I’ve addressed MS first party being there day one and a bunch of recent games. That’s still doesn’t address the misconception of assuming every single game being on there. Like eventually even a GP subscriber will be coming hundreds of dollars out of pocket.
Remember that I’m framing this in comparison to PlayStation like people love to do. Where it is said a GP subscriber can get access to games for a $1 and don’t have to pay for games full priced. Yeah in fact you do. So you’re so called saving money while at the same time still spending a lot of money? Great.
Miles better than Sony offers it’s consumers. You mean like actual games? You don’t want to go there.
PS5 has 5 first party titles at launch. How many does SX have? I mean this is a new generation, games should ready to show and play on the most powerful valued added console besides last generation games that are prettier.
Goodness, get decimated with facts and then pull out the fanboy rhetoric. Nice
You seem to really miss the point here because you're not in a headspace to accept anything outside of your narrative. Yes, GP saves you money. You're not
forced to buy games that are on GP; however if you choose to buy them, you get a discount because they are currently on GP. If you decide you don't want to buy those games then you can still play them through GP until they may happen to be taken out of the rotation.
This is really not complicated to understand, but you're trying your best to do so.
Also what does Sony's 1P offerings have to do in this? You started this discussion framing it around
3P titles, now
suddenly you focus on 1P? And the main reason you do so, is to enforce your opinion of Sony having the better 1P games, and MS not having any for Series launch? Well, you're free to have that preference of opinion, but it's extremely petty of you to bring it up in the context you do, because it comes off as very
defensive and to then use it as a dismissive dig towards MS just makes it look kind of pathetic.
I think most of us would agree MS dropped the ball with not having at least one big IP AAA game ready for launch, and the one they had planned (Halo Infinite) had to be delayed. Okay, we know this. But how does that even factor into your original argument about GP not being a great value for gamers because they "still have to buy the
third party games"? (which is a false premise, as already stated: you aren't forced to buy any games).
Wait a sec'...no, your original argument wasn't seemingly the actual intent of your argument, going by this response you posted.
I need you to think that through. That would not be a good thing.
It's not good for customers to avoid paying $70 for a game they may never actually end up completing? Are you making this into a pro-corporations argument?
You
do realize that devs and pubs are financially compensated for providing their games on GP, right (we can debate about how sustainable that would be for MS, but then you have to consider there is a point where the service reaches enough numbers to have those subscriber numbers act as the potential compensation all on its own, which could also mean any direct compensation from MS can be minimized. Kinda how this stuff tends to work over time)?
That we have
factual evidence of games which have enjoyed
sales boosts due to being
on GP? That even if there was no GP and people still needed to buy the games outright, the actual devs wouldn't be getting the lions-share of that cash, even as royalty bonuses in their contracts? Because quite a lot of publishers are just that greedy with that sort of thing and shortchange the actual developers?
Jeez, dude...
I feel Sony can also provide a great package with a combination of Games/Movies and Music, if it ever comes to that.
This is something they'll
have to do in order to stay competitive on the services front. Including doing something the VOD offerings we've been seeing on Disney+ and such, for their Sony Pictures films (at least some of them) while still playing friendly with the theater chains.