadable and cloud gaming)+extended demos of new games $16/month *
Players in the past - wow I wonder what the future will bring
2022 - wow I can pay to try this demo instead of buying it.
These tiers are pretty bad and they should feel ashamed if the rumors are true.
Personally I'd say it depends on how they implement it.I do love playing older games, but thats why I still fucking OWN those games and OWN those systems, so this is a weird one lol
Laughter is a good way to cope with facts you don't like
Why would they do what customers want when they can make more money by forcing them to pay for a bundle that includes something they don't want?They should add an Online only sub service for like 20$ per year. Personally only reason i still sub PS+ is only for Online play.
Personally I'd say it depends on how they implement it.
Microsoft updated some classic to better fps, higher resolution etc, which in my opinion would validate a replay.
Personally I doubt Sony will do it that way, but one can hope.
Players in the past - wow I wonder what the future will bring
2022 - wow I can pay to try this demo instead of buying it.
These tiers are pretty bad and they should feel ashamed if the rumors are true.
Well, all these subs are to rent games, you don't own them. To really own them you should buy them and in physical, so you can still own them once they shut down the servers somewhere in the future, plus allows you to sell them in second hand if desired.I do love playing older games, but thats why I still fucking OWN those games and OWN those systems, so this is a weird one lol
They need to add that Anime shit they've been taking as some service lol
Source?- Gamepass is already breaking even, it's all gravy from
Any idea when Sony will drop the pay wall for game save cloud storage? That matters a ton more than access to Netflix.Think you got that the other way around. Gold was just a paywall for online and apps that Nintendo and Sony let people use for free, including Netflix, YouTube, and F2P games. PS+ started out by giving out free monthly games, as well as other benefits, like discounts. After XBO got curb stomped, MS started making Gold more like PS+. Hell, they finally removed F2P games and party chat from the paywall just last year.
Why would they do what customers want when they can make more money by forcing them to pay for a bundle that includes something they don't want?
I think they should make online play free and put enough value into their service that people still would want to subscribe.They should add an Online only sub service for like 20$ per year. Personally only reason i still sub PS+ is only for Online play.
Please enlighten me of these facts you speak of.Laughter is a good way to cope with facts you don't like
Source?
Lol so the gold that was doing the things you speak off at the end of the 360 generation was just my imagination.Think you got that the other way around. Gold was just a paywall for online and apps that Nintendo and Sony let people use for free, including Netflix, YouTube, and F2P games. PS+ started out by giving out free monthly games, as well as other benefits, like discounts. After XBO got curb stomped, MS started making Gold more like PS+. Hell, they finally removed F2P games and party chat from the paywall just last year.
Phil Spencer: 'Xbox Game Pass is very, very sustainable as it is'
Actually yes, Xbox Game Pass is sustainable already.www.windowscentral.com
Actually I think it was during X360s Kinect phase that PS started giving away games with PS+ then Xbox followed suit a year or so later. Either way it was PS that started it off yes.Lol so the gold that was doing the things you speak off at the end of the 360 generation was just my imagination.
That's more than a 'shiny new coat' regardless of whether you interested.Older games maybe, which makes it not really a direct competitor to gamepass.
Link to proof it loses money? Are you mathematically challenged? 4 billion a year in revenue plus regular sales, add ons, etc, is a automatically a loss? Please.
Wait. This is your source? I can see why you didn't want to post it earlier. You may want to brush up on your English. Sustainable isn't the same as breaking even right now. MS are prepared to pump in $$ in order for the future pay off they see. They are investing and are willing to spend to grow the service.Phil Spencer: 'Xbox Game Pass is very, very sustainable as it is'
Actually yes, Xbox Game Pass is sustainable already.www.windowscentral.com
You said it was break-even as in its self-sustainable though?
I'm sure for Microsoft they can continue to sustain any losses, the Xbox division after all hasn't been synonymous with profitability, it's been sustained its entire existence as far as I can tell.
So no questions there, but is it really breakeven as you said? be interested to see a good source if you have one.
I agree that you wouldn't touch them in a million years.As much as I adore Xbox, the dirty secret about GamePass that nobody wants to admit is that the large majority of the games on there are indie garbage I wouldn't touch in a million years
Enjoy that, I guess, Sony fans
That's more than a 'shiny new coat' regardless of whether you interested.
Sony arent going to put their exclusives day one on a cheap subscription service, they're just not going to throw money away to claim market share.
As much as I adore Xbox, the dirty secret about GamePass that nobody wants to admit is that the large majority of the games on there are indie garbage I wouldn't touch in a million years
Enjoy that, I guess, Sony fans