Support NeoGAF

[megreotsugua]

Sony World Wide Studios should remain focused on their big budget AAA games and should remain a retail game at full price. Those games are highly anticipated and their release are always an event.

With that said, I think Sony should start looking to bolster their PS Now catalogue to start competing with Game Pass.

1. First party multiplayer games that only cost about $10-$20 million to make should release day and date on PS Now.

Sony multiplayer games over the years that are perfect for PS Now. (Just to give an idea.)

• Fat Princess
• Little Big Planet
• The Kart racing with custom levels (I forgot the name)
• Drawn to Death
• Socom
• Every multiplayer component of the single-player games.

2. Short single-player GaaS will be exclusive to PS Now with PS5 retail release after 1-2 years of being exclusive to PS Now.

Sony is not a stranger to AA single player games which I think they could turn into PS Now exclusives. I'll enumerate some just to give an idea.

• Gravity Rush
• Tokyo Jungle
• Rain
• The game where you paint the walls (I forgot the name)
• AA VR games

3. Interesting games that are third party which Sony could money hat to release day and date on PS Now. (Not exactly exclusive to PS Now).


How can Sony start to achieve this without spreading themselves too thin?

1. Make smaller games from time to time when the creative team are still on the drawing board. A simple well-thought-out but not exactly elaborate game could be developed by the other part of the dev team. I'm thinking this is how Insomniac Games operate.
2. Expand and hire more people if necessary.
3. Buy more smaller studios to focus on PS Now single-player exclusives or MP-focused GaaS titles.

Lastly, Sony could merge PS plus and PS Now.

• PS Plus - $60 (The two free games every month replaced by a stripped-down version of PS Now. The free games are integrated in the PS Now catalogue, but not the ones I enumerated above.)
• PS Plus Premium - $99 (All the benefits of online services and the PS Now I described above.)
• PS Now - $60 (A stand-alone offering for players outside of Playstation ecosystem e.i. PC, smartphones, set top boxes)

 

[shaddam]

Streaming multiplayer games? I dont know how to tell you....

 

[megreotsugua]

Streaming multiplayer games? I dont know how to tell you....

PS Now is not only streaming. It's similar to gamepass now. You can download them.

For players outside of PS5, ei, PC, smartphones, set top box, Sony could remove the multiplayer games. For $60, it's not bad as long as the single player collection are good.

 

[Kerotan]

I see your point but Sony make hardly any multiplayer games anyway. If firewall zero hour isn't there they should definitely add it.

 

[bitbydeath]

 

[megreotsugua]

Why though?

It's basically preserving Sony business model with their AAA games with a renewed focus for a game pass competitor.

Some smaller games made by Insomniac and Guerilla games could go PS Now exclusives. Not exactly God of War or Spider-man

Right now PS Now has about more than a million subscribers. Sony can shoot for 10 million if they start to release PS Now exclusives.

 

[megreotsugua]

I see your point but Sony make hardly any multiplayer games anyway. If firewall zero hour isn't there they should definitely add it.

That's why I also suggested that Sony could start acquiring smaller studios to focus on PS Now.

 

[Barakov]

In one word : No.

In three words :

 

[bitbydeath]

Why though?

It's basically preserving Sony business model with their AAA games with a renewed focus for a game pass competitor.

Some smaller games made by Insomniac and Guerilla games could go PS Now exclusives. Not exactly God of War or Spider-man

Right now PS Now has about more than a million subscribers. Sony can shoot for 10 million if they start to release PS Now exclusives.

I’m just concerned that if these monetisation schemes take off then that’s all we’ll be left with.

 

[Kerotan]

That's why I also suggested that Sony could start acquiring smaller studios to focus on PS Now.

I suppose they could. Alternatively could they expand current studious to have more then one dev team internally? Prob more cost effective and would result in better games from the smaller team.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Why though?

It's basically preserving Sony business model with their AAA games with a renewed focus for a game pass competitor.

Some smaller games made by Insomniac and Guerilla games could go PS Now exclusives. Not exactly God of War or Spider-man

Right now PS Now has about more than a million subscribers. Sony can shoot for 10 million if they start to release PS Now exclusives.

Sony don't need to compete with Gamepass. Gamepass has been at 10 million subscribers for a while now btw so this tells me that its growth is seeing some stagnation

 

[megreotsugua]

I suppose they could. Alternatively could they expand current studious to have more then one dev team internally? Prob more cost effective and would result in better games from the smaller team.

I also suggested that. Looking at Insomniac Games which has been releasing multiple games that includes small VR games, I think the likes of Guerilla and Sony Santa Monica can definitely release smaller games from time to time. It just doesn't make sense from a financial point of view considering the current way Sony sell their games. But that will change if Sony starts telling each of their studios to release small games from time to time.

How can Sony start to achieve this without spreading themselves too thin?

1. Make smaller games from time to time when the creative team are still on the drawing board. A simple well-thought-out but not exactly elaborate game could be developed by the other part of the dev team. I'm thinking this is how Insomniac Games operate.
2. Expand and hire more people if necessary.
3. Buy more smaller studios to focus on PS Now single-player exclusives or MP-focused GaaS titles with day and date release on PS Now simultaneous with PS5 and PC.

 

[GiJoint]

I wish PSNow would release in Australia and New Zealand

 

[megreotsugua]

Sony don't need to compete with Gamepass. Gamepass has been at 10 million subscribers for a while now btw so this tells me that its growth is seeing some stagnation

Sony doesn't need to compete with the exact strategy of gamepass. PS Now is $60 and should remain like that. Sony doesn't have to release their big AAA games on it. But what they can do is bolster its game selection so that the subscription will grow.

Oh by the way, I am more of looking this thing from Sony's perspective. From a point of view where they can take in more revenue but not compromise the way they do their current AAA business.

I hear a lot of comments like "I wouldn't have played this X game if not for gamepass", "gamepass revitalizes the short narrative driven games", or "this X game is being played by more people because of gamepass. PS Now can emulate what gamepass is doing right now that results in the success of smaller devs. Microsoft is charging more because they're putting all their eggs on gamepass. Sony can settle with $60 for PS Now but it doesn't mean that they can't release small exclusives on the platform.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Sony doesn't need to compete with the exact strategy of gamepass. PS Now is $60 and should remain like that. Sony doesn't have to release their big AAA games on it. But what they can do is bolster its game selection so that the subscription will grow.

Oh by the way, I am more of looking this thing from Sony's perspective. From a point of view where they can take in more revenue but not compromise the way they do their current AAA business.

I hear a lot of comments like "I wouldn't have played this X game if not for gamepass", "gamepass revitalizes the short narrative driven games", or "this X game is being played by more people because of gamepass. PS Now can emulate what gamepass is doing right now that results in the success of smaller devs.

There's also the other side of the coin too though where some people have stopped buying games altogether and instead wait for them to come to Gamepass

That's a slippery slope lol you don't want your gamers to stop buying $60 games

 

[megreotsugua]

There's also the other side of the coin too though where some people have stopped buying games altogether and instead wait for them to come to Gamepass

But I didn't suggest that Sony should put their big AAA games on PS Now. It's an option. Look, people are already waiting for games to become $20 in price before they buy them. That market already exist anyway.

But the real hook for PS Now that I was talking about is small exclusives. Either AA single player or GaaS MP focused games.

I'm talking about games you cannot play at all if you're not subscribed to PS Now. Although I also suggested that these games will release eventually (a year of two) as a stand alone retail to PS Store

 

[DaGwaphics]

There's also the other side of the coin too though where some people have stopped buying games altogether and instead wait for them to come to Gamepass

That's a slippery slope lol you don't want your gamers to stop buying $60 games

I'm not sure if that's a real problem, tbh. When you look at third-party sales numbers for software on X1, the numbers hold as expected given the user base differential, at least for the most part. People are still buying CoD and Madden/FIFA on Xbox, LOL.

 

[Tumle]

nice idea
Though PS Now already offer more games than gamepass, even if its not brand new exclusives
i subscribe to both and i like what both have to offer and that there is a little bit of a difference in approach.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

But I didn't suggest that Sony should put their big AAA games on PS Now. It's an option. Look, people are already waiting for games to become $20 in price before they buy them. That market already exist anyway.

But the real hook for PS Now that I was talking about is small exclusives. Either AA single player or GaaS MP focused games.

I'm talking about games you cannot play at all if you're not subscribed to PS Now. Although I also suggested that these games will release eventually (a year of two) as a stand alone retail to PS Store

Game Streaming need to succeed on its own merits. If PSNow need day one 1st party exclusives to succeed, then it doesn't deserve to succeed. The same way PSVR only deserve to exist if it could be sold at a profit.

Sony rightly does not see Game Streaming as being sufficiently compelling for most people. Because streaming games have a smaller market. Trying to artificially boost it does not change the fact that it is game streaming with all the disadvantages it entails. If you like game streaming, good on you, but that does not mean it is good enough for mass market.

PSNow is growing slowly, precisely because game streaming has many downsides. One major one being it costs money to set up streaming hubs internationally. PSNow is still turning a profit, which is why it still exists. We will see if Microsoft's pie in the sky "Gamepass will bring in billions of casuals" all-in gamble will pay off.

 

[megreotsugua]

nice idea
Though PS Now already offer more games than gamepass, even if its not brand new exclusives
i subscribe to both and i like what both have to offer and that there is a little bit of a difference in approach.

If Sony makes Gravity Rush 3 as a PS Now exclusive for 2 years (eventually release on PS Store), I bet that many more will subscribe to PS Now. Sony can even money hat small devs to put their "small" game on PS Now day and date of release.

Games that are exclusive to PS Now and interesting indie games releasing day and date on PS Now, I think should happen.

 

[Virex]

 

[Killer Sakoman]

Sony World Wide Studios should remain focused on their big budget AAA games and should remain a retail game at full price. Those games are highly anticipated and their release are always an event.

With that said, I think Sony should start looking to bolster their PS Now catalogue to start competing with Game Pass.

1. First party multiplayer games should release day and date on PS Now. MP focused games are not exactly exclusive to PS Now and will have simultaneous release on PS5 and PC as a stand alone game.

Sony multiplayer games over the years that are perfect for PS Now. (Just to give an idea.)

• Fat Princess
• Little Big Planet
• The Kart racing with custom levels (I forgot the name)
• Drawn to Death
• Socom
• Every multiplayer component of the single-player games.

2. Short Single-player GaaS games will be exclusive to PS Now with PS5 retail release after 1-2 years of being exclusive to PS Now.

Sony is not a stranger to AA single player games which I think they could turn into PS Now exclusives. I'll enumerate some just to give an idea.

• Gravity Rush
• Tokyo Jungle
• Rain
• The game where you paint the walls (I forgot the name)
• AA VR games

3. Interesting games that are third party which Sony could money hat to release day and date on PS Now. (Not exactly exclusive to PS Now).


How can Sony start to achieve this without spreading themselves too thin?

1. Make smaller games from time to time when the creative team are still on the drawing board. A simple well-thought-out but not exactly elaborate game could be developed by the other part of the dev team. I'm thinking this is how Insomniac Games operate.
2. Expand and hire more people if necessary.
3. Buy more smaller studios to focus on PS Now single-player exclusives or MP-focused GaaS titles with day and date release on PS Now simultaneous with PS5 and PC.

Lastly, Sony could merge PS plus and PS Now.

• PS Plus - $60 (The two free games every month replaced by a stripped-down version of PS Now. The free games are integrated in the PS Now catalogue, but not the ones I enumerated above.)
• PS Plus Premium - $99 (All the benefits of online services and the PS Now I described above.)
• PS Now - $60 (A stand-alone offering for players outside of Playstation ecosystem e.i. PC, smartphones, set top boxes)

If you become the CEO, the company will file bunkrupcy after one weak.

 

[megreotsugua]

Game Streaming need to succeed on its own merits. If PSNow need day one 1st party exclusives to succeed, then it doesn't deserve to succeed. The same way PSVR only deserve to exist if it could be sold at a profit.

Sony rightly does not see Game Streaming as being sufficiently compelling for most people. Because streaming games have a smaller market. Trying to artificially boost it does not change the fact that it is game streaming with all the disadvantages it entails. If you like game streaming, good on you, but that does not mean it is good enough for mass market.

PSNow is growing slowly, precisely because game streaming has many downsides. One major one being it costs money to set up streaming hubs internationally. PSNow is still turning a profit, which is why it still exists. We will see if Microsoft's pie in the sky "Gamepass will bring in billions of casuals" all-in gamble will pay off.

Don't look at it as a game streaming platform only. You can download games on it.

If Sony can get 10 million subscribers paying $60 a year that would be 600 million for a year. And all they have to do is release small games on it exclusively for a year or two. Those games probably only cost $10 million dollar to make. Put them on a regular basis and it still doesn't add up much.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Don't look at it as a game streaming platform only. You can download games on it.

If Sony can get 10 million subscribers paying $60 a year that would be 600 million for a year. And all they have to do is release small games on it exclusively for a year or two. Those games probably only cost $10 million dollar to make. Put them on a regular basis and it still doesn't add up much.

It is not free money, you actually need to spend a lot. And you can't get your money back if you end up not getting the subscribers. There is no guarantee that the Streaming money is even there to take.

Sony doesn't need to make small games on PSNow; they already make phone games that make FAR more money than that. Rather than wasting funds on an unproven thing, Sony is better off spending that money on more content for Fate/Grand Order. If both PSNow and phone games target Casuals, then phones win by default.

There are traditional gamers, and casual gamers. Sony caters to both via their Playstation and their Aniplex phone games. Not much room between them to squeeze another service.

 

[Agent X]

PS Now exclusives and PS Now day and date release of an interesting indie game, I think should happen.

I don't believe that Sony needs to release most of their first-party games onto PS Now on the day of release, but they should aim to have them on the service at some defined point. For example, they could pledge to add their games to PS Now 6 months after release. Once they set that schedule, they need to adhere closely to it, without deviation.

Certain small-scale games might appear on release day, but Sony won't put their major tentpole on the service right away.

Sony could possibly produce episodic games and debut them on PS Now. Look at Telltale's episodic adventure games for an example of how this could work.

I do agree that they should allow interesting third-party games to be available through PS Now on launch day. Sony needs to negotiate these deals with incentives, since most developers and publishers won't launch their games on PS Now on their own.

 

[Killer Sakoman]

It is not free money, you actually need to spend a lot. And you can't get your money back if you end up not getting the subscribers. There is no guarantee that the Streaming money is even there to take.

Sony doesn't need to make small games on PSNow; they already make phone games that make FAR more money than that. Rather than wasting funds on an unproven thing, Sony is better off spending that money on more content for Fate/Grand Order. If both PSNow and phone games target Casuals, then phones win by default.

There are traditional gamers, and casual gamers. Sony caters to both via their Playstation and their Aniplex phone games. Not much room between them to squeeze another service.

Exactly, streaming/subscription targets a wider audience who are not going to invest on console or pc to subscribe to these services. All of them are already playing on mobiles and they prefer the free games and buying MTX whenever they feel to. There is no point of chasing them with my major platform. Just make FTP games for them on mobile and profit.

 

[megreotsugua]

It is not free money, you actually need to spend a lot. And you can't get your money back if you end up not getting the subscribers. There is no guarantee that the Streaming money is even there to take.

It's not streaming money. A lot of PS4 users are subscribed to PS Now without streaming the games. They subscribed because of the many selection of games that are available. If Sony could bolster that with small exclusives, it will grow. Of course you can't get your money back if you end up not getting the subscribers. That's like saying you can't get your money back if people don't buy your game. It's the same thing.

Sony doesn't need to make small games on PSNow;

They don't need to. But it's an interesting strategy that could grow the PS Now without compromising their current strategy with their AAA blockbuster games.

they already make phone games that make FAR more money than that. Rather than wasting funds on an unproven thing, Sony is better off spending that money on more content for Fate/Grand Order. If both PSNow and phone games target Casuals, then phones win by default.

Their Fate/Grand Order business has nothing to do with PS Now. They are mutually exclusive. It doesn't mean that Sony is already banking a lot of money from Playstation that they should sell image sensors anymore, or try a new venture such Sony car Vision S.

There are traditional gamers, and casual gamers. Sony caters to both via their Playstation and their Aniplex phone games. Not much room between them to squeeze another service.

Sony will not target phone gamers alone. The prime target would be playstation owners.

Again, PS Now already has about a million subscribers. Many of them are PS4 users who subscribed once the download option were made available.

 

[megreotsugua]

I don't believe that Sony needs to release most of their first-party games onto PS Now on the day of release, but they should aim to have them on the service at some defined point.

I never suggested that. I said Sony should start releasing small games on it. Those games that only need $10 million dollars to make. Make it exclusive to PS Now for a year or two.

Additionally, I suggested interesting indie games on it (third-party) day and date of release.

 

[megreotsugua]

Exactly, streaming/subscription targets a wider audience who are not going to invest on console or pc to subscribe to these services. All of them are already playing on mobiles and they prefer the free games and buying MTX whenever they feel to. There is no point of chasing them with my major platform. Just make FTP games for them on mobile and profit.

The strategy I was suggesting targets mainly PS5 users. Not smartphone users.

$60 dollar a year of subscription to play exclusive small games of GaaS MP focused games is a good deal in my opinion. It will not eat away from the $60 retail game that is the status quo of selling games today.

I'm not suggesting Sony to follow exactly how MS is doing business with gamepass. I have a different strategy in mind if you would only ready my opening post.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

All their games will be day one on PS Now eventually. It’s coming. Sony is no stranger to services or GaaS.

 

[megreotsugua]

All their games will be day one on PS Now eventually. It’s coming. Sony is no stranger to services or GaaS.

I don't agree, and I don't want that to happen because the quality of the games will be compromised.

I was only suggesting small games to exclusively release on PS Now. Games that only require $10-$20 million to make. Part of my suggestion is that it should remain $60 a year. Imagine Gravity Rush 3 exclusive on PS Now for a year and then release on PS Store.

With my suggestion, the current way of doing things, selling $60 AAA blockbuster game will not be compromised.

 

[Killer Sakoman]

The strategy I was suggesting targets mainly PS5 users. Not smartphone users.

$60 dollar a year of subscription to play exclusive small games of GaaS MP focused games is a good deal in my opinion. It will not eat away from the $60 retail game that is the status quo of selling games today.

I'm not suggesting Sony to follow exactly how MS is doing business with gamepass. I have a different strategy in mind if you would only ready my opening post.

Gaas games are supposed to make money out of their dlc and mtx. Why do they need to be in a subscription service. Actually publishers interested in gaas will make their own subscription such as EA access. Smaller gaas developers are usually working with bigger gaas companies such as Tensent or whatever the name is.
Also, with less than half ps4 owners are subscribed to psplus and single player games selling 10 to 20 million, it is clear that playstation audience is not a good target for PSNOW and GP.

If GP is a killer business then Sony will feel the lose of customer interest in their product. We don't see that. They don't need to pursue such a practice. This requires big investment. It is not free. There is a risk investing in a segment that may not return. All the money you invest on it could have been used to grow your current strong business. This is why Sony are spending money buying 3rd party games instead.

 

[megreotsugua]

Sony could possibly produce episodic games and debut them on PS Now. Look at Telltale's episodic adventure games for an example of how this could work.

I do agree that they should allow interesting third-party games to be available through PS Now on launch day. Sony needs to negotiate these deals with incentives, since most developers and publishers won't launch their games on PS Now on their own.

I didn't thoroughly read your post the first time. We are actually in agreement except I think they should be more aggressive and release those episodic games exclusively on PS Now.

The Sony Studio in Malaysia or the many other studios that Sony studios collaborate with could start releasing these kinds of game I was talking about.

 

[Vawn]

PS Now could go away tomorrow and I wouldn't care less. Just concentrate on making high-quality AAA games and I'll continue to buy them.

 

[Agent X]

I never suggested that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I mentioned it because that ("all first-party games on Day One") is a frequent talking point for people who promote other similar subscription services, and I wanted to make the contrast.

I said Sony should start releasing small games on it. Those games that only need $10 million dollars to make. Make it exclusive to PS Now for a year or two.

Additionally, I suggested interesting indie games on it (third-party) day and date of release.

I agree with both of these, except that the smaller games should be exclusive to PS Now for a year or two. Everything should be purchasable through the PlayStation Store.

 

[megreotsugua]

Gaas games are supposed to make money out of their dlc and mtx. Why do they need to be in a subscription service.

They don't need to. I only suggested GaaS because it the most cost effective. Again, I'm playing by the $10-$20 million games here. That's the gist of my argument.

If GP is a killer business then Sony will feel the lose of customer interest in their product.

It is not and will never be. As long as Sony has the power of its AAA franchises.

Please read my opening post so that we're on the same page.

 

[megreotsugua]

PS Now could go away tomorrow and I wouldn't care less. Just concentrate on making high-quality AAA games and I'll continue to buy them.

Dude. My suggestion will not take away the AAA games that we love. It will actually preserve it.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

I don’t mind digital only content from time to time but tying a game only to a subscription service.... eh... that doesn’t sound so good.

Feel like some folks just want every game company to act exactly the same. I like how different they are all tbh.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I don’t mind digital only content from time to time but tying a game only to a subscription service.... eh... that doesn’t sound so good.

Feel like some folks just want every game company to act exactly the same. I like how different they are all tbh.

Or rather, I am expecting a Stadia level crash and burn with GamePass. I don't think the customer is there to support it.

 

[Demon2blades]

I think ps are doing fine both companies offer something a little bit different and that's ok .

 

[megreotsugua]

Or rather, I am expecting a Stadia level crash and burn with GamePass. I don't think the customer is there to support it.

Microsoft is threading on thin ice. I don't want Sony to go that route. I think gamepass strategy will compromise the quality of games.

 

[megreotsugua]

I think ps are doing fine both companies offer something a little bit different and that's ok .

Of course Sony is doing fine. My suggestion is not for them to get out of a pit. It's a suggestion that could allow the PSNow to garner more subscribers.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Of course Sony is doing fine. My suggestion is not for them to get out of a pit. It's a suggestion that could allow the PSNow to garner more subscribers.

You get the most money from GaaS when you don't charge people for subscribing, That is why PSNow is not a good platform for GaaS. And that is why PS+ is not need for Free To Play games. Instead of restricting an exclusive on PSNow, Sony is better off releasing it Free To Play as it is.

Subscription services are best when you don't need to spend much to keep it going. Because Subscription has difficulty increasing prices, the possible growth is capped. And as i say, trying to fund PSNow with GaaS games would just mean making less money on the GaaS game.

 

[megreotsugua]

You get the most money from GaaS when you don't charge people for subscribing,

My suggestion is not for Sony to make the most money from GaaS but to make more PSNow subscribers.

Ok. Just remove GaaS out of the equation. The gist of my suggestion is the third party indie games and first party small games (about $10-$20 million to make).

The only reason I suggested GaaS is the fact that they can release unfinished game on PSNow and just update it with content. You know GaaS. But the my point really is the BUDGET.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

My suggestion is not for Sony to make the most money from GaaS but to make more PSNow subscribers.

Ok. Just remove GaaS out of the equation. The gist of my suggestion is the third party indie games and first party small games (about $10-$20 million to make).

The only reason I suggested GaaS is the fact that they can release unfinished game on PSNow and just update it with content. You know GaaS. But the my point really is the BUDGET.

Sony would rather spend their money most efficiently. If you put GaaS behind a pay wall, you lose money. So PSNow just isn't a good fit for GaaS. Your attempt to improve PSNow does not put into account of resources that could be placed elsewhere. There are literally better ways to sell small AA games than to put it on PSNow. Thus you are sacrificing the money you could made selling these smaller games normally, to boost PSNow that couldn't even carry its own weight, because Game Streaming is niche and still is.