Source?Psnow already has double the subs of gamepass.
Source?Psnow already has double the subs of gamepass.
? I wasn’t talking about it from the perspective of lining Sonys pockets. You didn’t reply to what I wroteWell, 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.
Best speculation line ever, you can't be wrong when it's not announced publicly.something’s probably going to happen by the end of this month and I don’t think that necessarily means publicly
Ok, it is still a bit better than I though, but honestly?It still sucks, specially if you compare with Gamepass.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.
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.Ok, it is still a bit better than I though, but honestly?It still sucks, specially if you compare with Gamepass.
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/OGXBoxToo late Sony, I'm playing PSone games on my Series X
I think you are mistaking PSnow with PSplus. PSnow has some pretty poor engagement numbers.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.
How do you know if the percentage is big or small? Did MS share the number?Oh here we go, you do realize that the percentage of gamepass owners who did the gold trick is relatively low, right?
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.So your of the "informed" opinion that a subscription service with day and date games is doomed to lose money? Lol
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.If it leverages their objectively superior catalog of older games than it's well worth it.
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?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.
Isn't that what Nintendo does already?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.
What would they do that? They value their games.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.
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 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?
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.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!
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?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.
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.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 is that said? You can already download ps2 games on the ps5 right now. I'm glad you agree streaming sucks though.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?
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!Where is that said? You can already download ps2 games on the ps5 right now. I'm glad you agree streaming sucks though.
What would they do that? They value their games.
Erm to compete with game pass?
Isn't that the whole point?
I dont know. Is it? Why make another money losing service? Sony doesn't have a ubiquitous OS to draw money from.Erm to compete with game pass?
Isn't that the whole point?
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.Why do you think gamepass is worth competing with when it's not profitable?
We only have the words of ms to go on and they've never mentioned the word profit at all.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.
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.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 think they have also mentioned that they aren't bleeding money because of it(nowadays). But I may be remembering wrong. If somone can provide a source I would be glad!We only have the words of ms to go on and they've never mentioned the word profit at all.
But Spartacus isn't a thing yet...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.
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.But Spartacus isn't a thing yet...
So we don't know how it will perform.
IF they convert PS Plus users into Spartacus.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.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a dumb comparison cause of your second question.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.
According to Bloomberg Spartacus will be basically the merge of PS Plus and now in a multi tiered service: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.
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.IF they convert PS Plus users into Spartacus.
Why do you think gamepass is worth competing with when it's not profitable?
I dont know. Is it? Why make another money losing service? Sony doesn't have a ubiquitous OS to draw money from.
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.
Well, I guess we will see. We still need to see if all of that will end up being 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.
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.
at least nintendo had proper controllers, proper functions built into the nes and snes classic.Isn't that what Nintendo does already?
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.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.