Support NeoGAF

[EverydayBeast]

Let’s be honest ps now got a little too ambitious but it has a bright future

 

[Hendrick's]

Who is giving excuses?

I get how things work, and I don't like giving money for stuff I'm not sure to get, I want to be able to replay my games whenever I decide to. Imagine you get a series x, pay all Gen for gamepass... Then one day MS drop support for series x, you now own a brick, can't use it to replay anything, even if you spent hundreds of dollars on the service, or imagine whatever you favorite piece of shovelware is, they take it off the service (they do it all the time)... You are not playing it anymore.

Xbox Game Pass Is Losing 5 More Games Soon

Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass program is getting a bunch of new games soon, but with every new set [...]

comicbook.com

GamePass has few games, and you don't get to choose what you play, they do. It's money down the drain, it's even worse than 100% digital.

Imagine you paid for years of Netflix and then all of a sudden your TV broke and you could no longer watch all those shows. The horror!

 

[Agent X]

Can i see the source or evidence that big budget first party games can't be sustained on a Gamepass model? I see this notion spreaded around these parts all the time but as far as i recall, there have been no Gamepass models to state anything like this as if it's a fact. As far as we've seen, Xbox have went full steam ahead and PROMISED to launch all FP games day one on GP, surely they've seen the numbers and potential and saw it as more than worth it.

Nobody knows. We haven't seen anyone debuting big-budget first-party games on a subscription service on a regular basis.

Microsoft started pledging first-party releases on Xbox Game Pass in early 2018. Aside from Gears 5, Microsoft's output over the last three years has been relatively low key....nowhere near the same level of God of War, Spider-Man, Ghost of Tsushima, or The Last of Us Part II.

For PS now to compete with Gamepass, it's got to match or best GP's offerings and perks, not take them away in the name of bolstering a companies profits for them.

The reverse is true as well. Microsoft is emphasizing the concept of launching first-party games through Xbox Game Pass, and some have clamored for Sony to do the same. They won't do so because their games have no problem selling millions upon millions of units on the top shelf at full-price retail.

It's a false equivalence to demand that Sony match Microsoft here. Sony's first-party games are far exceeding Microsoft's in both quantity and critical acclaim, and the sales figures show it.

If Microsoft isn't going to step up their output to meet Sony's level, then I see no need for Sony to dial down things on their side just so they can stuff their subscription service with bottom-shelf filler.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Nobody knows. We haven't seen anyone debuting big-budget first-party games on a subscription service on a regular basis.

UPlay+? EA Play?

You think Ubisoft and EA have small budgets?

 

[Agent X]

Nobody knows. We haven't seen anyone debuting big-budget first-party games on a subscription service on a regular basis.

UPlay+? EA Play?

You think Ubisoft and EA have small budgets?

First-party.

Also, as I understand it, EA doesn't debut new games on their service, except for time-limited demos. Ubisoft does, but their service costs more than either PS Now or Xbox Game Pass, and isn't available on any of the major game consoles.

 

[IntentionalPun]

First-party.

Also, as I understand it, EA doesn't debut new games on their service, except for time-limited demos. Ubisoft does, but their service costs more than either PS Now or Xbox Game Pass, and isn't available on any of the major game consoles.

EA Play has a Pro version that comes with all of their games unlimited play as long as you are sub'd.

And.. for those services, their games are 1st party. Not sure why these caveats even matter though.. they are sub services that cost the same as Gamepass Ultimate that come with all first party day one games.. and lots of big budget games. If anything MS / Sony can afford it even more because they own a console platform, not less.

The idea behind sub services is to bring in more revenue, not less...

 

[Tarin02543]

Subscribed to psnow for one year a week ago (albeit through cdkeys).

This will do until I have my ps5.

 

[Agent X]

EA Play has a Pro version that comes with all of their games unlimited play as long as you are sub'd.

I understand this now, after further research. Its a bit confusing on their Web site, because the game list on their Web site doesn't include the recent games.

And.. for those services, their games are 1st party.

You have a good point here.

The idea behind sub services is to bring in more revenue, not less...

That's true, but not all of these services are equal. It's one thing to laud Microsoft's offering of their first-party games on day of release...it's a whole other ballgame to suggest that Sony should likewise.

Microsoft's service costs 2-3 times more than PS Now (for an annual subscription), and their first-party output is considerably lower than Sony's (or Nintendo's) in quantity and sales potential. Microsoft made this "bold" move of tossing first-party games on their service, knowing that Sony and Nintendo would not dare match it, lest they sacrifice hundreds of millions of dollars of lost retail sales for each top-tier game.

If Sony were to post all of their new releases on PS Now, then they'd have to significantly increase the cost of the service to make up for the missing retail revenue. Would current subscribers be willing to pay 2-4 times the price? Some of them might, but many would not.

Here's another good point that FeldMonster raised earlier:

There is a concept of "crowding out" in economics. If the first party aspect becomes too strong, you push out 3rd party publishers/games. There is already direct evidence of this in Nintendo, as Nintendo gamers do not support 3rd party games and thus 3rd party support dries up. I personally dropped Nintendo after the horrid Gamecube console/controller/games. Games either wouldn't come to it, or would be seriously gimped. Similarly, you are already seeing gamers state "I'll wait for it on GamePass". You want further consolidation in the game industry? Stop buying game outside these subscriptions. (And pushing for more).

While Microsoft might be willing to make this sacrifice (because they own the platform), other developer/publishers are less likely to do so. If Microsoft continues the emphasis on first-party "day one" games, then all other third-party upper-tier and mid-tier games will drop out. When the dust clears, all that will remain are Microsoft first-party games and a small smattering of budget games from struggling developers because the subscription gives them an "upfront payday". We're already witnessing this balkanization on streaming video services because Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon would rather promote their own productions instead of paying top dollar to other studios for content, thus causing the bigger studios to roll out their own competing services instead.

The balkanization in the video game subscription market is just beginning with EA and Ubisoft. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

[IntentionalPun]

That's true, but not all of these services are equal. It's one thing to laud Microsoft's offering of their first-party games on day of release...it's a whole other ballgame to suggest that Sony should likewise.

Oh for sure; they are all different.. and offer different "value" at different prices (as well as similar prices.)

Microsoft's service costs 2-3 times more than PS Now (for an annual subscription), and their first-party output is considerably lower than Sony's (or Nintendo's) in quantity and sales potential. Microsoft made this "bold" move of tossing first-party games on their service, knowing that Sony and Nintendo would not dare match it, lest they sacrifice hundreds of millions of dollars of lost retail sales for each top-tier game.


If Sony were to post all of their new releases on PS Now, then they'd have to significantly increase the cost of the service to make up for the missing retail revenue. Would current subscribers be willing to pay 2-4 times the price? Some of them might, but many would not.

Yeah PS Now is very inexpensive right now. If they did ever increase their 1st party releases on PS Now and their timeliness they obviously would also increase the price, offer tiers, etc.. and they are almost certainly at least considering it.

The thing is it doesn't really matter if some people won't pay the price. You are still selling your games separately.. and making a ton of money that way as well. I do think MS did a bit too much de-valuing to get GamePasss sub numbers up.. the $1 deal to unlock multiple years of GPU if you pre-bought XBL was insane for instance. And their output hasn't been great.

But Sony wouldn't have to do that kind of devaluing... would sell more subs, at a higher price, and still have their games sell for full price more than MS lol

Am I saying that it's in Sony's best financial interest to do this now? No.. I have no idea, but I guarantee you Sony is considering a lot of options. And the reason for those options? Because it's quite possible for them to make even more money than they are now lol

While Microsoft might be willing to make this sacrifice (because they own the platform), other developer/publishers are less likely to do so. If Microsoft continues the emphasis on first-party "day one" games, then all other third-party upper-tier and mid-tier games will drop out. When the dust clears, all that will remain are Microsoft first-party games and a small smattering of budget games from struggling developers because the subscription gives them an "upfront payday". We're already witnessing this balkanization on streaming video services because Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon would rather promote their own productions instead of paying top dollar to other studios for content, thus causing the bigger studios to roll out their own competing services instead.

And why exactly would Microsoft, or Sony if they did this, care?

If less 3rd parties are willing to sign on, and your sub service is still hugely successful.. that just means less revenue sharing.. and the hope would be, plenty of those games would still sell really well.. as it stands, there's not really any reason to believe they won't.

Especially if you keep the price of the service fairly high.

It's all a balance of raking in money while not de-valuing too much. I'm not saying MS has done it right.. or that Sony should do it.. all I'm saying I think the narrative is flawed that you can't afford big budget games on sub services day one. And lots of rather big publishers seem to agree.

 

[diffusionx]

Didn't PS Now get a relaunch and a price drop like 2-3 years ago?

What they need to do is build PS1/2/3 BC into the PS5 OS and then ditch the streaming shit. Streaming is like fetch - it's not going to happen. Just forget it. The PS5 is powerful enough to emulate all those things, just do it. You don't need to do what MS does and put God of War 2 and HFW on there day one but forget about this streaming crap.

 

[Agent X]

Yeah PS Now is very inexpensive right now. If they did ever increase their 1st party releases on PS Now and their timeliness they obviously would also increase the price, offer tiers, etc.. and they are almost certainly at least considering it.

I believe Sony is considering it, too. They'd almost surely have to offer a higher tier subscription for those who want the premium new releases.

I do think MS did a bit too much de-valuing to get GamePasss sub numbers up.. the $1 deal to unlock multiple years of GPU if you pre-bought XBL was insane for instance. And their output hasn't been great.

That's true, and that's another reason why some of these PS Now/Xbox Game Pass comparisons are a false equivalence.

Microsoft throws out these super bargain offers, and then dangles the carrot of "first-party games on Day One!" as further enticement. It's a great tool for getting people to sign on and praise your service (something Sony could surely learn a few lessons from), because they get so many games for nearly nothing. At some point, the dollar deals will stop. We'll see if people keep their subscriptions once full price kicks in. This might depend greatly on whether Microsoft increases the quality and frequency of first-party games.

And why exactly would Microsoft, or Sony if they did this, care?

Those companies might not care, but consumers should. If popular publishers flee and yank their games off of these services, then the value of the service will drop drastically.

If less 3rd parties are willing to sign on, and your sub service is still hugely successful.. that just means less revenue sharing.. and the hope would be, plenty of those games would still sell really well.. as it stands, there's not really any reason to believe they won't.

Especially if you keep the price of the service fairly high.

That's Netflix in a nutshell. They have more in-house content than ever, while other studios are packing their bags and leaving for greener pastures. At the same time, the cost to consumers has been steadily rising. Now, people are faced with paying for Netflix plus another 1-2 subscriptions, to obtain the same programming that they used to get a few years ago from a cheaper Netflix.

It's all a balance of raking in money while not de-valuing too much. I'm not saying MS has done it right.. or that Sony should do it.. all I'm saying I think the narrative is flawed that you can't afford big budget games on sub services day one. And lots of rather big publishers seem to agree.

It's a difficult balance to achieve. After seeing how the streaming video market has fractured, I can only suggest that those who subscribe to PS Now or Xbox Game Pass enjoy the ride now, because they might be highly altered services in another 5 to 10 years.

 

[sainraja]

Don't get me wrong....Game Pass is a good service and if Sony was also on board something similar, the risk is that, the quality of games can or will drop since developers (outside of the passionate ones) will know that there will be an audience to play their game and they are guaranteed X amount of payment.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I think you will find that there is some excitement for future first party MS titles.

There is always excitement for MS first party, the problem is not the hype they generate, the problem is the constant disappointment they deliver.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It doesnt have to be exactly like Game Pass. But How about this: All Playstation exclusives, base Version without Dlcs are availabe at PS Now 6 months after release.

EA does that. Their games come to EA Play 6-12 months after launch. I think games that bomb come out earlier.... Unravel, Mass Effect; Andromeda etc..., sports games come out when the season ends, and shooters and games with a license like Star Wars are more like 1 year out.

Anyone with EA Play knows this, yet it's not like sales tank. People still want to play games day one. Those gamers probably don't even have EA Play because they buy the games they want on launch week. But for the more casual gamers who are fine playing last year's FIFA or waiting for the latest FIFA game 10 months from now, that's what sub plans are for.

People who think sub plans will kill games, well something like NF begs to differ. A lot of the blockbuster movies come to NF a year later, yet it's not like people all wait for it and don't go to the theatre. If the product is good enough and has enough pull, people don't want to wait a year.

 

[fermcr]

Without new games, PS Now isn't worth much. Only a minority want to pay for old games.

If PS Now wants to succeed, they should follow Gamepass example.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Imagine you paid for years of Netflix and then all of a sudden your TV broke and you could no longer watch all those shows. The horror!

Netflix took over a lot of the market for Cable TV (movie channels, etc.).

GamePass/PSNow are probably best compared to games rental services, I see Sony's offering becoming the HBO equivalent and MS well, whatever it the lowest common denominator.

Either way, In the long run it doesn't make sense, consider you pay 120$ a year (this price will certainly explode, just like Netflix did)... over 1 or 2 years it kind of makes sense, but after 5 - 10 years you still have no games and unless you only buy AAA day one games your total library is smaller (and more importantly, you don't get to choose what games are in said library, so you may still have to buy many games). Your total cost of ownership will only raise and raise, and in the end you will not play more games.

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

There is always excitement for MS first party, the problem is not the hype they generate, the problem is the constant disappointment they deliver.

I wanted to answer this but I feel like a post I made in another thread touches on this well enough. I have a lot of faith in Forza, Avowed, Starfield, Doom III, and The Elder Scrolls VI delivering some great experiences. I think they will be better but perhaps still shy of Sony's output. Then again, also have to ask if Sony will be able to replicate the amazing run they've had with Horizon, Spider-Man, God of War, The Last of Us, Bloodborne, etc. That is going to be hard to replicate much less improve upon. Regardless, thats another reason why I think Sony will eventually move to a subscription model. They have some incredible franchises and they'll be able to find a ton of success as a result. Much like what Disney is doing with Disney+. They have a ton of great original content launching on the service and movie releases are creeping closer and closer to the service and away from the traditional theater model. We already saw a little bit of that with Mulan granted the pandemic seems to be pushing that timeline along faster. I think we see the same thing with PSNow. Titles won't launch on there at first but we will see things slowly creep that direction. For me it is a matter of when and not if. And when it does happen that $180/year is going to be a huge boon for Sony.

Anyways...my thoughts on MSFT below.

Absolutely. The gutting of MS' first party under Mattrick was brutal. Xbox's decline began in 2007 and by 2011 their fate was sealed.

Bungie, Lionhead, and FASA. Gone almost overnight. Rare was reduced to Kinect. Epic sold Gears to MS. Bioware went to EA after MS published Mass Effect. No more exclusivity deals on titles like Bioshock and The Elder Scrolls.

Past decade was a wreck particularly for the two big tentpole franchises. 343's Halos have been a series of disasters and a once great franchise has been reduced a C tier FPS and fans wallow in the misery of repeated disappointment. Gears has also fallen out of favor as The Coalition has struggled with their alterations to the classic gameplay. Unfortunately I don't see a comeback for either of these franchises unless they drastically reevaluate and take a look at why these games were popular to begin with. I think both are doomed to fade into irrelevancy.

On the bright side Rare found a great little niche with Sea of Thieves and Playground/Turn 10's Forza entries have all been excellent for racing fans. The acquisitions have been pretty monumental. I'm really looking forward to Fable, Avowed, Starfield, whatever is next from inXile, and the new entries in the Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and Doom series. I think these titles + Forza are going to be the tentpole franchises going forward.

That said, I remain unconvinced on some of the smaller acquisitions. Double Fine, Ninja Theory, Complusion, Undead Labs-all fine studios but I'm very skeptical of the scale and popularity of their next titles. I think their games will remain niche-nice additions to the exclusive line up but I think a lot of fans are looking for franchises comparable to God of War, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Spider-Man, and Horizon.

I'm also a little concerned about what's going on at Machine Games and Arkane. The last two Wolfenstein titles haven't been particularly good at anything and Arkane seems to be leaving behind the single player games they were known for after Prey bombed.

Overall I am optimistic that Xbox will have some heavy hitters in the future but I think they are also saddled by some serious dead weight with Halo and Gears.

 

[OrtizTwelve]

Put simply, PS Now needs a relaunch. Too many people are under the assumption that it is only a streaming service and are completely unaware of the fact you can download most of the games and also the sheer quantity of games.

However beyond a simple relaunch and possible renaming, it also needs some key changes to create an image that reflects its value proposition.

• No tentpole 1st party titles. These are big sellers and need to recoup their investment, they are also not available elsewhere, so there is no reason to lower their value.

• Use market leading position to secure exclusive 3rd party game rights among subscription services... targeting Assassins Creed, FarCry, Resident Evil, EA Star Wars games.

• Should also cover GAAS / online games such as Destiny's latest expansions, Monster Hunter etc.

• Many Telltale / Quantic Dream / Supermassive games type games

• Bolstered by an excellent Indies selection

• Fund 10-20 million dollar projects to add unique experiences to the service

• Tentpole 1st party games come to service after 3 years for 3 months, similar to current situation.

• Put major focus on downloading games. With streaming simply being an added perk.

This allows Sony to recoup the investments in their 1st party games and keep the larger margins on them, it also allows them to keep major games like COD and Fifa outside the subscription as major sellers.
Most money is made on microtransactions and this will not effect that and may actually result in more spent on mtx.

It undercuts the competition on their final pillar of strength... lower cost 3rd party games and also maintains the model for 1st party games and the major sources of income.

No first party titles? Dead on arrival.