• 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.

News Xbox Game Pass is five times more popular than PlayStation Now

Oct 26, 2018
10,064
11,993
590
Ah, so you are just a mindless fanboy, kind of wasted that explanation, it seems you read nothing on what a sustainable service/product is. I'm not subscribed to PsNow btw, just explaining the difference.
I don't need someone telling me a service costing $1 for 3 years isn't a lifetime price.

But if it makes you feel better, thanks for the business tip!

lol
 
Last edited:

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
15,037
9,007
1,160
Oregon
This just means that you don't understand the market. Of course it's a great deal, because as I mentioned, MS needs some sort of winner product/service as they have had a terrible few years. Even the One X meant nothing in the market other than a great PR move for their core base, as its release didn't end up stimulating sales of the console.

What I want you to understand is the following: No service that is given away for free is sustainable. What does that mean and why do people care when criticising a service? It's simple, if there is no financial incentive, no company will continue in that line of business/service. It's a bit bigger whether you get a great deal or not, it has to be a win/win scenario for both consumers and producers, otherwise it goes away, or it changes.

Let's take an example, mobile apps. Everyone had rushed to try to get everyone to install theirs and no one knew what were the proper price points, they just knew there were hundreds of millions of potential new customers and they wanted those bucks. The result was a race to the bottom, where eventually every app was a couple of bucks or just plain free. Sounds great, excellent value for customers, right? Well, not exactly, in the case of games, you can't have a sustainable business giving away your games, you need to pay facilities, developers, equipment, so on and so forth, something has got to give.

So, if you can't exist with the price of the game on the story, what do you do? Well, voila, the answer was, Games as a Service and micro transactions, which lead to the discovery of whales, marketing to children and people with addictive personalities and other lovely things. So, the developers adapted to the market, created awful games designed to draw you in then annoy you until you agreed to either give them money or quit.

That is why when people brag over a service because of stupid console wars (and anyone that does has the mental maturity of a 5 year old) then that is why this is pointed out: anyone can give away something in a closed system with a captive audience. Anyone.

The question is, how will the service fare once it stops being given away for free? How long is MS willing to keep funding this system for tiny, tiny revenues? What proportion of customers are paying the actual monthly fee vs the given away memberships? And so on and so forth. They are relevant questions and they spur conversation and they will reveal how sustainable it is.

What is not healthy is having the attitude of "fuck corporations, let them bleed!" because that just reveals a lack of understanding that that thing you enjoy will disappear if it doesn't end up being very profitable for any company.
Only Microsoft is going to be able to fully comprehend the economy of what value proposition they're losing by offering users free or severely discounted trials or account upgrades. We can guess all we would like about how many users of Game Pass are currently in their $1 one month trial, and how many are fully paying customers. We can only guess how many people bothered enough to invest $180 for the three year deal, we can only speculate.

But Microsoft knows. They know how many of those $1 trials have converted subscriptions into $10-$15 of monthly recurring revenue. They know that a large number of users will sign up because it's cheap, then either fail to unsubscribe or genuinely enjoy the service and continue paying full price. GAF likes to think that MS is just "giving this away for free in a closed system with a captive audience", but the reality is that Microsoft has a team of economists, psychologists, and accountants that are making sure the money they are investing here pays long term dividends. A psychologist working for Microsoft probably did a study to show how many people will remember to cancel a subscription if that person goes longer than a year without paying any additional money - and that will help them determine the price point to discount their annual subscription fee (if any). Microsoft's ultimate goal here is to take a customer who (on average, and again Microsoft has pretty hard numbers on this) maybe buys two games per year at $60 each, and convert them into a customer who will instead be happy to pay $15 a month.

Additionally, the system of developer monetization on their platform also doesn't really concern us because third party developers will either find that this is a good deal for them and utilize it to make profit, or not. But again we can speculate in areas that Microsoft absolutely has hard numbers. From the developers I spoke to, the blanket offer from Microsoft is that developers are paid based on the percentage of each subscriber's play time of their games. So if you're SEGA - your cut of Game Pass revenues will be directly proportional to the amount of time people play SEGA games that are part of the Game Pass program. This goes down to the user level - if I'm a Game Pass subscriber and the only game I play on Game Pass this month is Streets of Rage 4, then DotEmu gets 100% of my Game Pass revenue this month. If I spend 9 hours playing Streets or Rage 4, and 1 hour playing Gears 5, then DotEmu only gets 9/10ths of my revenue. But this is multiplied out by 10 million subscribers so it's so far been very profitable for most developers with popular games. Microsoft is putting their first party games on the service day one because they know that will be a huge draw and they want to keep as much of this revenue to themselves as possible.

This also incentivizes developers to make games with a higher level of player engagement. Most players are more inclined to continue playing a game with an engaging story or fun game play and that's rewarded through Game Pass. Most people fear that the system just leads to developers making games that are designed to turn out microtransactions from users, but in reality this type of behavior would make most games less profitable on Game Pass's model. Developers will, of course, find a nice balance between the two but I honestly feel it'll fall somewhere closer to Assassin's Creed Odyssey (massive game / story, but optional microtransaction store focused on cosmetic content) rather than Clash of Clans.

The real question we should all be asking is "how well does this scale up?". How many games can be put on Game Pass before individual developers get less and less of a cut in revenue before everyone starts dropping out of the service? How many studios can you buy that essentially become an investment in future Game Pass revenues? It's going to be a careful balancing act for Microsoft to figure out.
 

fybyfyby

Neo Member
Apr 9, 2020
23
23
100
Two totally different services.
PS Now is streaming service for PS games (you can also download some games to PS4).
XBGP is game subscription for Xbox and PC games.

PS Now is not available in many countries by the way. I personally am unable to subscribe to PS Now, but I can subscribe (and I did) to XBGP.

So this is really not surprising.
 
Jan 29, 2019
2,709
2,147
375
Just being able to download the games is the catch. Very few people want to pay to stream games that are generally only hitting 30fps at most, with no guarantee of stability. If the person owns an xbox, as well as their PC, it's actually quite a lot of games to choose from. (Edit: Almost 200 to choose from, with probably more on the way)

Even if i owned a PS4 i would not be interested in PSNOW. But downloading games via gamepass suits me pretty well, and a lot of other people i know. Going by the numbers, it seems like a common theme.
The only point is that the thing that gamepass is "good for" it actually sucks at.
 

Faithless83

Member
Mar 9, 2020
61
182
320
Different services, different prices, different availability worldwide and yet ps now is more profitable.

I really wish PS NOW took the gamepass approach and let us download ps3 games as well.
 

spawn

Member
Feb 15, 2019
304
338
295
As far as what I know PlayStation Now is streaming, while game pass is downloads. Some of the comments on here suggest you can download ps4 games with Now which I didn't know so maybe the fault is with PlayStation marketing
 
Jan 29, 2019
2,709
2,147
375
This also incentivizes developers to make games with a higher level of player engagement. Most players are more inclined to continue playing a game with an engaging story or fun game play and that's rewarded through Game Pass. Most people fear that the system just leads to developers making games that are designed to turn out microtransactions from users, but in reality this type of behavior would make most games less profitable on Game Pass's model. Developers will, of course, find a nice balance between the two but I honestly feel it'll fall somewhere closer to Assassin's Creed Odyssey (massive game / story, but optional microtransaction store focused on cosmetic content) rather than Clash of Clans.
I think that if you play long games like assassin's Creed it's not worth it for the players, they need 5 hours games that you play 1 or 2 per week, so you get the feeling that you need many games... So you get "value" out of your subscription, if you keep playing the same game you should probably just buy it.
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
15,037
9,007
1,160
Oregon
I think that if you play long games like assassin's Creed it's not worth it for the players, they need 5 hours games that you play 1 or 2 per week, so you get the feeling that you need many games... So you get "value" out of your subscription, if you keep playing the same game you should probably just buy it.
I agree, though you can't rely on people to make rational decisions. What was the joke in The Office about Michael Scott spending all his money renting the same movie over and over again?

Thankfully, Game Pass also has a deal that lets people purchase the games outright at up to 20% off. And DLC is 10% off.
 

Nikana

Gold Member
Jan 26, 2016
4,415
2,866
625
I agree, though you can't rely on people to make rational decisions. What was the joke in The Office about Michael Scott spending all his money renting the same movie over and over again?

Thankfully, Game Pass also has a deal that lets people purchase the games outright at up to 20% off. And DLC is 10% off.
This is something people really need to remember as well. The discount of purchasing the games. It seems crazy to many but theres tons of evidence to support many consumer view digital sales as just as "good" or even more important than a physical item. Even with a subscription they want to own a copy.
 

justjohn

Member
Mar 5, 2007
7,918
6
1,230
new york
Sony is not trying to compete with gamepass. They have their own lane where they make more money from psn and Psnow than the entire Xbox gaming division.

Do people really think if Sony offered their first party exclusives on Psnow day one and offered those crazy Gamepass deals, they wouldn’t be crushing Gamepass now?
 

CaptainClaw

Member
Dec 12, 2016
297
229
290
I think that if you play long games like assassin's Creed it's not worth it for the players, they need 5 hours games that you play 1 or 2 per week, so you get the feeling that you need many games... So you get "value" out of your subscription, if you keep playing the same game you should probably just buy it.
Not really a New Assassin's Creed is $60 wait a month and A bit sure you could get it $40...that's still 4 months worth of Gamepass. Assassin's Creed Odyssey the longest in series has a average Playtime of 40 hours (80 hours complete Main + Extras)

So If you were to spend a minimum of 5 hours weekends only (2.5 hours both days) for 4 months thats 80 hours.

Hard core gamers and even casuals are playing more than 5 hours a week on games.....which refutes your point even more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brofist

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
43,440
6,886
1,835
Sure. Who cares. Why do you care so much that a game makes big profits? Minecraft and GTAV probably make more profits than UC4. Who cares. I guess some of you do.

I care about getting great games and service at $1 not worrying about the P/L statement for each game. MS bean counters can worry about that.

We differ in priorities.
For the most obvious reason........because I want companies that I support and enjoy their products to continue making them. That in turn will make me happy and entertained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kumomeme

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
43,440
6,886
1,835
As far as what I know PlayStation Now is streaming, while game pass is downloads. Some of the comments on here suggest you can download ps4 games with Now which I didn't know so maybe the fault is with PlayStation marketing
This is 100% Sony's fault! They really don't like advertising PS NOW. I'm ASSUMING it's because they know they don't have the infrastructure to handle 10 million subs right now.
 

Nikana

Gold Member
Jan 26, 2016
4,415
2,866
625
This is 100% Sony's fault! They really don't like advertising PS NOW. I'm ASSUMING it's because they know they don't have the infrastructure to handle 10 million subs right now.
I think it's more they are just seeing what happens with now.

It's very clear the streaming aspect didn't take off. At one point that was a huge goal for them and they bought Gaikai specifically so they could not only target PlayStation consoles but anything Sony. Laptops, TV's, phones etc. But that just never happened.

They have 2 million subs with next to no advertisement and push. At this point it's probably paying for itself with them being able gather a ton of data and experiment.

I suspect they are waiting to see how adding their first party games down the line is doing for them and seeing what people are streaming to use that data.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
3,776
3,060
595
\

Not enough for xbox to not release it on their streaming service day one
Let me rephrase that, nobody cool buys xbox games lol
Well, if my current goal was focused more on getting people to buy into the service rather than purchasing the exclusives because I'm not so shortsighted to see the potential in the residual income over time that a service like Gamepass could bring in then maybe I'd "hey you gotta point there, Bob".

Sorry Bob...you don't have a point. How does it feel to know that you don't have a point, Bob?

Shuttup Bob.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: SuperLupeRap
Mar 17, 2020
86
294
220
PSNOW is region limited

Mainly cloud service so limited to people with good internet

People don't want cloud gaming

Finally, the two srvices cannot be compared because thry are totally different
 

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
2,145
1,442
490
PSNOW is region limited

Mainly cloud service so limited to people with good internet

People don't want cloud gaming

Finally, the two srvices cannot be compared because thry are totally different
PSNOW is region limited

Mainly cloud service so limited to people with good internet

People don't want cloud gaming

Finally, the two srvices cannot be compared because thry are totally different
People compare assorts so this will always get compared

theres another thread saying that ps capcom games massively out sold xbox cap com games , but ps had 8 games and xbox 2 so it wasn’t a fair comparison but people still compare.

if sony gets their act together with ps now it could be an awesome service like game pass is currantly
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Sep 26, 2019
424
372
265
Well, if my current goal was focused more on getting people to buy into the service rather than purchasing the exclusives because I'm not so shortsighted to see the potential in the residual income over time that a service like Gamepass could bring in then maybe I'd "hey you gotta point there, Bob".

Sorry Bob...you don't have a point. How does it feel to know that you don't have a point, Bob?

Shuttup Bob.
I dont think MS had much of a choice but to go for that sedrvice as there console sales and exclusives werent doing so good....
Maybe explains the short price too.

My point is theres no point bragging about having more subscribers to a service you charge £1 for and give your exclusived day one, the services dont compare. Price wise or game wise.
You honest think if Playstation offered the same service and same price they wouldnt beat xbox like they do in every other department? Lol of course they would.

Brag about a service that doesnt compare and MS had to focus on because they failed in every other department of the console “war”

Sorry bob? Shutt up? Your not funny bob....
 

DrScissorsMD

Gold Member
Apr 3, 2020
122
243
315
Sony is not trying to compete with gamepass. They have their own lane where they make more money from psn and Psnow than the entire Xbox gaming division.

Do people really think if Sony offered their first party exclusives on Psnow day one and offered those crazy Gamepass deals, they wouldn’t be crushing Gamepass now?
So are they going to then? No? Then I guess Gamepass is still better then isn’t it.
All these meaningless “but Sony could totally smash them” posts don’t mean shit if they’re not going to do it. It makes as much sense as going into a thread about Sony 1st party and spouting “Do you really think MS couldn’t smash Sony in first party if they wanted to?”
Saying the equivalent of “Sony could but they don’t care/have other priorities” adds nothing of value to the conversation. Fucking insane how desperate people are to shit on a product they don’t want or like.
 

DrScissorsMD

Gold Member
Apr 3, 2020
122
243
315
You honest think if Playstation offered the same service and same price they wouldnt beat xbox like they do in every other department? Lol of course they would.
You honestly think if MS offered the same quality and quantity of 1st party they wouldn’t beat Sony?

You see how fucking stupid that sounds. Saying “but they could if they wanted” is the most ridiculous bullshit non-defence (for things that don’t need defending!!! They’re fucking consoles and games for crying out loud).
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Sep 26, 2019
424
372
265
You honestly think if MS offered the same quality and quantity of 1st party they wouldn’t beat Sony?

You see how fucking stupid that sounds. Saying “but they could if they wanted” is the most ridiculous bullshit non-defence (for things that don’t need defending!!! They’re fucking consoles and games for crying out loud).
Yes I honestly think you cant compare MS 1st party to Nintendo or Playstation.
Not dumb at all.

Its a new service and market that MS has clearly invested more, changed there entire business model for and charges much less otherwise it would probably fail.

Yes I think when Playstaion and Nintendo invest more time into stream then Xbox will be go to third place.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
3,776
3,060
595
I dont think MS had much of a choice but to go for that sedrvice as there console sales and exclusives werent doing so good....
Maybe explains the short price too.

My point is theres no point bragging about having more subscribers to a service you charge £1 for and give your exclusived day one, the services dont compare. Price wise or game wise.
You honest think if Playstation offered the same service and same price they wouldnt beat xbox like they do in every other department? Lol of course they would.

Brag about a service that doesnt compare and MS had to focus on because they failed in every other department of the console “war”

Sorry bob? Shutt up? Your not funny bob....
Hey Bob, I'm not Bob. You're Bob, Bob.

Much of a choice? There's always a choice. Just depends on what your goals are. It may have been the best choice to make for their situation, which is not a point of weakness. If nothing else, it shows resiliency and the ability to adapt and come up with creative solutions. I'd much rather have that kind of flexibility because the arena will inevitably change. Amazon just released their first game yesterday. They are coming. Google tried and failed.

As for Sony, it's easy to look at their position this gen and automatically assume "Oh well they don't need flexibility...they're winning." That could not be further from the truth. They already were caught with their pants down on the streaming front...which is why they are partnering with Microsoft's Azure servers instead of using their own. You might even say Sony didn't have "much of a choice". Personally I think this is a smart and safe move as they can use and temporarily pay for Microsoft's servers while it is determined if game streaming will pick up enough steam to be worth it. But even with that, game streaming is only one purpose for Azure and prior to this Azure has been making money hands over fist for Microsoft.
 

Nikana

Gold Member
Jan 26, 2016
4,415
2,866
625
So are they going to then? No? Then I guess Gamepass is still better then isn’t it.
All these meaningless “but Sony could totally smash them” posts don’t mean shit if they’re not going to do it. It makes as much sense as going into a thread about Sony 1st party and spouting “Do you really think MS couldn’t smash Sony in first party if they wanted to?”
Saying the equivalent of “Sony could but they don’t care/have other priorities” adds nothing of value to the conversation. Fucking insane how desperate people are to shit on a product they don’t want or like.
Yeah but can Sony's Dad beat up Microsoft's Dad?
 

Croatoan

Member
Jun 24, 2014
3,743
1,210
780
Not wishing hard enough to even bother checking, it seems. With a simple Google search (or maybe Bing suits you better), you find this page:

There's a free 7 day trial period. You're welcome.
Ohh, I can play Playstation 4 and 5 exclusives day 1 on the PC version of Now? I could give two shits about back catalog.
 
Last edited:

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
153
209
220
This is 100% Sony's fault! They really don't like advertising PS NOW. I'm ASSUMING it's because they know they don't have the infrastructure to handle 10 million subs right now.
It's not their focus, Sony also sells A LOT more games than MS does, it would be foolish for them to focus on a sub service instead of on their new content, as others have said it's not as widely available as GP and they only just lowered the price from $19.99 in October of last year.. MS is making GP their main dish, PS Now is just a side dish for Sony. Sorry for the food analogy but I'm hungry lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
1,781
2,234
440
Gamepass will only be viable as long as 3rd parties don't get greedy. The nvidia steam thing was great. Until everyone pulled out. Same with game pass. It'll be good as long as 3rd parties don't do fuckery. Once they do you'll be left with a sea of shovelware and games nobody cares about.
 
Nov 5, 2016
21,226
37,271
1,085
One Big Room, Full Of Bad Bitches
It's crazy, the worst kind of fanboyism.
I'm 'worried about the business viability of a multi billion dollar company'.. Who the fuck cares, if they can't sustain it that's their problem, in the meantime my bank account loves that I don't have to spend as much money to try a lot of new great games
Dude. Exactly.

That’s why I don’t understand why Game Pass is a battleground of choice for so many warriors. It doesn’t affect PlayStation, or hasn’t yet. Sony still sold tens of millions more boxes, and still has what is WIDELY considered the dominant games catalog, so why are so many people seemingly threatened by Game Pass’ success?

It’s okay for MS to have a winning product of their own. It’s an awesome service. If it helps sell more next gen consoles then more power to MS.

Sony doesn’t need to knee-jerk redesign PS Now as a Game Pass clone, it’s leading sales without it, by a long shot. And, the whole “subscriptions will be the death of AAA games” theory is, well, a reach. That’s putting it mildly. I think it’s a huge reach. Just my opinion. I don’t think there’s any evidence of such a trend.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2006
18,961
9,665
1,565
Gamepass will only be viable as long as 3rd parties don't get greedy. The nvidia steam thing was great. Until everyone pulled out. Same with game pass. It'll be good as long as 3rd parties don't do fuckery. Once they do you'll be left with a sea of shovelware and games nobody cares about.
There's a big crossover between games that appear on Game Pass, PS Now, Origin Access and other ownership based subscription services like Humble Choice.

I will do a chart one day as I think it will be useful to predict what games will join what service (or become part of humble choice) and when.

Basically there are a bunch of developers and publishers out there who will happily accept a potential dip in outright sales in exchange for a bunch of guaranteed cash upfront along with the added exposure these platforms give to them.
 

SuperLupeRap

Member
Nov 17, 2019
621
1,052
355
I dont think MS had much of a choice but to go for that sedrvice as there console sales and exclusives werent doing so good....
Maybe explains the short price too.

My point is theres no point bragging about having more subscribers to a service you charge £1 for and give your exclusived day one, the services dont compare. Price wise or game wise.
You honest think if Playstation offered the same service and same price they wouldnt beat xbox like they do in every other department? Lol of course they would.

Brag about a service that doesnt compare and MS had to focus on because they failed in every other department of the console “war”

Sorry bob? Shutt up? Your not funny bob....
But PS Now is free though. Why is nobody signing up.

Gamepass you still need to pay a dollar and everyone's flocking to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoloKingRobert
why Game Pass is a battleground of choice
It's silly really. As a consumer you want both companies to work as hard as possible to earn your money, preferably in ways that are interesting and unique.
That will usually mean better prices and/or value for the end consumer.
Sadly for most though they will only buy one console and the thought that they could have "made a bad choice" forces them to make shit excuses for their choice.
 

bender

Member
Apr 12, 2010
3,511
484
905
I do like the fact xbox game pass allows you to play games that come out day 1 like Streets of Rage and Minecraft dungeons.
Agreed. It reminds me of when MS forced all XBLA titles to have demos. Most recently I was really curious about Streets of Rage 4, Golf with Friends and Minecraft Dungeons and all three ended up on Gamepass.
 

Kanton

Member
Dec 7, 2018
57
62
190
I am paying full price, where is this 1$ 3 year deal everyones talking about??? I can only find 1 month trials.
 

bender

Member
Apr 12, 2010
3,511
484
905
I am paying full price, where is this 1$ 3 year deal everyones talking about??? I can only find 1 month trials.
There was a deal a while back to convert you remaining Xbox Live subscription (up to three years) to Ultimate with Gamepass for $1.00.