• 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.

Microsoft Says Sony Will Benefit From Launching First-Party Games on PS Plus

phil_t98

Gold Member
I don't think gp influenced how I liked Infinite. The poor pc experience did a bit. I had few crashes, bad performance (3080). Maybe it would playu better on series X.
I just disliked the corridors and corridors. I liked the first half of the game quite ok.
For example, right after that I finished The forgotten city.. A gamepas indie game and loved it

Halo has always been a mix of open world to a point and corodors , try playing halo 1 and 2 to see that, each to their own though. I think we may see PS+ evolve over its lifetime with how games are released on there
 

01011001

Gold Member
I don't think gp influenced how I liked Infinite. [...] I just disliked the corridors and corridors. I liked the first half of the game quite ok.
[...] right after that I finished The forgotten city.. A gamepas indie game and loved it

yeah... great "game"

I hate Halo Infinite, and I'm still shocked you liked The Forgotten City more than Infinite... what an overrated "game"... the mod was already an overrated waste of HDD space, but the full game takes that to a whole nother level.

what is it with "games" with zero player agency and/or game mechanics getting pushed by IGN and the rest of the SJW journalist gang as 9/10 masterpieces?
I think I wouldn't even dislike that "game" as much as I did if it wasn't for that overblown praise these "games" always get
 
Last edited:

rofif

Gold Member
yeah... great "game"

I hate Halo Infinite, and I'm still shocked you liked The Forgotten City more than Infinite... what an overrated "game"... the mod was already an overrated waste of HDD space, but the full game takes that to a whole nother level.

what is it with "games" with zero player agency and/or game mechanics getting pushed by IGN and the rest of the SJW journalist gang as 9/10 masterpieces?
I think I wouldn't even dislike that "game" as much as I did if it wasn't for that overblown praise these "games" always get
I don't understand what are you trying to imply.
Forgotten City is a fantastic game. Adventure game with actually quite few interesting mechanics.
Way more ambitious than Halo infinite imo...
TONS MORE player agency than in Halo. You have influence over anything in Forgotten City. The only thing you do less than in infinite is shooting... I could argue that shooting is bad tired gameplay

yeah I finished ALL halo games. Reach was my absolute fav. then 2, 1 and 3 was last I think... but it's been a long time
 
Last edited:
As more Sony games drops on pc, pc will become more and more the ultimate plataform. Xbox is becoming obsolete as a console and bigger as a service,will be the king of the games subscription.
But again, playstation will continue selling console as always because the average player dont even know how to play on pc.
So pc gets better, xbox turns to a subscription and sony stays sony and make even more money releasing on pc. The only problem is if Sony gets their exclusive wrong, if they don't do good games,Sony castle crumbles.
 
Sony can't afford to invest in first party and their titles from subscription games. It's just not enough. Microsoft can swallow that loss. Sony, not so much.
 

01011001

Gold Member
I don't understand what are you trying to imply.
Forgotten City is a fantastic game. Adventure game with actually quite few interesting mechanics.
Way more ambitious than Halo infinite imo...

talking endlessly with static barely animated NPCs, walking to waypoint after waypoint, handholdy super easy puzzles and really bad combat... that was the impression I got by playing it for more than an hour until I uninstalled

edit: also plz stop calling ""games"" like these adventure games... they are not... adventure is such a misused word these days that it literally can be replaced with "miscellaneous"
 
Last edited:
As more Sony games drops on pc, pc will become more and more the ultimate plataform. Xbox is becoming obsolete as a console and bigger as a service,will be the king of the games subscription.
But again, playstation will continue selling console as always because the average player dont even know how to play on pc.
So pc gets better, xbox turns to a subscription and sony stays sony and make even more money releasing on pc. The only problem is if Sony gets their exclusive wrong, if they don't do good games,Sony castle crumbles.
Xbox isn't going to stop making consoles, they've stated that multiple times.

They aren't just going to surrender all 3rd party console only content dollars to Sony lmao
 

Rippa

Member
The best part about this thread are the fanboys on damage control who didn't take a minute to read the OP.

Microsoft is saying this in their response to Sony telling Brazilian authorities that, basically, they cannot compete with Game Pass and Game Pass has like 70% of the marketshare. How it would take so many years and money to come close to rivaling Game Pass, etc., despite themselves calling PS+ a rival.

This is all the from the same documents that have already posted where Microsoft lawyers are spit-roasting Sony's arguments; there's nothing new here except a media outlet pointing out this specific section.

Basically, Microsoft is saying that Sony can make PS+ more attractive by adding day one titles, and it could rival Game Pass more if done so. Pretty much calling Sony's bluff by saying they rely on "buy-to-play" as their strategy while Microsoft is adopting another successful method, and Sony is just upset that they're marketshare is being threatened and they have to compete. Microsoft literally uses the words "afraid" and "incoherant" plus many more hilarious words in these documents to call out Sony, lmao.

But queue the Sony Defense Force to blindly jump in. It must suck to always be backfired upon. 🤭
 

rofif

Gold Member
talking endlessly with static barely animated NPCs, walking to waypoint after waypoint, handholdy super easy puzzles and really bad combat... that was the impression I got by playing it for more than an hour until I uninstalled

edit: also plz stop calling ""games"" like these adventure games... they are not... adventure is such a misused word these days that it literally can be replaced with "miscellaneous"
I will take this static talking to npcs you describe over mindless shooting again and again and again.
Yes. Forgotten city is an adventure game and a fantastic one at that. At least it tried new way of narrative.
The same reason I like death stranding and tlou2. Thise games try new stuff. It’s not just shooting again and again
 
Xbox isn't going to stop making consoles, they've stated that multiple times.

They aren't just going to surrender all 3rd party console only content dollars to Sony lmao
They can continue to produce consoles, but people wanting to buy it is another history. They eventually will make more money on the subs.
 

01011001

Gold Member
I will take this static talking to npcs you describe over mindless shooting again and again and again.
Yes. Forgotten city is an adventure game and a fantastic one at that. At least it tried new way of narrative.
The same reason I like death stranding and tlou2. Thise games try new stuff. It’s not just shooting again and again

Death Stranding, fair enough... but you lost me at "TLOU2 tries new stuff" lol, you couldn't make a more generic stealth action game if you tried.

also no, Adventure as a prefix comes from Text Adventure games, whose main gameplay element was to solve environmental puzzles using items and/or specific actions.

this prefix then was further used by Graphics Adventures, which were a direct evolution of Text Adventures. now you had graphics but the main gameplay focus was still to walk around an often semi-open environment and solve puzzles you encounter by using and combining items or do specific things to influence other characters.

then came the Action Adventure, this genre still has a big focus on puzzle solving but now with "action gameplay" which means you are in direct control of your character and have to also fight and/or overcome platforming obstacles, aka. more physical stuff.

now let's look at the forgotten city.
puzzles are a rarity from what I have seen, they are basically solving themselves when they show up, and most of the game is spent talking to people which has no aspect of actually solving anything and or accomplishing a certain goal and then walking to a point in the world that is marked for you, meaning no player agency required to actually progress in the "game" outside of the really mundane FPS sections

nowadays Adventure literally means miscellaneous... Spider-Man is an Adventure game, TLOU2 is an adventure game, GTA is an adventure game... like I said... miscellaneous
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
As more Sony games drops on pc, pc will become more and more the ultimate plataform. Xbox is becoming obsolete as a console and bigger as a service,will be the king of the games subscription.
But again, playstation will continue selling console as always because the average player dont even know how to play on pc.
So pc gets better, xbox turns to a subscription and sony stays sony and make even more money releasing on pc. The only problem is if Sony gets their exclusive wrong, if they don't do good games,Sony castle crumbles.
This reads like a typical fanboys wetdream. Complete with the maniacal reasoning as to why one will rise and one will fall.

Amazing post.
 
This reads like a typical fanboys wetdream. Complete with the maniacal reasoning as to why one will rise and one will fall.

Amazing post.
And which fanboy?
Sony continues to make money, ms makes even more money. You go with a pc, play on gamepass, 2 years later plays sony exclusives games with a better performance. Or get a console to play the games early. Without gamepass, playstation it's only worth for exclusives. And currently you get the best from gamepass playing on a pc, the series x is just a device to play gamepass on a tv.
 

rofif

Gold Member
Death Stranding, fair enough... but you lost me at "TLOU2 tries new stuff" lol, you couldn't make a more generic stealth action game if you tried.

also no, Adventure as a prefix comes from Text Adventure games, whose main gameplay element was to solve environmental puzzles using items and/or specific actions.

this prefix then was further used by Graphics Adventures, which were a direct evolution of Text Adventures. now you had graphics but the main gameplay focus was still to walk around an often semi-open environment and solve puzzles you encounter by using and combining items or do specific things to influence other characters.

then came the Action Adventure, this genre still has a big focus on puzzle solving but now with "action gameplay" which means you are in direct control of your character and have to also fight and/or overcome platforming obstacles, aka. more physical stuff.

now let's look at the forgotten city.
puzzles are a rarity from what I have seen, they are basically solving themselves when they show up, and most of the game is spent talking to people which has no aspect of actually solving anything and or accomplishing a certain goal and then walking to a point in the world that is marked for you, meaning no player agency required to actually progress in the "game" outside of the really mundane FPS sections

nowadays Adventure literally means miscellaneous... Spider-Man is an Adventure game, TLOU2 is an adventure game, GTA is an adventure game... like I said... miscellaneous
Tlou2 tries a lot of new stuff. nothing about it is generic.
Especially the story and the way it delivers it's narrative.
Adventure game is adventure game. nobody would call spider man or tlou2 an adventure game, are you nuts?

Again with Forgotten City. You have this very close minded narrow vision of what a "game" is. We can end that stupid discussion here. You've not even played the game and even if you did, you wouldn't get it.
Go back to your shooty shooty games then with superior gameplay. Try looking below the surface sometimes. There is more to games than just shooting or puzzle solving... which is another terrible concept that adventure game is not a game if there are no puzzles.... and puzzles in forgotten city are very clever and have few solutions.
 
That's what MS was hoping for but it doesn't look like Sony fell for it (so far), MS admittedly couldn't compete in the traditional console market so they are pretty much attempting to destroy it. It obviously wouldn't be sustainable for Sony to keep producing the same amount of games at the same quality level if they were just going to include them on PS+.

This sort of shows how Gamepass didn't turn out to be nearly as disruptive as MS hoped for, Sony with very little effort is still able to have a much more successful service.

All that Sony needs to do is to maintain their position for a few more of years until the MS leadership starts being pressure by shareholders to explain why they have invested so much on Gamepass to get beat by PlayStation once again.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Sony currently knows what they're doing in the gaming space. They don't need Microsoft's biased advice.
Sony knows that what they have been doing isn't sustainable forever. The model where their success depends primarily on the number of hardware units they sell through was already rocked by covid supply constraints. That's why they're investing billions into GaaS, both in live service games and the new PS+, and porting their games to PC. Recurring revenue from a subscription model is more stable and predictable than having to sell enough copies to make your money back. That's why almost every media company and commercial software company has moved to that model.
 
They can continue to produce consoles, but people wanting to buy it is another history. They eventually will make more money on the subs.
It doesn't matter if subs make them more money, they're not going to drop the money they do make from consoles.

Not everyone wants to stream games, play on pc, or play on mobile.

Last I read ps5 was at 20 million and series x/s was at 15 million sales. That's not even remotely far enough away to abandon consoles dude.
 
And which fanboy?
Sony continues to make money, ms makes even more money. You go with a pc, play on gamepass, 2 years later plays sony exclusives games with a better performance. Or get a console to play the games early. Without gamepass, playstation it's only worth for exclusives. And currently you get the best from gamepass playing on a pc, the series x is just a device to play gamepass on a tv.
How does abandoning consoles make Microsoft more money? Not everyone wants to play on/has a gaming pc.
 

DForce

Member
What...are you talking about? That wasn't a rebuttal, that was the original response to authorities to which Microsoft refuted. Microsoft refutes that Sony contradicted themselves by saying that Game Pass is the undisputed leader in marketshare and how it would take lots of years and money to rival it (and that they did it without having many AAA games), yet claimed that if they acquired Call of Duty, it would significantly propel Game Pass versus the competition. Microsoft almost literally stated that since Sony themselves stated Game Pass grew to be so successful without CoD (or any ABK games/many AAA games for that matter), then how will the acquisition change the status quo?

I'm summarizing and MS lawyers argue it way better, but they used a lot of Sony's quotes against them.

And again, what? Why are you going back in time and making revisionist history to try and desperately make a point? 😂



Microsoft refuted that Sony saying Game Pass is some massive service that's hard to rival could be partially remedied by Sony offering likewise features in their competing subscription service. It was a cheeky response to Sony because a ton of Sony's original points were filled with disingenuous holes, and you're mad because some rich lawyer had a little fun?


What are you even talking about, lmao. I'm using literal quotes or summaries from the documents, unlike you bringing up random shit unrelated to these Brazilian court documents.

But sure, keep repeating I'm "failing" or "reaching" because you don't know how to gracefully take an L.

Did you just say I'm reaching when you were asking Microsoft to make a point, in which you get proven that they made their rebuttals/counterarguments very succinctly? Anyone looking back at your original post can see you seemingly had no idea what the OP was about.

That wasn't a rebuttal

You should stop contradicting yourself.

Microsoft responded to their claims about Game Pass by saying Sony should put their games on the service to increase the number of subscribers.

You're going on a rant because I said Microsoft should provide data that shows how profitable Game Pass is. Wait, they can't do it, right?

Sony - "Game Pass is widely popular and gaining market share. Putting Call of Duty on Game Pass would make it bigger."
Microsoft - "Why don't you put your games on PS Plus to gain subscribers?"


As stated in the Resetera era thread.

They say that over the past five years, Game Pass has grown to capture approximately 60-70% of the global subscription services market (that marketshare is even greater in Brazil, where Game Pass represents approximately 70-80% of the PC subscription services market).

They believe that it would take several years for a competitor – even with substantial investments – to create a rival effective for Game Pass

See the part where it says, "even with a substantial investment"?

Without dancing around the point (something you have been doing all along) did Microsoft mention the investment or not in their response to Sony's claim?
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
MS is desperate to be validated. But they know they fucked up when promise Day one Games.

Member you could pay for Forza Horizon to play early?.

Yep. This specific practice is dumb-dumb.
 

FergusFrost

Member
I mean, Sony exclusives cost a lot more to make and sell a lot more than Xbox exclusives, so I'm not sure if this is right.
 

Clear

Member
I'm sorry but I don't understand why any gamer wouldn't want a gamepass-like service on their respective console. Also, Apple felt the need to have a similar service too for a reason ...

Reuters

The issue isn't desirability, that's not questionable. The point of concern is what does moving the industry to a complete service-model do to the nature of the product.

Make no mistake, that's MS' corporate vision. Complete control over the ecosystem is what they desire, its vastly more profitable for them. And don't get me wrong; I'm not faulting them for taking the approach. They've tried for 20 odd years to beat the incumbents under the "old" distribution/publication system, and have failed every time. So they've taken the radical step to try and re-shape the market into one they can dominate.

The thing noone seems to want to recognize is that the nature of the marketplace shapes the product. Mobile gaming didn't go the way it did on accident. You change the economics and distribution model and it becomes a case of who can figure out what works in a business sense in that environment. For example if you can't reliably turn a solid profit based on the initial sales "buy-in", then you need to adjust your revenue model to make up the difference with post-sale transactions. This then becomes a mission-critical element throughout the design process and the product changes.

But beyond that, there's also the question of what the rest of the industry outside of these service bubbles look like? Remember the KPI on these services is user engagement; they want to monopolize attention to their service platform. So you can't consider the rise (in market/mind-share) of these services to not have a corrosive effect on the present model, especially when the premise of these a-la carte services is heavily based on their superior value proposition to the end user. Add to that a strong FOMO aspect to keep people subscribed indefinitely, and hence continuously taking money out of the market...

I just don't trust this as a positive direction for the industry.
 

Infamy v1

Member
You should stop contradicting yourself.
What are you talking about? That was in response to YOUR post. I asked you why Sony didn't mention your "muh profits!" at all in the court documents, since you keep crying about Microsoft hiding profits over and over. You're all over the place, lmao. Have a look:
If MS wanted to prove a point then they should reveal their subscribers and profit from Game Pass.
But they did reveal a point. This was in response to Sony themselves saying it would take lots of years and money to compete with Game Pass, and Sony is the one who mentioned 70+% Game Pass marketshare.
Microsoft said it would benefit Sony.

The benefit for them would be to make a profit. Microsoft hides profit but reports revenue.

But you just admitted that they would take a lot of money, thus losing a lot of money in the process. Thanks for proving my point.
Funny, in Sony's entire argument, you know, the thing that regulators see and MS is responding to, they don't talk about how MS hides profit. They make a ton of other points (which MS lawyers shut down, hence all the media and videos). If this was such a real concern, such an easy W, why would Sony lawyers neglect to mention it?
Jim Ryan already talked about it.
So did Shawn Layden, an ex-employee.

Microsoft hides its profits for a reason.

You tried to bring up mindshare as a counterpoint when it doesn't prove that they're profitable.

You're reaching and it's not working.
Did you just say I'm reaching when you were asking Microsoft to make a point, in which you get proven that they made their rebuttals/counterarguments very succinctly? Anyone looking back at your original post can see you seemingly had no idea what the OP was about.

You get shown that Sony didn't mention pRoFiTs once when they had the floor to do so, and your response is "yeah, but this one time Jimbo talked about it and so did an ex-employee."

The lawyers offered a rebuttal by saying they don't have any must-have games.

Your last post, which you're desperately trying to cling to, has no relation to anything being spoken about, and is either referring to two things:

a) Microsoft refuting that ABK doesn't have any "must-have" games which was a direct response to Sony saying CoD has no rivals and is unmatched (despite said rivals coming out and saying CoD does indeed have rivals and listing them all).

This has absolutely zero relation to the OP and Microsoft talking about day one titles on Game Pass/PS+, or what Microsoft is responding to. I literally gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured you weren't talking about this because this goes beyond reaching.

b) When Sony originally mentioned the lack of AAA games on Game Pass, which wasn't a retort, to which Microsoft used against them to leverage CoD. This is what my post was talking about since it was at least partially on subject, but even still shows you're grasping at straws.

Microsoft responded to their claims about Game Pass by saying Sony should put their games on the service to increase the number of subscribers.

No, they didn't. Microsoft said a bunch of scathing shit in response to their claims about Game Pass. Many pages, actually. This was just pointed out way LTTP because it's funny as shit to see two companies literally console war.
You're going on a rant because I said Microsoft should provide data that shows how profitable Game Pass is. Wait, they can't do it, right?

You're lying again; I quoted the chain of posts up there. You got called out for seemingly not knowing the OP was a response, while mentioning profits over and over. Hint: regulators don't give a shit about your profits, hence why Sony kept their mouth shut. They care about anti-competition and monopolies, and Microsoft gave irrefutable proof that Sonys actual arguments hold no water.

See the part where it says, "even with a substantial investment"?

Without dancing around the point (something you have been doing all along) did Microsoft mention the investment or not in their response to Sony's claim?

Is this the climax of your argument? That Sony has to spend money to compete with Game Pass? Doesn't Microsoft have to spend money to compete with Sony's already established 1P studios? To also moneyhat just to stay competitive with Sony, except Sony has the marketshare to dictate far more lenient and cheaper contracts? That's what competition is. Microsoft points out multiple times that Sony is upset that their marketshare is being threatened as the sole basis for their arguments, and that, and I quote, their arguments are incoherent and irrelevant. Their words.

Take it up with the lawyers, stop crying on a forum.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
The issue isn't desirability, that's not questionable. The point of concern is what does moving the industry to a complete service-model do to the nature of the product.

Make no mistake, that's MS' corporate vision. Complete control over the ecosystem is what they desire, its vastly more profitable for them. And don't get me wrong; I'm not faulting them for taking the approach. They've tried for 20 odd years to beat the incumbents under the "old" distribution/publication system, and have failed every time. So they've taken the radical step to try and re-shape the market into one they can dominate.

The thing noone seems to want to recognize is that the nature of the marketplace shapes the product. Mobile gaming didn't go the way it did on accident. You change the economics and distribution model and it becomes a case of who can figure out what works in a business sense in that environment. For example if you can't reliably turn a solid profit based on the initial sales "buy-in", then you need to adjust your revenue model to make up the difference with post-sale transactions. This then becomes a mission-critical element throughout the design process and the product changes.

But beyond that, there's also the question of what the rest of the industry outside of these service bubbles look like? Remember the KPI on these services is user engagement; they want to monopolize attention to their service platform. So you can't consider the rise (in market/mind-share) of these services to not have a corrosive effect on the present model, especially when the premise of these a-la carte services is heavily based on their superior value proposition to the end user. Add to that a strong FOMO aspect to keep people subscribed indefinitely, and hence continuously taking money out of the market...

I just don't trust this as a positive direction for the industry.
That's a lot of doom and gloom. So where's the proof first party games on sub services on day one will yank the rug of game quality? MS won Metacritic's publisher of the year, so where's the franchises transforming into crappy bad budget games?

So what in your opinion will be the industry reshaping as MS keeps doing day one games on sub plan? They've been doing it for years and nothing has changed.

In every industry, people follow good products at an affordable price. That's what typically draws in consumers. If sub service games become that bad, people wont do it. Just like PS Now in its prior form being an affordable $60 standalone product since 2014. Hardly anyone bought it because it's crap for 8 years even though Sony had a PS4 user base of 100M+ gamers.

Movie sub services are a good indicator that when more users join, the company releases more quality first party content. And when there's tons of new subbers and revenue it shows the service is doing something right. If Netflix really wants to maximize sales they could sell their Netflix Series shows in BR sets first, then bring it to sub plan, or do the dual approach way of discs and sub to cover all bases. I dont think they even sell their content. It's sub plan or nothing. It works. You never saw NF creating tons of exclusive content in the first decade they were around.
 
Last edited:

Hendrick's

Member
The issue with Gamepass that none of you are talking about that MS could face sooner rather later is subscription fatigue. With the economy fixing to go south and inflation getting out of hand, people are going to cutback. All subscription services have lost subscribers. MS still has the advantage of being the only service to offer AAA gaming.
Game Pass is still the best economical option though. So the economy slumping could favor that model over $70 single games.
 

sol_bad

Member
Indeed because there is no way on God's earth that I'm paying £70 for new games. And even Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart has never dropped below £50 yet.

If Ratchet and Clank hasn't dropped below 50 pound yet, doesn't that sort of prove that they don't need to release first party games on PS Plus on day 1?
 

DForce

Member
What are you talking about? That was in response to YOUR post. I asked you why Sony didn't mention your "muh profits!" at all in the court documents, since you keep crying about Microsoft hiding profits over and over. You're all over the place, lmao. Have a look:









Your last post, which you're desperately trying to cling to, has no relation to anything being spoken about, and is either referring to two things:

a) Microsoft refuting that ABK doesn't have any "must-have" games which was a direct response to Sony saying CoD has no rivals and is unmatched (despite said rivals coming out and saying CoD does indeed have rivals and listing them all).

This has absolutely zero relation to the OP and Microsoft talking about day one titles on Game Pass/PS+, or what Microsoft is responding to. I literally gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured you weren't talking about this because this goes beyond reaching.

b) When Sony originally mentioned the lack of AAA games on Game Pass, which wasn't a retort, to which Microsoft used against them to leverage CoD. This is what my post was talking about since it was at least partially on subject, but even still shows you're grasping at straws.



No, they didn't. Microsoft said a bunch of scathing shit in response to their claims about Game Pass. Many pages, actually. This was just pointed out way LTTP because it's funny as shit to see two companies literally console war.


You're lying again; I quoted the chain of posts up there. You got called out for seemingly not knowing the OP was a response, while mentioning profits over and over. Hint: regulators don't give a shit about your profits, hence why Sony kept their mouth shut. They care about anti-competition and monopolies, and Microsoft gave irrefutable proof that Sonys actual arguments hold no water.



Is this the climax of your argument? That Sony has to spend money to compete with Game Pass? Doesn't Microsoft have to spend money to compete with Sony's already established 1P studios? To also moneyhat just to stay competitive with Sony, except Sony has the marketshare to dictate far more lenient and cheaper contracts? That's what competition is. Microsoft points out multiple times that Sony is upset that their marketshare is being threatened as the sole basis for their arguments, and that, and I quote, their arguments are incoherent and irrelevant. Their words.

Take it up with the lawyers, stop crying on a forum.

In short, you misinterpreted my original comment and accused me of not knowing what's going on, even though I've commented on this subject before and read the article before posting.

Sony's lawyers stated it would take a substantial investment and Microsoft never countered that point other than to tell them that they should put their games on PS+. I said if MS wanted to prove a point, then they show how much profit GamePass makes prove to Sony it would actually benefit them.


Sony doesn't include their first-party titles on PS+ at launch because they would lose money. It's as simple as that.

And the fact they said they don't have any must-have games has no relation? It's related to the entire case and what's going on. Their job is to downplay the impact that Call of Duty and their games will have when it comes to game pass. That means the statement is BS. This also means you know they're going to spew a lot of BS throughout this entire process.

You're literally trolling and everyone is pointing it out.


Don't get upset with me due to your inability to understand my comment. Take your arguments to Twitter because it's not going to work here.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
The best part about this thread are the fanboys on damage control who didn't take a minute to read the OP.

Microsoft is saying this in their response to Sony telling Brazilian authorities that, basically, they cannot compete with Game Pass and Game Pass has like 70% of the marketshare. How it would take so many years and money to come close to rivaling Game Pass, etc., despite themselves calling PS+ a rival.

This is all the from the same documents that have already posted where Microsoft lawyers are spit-roasting Sony's arguments; there's nothing new here except a media outlet pointing out this specific section.

Basically, Microsoft is saying that Sony can make PS+ more attractive by adding day one titles, and it could rival Game Pass more if done so. Pretty much calling Sony's bluff by saying they rely on "buy-to-play" as their strategy while Microsoft is adopting another successful method, and Sony is just upset that they're marketshare is being threatened and they have to compete. Microsoft literally uses the words "afraid" and "incoherant" plus many more hilarious words in these documents to call out Sony, lmao.

But queue the Sony Defense Force to blindly jump in. It must suck to always be backfired upon. 🤭
Someones salty here.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Game Pass is still the best economical option though. So the economy slumping could favor that model over $70 single games.
Depends on how many $70 games you plan to buy. Sooner or later Gamepass is going to need most people subscribing at $14.99 a month and not these $1 conversion deals.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
That's a lot of doom and gloom. So where's the proof first party games on sub services on day one will yank the rug of game quality? MS won Metacritic's publisher of the year, so where's the franchises transforming into crappy bad budget games?
Cuz MS hasn't produce a constant flow of AAA games since Game Pass inception. Which is insane.

So what in your opinion will be the industry reshaping as MS keeps doing day one games on sub plan? They've been doing it for years and nothing has changed.
Again. Context matters. Game Pass was introduced in one the lowest moment in the market (and history) for Xbox.

It felt like the only option they had to prevent Xbox as a brand going completely irrelevant.

Game Pass alone carried the brand for years (without actually delivering high quality AAA-New IPs)....completly insanity.

In every industry, people follow good products at an affordable price.
Sure.

That's what typically draws in consumers.
Is a huge factor.

If sub service games become that bad, people wont do it.
Sure.

Just like PS Now in its prior form being an affordable $60 standalone product since 2014. Hardly anyone bought it because it's crap for 8 years even though Sony had a PS4 user base of 100M+ gamers.
What is the attach rate of the Playstation sub service?

Movie sub services are a good indicator that when more users join, the company releases more quality first party content.
That is the promise.....we are still waiting for that to happen.

And when there's tons of new subbers and revenue it shows the service is doing something right.
Yeah. Is all about the subscriber numbers.

If Netflix really wants to maximize sales they could sell their Netflix Series shows in BR sets first, then bring it to sub plan, or do the dual approach way of discs and sub to cover all bases.
I mean, Netflix started as disc-based subscription. Then they moved to streaming without actual competition. Then they started to spend crazy amount of money in original productions.

I dont think they even sell their content. It's sub plan or nothing. It works.
"It works" until it dosen't. Right?. The pandemic really changed the Hollywood paradigm.

Now Disney+ is going to have and AD Supported Tier. As well as Netflix which said they will never do Ads.

You never saw NF creating tons of exclusive content in the first decade they were around
Because they didn't need to. And probably couldn't afford to do so.
 
Well no shit it would increase subs but they would lose money like Microsoft is on their service. Can't make Sony top tier games with the type of sub costing only 15 a month. Probably be double that cost to even out I'm guessing, are people willing to pay that every month?
I sure don't.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
What is the attach rate of the Playstation sub service?
The last publicized sub count was 3.2M subs in summer 2021. The service started in 2014. So before the new service started, it'd probably be 4M tops (rounding it off). And that assumes it grew 800k (25%) in the final year.

So going strictly by PS4/PS5 (wont even bother adding in any potential PC only PS Now subbers), the attach rate is maybe around 3%.
 

Justin9mm

Member
I've become increasingly disappointed with Sony's decisions with PlayStation, the PS5 features or missing features are a mess and the Series X is a much better console and service overall. But Sony know what they are doing with their exclusives and I back Sony here on their business model with them.

I certainly believe if they had to put their exclusives on their subscription service, it will dilute the quality of games. Xbox has no business having their opinion on what Sony should do with their track record on games and exclusives. They've literally just bought their way into having exclusives by acquiring existing devs/publishers. Sony should tell Xbox to fuck off!
 

TheGrat1

Member
I sense sarcasm.

However, there isn't any reason for all games to release on subscription services from day one and remain on the service.
The reason is that if say, Take 2 for example, puts a game on a subscription service they are going to want to be paid for however long that game is available on that service. I have never seen Gamepass' financials but I would wager that keeping a non-first party game on gamepass forever is an untenable financial arrangement, as they will likely be paying a publisher long after a game is no longer being played and driving subscriptions. And no publisher is dumb enough to take a 1 time upfront fee for their game. Even music companies do not do that with video games. Remedy had to pull Alan Wake from sale because the music licenses expired.

Video games are a business. The reason for virtually anything is always money.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
The last publicized sub count was 3.2M subs in summer 2021. The service started in 2014. So before the new service started, it'd probably be 4M tops (rounding it off). And that assumes it grew 800k (25%) in the final year.

So going strictly by PS4/PS5 (wont even bother adding in any potential PC only PS Now subbers), the attach rate is maybe around 3%.
And that my friend, is what really is important when taking about these subscription services.

Disney+ just announced they are going to rise their prices (one tier is almost 90 USD monthly if I remember correctly)

Disney+ and its other subscription services have surpassed Netflix worldwide. And yet.. Disney streaming keeps losing money (and expenses are growing). Almost 1B in the last report.

Sub Services are here to stay, there is no doubt about it.

But is not going to be an "instant win", an 'Slam Dunk' some people think is going to be.
 

Infamy v1

Member
In short, you misinterpreted my original comment and accused me of not knowing what's going on, even though I've commented on this subject before and read the article before posting.
You're just making shit up now in a last ditch effort to save face. You're not even making a coherent argument with any basis of what's actually happening. I actually feel bad for you.

Sony's lawyers stated it would take a substantial investment and Microsoft never countered that point other than to tell them that they should put their games on PS+. I said if MS wanted to prove a point, then they show how much profit GamePass makes prove to Sony it would actually benefit them.
You're continuing to embarass yourself here. Microsoft stated many, many points in rebuttal to Sony's whining about Game Pass. They talked about how Sony recently posted record breaking profits (there's that word you love) which contradicts that narrative, they talk about how Sony is the leader in the digital revenue space and how that contradicts their narrative, they talk about how Sony can make a more competitive service with their own subscription service but chooses the "buy-to-play" model as its what has historically worked out for them, they talk about the benefit to consumers, they talk about Sony not wanting to change from the status quo to actually compete which they claim is the reason why Sony is the sole publisher to say these things while literally everyone else agrees with Microsoft.

And I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of other shit. Destin has a 3 part video on the subject where he is literally reading the document live on screen word for word. Do some research next time and stop with the false narratives.

And the fact they said they don't have any must have games has no relation? It's related to the entire case and what's going on. Their job is to downplay the impact that Call of Duty and their games will have when it comes to game pass. That means the statement is BS. This also means you know they're going to spew a lot of BS throughout this entire process.
Obviously both companies will downplay or push a narrative to suit their agenda, but saying ABK has no "must-have" games is a literal fact in response that CoD is a "genre of its own" (also a lie) or that it has no rivals (also very much a lie). They're using legal verbiage that is quite literally as a retort to outlandish claims that even other publishers in these same documents are refuting. Can your brain comprehend this?

You're literally trolling and everyone is pointing it out.
Why do you continue to lie and lie? Literally no other person is commenting on our discourse. Not one. Yet you saying "everyone" further encapsulates my argument that you're just extremely, extremely desperate. And boy does it show.

Don't get upset with me due to your inability to understand my comment. Take your arguments to Twitter because it's not going to work here.
Someone with a post history such as yours is daring to tell me to take my arguments to Twitter? 😂 You're just angry because someone is taking the time out to call out and dismantle your shit. It's not going to work.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how many $70 games you plan to buy. Sooner or later Gamepass is going to need most people subscribing at $14.99 a month and not these $1 conversion deals.
This is what doesn't make sense to me, they were already getting $9.99 a month from the online pay wall from most of their players, they went trough all this effort and spent so much money just for an extra $5? It just doesn't add up and that's why Sony would be extremely foolish to go all in on this Gamepass model as well.

Sony already had close to 50m subscribers to PS+ before they made the recent changes to the service, they have very little to gain by adopting this new model and pretty much everything to lose if people stop buying games. MS on the other hand seems to be willing to take on years of losses if it means it will hurt their competitors and allow them to consolidate the market.

The celling of how much money Gamepass can generate does not justify the amount of money MS has already spent at all.
 
Last edited:

fallingdove

Member
Sony knows that what they have been doing isn't sustainable forever. The model where their success depends primarily on the number of hardware units they sell through was already rocked by covid supply constraints. That's why they're investing billions into GaaS, both in live service games and the new PS+, and porting their games to PC. Recurring revenue from a subscription model is more stable and predictable than having to sell enough copies to make your money back. That's why almost every media company and commercial software company has moved to that model.
Lol. Media subscriptions are FAR from predictable. Disney just lost $1.1B supporting their subscriptions and they owned 70% of their content outright (meaning it wasn’t net new for the service). Netflix went from break even to loosing tens of millions when their number of subs started to decline.

Game pass in its current state is far from profitable, anyone with half a brain can see it. In the current economy, growth at any cost just doesn’t work. Sony just doesn’t want to play that game and I’m totally ok with it. I don’t trust Microsoft’s promise “to support subscription and non-subscription based distribution” in the long term if Gamepass realizes profitability.
 

TheGrat1

Member
Oh boy.
did you call the 360 "dead last"? dude... if it wasn't for Japan it would have completely destroyed the PS3. the 360 barely sold units in the entire asian region and yet only lost by a tiny margin at the end of the gen.
So you mean if it was not for the PS3 selling as much it would not have sold as much? What a reductive point. It is not Sony's fault no one in Asia gives a damn about Xbox.
that gen wasn't a full failure for any one console, but it was a relative failure for the PS3 and a relatively huge win for the 360.
Sony went from the best selling system of all time and 10x the sales of its competitors to a console that took several years and a redesign of both the console and their entire visual language (logos, colors, ads etc.) to even be considered a real competition to the 360.
My brother in Christ, there is not a single month from November 2006 to November 2013 that the PS3 did not outsell the 360 worldwide. Not only was it competition form day one it was the console the market preferred, despite all of the disadvantages it had at the time (smaller library, multiplatform game performance and (most importantly) price). The PS3 always had a higher sales rate than the 360. Switching colors and Kevin Butler changed nothing. To borrow the energy you put out with the Japan sales excuse: If it was not for launching a year earlier the 360 would have never been ahead of the PS3. It was a step back in market share for Sony, for sure, but for their worst-selling home console to be the fourth-best-selling home console of all-time is still success that others can only dream of.
and both lost by a big margin to the Wii, the successor of the system that was in last place the gen before
14 million units is one of the smallest gaps between market leader and second place in home console history. From Wikipedia:
  • 1st Gen: ~500,000
  • 2nd Gen: ~27,000,000
  • 3rd Gen: ~48,000,000
  • 4th Gen: ~18,300,000
  • 5th Gen: ~70,000,000
  • 6th Gen: ~131,000,000
  • 7th Gen: ~14,000,000
  • 8th Gen: Pending, currently at ~13,000,000. If you do not consider the Switch a home console the gap is ~67,000,000 and growing.
  • 9th Gen: Pending, currently at ~7,300,000
"Big" is a relative term. Compared to the rest of history the Wii's margin is not "big." It is not unusual for a console to sell 14 million in a single year during it's lifespan.
also Microsoft sold more units of their first ever console than Nintendo did in the same generation... so I would call that a win as well, relatively speaking
I agree.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom