• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Classic games will reportedly be ‘a major part’ of PlayStation’s Game Pass rival

LordBlodgett

Gold Member
Why do you guys keep calling this Gamepass competitor when it's not going to do the same thing not is it trying to?
Sony themselves have always said they wouldn't have a subscription where you could play games day one.
If it's not a Gamepass competitor than what is the point? Is a rename and reprice of PSNow going to suddenly make the subscriber number explode? IF they want to compete in subscriptions or streaming they are going to need to offer some competitive advantage. If that advantage is you can stream old Sony games and play demos of new games for $16 a month then I am not really interested. We shall see though, I expect if they are going to make it like EA play then they may at least add all of their games to the "vault" after a certain amount of time and let you play them. That would be attractive for people who don't mind waiting, but still that price......
 

Hendrick's

Member
Best Wishes Good Luck GIF by GIPHY Studios Originals
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to judge this on information that the internet provides instead of directly from the horse's mouth. Meaning ultimate hyperbole and armchair quarterback hot takes


I swear some of you just can't help yourselves and go full on negative no matter what. For somebody like me was invested in the ecosystem, anything that's coming I'm pretty interested in especially when they say major thing like this.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
In theory this is good but pricing $10 for "essential" which is the same as what PS+ is right now seems like a bad deal when console Game Pass is $9.99 and gets all new first party (and many third party) games day 1.

And I sincerely hope they find a way to get PS3 emulation working instead of it being streaming, you can literally do that on PS Now already.
 

Nautilus

Member
Game... Trials? Paying to play a slightly bigger demo?

The higher tiers have a bigger focus on... streaming?Instead of the FAR superior option to just download the game?

Unless I'm reading something wrong, this sounds completely horrible.
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper
So in a way you're essentially paying for emulation via streaming, where instead you could download some emulator and play your own backups (or some friend's backups)

Also, there's no way they could possibly include the entire PS1 and PS2 library, including japan only games.
 

Perrott

Member
Old games vs new AAA games day fucking one?

Good joke mate.
You talk about those "new AAA games" as if they were all better in terms of quality than, say, the Capcom, Square and Konami PS1 catalogues. And that's without accounting for the PS2, PSP and PS3 games planned to land on the service at a later date.

So forgive me if I find more value in 25+ years worth of videogame classics over... Rainbow Six Extraction.
 
If it's not a Gamepass competitor than what is the point? Is a rename and reprice of PSNow going to suddenly make the subscriber number explode? IF they want to compete in subscriptions or streaming they are going to need to offer some competitive advantage. If that advantage is you can stream old Sony games and play demos of new games for $16 a month then I am not really interested. We shall see though, I expect if they are going to make it like EA play then they may at least add all of their games to the "vault" after a certain amount of time and let you play them. That would be attractive for people who don't mind waiting, but still that price......
What's the point for Sony, the market leader, to do their own thing and not answer to their competitor that's in 3rd place? Maybe they can do their own thing that distances themselves from Gamepass, therefore people could be interested on their own service maybe?
Nintendo also did their own thing recently...we don't see them answering to Gamepass and they don't need to, why should Sony when their games reach 20M copies with a few years on sale by now?

Why would Sony give up huge sales numbers for a subscription service?

PlayStation already has a huge legacy at this point. Imagine if you could have on a subscription service games like Killzone 2, Resistance, Motorstorm running natively at 60fps or something like that, plus older games from PS2 and PSOne...plus all PSNow catalog that's available right now, plus PS5 games in the future (possibly as soon as this debuts), plus 2 hours as a trial per game for every PS first party game. How is any of this bad?
 

Magic Carpet

Gold Member
Is that extra 1 dollar enough to outbid Microsoft on all the backroom deals?

Come on Sony I want Movies, Music, Anime. Where is the other than games tier?
 

yurinka

Member
I always buy it for $32.99 a year which comes out to &2.74 a month.

I have all the old games and even the hardware to play them on.
$10 is only the current 1 month pricing. Obviously it gets cheaper if you buy a year, and even cheaper if you buy it in a cd key store, and even more when discounted. The pricing seems it's going to be the same of PS Plus, and I assume there will be 12 month pricing, etc so you'll continue being able to buy it at $2.74/month.
 

yurinka

Member
It isn't a gamepass rival. There's no way sony first party will launch on a service. Not anytime soon anyway.
Sony generaes around $4B/year revenue for their game subscriptions. Their game subscriptions not only rival gamepass without needing to include there their own games there day one, they have more subs, generate more revenue and must be way more profitable. So if this changes to make them more similar to the MS offerings are real and Bloomberg and Grubb aren't lying again, they will continue competing with them.

So it's the exact same thing as ps now with demos, cloud, and a few old games? If so good luck with that vs gamepass.
This can't be right. 16 a month for demos and streaming, plus the psnow library and on-line play lol I don't know if I believe this
The PS Now tier now would also include PS Plus according ot Bloomberg. And PS Now is supposed to get hundreds of games more, and they already have around 900 so we're talking over 1000 games, not 'a few'. With hundreds of them (the ones from the consoles that run natively, currently PS2 and PS4) not only being streamable, but also downloadable.

Currently PS Now and PS Plus each are $10/month when getting a single month of each, so combined are $20/month. Bundled in this new service in the higher tier, you'd get more content than now for a cheaper pricing.
 
Last edited:

Javthusiast

Member
You talk about those "new AAA games" as if they were all better in terms of quality than, say, the Capcom, Square and Konami PS1 catalogues. And that's without accounting for the PS2, PSP and PS3 games planned to land on the service at a later date.

So forgive me if I find more value in 25+ years worth of videogame classics over... Rainbow Six Extraction.

Have fun dreaming of ALL those classics coming and not be only streaming.
 

Dr Bass

Member
Consumers don't care about Sony financials, they care about features versus the competition and if they get less, they'll go with where they can get what they want.
The longer Sony waits to counter GamePass, the harder it'll get. Try competing for content when the competition has 7 times the number of subscriber, they have to find a way to close the gap.
Gamers care about content and games. Sony and Nintendo are delivering on that right now. Microsoft isn’t. Players are willing to pay the price to acquire that quality software from Sony and Nintendo. That’s why they report revenue and profits and Microsoft doesn’t. And it’s why MS basically is throwing a Hail Mary with GP and giving it away for basically nothing (I got three years for a dollar).

Edit: Hey Xbox only crowd like CatLady CatLady here. This happens all the time. Some nonsense post is made, it gets shut down beyond a reasonable doubt and the typical "core group" for lack of a better term, likes to apply the ol' "LOL" emoji. Try responding instead. It's not a clever response and it actually ends up making you look silly. Derision as a response is a fool's game. Like it or not financials show the degree to which a company is producing happy customers. So you can say, yeah, people don't care about that, and I agree. That's not the point. The point is that two companies are crushing it, and willingly talking about it and the other is hiding their numbers. And I play all of them, I've been playing Halo Infinite along with Horizon. The people "laughing" at these responses don't play video games. They seem to play Xbox. Big difference.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Game... Trials? Paying to play a slightly bigger demo?

The higher tiers have a bigger focus on... streaming?Instead of the FAR superior option to just download the game?

Unless I'm reading something wrong, this sounds completely horrible.
Yes, you're reading it wrong. The lowest tier would have the same content and pricing (and seems that name) than the current PS Plus. The highest tier would be a PS Plus and PS Now bundle but adding hundreds of games more to PS Now from PS1/PS2/PS3/PS4/PS5/PSP, plus 'extended game demos' (we don't know what exacty is) and some extra stuff.

PS Now games are streameable on console and PC, and in the near future in phones, tablets and smart tvs, plus its games of platforms that run natively in the console are also downloadable there.

The intermediate tier would be an equivalent to base Gamepass tier, in this case it would bundle PS Plus, and a PS Now version without cloud gaming, its downloadable games part. It's fair to assume that as happens with gamepass this tier would be available worldwide because what limits PS Now and xCloud to be only available on a few dozen countries is the cloud gaming.

If it's not a Gamepass competitor than what is the point? Is a rename and reprice of PSNow going to suddenly make the subscriber number explode? IF they want to compete in subscriptions or streaming they are going to need to offer some competitive advantage.
Sony already competes with them in game subscriptions and have more subscribers, generate more revenue and unlike MS, Sony has a profitable business with them. Regarding streaming we never got xCloud (or Gamepass Ultimate) numbers so we don't know if it performs better or worse than PS Now. MS is the one who has to close the gap, not Sony.
 
Last edited:

dvdvideo

Member
Sony generaes around $4B/year revenue for their game subscriptions. Their game subscriptions not only rival gamepass without needing to include there their own games there day one, they have more subs, generate more revenue and must be way more profitable. So if this changes to make them more similar to the MS offerings are real and Bloomberg and Grubb aren't lying again, they will continue competing with them.



The PS Now tier now would also include PS Plus according ot Bloomberg. And PS Now is supposed to get hundreds of games more, and they already have around 900 so we're talking over 1000 games, not 'a few'. With hundreds of them (the ones from the consoles that run natively, currently PS2 and PS4) not only being streamable, but also downloadable.

Currently PS Now and PS Plus each are $10/month when getting a single month of each, so combined are $20/month. Bundled in this new service in the higher tier, you'd get more content than now for a cheaper pricing.

Except that PS Now isn't worth $10 and the amount of subs reflects that. If new PS games aren't on the new system, it's nothing more than a merging on PS now and PS+, but not a real competitor to Gamepass without the new games. It straight up won't offer anywhere near the same value if that's the case.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
You talk about those "new AAA games" as if they were all better in terms of quality than, say, the Capcom, Square and Konami PS1 catalogues. And that's without accounting for the PS2, PSP and PS3 games planned to land on the service at a later date.

So forgive me if I find more value in 25+ years worth of videogame classics over... Rainbow Six Extraction.

The only thing that'll make it interesting is if it has a native PS3 component.

PS1 and PS2 are so old and can be so easily emulated elsewhere, even on your phone, that you don't really need those as a marquee feature on your service. The original Xbox, Xbox 360, PS3, these are the consoles that don't exactly have the greatest or accessible emulation scene so these games coming via BC to new platforms is more 'relevant' for the lack of a better word.
 
Last edited:

LordBlodgett

Gold Member
What's the point for Sony, the market leader, to do their own thing and not answer to their competitor that's in 3rd place? Maybe they can do their own thing that distances themselves from Gamepass, therefore people could be interested on their own service maybe?
Nintendo also did their own thing recently...we don't see them answering to Gamepass and they don't need to, why should Sony when their games reach 20M copies with a few years on sale by now?

Why would Sony give up huge sales numbers for a subscription service?

PlayStation already has a huge legacy at this point. Imagine if you could have on a subscription service games like Killzone 2, Resistance, Motorstorm running natively at 60fps or something like that, plus older games from PS2 and PSOne...plus all PSNow catalog that's available right now, plus PS5 games in the future (possibly as soon as this debuts), plus 2 hours as a trial per game for every PS first party game. How is any of this bad?
All of the things in your last paragraph sound good, I never said it was a bad thing. I don't however like it for the price at all. I can already play upscaled psone and PS2 games with emulation, so having them streamed to me has a limited value. Demos of games has some value for sure, but not $16 a month. The most valuable part to me, and the only reason I subscribed for a while was to play downloadable games that I had missed. The crappy part currently is that even older Sony first party games leave the service.

Overall you are right though, Sony doesn't need to try to be competitive with any other streaming service, they are still the leader in console gaming. I just don't understand how this rebrand will help them gain much. If they had a hard time getting very many subscribers to PSNow at $5 a month (that's what I paid, and I decided it wasn't worth it to keep) and the only addition is streaming classic games and demos of new games and now it costs $16? Just not seeing it.....
 

yurinka

Member
Except that PS Now isn't worth $10 and the amount of subs reflects that. If new PS games aren't on the new system, it's nothing more than a merging on PS now and PS+, but not a real competitor to Gamepass without the new games. It straight up won't offer anywhere near the same value if that's the case.
For sure, doesn't have a $1 Plus to Now upgrade to merge all subscribers plus free months of PC PS Now everywhere. And doesn't have a tier available worldwide that removes the cloud gaming part. Seems this will change soon.

But new PS games aren't in the new service because they are running a business, so they prefer to earn billions than to lose them. And they are the market leaders (in game subscriptions too), so don't have to make such desperate moves to get some attention.

Sony's game subscription strategy is more successful. Unlike the MS strategy it's profitable, generates more revenue and has more subscribers. The new service will be only an iteration for this gen of their system, making some tweaks to improve it and become even more successful.
 
Last edited:

Nico_D

Member
Can't be real, sounds really bad and it would immeaditely look worse than gamepass. That's not how they would want to launch it.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
Can't be real, sounds really bad and it would immeaditely look worse than gamepass. That's not how they would want to launch it.
Even if Grubb is correct Sony hasn't announced anything. It sounds like he has very vague details.

There is always half baked truth in things like this.

We should wait until Sony announces the service before passing judgement. They have very good value in their services and surely that value will only get better with this launch.
 
peopel are already hell bent on hating this service so it doesn’t really matter what sony announce at this point because the audience has already decided to trash it if god of war and the next naughty dog game aren’t on it day 1.

Detractors want the message out there that it’s not comparable to Gamepass because they don’t actually want competition for gamepass. It’s the best service on a console and its the biggest draw to xbox as a platform. If sony gets serious about their services then it takes away the biggest selling point of xbox, they will also be competing for timed exclusivity for both services so it will end up diluting both services.

Then there are the other people who are just flat out naive to think sony would even need to copy gamepass 1:1 to have a successful game service of its own right now.

This just feels like the competition calling sonys bluff because tehy know it isn’t feasible, so when it doesn’t happen they can feel satisfied they made the right choice subscribing to one service over the otoher
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
The PS Now tier now would also include PS Plus according ot Bloomberg. And PS Now is supposed to get hundreds of games more, and they already have around 900 so we're talking over 1000 games, not 'a few'. With hundreds of them (the ones from the consoles that run natively, currently PS2 and PS4) not only being streamable, but also downloadable.

Currently PS Now and PS Plus each are $10/month when getting a single month of each, so combined are $20/month. Bundled in this new service in the higher tier, you'd get more content than now for a cheaper pricing.

Who cares? It is still not that enticing.


peopel are already hell bent on hating this service so it doesn’t really matter what sony announce at this point because the audience has already decided to trash it if god of war and the next naughty dog game aren’t on it day 1.

Detractors want the message out there that it’s not comparable to Gamepass because they don’t actually want competition for gamepass. It’s the best service on a console and its the biggest draw to xbox as a platform. If sony gets serious about their services then it takes away the biggest selling point of xbox, they will also be competing for timed exclusivity for both services so it will end up diluting both services.

Then there are the other people who are just flat out naive to think sony would even need to copy gamepass 1:1 to have a successful game service of its own right now.

This just feels like the competition calling sonys bluff because tehy know it isn’t feasible, so when it doesn’t happen they can feel satisfied they made the right choice subscribing to one service over the otoher

Spoken like a true warrior. Everyone hoping for more are just xbox fanboys in disguise. Right.

Holy shit, some of the replies in this thread. The blue rats are in full Sony protector mode over this. Get a grip you losers, if that is true then Sony again are trying to pull your pants down. Or perhaps not pull your pants down, but what they are offering is not worth subscribing to

michael jordan laughing GIF
 
Last edited:

anothertech

Member
Ps+ already has double the subs of gamepass.

And ps has more than double the install base on console.

And they make $70 per new game compared to $0 their competitor makes.

They're not competing with shit.

Edit: well I fucked that up didn't I lol
 
Last edited:

sol_bad

Member
I couldn't give 2 shits about streaming / renting games for a monthly fee. Let me purchase and download my classic games. Feck Sony and Nintendo for this, if true.
 

yurinka

Member
Who cares? It is still not that enticing.
Well, having more content and features for less price would mean they would get more successful with their game subscriptions strategy than they currently are. And they already are more successful than MS.

And well, they do that also having the revenue from game sales, that since aren't included in the subscription day one are way bigger. So they get more revenue profit that they can reinvest on making more and better games.
 
Last edited:

dvdvideo

Member
For sure, doesn't have a $1 Plus to Now upgrade to merge all subscribers plus free months of PC PS Now everywhere. And doesn't have a tier available worldwide that removes the cloud gaming part. Seems this will change soon.

But new PS games aren't in the new service because they are running a business, so they prefer to earn billions than to lose them. And they are the market leaders (in game subscriptions too), so don't have to make such desperate moves to get some attention.

Sony's game subscription strategy is more successful. Unlike the MS strategy it's profitable, generates more revenue and has more subscribers. The new service will be only an iteration for this gen of their system, making some tweaks to improve it and become even more successful.

Oh here we go, you do realize that the percentage of gamepass owners who did the gold trick is relatively low, right? Most people have no idea or just don't give a crap.

So your of the "informed" opinion that a subscription service with day and date games is doomed to lose money? Lol
All signs point to the opposite, that it will be a consistent cash cow, this is why ms is throwing money at it like crazy. Ms isn't exactly a company that likes to lose money.......how do you think they became so large and profitable? Sony is tiny in comparison.

Sony may not need a subscription service with day and date today, but its getting harder to not at least consider it. If they sit on thier hands and ms continues to expand, thier market will erode.
 

Shmunter

Member
There better be a fucking state of the art emulator for PS1 thru to PS3 and even PSP/Vita. By that I mean, not only pristine compatibility, but also res & framerate boosts. With a nice ribbon on top.

Not overly concerned personally - my backlog of current games is enough for a lifetime, but I know this to be the right move holistically for PlayStation.
 

dvdvideo

Member
Psnow already has double the subs of gamepass.

And ps has more than double the install base on console.

And they make $70 per new game compared to $0 their competitor makes.

They're not competing with shit.

What fantasy world do you live in? Psnow has 3 million subscribers, gamepass has 25 million.

Ps may have double user base on console (well probably not, but lets go with it), but how many pc subscribers and new release games sales do they have?

And as far as $70 vs nothing, you fail at basic math. 25 million subs x let's say average $10 per month (probably higher) is 3 billion dollars a year, plus regular sales, plus add ons. Wow.
 
Top Bottom