• 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

Nautilus

Member
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.
Doubt that Sony isn't worried about Nintendo's massive success in these last few years and MS digging a foothold in the industry with Gamepass and the acquisitions they have been doing.

But as for the rest, I guess we will see. These rumours makes it sound like Spartacus will be an underwhelming service, but it needs to be seen if they are true.
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
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!

I think "old games" are definitely worthwhile especially Xbox 360 era games. I'm just glad I don't have to pay extra for it on Xbox. Just pop in my disc and play it again for free.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
I can't believe Sony is planning to raise the price of default PS+. That's pretty wild, lol
It's likely they aren't. For regular PSPLUS it costs $9.99 a month currently. Future Spartacus will also have a $9.99 tier which more than likely gets a price decrease if you buy for 3,6 months and more for a year.

I currently subbed to Psplus for a year and paid $32.99. I'm also subbed to PSNOW for a year and I paid $50. That's $82.99 for a year. The new rollout will likely bundle those, add more options for a cheaper price.

I know im not majority but i dont need older games as i have a nice selection already and the hardware.

We don't know which titles and services will be in what tier.
 

Dr.Morris79

Member
How are people just not fucked off with Sony now
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.
Thats never going to happen, you know it, I know it

Thank christ for emulation though (y)

Imagine if all we had was to wait for Sony, we'd of had to keep a PS3 handy just to play classics like 'Loaded' or 'Wipeout', or keep a Vita to play the games Sony 'deemed' we're worthy for..

What a shitty world that'd be.

And it utterly makes me laugh that just the other week I bought an Rg351mp, dumped all my PS1 classics on it and it works flawless.. A fucking Chinese cheap handheld can play all your back library and a PS4 cant

Fuck this company, they're shit in regards to their own library and customers. All of my PS1 bought games via the PS3 cant be played on the next two generations of consoles

Utter fucking joke

..Makes my piss boil it does :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

GreatnessRD

Member
It's likely they aren't. For regular PSPLUS it costs $9.99 a month currently. Future Spartacus will also have a $9.99 tier which more than likely gets a price decrease if you buy for 3,6 months and more for a year.

I currently subbed to Psplus for a year and paid $32.99. I'm also subbed to PSNOW for a year and I paid $50. That's $82.99 for a year. The new rollout will likely bundle those, add more options for a cheaper price.

I know im not majority but i dont need older games as i have a nice selection already and the hardware.

We don't know which titles and services will be in what tier.
That's fine and good, but what about those who buy the yearly sub? It'll be going from $60 to $120 if you're forced into the $10 a month model for default plus. And if these pricing models are to be believed.
 

The_Mike

Gold Member
And you have fun with Crossfire X, sir!
Frustrated World Cup GIF
 

reksveks

Member
Why do people keep calling this a gamepass competitor?
I don’t see how Nintendo or Sony need a gamepass competitor.
These two sentences aren't necessarily related.

It could be a competitor even if the feature set isn't the same, as long as its a factor in what console you are buying or where you are spending your money.

Also I don't think either do need a gamepass competitor in terms of feature set (currently). That might change in the future.
 
These two sentences aren't necessarily related.

It could be a competitor even if the feature set isn't the same, as long as its a factor in what console you are buying or where you are spending your money.

Also I don't think either do need a gamepass competitor in terms of feature set (currently). That might change in the future.
Sony already has a more successful subscription service. They just need to move them into a higher tier price to make even more money.
 

Dorago

Member
I want Einhander, Alundra, Silhouette Mirage, Tomba!, Megaman Legends, and other games that have slipped through the cracks of history.
 

Nautilus

Member
And where did you read that this subscription won't get yearly subs? Grubb never mentioned monthly fees are the only ones happening.
Was just pointing out the inconsistence in the sentence you wrote.

And, as far as I know, Gamepass doesn't have a yearly sub(correct me if I'm wrong). If Spartacus is trying to compete with Gamepass, its only logical that it follows a similar pricing method. No insider mentioned otherwise, and seeing that this is the standard, it seems logical to assume so.

Not that a yearly sub can't happen, mind you.
 

DJ12

Member

Thanks Jim, but no thanks.

He's clearly calling people's bluff about having ps1, ps2 and ps3 games being available being some kind of reason to own a ps5.

Tier 1 should be ps +, tier 2 should be trails and old crap, top tier should be all first party games available for install, with all dlc for the period the sub is active.

In this instance i would take the top tier in an instant.

Luckily this is from Jeff grubb so probably inaccurate.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Sony already has a more successful subscription service. They just need to move them into a higher tier price to make even more money.
I know, didn't argue otherwise. That's why I think this move is about to increase arpu. I also think that they either won't have annual option or not one that gives you 50% off.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
That's fine and good, but what about those who buy the yearly sub? It'll be going from $60 to $120 if you're forced into the $10 a month model for default plus. And if these pricing models are to be believed.

Same as me because I buy yearly from CD KEYS for $32.99. We don't know yet but hopefully the new $9.99 monthly charge will be available in a yearly payment for cheaper, the same as right now.
 

anothertech

Member
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.

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.
You are correct, I meant ps+

Please Forgive this asshat for his mistake
 

MadPanda

Member
Why do you guys keep calling this Gamepass competitor when it's not going to do the same thing and it´s not even trying to?
Sony themselves have always said they wouldn't have a subscription where you could play games day one.

Because Jim Ryan said they'll have an answer to gamepass later on?
 

dvdvideo

Member
How do you know if the percentage is big or small? Did MS share the number?


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-.




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.


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.

Well if you want to play that game, if nobody knows the number, how do you? It could be 5%, it could be 50%. You can't have it both ways.

Yes some of the gamepass money is split, but not as much as you might thing. Also you are missing the key point that MS has made over, that gamepass subscribers are not just subscribing, they are investing in the ecosystem and buying more games, more add ons, etc, not just gamepass. So every player locked in and engaged and playing more xbox is an increase in overall revenue.
Your also forgetting that every game also still has conventional sales both on xbox and PC from non-gamepass subscribers, and this would the the case for sony as well. Opening up a game pass like system doesn't instantly end all conventional sales.

While gamepass may not be a "cash cow" presently, once they hit a certain point (probably now), every single added game pass subscriber doesn't cost them any more. If they can get to 50 million subs and maintain it, that's 9 billion dollars a year steady income without a single add on or game sale. That's the goal.

And yes, overall value, Sony is Tiny compared MS overall, market value cap of 140 Billion, MS is 2.2 TRILLION. My point was as a company, MS knows what they are doing, their cash reserves and profit statements reflects this. They are playing the long game with Xbox - if they didn't see profit at the end of this they would cut xbox faster than you can say Sony.
Yes Sony gaming has more profit overall at present. No guarantee that stays that way.

Back to subs, since you are throwing out numbers for PS plus, I do believe that Sony has something like 50 Million users, where as MS has reported over 100 million active gold subs, so I'm not sure why you are saying Sony is leading in this category.
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Member
Why do you guys keep calling this Gamepass competitor when it's not going to do the same thing and it´s not even trying to?
Sony themselves have always said they wouldn't have a subscription where you could play games day one.
Ehh. Isn't Sony itself views this as their answer to GamePass?

So, if they are, why can't we?

And even if they are not, it is still sub service - you are getting something for your monthly payment. And if one service is great and second one shit and it even costs more you can compare it
 

yurinka

Member
but not as much as you might thing.
Nothing makes us think this is the case.

they are investing in the ecosystem and buying more games, more add ons, etc, not just gamepass.
Nothing makes us think this is the case. If anything, they now spend spend more time on gamepass they spend less time and money on puchased games.

So every player locked in and engaged and playing more xbox is an increase in overall revenue.
Nothing makes us think this is the case.

Your also forgetting that every game also still has conventional sales both on xbox and PC from non-gamepass subscribers, and this would the the case for sony as well.
The difference is that games are included in Sony's game subscriptions when they are old, and that Sony players spend way more money buying so also more time in bought games. While now MS players must spend less in buying games, because when we see PS vs Xbox sales splits for multiplatform games the difference is getting bigger while the hardware sales split isn't as big as it was in the previous gen and they must be spending more time in GP than before.

Opening up a game pass like system doesn't instantly end all conventional sales.
True, doesn't kill them but reduces them.

While gamepass may not be a "cash cow" presently, once they hit a certain point (probably now), every single added game pass subscriber doesn't cost them any more.
The problem of each player generating less revenue than before may be an issue, but a bigger issue is to spend dozens of billions on acquisition with a business plan to recoups these investments, and to make games that costs many dozens or a few hundreds of millions and practically to give them away. Plus on top of that paying 3rd parties to put their games day one on the service to compensate the sales they will lose by doing so. Yes, they still sell games even if less than before.

In fact, this is why for them makes sense to keep the big 3rd party IPs they buy multiplatform and tot keep releasing them in oher consoles: to compensate at least partially the money they lose with the GP focused strategy. And for that same reason they turn Rare, Halo or Forza GaaS (and in the future more big IPs), to compensate with add-ons (dlc/mtx/passes) the money they lose.

If they can get to 50 million subs and maintain it, that's 9 billion dollars a year steady income without a single add on or game sale.
Sony already has 50M subs and they made 3.5B last fiscal year from game subs. MS would need way, way more subs. And looking at their console userbase, even if there's PC and mobile I think it will be hard for them to pass the 50M mark.

And yes, overall value, Sony is Tiny compared MS overall, market value cap of 140 Billion, MS is 2.2 TRILLION. My point was as a company, MS knows what they are doing, their cash reserves and profit statements reflects this. They are playing the long game with Xbox - if they didn't see profit at the end of this they would cut xbox faster than you can say Sony.
Yes Sony gaming has more profit overall at present. No guarantee that stays that way.
Xbox existed for 20 years, MS always had way more money than Sony, every generation Sony outperformed them and now Sony is better than ever and in a multi year growing trend in most areas.

Back to subs, since you are throwing out numbers for PS plus, I do believe that Sony has something like 50 Million users, where as MS has reported over 100 million active gold subs, so I'm not sure why you are saying Sony is leading in this category.
Lol, Gold never had 100 million active gold subs. I don't remember them reporting their Gold subs, if they did it was.

Their 100 million number were Xbox Live MAU, counting also PC users. Every Windows user who has the Xbox app (installed with windows) with a logged user, unless the user disables the auto launch it launches every time you switch on the PC, so counts him as Xbox Live MAU even if you don't play or buy any game. Or if he did use a Xbox console, or the Xbox phone app, or logged with XBL in a non Xbox or PC app, like if I'm not wrong, Minecraft on Switch.

PSN instead reporttetd 111M MAU. This is, that in a month 111 million users did use a PS console or did use PC PS Now or use the PSN phone app.
 
Pretty shitty then lol
Classic games through streaming?
Not full games on day one but trials??
Come on Sony. Do better than this. This is just psn+ And psnow combined.
No one wants streaming games. Let me buy, download and keep! I'm not subscribing forever. The service won't be around forever then I'll have wasted that money. It's the difference between renting an apartment and owning a house.
 

dvdvideo

Member
Nothing makes us think this is the case.

Nothing makes me think that any sort of logical person would think that everyday joe gamer reads these forums and is waiting to pounce on a $1 deal. Most normal people have no idea that trick even exists. Not sure why you thing every consumer is reading forums all day.


Nothing makes us think this is the case. If anything, they now spend spend more time on gamepass they spend less time and money on puchased games.

MS straight up have said this.

Nothing makes us think this is the case.

Again, MS has stated this, and so have gamepass partners. Go look it up.

The difference is that games are included in Sony's game subscriptions when they are old, and that Sony players spend way more money buying so also more time in bought games. While now MS players must spend less in buying games, because when we see PS vs Xbox sales splits for multiplatform games the difference is getting bigger while the hardware sales split isn't as big as it was in the previous gen and they must be spending more time in GP than before.

Yes, it would reduce up from amounts in exchange for a monthly fee. The old games being in the current sub only is why it has failed, rather miserably at 3 million subs.

True, doesn't kill them but reduces them.

What remains to be seen is the balancing point, the assumption that sales of games will always trump a subscription model is pure conjecture at this point. The blend of the 2 may maximize sales overall.

The problem of each player generating less revenue than before may be an issue, but a bigger issue is to spend dozens of billions on acquisition with a business plan to recoups these investments, and to make games that costs many dozens or a few hundreds of millions and practically to give them away. Plus on top of that paying 3rd parties to put their games day one on the service to compensate the sales they will lose by doing so. Yes, they still sell games even if less than before.

In fact, this is why for them makes sense to keep the big 3rd party IPs they buy multiplatform and tot keep releasing them in oher consoles: to compensate at least partially the money they lose with the GP focused strategy. And for that same reason they turn Rare, Halo or Forza GaaS (and in the future more big IPs), to compensate with add-ons (dlc/mtx/passes) the money they lose.

I think you are missing that they have no intention of giving them away, they are getting regular sales and the gamepass revenue. You assume those amounts always lead to a loss, it's clear MS believes that will not be the case. I'm going with they have an idea what they are doing. You think the business plan to spend 90 Billion had no projected profits at the end?

Sony already has 50M subs and they made 3.5B last fiscal year from game subs. MS would need way, way more subs. And looking at their console userbase, even if there's PC and mobile I think it will be hard for them to pass the 50M mark.

There is no issue with MS hitting 50 million, they over that in gold subs, and they are probably already at 30 million gamepass subs.

Xbox existed for 20 years, MS always had way more money than Sony, every generation Sony outperformed them and now Sony is better than ever and in a multi year growing trend in most areas.

Yes they always had more money, but at no point did they put all those resources to use like they are now. The game has changed, MS owned studios are now much, much larger. Sony can continue to have great success with PS5, but if they sit put and do nothing to change, MS will eat away at their user base over the next few years.

Lol, Gold never had 100 million active gold subs. I don't remember them reporting their Gold subs, if they did it was.

Their 100 million number were Xbox Live MAU, counting also PC users. Every Windows user who has the Xbox app (installed with windows) with a logged user, unless the user disables the auto launch it launches every time you switch on the PC, so counts him as Xbox Live MAU even if you don't play or buy any game. Or if he did use a Xbox console, or the Xbox phone app, or logged with XBL in a non Xbox or PC app, like if I'm not wrong, Minecraft on Switch.

PSN instead reporttetd 111M MAU. This is, that in a month 111 million users did use a PS console or did use PC PS Now or use the PSN phone app.

The 100 million may be inflated, but it's easily in the 50 million range, similar to what sony has publicly stated for PS plus. Also since you want to discount things that are cheaper, I don't think I have ever paid full price for PS plus, always got it for much less than regular price. Must mean everyone is paying less, right?
 

SteadyEvo

Member
Why the need to create a direct competitor to Gamepass? Don’t see gamers responding positively to paid game trials.

Focus on your strengths Sony. Amazing single player games. You’re leading the industry there. Why not continue to learn on it? Are they seeing something threatening and/or profitable about Gamepass?
 

dvdvideo

Member
Why the need to create a direct competitor to Gamepass? Don’t see gamers responding positively to paid game trials.

Focus on your strengths Sony. Amazing single player games. You’re leading the industry there. Why not continue to learn on it? Are they seeing something threatening and/or profitable about Gamepass?

Absolutely they are, there is a very large contingent of gamers out there that are casual. Sony may still have more AAA games coming out, but if the narrative become that Xbox is close to as good, but has gamepass and it's AAA own exclusives (and it will), they will rip away customers in groups.
I don't know for sure if it's actually the best move for sony, they might end up better off without it, but you do have to at least recognize that MS with it's rather large studio base, exclusives of it's own, and great hardware presents a clear and present competitor with deep pockets. It's very likely they can't just burry their heads in the sand and refuse to adapt.
Competition is good.
 
Absolutely they are, there is a very large contingent of gamers out there that are casual. Sony may still have more AAA games coming out, but if the narrative become that Xbox is close to as good, but has gamepass and it's AAA own exclusives (and it will), they will rip away customers in groups.
I don't know for sure if it's actually the best move for sony, they might end up better off without it, but you do have to at least recognize that MS with it's rather large studio base, exclusives of it's own, and great hardware presents a clear and present competitor with deep pockets. It's very likely they can't just burry their heads in the sand and refuse to adapt.
Competition is good.
The single player games that Sony makes attracts a big casual crowd. The jury is still out on Microsoft matching Sony on that front.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
What does "full game trials" mean exactly? If it's just a demo, they can lick my asshole to my gooch. I ain't paying no sub fee for demos.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

Gold Member
it’s not on PC.
Your point is?

I guess your point is game pass is available on pc, but pc players are so religious that they only care about steam.

Even Ubisoft and ea figured that out, when they left steam to make their own services, just to come crawling back.

Same with epic. That majority only use it for the free games.
 

yurinka

Member
MS straight up have said this.
No, they didn't. If they spend more time on Gamepass they will spend less time on purchased games. In the same way that using Gamepass they will spread their gameplay time between more games, meaning that they will spend less time with each game.

Again, MS has stated this, and so have gamepass partners. Go look it up.
Nah.

The people who watches a lot of movies, bought many movies and went more to the cinema now get subs to see movies. So the people who get these subscriptions pretty likely on average goes more to the cinema and buys more movies than the people who isn't a subscriber of this service. But this doesn't mean that they do it because they subscribed to this service, it's the opposite: the type of customer who consumes more movies is on average more interested on this kind of services. Same happens in games, the subber of services like gamepass must be someone interested on playing many different games, so pretty likely is someone who buy more games on average than the type of gamer who isn't interested on these services. This is what MS said: out of their users, the ones who are GP subs on average buy more games than the ones who don't.

But what I meant was a different thing, the behavior change of a user when gets a subscriptiton: in the example of the movies fan, after getting these movie subs services, they go less to the cinema and buy less movies than before gettting the subs. But in average pretty likely he will continue buying more movies and going to the cinema than the people who aren't subs. So same with games: the gamer who gets game subs like GP will decrease the number of games bought even if on average will continue buying more on average than the player who isn't on a sub. If you spend more time on a subscription, you'll spend less time on stuff bought outside it.

I mean for all consoles on average there are 7-14 games sold per console depending on the platform. If on average consoles have a life cycle of around 7 years, it means that the average player buys a game or two per year. The average player from GP or from Gaf obviously buys more than 2 games per year, maybe even more than 2 per month. So this type of user doesn't buy more on average because he started to be a GP subscriber. It's the opposite: he already was, as a result of this got a subscription and since he spends more time on the sub will spend less time than before in purchased games.

Yes, it would reduce up from amounts in exchange for a monthly fee. The old games being in the current sub only is why it has failed, rather miserably at 3 million subs.
Like xCloud, PS Now is limited to barely a couple of dozen of countries. You don't know the amount of xCloud or GPU subs, so can't compare GPU/xCloud to PS Now to know if 3M is a lot or not of if it's performing better or worse.

PS Now doesn't have a cheaper tier available worldwide with only the downloads, as it's the case of the base GP. With Spartacus Sony will add this as the new tier in addition to the existing PS Plus and PS Now tiers.

What remains to be seen is the balancing point, the assumption that sales of games will always trump a subscription model is pure conjecture at this point. The blend of the 2 may maximize sales overall.
Well, more than a conjecture is the current factual data: the game revenue as of now comes from F2P first, for paid games second and game subs are only a very small part of the business.

As an example Sony makes 25B/year and only 3.5B/year of them are from subs, when they have 50M subs.

I think you are missing that they have no intention of giving them away, they are getting regular sales and the gamepass revenue. You assume those amounts always lead to a loss, it's clear MS believes that will not be the case. I'm going with they have an idea what they are doing. You think the business plan to spend 90 Billion had no projected profits at the end?
I think that they weren't to grow their revenue enough to compete against people like Sony by themselves, so bought other big companies to add their revenue. They spent almost 100B and I think they will spend more until they pass Sony in revenue and if lucky (I think won't happen) in game subscribers. So they will be able to brag about having better numbers in gaming there.

They may have loses that would mean a disaster for any other company, but MS has a lot of money so they could be sustainable for them. I think their business plan is to try to make mainstream a business model that would will basically all their competition, who can't afford to have dozens of billions of loses. And once they kill the competition, they would switch back to a profiable business model.

There is no issue with MS hitting 50 million, they over that in gold subs, and they are probably already at 30 million gamepass subs.
Please stop lying wih the gold subs number. They can't have over 50M gold subs when they have barely a console userbase which is like that, around 60M maybe, and when Plus/(when we knew its numbers) Gold were under half of heir console userbase. Plus now at least a portion of Gold subs have it as part of GPU.

The 100 million may be inflated, but it's easily in the 50 million range, similar to what sony has publicly stated for PS plus.
100M and 50M are a total fantasy, must be way, way under that. Sony has 50M but they have the double of the console userbase than MS and (still, in theory will change with Spartacus) don't offer PS Plus inside a bigger subscription.

Also since you want to discount things that are cheaper, I don't think I have ever paid full price for PS plus, always got it for much less than regular price. Must mean everyone is paying less, right?
I almost always did get Plus in 12 month packs and when discounted or in CD key stores, got it way cheaper than the official $10/single month. And only got GP some months, using free PC GP months I got from promotions (I think I did use two promottions of 3 months each).

I don't know what people pays in game subs, but I know Sony made $3.5B from game subs in the last fiscal year, and they grow that number every year.
 

kingfey

Banned
Sony already has a more successful subscription service. They just need to move them into a higher tier price to make even more money.
They don't. They have a service, which makes users pay for online mode.

Take that away, and both xbox live gold and ps+ will lose users like crazy.

Only successful so far, is gamepass. Which has no tie to a subscription service.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Why the need to create a direct competitor to Gamepass? Don’t see gamers responding positively to paid game trials.

Focus on your strengths Sony. Amazing single player games. You’re leading the industry there. Why not continue to learn on it? Are they seeing something threatening and/or profitable about Gamepass?
Gamepass is already a threat, when its a baby form. Imagine, what it could do when, all those e3 games come to the service.

Sony has to come up a counter with that.

While they can make solid games. Their release is spacious. It takes time for the big hits to come out.

While gamepass on other hand, releases AAA a month day1/or 3rd party AAA game for $10/$15.
 
No, they didn't. If they spend more time on Gamepass they will spend less time on purchased games. In the same way that using Gamepass they will spread their gameplay time between more games, meaning that they will spend less time with each game.


Nah.

The people who watches a lot of movies, bought many movies and went more to the cinema now get subs to see movies. So the people who get these subscriptions pretty likely on average goes more to the cinema and buys more movies than the people who isn't a subscriber of this service. But this doesn't mean that they do it because they subscribed to this service, it's the opposite: the type of customer who consumes more movies is on average more interested on this kind of services. Same happens in games, the subber of services like gamepass must be someone interested on playing many different games, so pretty likely is someone who buy more games on average than the type of gamer who isn't interested on these services. This is what MS said: out of their users, the ones who are GP subs on average buy more games than the ones who don't.

But what I meant was a different thing, the behavior change of a user when gets a subscriptiton: in the example of the movies fan, after getting these movie subs services, they go less to the cinema and buy less movies than before gettting the subs. But in average pretty likely he will continue buying more movies and going to the cinema than the people who aren't subs. So same with games: the gamer who gets game subs like GP will decrease the number of games bought even if on average will continue buying more on average than the player who isn't on a sub. If you spend more time on a subscription, you'll spend less time on stuff bought outside it.

I mean for all consoles on average there are 7-14 games sold per console depending on the platform. If on average consoles have a life cycle of around 7 years, it means that the average player buys a game or two per year. The average player from GP or from Gaf obviously buys more than 2 games per year, maybe even more than 2 per month. So this type of user doesn't buy more on average because he started to be a GP subscriber. It's the opposite: he already was, as a result of this got a subscription and since he spends more time on the sub will spend less time than before in purchased games.


Like xCloud, PS Now is limited to barely a couple of dozen of countries. You don't know the amount of xCloud or GPU subs, so can't compare GPU/xCloud to PS Now to know if 3M is a lot or not of if it's performing better or worse.

PS Now doesn't have a cheaper tier available worldwide with only the downloads, as it's the case of the base GP. With Spartacus Sony will add this as the new tier in addition to the existing PS Plus and PS Now tiers.


Well, more than a conjecture is the current factual data: the game revenue as of now comes from F2P first, for paid games second and game subs are only a very small part of the business.

As an example Sony makes 25B/year and only 3.5B/year of them are from subs, when they have 50M subs.


I think that they weren't to grow their revenue enough to compete against people like Sony by themselves, so bought other big companies to add their revenue. They spent almost 100B and I think they will spend more until they pass Sony in revenue and if lucky (I think won't happen) in game subscribers. So they will be able to brag about having better numbers in gaming there.

They may have loses that would mean a disaster for any other company, but MS has a lot of money so they could be sustainable for them. I think their business plan is to try to make mainstream a business model that would will basically all their competition, who can't afford to have dozens of billions of loses. And once they kill the competition, they would switch back to a profiable business model.


Please stop lying wih the gold subs number. They can't have over 50M gold subs when they have barely a console userbase which is like that, around 60M maybe, and when Plus/(when we knew its numbers) Gold were under half of heir console userbase. Plus now at least a portion of Gold subs have it as part of GPU.


100M and 50M are a total fantasy, must be way, way under that. Sony has 50M but they have the double of the console userbase than MS and (still, in theory will change with Spartacus) don't offer PS Plus inside a bigger subscription.


I almost always did get Plus in 12 month packs and when discounted or in CD key stores, got it way cheaper than the official $10/single month. And only got GP some months, using free PC GP months I got from promotions (I think I did use two promottions of 3 months each).

I don't know what people pays in game subs, but I know Sony made $3.5B from game subs in the last fiscal year, and they grow that number every year.
I imagine it would take a lot of words to create someone's new reality from scratch. So the overall length isn't surprising.

What is surprising to me though is that it's being done here. The internet has many websites that serve no other purpose than to provide a place for people to write their fanfiction novels. Yet here we are with another chapter in Yurinka's never ending novel.

The least he could've done is to keep referring to himself in the third person like in his post previous to this one.
 

RAIDEN1

Member
So are we looking at Motorstorm Pacific Rift at 60fps up-scaled? When it comes to the classics? Along with all the Ridge Racer games from the PS1-2 era also having a similar make-over?
 

yurinka

Member
I imagine it would take a lot of words to create someone's new reality from scratch. So the overall length isn't surprising.

What is surprising to me though is that it's being done here. The internet has many websites that serve no other purpose than to provide a place for people to write their fanfiction novels. Yet here we are with another chapter in Yurinka's never ending novel.

The least he could've done is to keep referring to himself in the third person like in his post previous to this one.
People won't take you seriously or may even block/ban you if you insult people who doesn't agree with you instead of debating politely and constructively backing your opinion with factual data, as it could be objective market numbers.

So are we looking at Motorstorm Pacific Rift at 60fps up-scaled? When it comes to the classics? Along with all the Ridge Racer games from the PS1-2 era also having a similar make-over?
I wouldn't bet on it. I'd say they mean they will include more PS Now games, meaning streaming only PS3 games (some of them could be PS1 or PSP games) and other ones PS4 streameable or downloadable games (being PS2 Classics some of them).

So games as they originally were, without being remastered, remade, patched, upscaled, etc.
 
Last edited:

RAIDEN1

Member
People won't take you seriously or may even block/ban you if you insult people who doesn't agree with you instead of debating politely and constructively backing your opinion with factual data, as it could be objective market numbers.


I wouldn't bet on it. I'd say they mean they will include more PS Now games, meaning streaming only PS3 games (some of them could be PS1 or PSP games) and other ones PS4 streameable or downloadable games (being PS2 Classics some of them).

So games as they originally were, without being remastered, remade, patched, upscaled, etc.
In that case Xbox Series X/S it is then, for the definitive Sony classics experience..(Purely for PS1 and PS2 titles I mean.)
 

Zeroing

Banned
Gamepass is already a threat, when its a baby form. Imagine, what it could do when, all those e3 games come to the service.
Gamepass is not in baby form, it’s over 4 years old, only 2 years ago people figure out it existed because of shady marketing and console wars…


About those e3 games… I know Xbox fans been starving for new IPs and exclusives but for the rest of us, for over 10 years MS done nothing to capture us gamers into their systems… so we will see.

There’s a reason why people go with Nintendo and Sony! Both aren’t perfect but they are consistently making exclusives.
 

RexAnglo

Banned
I don't know if they all count as "classics", and many were multiplatform, but I'd love to see;

Rocky (ps2)
Black (ps2)
Manhunt (ps2)
Motostorm (ps3)
Dark Sector (ps3)
 
Top Bottom