• 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

Leyasu

Banned
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.
? I wasn’t talking about it from the perspective of lining Sonys pockets. You didn’t reply to what I wrote
 

Neo_GAF

Drunken Prophet
check this out: i bet it will be like the psone classic. a bunch of old games, in a shitty version, almost unplayable for a hefty premium price. the sony fanboys will happily go for it.
as they did with horizon forbidden west ps5 retail version.
 

Hunnybun

Member
Sounds shit.

Anything less than first party games day and date simply isn't a game pass competitor and is therefore a total waste of time.
 

reksveks

Member
Still alot of unknown questions from me,

PS Now is currently available in 19 countries, right?
PS plus is available in much more, right? How many?
So is PS Now scaling out at launch?

What about PC users?
 

Nautilus

Member
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.


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.
Ok, it is still a bit better than I though, but honestly?It still sucks, specially if you compare with Gamepass.
 

yurinka

Member
Ok, it is still a bit better than I though, but honestly?It still sucks, specially if you compare with Gamepass.
Well, some people may prefer Gamepass games like CrossFireX, MS games or indie games, other people may prefer the PS Collection games, or a way bigger amount of older PS games featuring many classics. I think there are tastes for everything.

At Spartacus release there will be around the double of Spartacus subscribers than Gamepass subscribers, which I assume means there are more people who prefers Sony's approach. This is without counting the growth it will have after release due to the new "base GP" equivalent tier and the new content (demos + 'hundreds of games more from PS1/PS2/PS3/PS4/PS5/PSP' according to Bloomberg) for the PS Now tier, and if what Grubb says it's true, a better pricing for getting Plus+Now at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Too late Sony, I'm playing PSone games on my Series X
Same. Even on my cute little Series S I’m playing PS1 at 1080p 16:9. Maximum comfy. I do need to try my PS2 games at some point but luckily most PS2 games Im interested in have either been remastered or are on Dreamcast/Gamecube/OGXBox 👌

That said I’m still curious how this service would work and the back catalog that would be made available. Some lesser known PS2 and PS3 games being accessible on PS5 wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
 

Banjo64

Member
Gunna be an issue getting PS1 classics on there as most of the most beloved IP don’t belong to Sony:

Crash
Spyro
Tomb Raider
Final Fantasy
 

CeeJay

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.
I think you are mistaking PSnow with PSplus. PSnow has some pretty poor engagement numbers.

PSnow had 3.2 million subs as of March 31st 2021
PSplus had 48 million as of 31st December 2021

Gamepass had 25 million as of the end of January 2022
Xbox Live Gold doesn't appear to have any solid numbers.
 
From other reports, the PS1, PS2, PSP, PS4 and PS5 offerings in this sub will be downloadable. It is only the PS3 that will require streaming.
 

yurinka

Member
Oh here we go, you do realize that the percentage of gamepass owners who did the gold trick is relatively low, right?
How do you know if the percentage is big or small? Did MS share the number?

So your of the "informed" opinion that a subscription service with day and date games is doomed to lose money? Lol
If this subscription service has 25M subs and a good portion of them are people who paid $1 for it or got some months for free, doing some simple maths you'll find that it's way less money that costs to make several big ass AAA games plus several AA games and some indies. Even if they paid the full $15/month, these $15 are split between several hundreds of games so only a tiny part of it would go for each games, and that user would need to continue subscribed for over a console generation to generate $60 or even $40 from each user, or at least compensate the lost sales for having it day one on the sub. And this isn't counting server costs, etc.

Seems a better deal to sell that game at $60 or $40, after some time apply some discounts, later maybe a price cut and some time later, once the game doesn't sell anymore, to include it in the subscription. Where it may generate a small amount of money but at least will be more than anything -which will be what the game generates with sales at that point-.



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.
If MS game subs would be profitable, or at least if the game division would be profitable, MS would say it. Or at least if GP would generate a lot of revenue they would mention the revenue. But they don't, when they spot a new metric that doesn't look good they stop reporting it.

Phil said GP is 'sustainable', which doesn't imply it's profitable. It may also mean that it generate loses but that they can handle them (pretty likely because they have profits and a ton of cash from the other divisions).

Sony's game subs generate almost a billion per quarter, so almost 4B per year. MS gaming division generated $15B/year after adding Zenimax in the last fiscal year. Guess why MS doesn't reveal if they have profit or not. Sony's game division instead generated $25B in revenue and billions in profit. Sony's console userbase is twice the MS one, and their game subs too. Sony isn't tiny compared to them.

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.
As mentioned above, Sony's userbase in console and game subscriptions doubles the MS one, generates way more revenue and is profitable. Sony is way more successful than MS in gaming and in subscriptions.

MS is the one who had to spend almost $100B on acquisitions and to almost give away their AAA games for free to get some attention. Sony doesn't need to do that because they are in a way better position and on top of that are in a growing trend in many areas being the gaming revenue of their gaming division and the amount of game subscriptions some of them.
 

Roxkis_ii

Member
It's so confusing why people think Sony would copy an unprofitable strategy or devalue their games by putting them on a steaming service day and date. That's so dumb! ! How many people just spent 70 on HFW? Why would Sony give that money up!? To please some Xbox fans?? What!?

Some people live in a dream world.
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
It's so confusing why people think Sony would copy an unprofitable strategy or devalue their games by putting them on a steaming service day and date. That's so dumb! ! How many people just spent 70 on HFW? Why would Sony give that money up!? To please some Xbox fans?? What!?

Some people live in a dream world.
It's really something. MS is losing money on gamepass. They've trained their audience that their first party output is worth nothing. Sony and Nintendo are much wiser in this regard.
 

Lognor

Banned
If it leverages their objectively superior catalog of older games than it's well worth it.
OLD games being the key phrase here. Nah, old games aren't worth shit. You can buy any of those "superior" older games for $10 or less. There is not going to be a lot of people interested in that. Game Pass is great because of brand new games.
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
OLD games being the key phrase here. Nah, old games aren't worth shit. You can buy any of those "superior" older games for $10 or less. There is not going to be a lot of people interested in that. Game Pass is great because of brand new games.
I guess you never cared about backwards compatibility on xbox? That's suprsing.Is there something said here that says they wont have new games as well? Why are you quoting the word superior? Do you disagree that the back catalog of playstation is better than xbox?
 
check this out: i bet it will be like the psone classic. a bunch of old games, in a shitty version, almost unplayable for a hefty premium price. the sony fanboys will happily go for it.
as they did with horizon forbidden west ps5 retail version.
Isn't that what Nintendo does already?
 

Lognor

Banned
I guess you never cared about backwards compatibility on xbox? That's suprsing.Is there something said here that says they wont have new games as well? Why are you quoting the word superior? Do you disagree that the back catalog of playstation is better than xbox?
When you're saying it is worth more than Game Pass because of OLD games I just have to laugh. Old games that Sony sells for $10 and you can pick up used for $2 or $3. That is worth more than Game Pass? There is no indication there will be new games. YOU said it was worth more than Game Pass because of old ass cheap games. Come off it!
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
When you're saying it is worth more than Game Pass because of OLD games I just have to laugh. Old games that Sony sells for $10 and you can pick up used for $2 or $3. That is worth more than Game Pass? There is no indication there will be new games. YOU said it was worth more than Game Pass because of old ass cheap games. Come off it!
Calm down there buddy. I dont have a ps2 laying around so getting a nice selection of those games easily surpasses anything xbox can offer. Dont care much about Halo, gears, forza etc. It's a wait and see of course.
 

Lognor

Banned
Calm down there buddy. I dont have a ps2 laying around so getting a nice selection of those games easily surpasses anything xbox can offer. Dont care much about Halo, gears, forza etc. It's a wait and see of course.
And I don't care anything about those ugly as PS2 games. Sure, maybe 20 years ago I thought they were the bees knees, but it's 2022 man! Very, very, very few people are going to care to replay Parappa the Rapper in 2022. And plus, isn't it going to be streaming only? Streaming old ass games? LOL. For $16/month?! Is this a joke?
 

Nautilus

Member
Well, some people may prefer Gamepass games like CrossFireX, MS games or indie games, other people may prefer the PS Collection games, or a way bigger amount of older PS games featuring many classics. I think there are tastes for everything.

At Spartacus release there will be around the double of Spartacus subscribers than Gamepass subscribers, which I assume means there are more people who prefers Sony's approach. This is without counting the growth it will have after release due to the new "base GP" equivalent tier and the new content (demos + 'hundreds of games more from PS1/PS2/PS3/PS4/PS5/PSP' according to Bloomberg) for the PS Now tier, and if what Grubb says it's true, a better pricing for getting Plus+Now at the same time.
Where are you getting this from?That there will be double the numbers of Spartacus users than Gamepass? Spartacus isn't even a thing yet, and only the hardcore gamers know about this, and even then we don't know if its true.

I am VERY skeptical that Spartacus will be more popular.First of all, Gamepass not only get day 1 MS games, but now with Activision, Blizzard and Bethesda acquisitions, it has become a huge force, one to not be underestimated.

Second, its indie offering is very strong, and far outclass anything(indie wise) that PS Now offers.

Third and most important, Gamepass has been receiving VERY strong support from third parties.

And I feel like only a very few subset of people will be excited about playing classic PS games, whatever that ends up being(PS1 and PS2 games?).Specially versus newly released games like Gamepass have been doing. Assuming that's the Big thing going for Spartacus(and just implements whatever games PS Now has, which isn't that appealing to begin with.)

So for now, everything has been pointing, using the rumours as a reference since that's the only kind of information that we have, that Spartacus will be underwhelming to say the least, and it wont be able to compete with Gamepass, at least initially.
 
Last edited:

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
And I don't care anything about those ugly as PS2 games. Sure, maybe 20 years ago I thought they were the bees knees, but it's 2022 man! Very, very, very few people are going to care to replay Parappa the Rapper in 2022. And plus, isn't it going to be streaming only? Streaming old ass games? LOL. For $16/month?! Is this a joke?
Where is that said? You can already download ps2 games on the ps5 right now. I'm glad you agree streaming sucks though.
 

Lognor

Banned
Where is that said? You can already download ps2 games on the ps5 right now. I'm glad you agree streaming sucks though.
Only thing streaming is good for it streaming a game for 5 seconds to get my Microsoft points toward free Game Pass. Before you had to actually install the game if you wanted those points. Imagine!
 

SSfox

Member
Not interested one bit into the sub service.

I hope we can buy the classic games, if we can't, then Sony can go F**** themselves with their sub service.
 

Nautilus

Member
Why do you think gamepass is worth competing with when it's not profitable?
I don't think MS is swimming in money, but I think MS is also beyond the point that they are losing money with it.At worst they are making a small profit out of it, and it's only going to increase.
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
I don't think MS is swimming in money, but I think MS is also beyond the point that they are losing money with it.At worst they are making a small profit out of it, and it's only going to increase.
We only have the words of ms to go on and they've never mentioned the word profit at all.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Where are you getting this from?That there will be double the numbers of Spartacus users than Gamepass? Spartacus isn't even a thing yet, and only the hardcore gamers know about this, and even then we don't know if its true.
Will count the bottom tier as a Spartacus user just as well as the top tier, as people get converted. That's the calculation that they are doing.
 
As of now Sony has the double of subscribers compared to MS. It's MS who has to close the gap, not Sony.
PS Now was 3.2M a year ago vs 25M for GP a month ago. The difference is that Sony still didn't include there the Gold/Plus subs, which are almost 50M.

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.

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.

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.
At Spartacus release there will be around the double of Spartacus subscribers than Gamepass subscribers, which I assume means there are more people who prefers Sony's approach.

Just because you repeat it, doesn't make it true. If it were possible, you would've made it happen by now surely. Thread after thread, and post after post you continue to repeat this claim that's not only misconstrued... but also flat out false. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you didn't know the difference between the subscription services, but you repeat your bogus claim so often and so confidently, I doubt that's the case.

Your comparison is complete garbage because you're counting everyone who subscribes to both PS Plus as well as PS Now, and comparing that to those that are subscribed to Gamepass. If you insist on comparisons, PS Plus subscribers should be compared to XBL Gold subscribers... Which you've omitted completely. To be fair, MS doesn't release those numbers, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Comparing subscribers to both is an inaccurate tssk at best to be sure. But there are some guesses that can be made. Based on relative data, previous reports, and trends. The number of subscribers to XBL Gold used to be around half of what their active player count was. While Xbox has traditionally been a more multiplayer focused console vs Playstation, that isn't so much the case anymore. These days a Playstation user is about as apt to play multiplayer games as an Xbox user. Looking at that trend, it's no surprise that Playstation's active user count is around 111 million, with it's PS Plus count being around 48 million. The last hard number on Xbox active user count is from around the beginning of 2021. It was then reported by MS that it's active player count was over 100 million. To compare, at that time Playstation's active player count was at about 104 million, with 46 million being PS Plus members. I don't have to guess any specific number to make the point that the number of XBL Gold members is somewhere in the same ballpark.

PS Network = 111 million
XBL= 100+ million

PS Plus= 48 million
XBL Gold= ? (Likely about the same)

PS Now= 3 million
XB Gamepass= 25 million

Sony has even stated themselves that Spartacus is meant to compete with Gamepass. Sony has traditionally had better success selling consoles than Microsoft, but it's been the reverse when it comes to selling subscription services. PS Plus was created as an answer to XBL Gold, and now Spartacus is being created to compete with Gamepass. When it comes to this specific thing... Microsoft has always been the leader, with Sony always following along behind. If you want to console war, go discuss 1st party games, storage, or some other feature where it could be honestly argued that Playstation does better. Because when it comes to this, there's been literally zero evidence of that ever being the case.
 

The Alien

Member
We'll see how legit this is.

I know its not a 'true' GamePass competitor which is fine, but this shit is way too convoluted with 3 tiers (even tge names of tiers are confusing) and what u can and can't do in each tier.
 

reksveks

Member
But Spartacus isn't a thing yet...

So we don't know how it will perform.
If Sony does a 1:1 conversion, they will have a starting number to say but think the comparison is stupid anyways at least for the initial period and whilst xbox has xbox live gold that doesn't get reported on.
 
Last edited:

Nautilus

Member
If Sony does a 1:1 conversion, they will have a starting number to say but think the comparison is stupid anyways at least for the initial period and whilst xbox has xbox live gold that doesn't get reported on.
IF they convert PS Plus users into Spartacus.

But I find that stupid because: I don't think its as simple as converting, even if it is the same price. Its a different service and users will most likely need to agree to tge change.

And second, that if they do convert, what's the difference?At the end of the day, Sony is still getting paid the same.
 

reksveks

Member
IF they convert PS Plus users into Spartacus.

But I find that stupid because: I don't think its as simple as converting, even if it is the same price. Its a different service and users will most likely need to agree to tge change.

And second, that if they do convert, what's the difference?At the end of the day, Sony is still getting paid the same.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a dumb comparison cause of your second question.

I think Sony would be in their legal rights to convert the name of the service, features and even the cost without user explicit agreeing.
 

yurinka

Member
Where are you getting this from?That there will be double the numbers of Spartacus users than Gamepass? Spartacus isn't even a thing yet, and only the hardcore gamers know about this, and even then we don't know if its true.
According to Bloomberg Spartacus will be basically the merge of PS Plus and now in a multi tiered service:
-Base tier would be PS Plus (which includes PS Plus Collection), with the same name, same features and same content (and according to Grubb, same price) that it has now
-The top tier would be PS Plus + PS Now + demos
-There would be a 3rd, intermediate tier that would be PS Plus + the download version of the downloadable PS Now games (basically the equivalent to base GP)

PS Now as a separate service will dissapear with the Spartacus release because would be absorved into it, same as PS Plus. So basically the PS Plus and PS Now subscribers will become automatically absorved into Spartacus (it will use PS Plus as branding name, Spartacus is a placeholder codename).

PS Plus and Now already have ~50M subs, which is the double of he 25M GP subs. So Spartacus will start with that. And from there it may grow due to the new content (according to Bloomberg hundreds of games more to the around 900 games it already has, adding PS1, PSP and PS5 to the list, the demos, a base gamepass-like tier etc). Plus seems that this year Sony seems will release PS Now on phones, tablets and smart tvs, and in more countries.

IF they convert PS Plus users into Spartacus.
Spartacus is a placeholder codename of an expansion of PS Plus, seems that they will keep this brand according to Bloomberg, the base tier would have the same name, content and price than the current PS Plus. So they wouldn't need to convert nothing for PS Plus.

The other tiers would expand PS Plus, with extra stuff, so will keep the PS Plus name and will add some extra word.

The 3rd tier includes PS Now, which after the Spartacus release won't exist as separate service. But this tier it's PS Now (now with more content)+PS Plus+demos and will have a more expensive pricing. So pretty likely what they will do will be to move their current PS Now users to this tier and disable by default the auto renew option.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
Why do you think gamepass is worth competing with when it's not profitable?

Why do you think Microsoft is persevering with a loss-making service?

They obviously think it's a route to market domination.

Plus, profitability of a near-zero marginal cost service depends on customer base, and Sony has double the customer base of Xbox. So they might actually be profitable even with the same current low price and partial market penetration of Game Pass.
 

Lupin25

Member
IF they convert PS Plus users into Spartacus.

But I find that stupid because: I don't think its as simple as converting, even if it is the same price. Its a different service and users will most likely need to agree to tge change.

And second, that if they do convert, what's the difference?At the end of the day, Sony is still getting paid the same.

The difference is they’ll have no choice, but to convert if the service discontinues lol.

A choice in converting to the lowest tier sounds reasonable (as it would reflect the same price we currently pay individually for both), if this report is accurate.
 

Nautilus

Member
According to Bloomberg Spartacus will be basically the merge of PS Plus and now in a multi tiered service:
-Base tier would be PS Plus (which includes PS Plus Collection), with the same name, same features and same content (and according to Grubb, same price) that it has now
-The top tier would be PS Plus + PS Now + demos
-There would be a 3rd, intermediate tier that would be PS Plus + the download version of the downloadable PS Now games (basically the equivalent to base GP)

PS Now as a separate service will dissapear with the Spartacus release because would be absorved into it, same as PS Plus. So basically the PS Plus and PS Now subscribers will become automatically absorved into Spartacus (it will use PS Plus as branding name, Spartacus is a placeholder codename).

PS Plus and Now already have ~50M subs, which is the double of he 25M GP subs. So Spartacus will start with that. And from there it may grow due to the new content (according to Bloomberg hundreds of games more to the around 900 games it already has, adding PS1, PSP and PS5 to the list, the demos, a base gamepass-like tier etc). Plus seems that this year Sony seems will release PS Now on phones, tablets and smart tvs, and in more countries.


Spartacus is a placeholder codename of an expansion of PS Plus, seems that they will keep this brand according to Bloomberg, the base tier would have the same name, content and price than the current PS Plus. So they wouldn't need to convert nothing for PS Plus.

The other tiers would expand PS Plus, with extra stuff, so will keep the PS Plus name and will add some extra word.

The 3rd tier includes PS Now, which after the Spartacus release won't exist as separate service. But this tier it's PS Now (now with more content)+PS Plus+demos and will have a more expensive pricing. So pretty likely what they will do will be to move their current PS Now users to this tier and disable by default the auto renew option.
Well, I guess we will see. We still need to see if all of that will end up being true.

And we will have to see if Sony manages to retain that number. Growing will be very hard because outside of the old games, the service wont be much different from PS NOW as it is already, and that hasn't caught on fire. And if they do highlight it as a direct competitor to Gamepass( and NSO to an extent), it will paint it in a bad light, bevause for now, it is clearly inferior to that service.

And like I said before, at the end, regarding Sony's financials, what difference does it do when you are barely adding value to this new service?Most people won't care about old games, and alot of people will see "paying for glorified demos" in the upper sub as an insult.Or at best, it will do nothing to them.

I don't know. As things stans now, this move will only make Gamepass look like a better deal.
 

yurinka

Member
And we will have to see if Sony manages to retain that number. Growing will be very hard because outside of the old games, the service wont be much different from PS NOW as it is already, and that hasn't caught on fire. And if they do highlight it as a direct competitor to Gamepass( and NSO to an extent), it will paint it in a bad light, bevause for now, it is clearly inferior to that service.

And like I said before, at the end, regarding Sony's financials, what difference does it do when you are barely adding value to this new service?Most people won't care about old games, and alot of people will see "paying for glorified demos" in the upper sub as an insult.Or at best, it will do nothing to them.

I don't know. As things stans now, this move will only make Gamepass look like a better deal.
Sony's game subs have been growing during years, they would continue growing without doing anything. But they'll add a base GP like tier available (unlike PS Now or xCloud) worldwide, plus include many content more (Bloomberg mentioned hundreds of games, witthout adding their own games day one but adding more newer games) to PS Now while improving pricing.

Plus they plan to expand PS Now to more countries and platforms. So they won't only retain it, will grow it. Plus as in a corportate level, not only for gaming, Sony is planning to boost their subscription service not only improving them and acquiring IP for them (plus companies who make them), they also plan them to push them with marketing. And well, in a year or two once they get rid of the chips issues game subs will skyrocket with skyrocketed console sales.

Regarding Sony's financials, their game subscriptions already generate almost $4B/year (and growing) and these improvements will help them grow faster. Regarding to their comparision with the MS or Nintendo ones, they are way smaller than the Sony ones, so Sony aren't worried about them.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom