Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@Wesker No probs...

So you will probably see the biggest benefits in a lot of games coming from a Base PS4 as you will get the Pro enhanced versions and whatever 'extra' boost that PS5 offers. Some games had more options too - like 60fps modes - so you should at least get access to these options. Some games have quite a range in resolutions on Pro with Dynamic Resolution scaling so it will be interesting to see how much of a boost the PS5 gives but until I have some idea myself, I am keeping my expectations in check and expecting the 'same' as my Pro and 'any' boost is a positive. I don't expect games capped at 1080/1440 or 30fps to suddenly run at 4k and 60fps (even if the hardware 'could' theoretically do so) and then be disappointed when it doesn't run any better than my Pro (albeit with better Load times).

Talking of Load Times, I don't expect any different if I use an external HDD via USB either (to keep the internal SSD for PS5 games (inc any that are enhanced specifically for PS5) and if there are any gains, bonus...

@BAMozzy Yeah, I'm just a bit worried about Bethesda games being available on the PS5, but I think if they are already on PS4, and Microsoft aren't going to remove, or stop supporting them, then they should also work fine on the PS5 going forward, even if Bethesda doesn't do PS5 upgrades.

It should be a good while until a new mainline Elder Scrolls or Fallout game is released, so I can maybe get an Xbox then, if they are not coming out on PS5, or get a better PC.

I doubt Microsoft would be so petty they'd remove all the previously released Bethesda games on PlayStation. I think they're safe, especially given MS was transparent enough about upholding the PS5-timed exclusivity agreement on Bethesda's two upcoming games, and Fallout 4 is still a part of PS Plus Collection

But future re-releases or remasters and ports are definitely not guaranteed to appear on PlayStation as they are on Xbox, PC and even Switch

@Wesker I don't believe MS will remove older PS4 releases from Sony's catalogue. I don't know if they will get PS5 enhancements - maybe games like Elder Scrolls Online will and maybe even Fallout 76 as they seem most likely to be the games that would be PS5 supported games.

As for Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield or any future releases of the Zenimax Studio's, we will have to see. Maybe MS and Sony could strike up some deal to have Game Pass on a PS5 or maybe they will decide on releasing games on Sony's platform. We do know from experience though that MS are not adverse to continuous support of games on Sony's platform and released Minecraft Dungeons too - a spin off that they could have kept for their own platform

Even if they don't, you still have options - from the 'cheapest' which is probably just purchasing a Game Pass Subscription on your Mobile and using your PS controller, to buying a Series S, a Series X or upgrading/purchasing a PC.

I wonder how many would buy a Game Pass subscription on PS5 IF that was an option and the only way to play Zenimax Studios (Arkane, Bethesda, Id, Machine Games etc) as well as maybe some of the games from Obsidian (Outer Worlds, Avowed), InXile (Wastelands), Ninja Theory (Hellblade) and maybe some of the games from Compulsion, Double Fine etc - maybe not games from 343, Coalition, Playground, Turn 10 or Initiative but a decent selection of games from the Xbox Studios and maybe some other games too (like Ori from Moon Studio's) and 3rd Party games that are available on PS4/5 anyway? Not saying it will happen, just hypothetically speaking, if Sony allowed it, would you buy?

@BAMozzy I want to continue playing Fallout 76 and have access to the next Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. I'm not interested in the rest. Based on the current landscape you've laid out, I'll try and get a PS5 this year then wait and see how things go with MS/Bethesda/Sony. If I don't get a PS5, I might get an Xbox instead once we know more about the lay of the land.

@BAMozzy I personally don't believe in gamepass as something sustainable or good for the overall market, so I wouldn't buy it. Doesn't matter much who is providing it or allowing it honestly.

@Jaz007 I would be interested to know why you think its not Sustainable or Good for the Overall market as I see it completely differently.

At this moment in time, MS has over 15m subscribers paying about $15 a month - that's $225m a month. An average AAA game costs around $40-50m to make - although that is spread over 3-4yrs. Studio's are salaried so they get paid a monthly wage whether they have a game on the market selling or not so as long as you are bringing in enough revenue to keep those studios open, keep those employees in jobs, it doesn't matter if they make a game that actually sells 0 copies (because they are fully funded from subscriptions) or sells 20m+. Therefore they 'can' have creative freedom without being dictated to by current trends or publisher demands.

Over the course of a year, the Subscription revenue alone can essentially pay for over 50 new AAA games. Although like I said, it doesn't quite work like that. That monthly income is covering ALL the studio's salaries and overheads (inc paying for actors or other outside workers) so by the time a game releases, its already paid for by Subscribers and doesn't need to 'sell' to get any money back for Publishers or investors. Because its been funded by Subscribers, you don't have to encourage investors with promises of doubling their money putting more pressure on the studio to sell even more copies.

Its not that dissimilar from Sony who have money coming in from multiple avenues allowing devs to make the games they want to a certain degree but Sony still needs to rely on game sales to keep funding their studio's too where as Game Pass itself is able to fund the game and therefore it is more sustainable in the long run. If for whatever reason, Sony has a couple of big flops, that can have a knock on effect on the budget they have for games and puts pressure on the studio's to come up with 'hits' to get their projected revenue back up. Unless MS loses subscribers en masse, its a self sustaining system where the Subscribers are keeping the Studio's open, paying for the development and in return, getting new games to play on Day 1.

Not having the pressure of making 'commercially' successful games too means they can take more creative risks and have a market that will try just because its free - meaning they have a large engagement. As Long as the Subscriptions outweigh the running costs of studios, its a self sufficient model.

Its too early to tell if its a good thing for gamers in the long run but whilst they see value in it, can buy the games if/when they want (if they want to keep playing after it leaves Game Pass at a reduced cost), and enjoy the wide variety of games that they may not of had or would have been green lit, I don't see how its bad either. Even Devs think its great for them too so all the evidence I see is that its beneficial for both consumers/gamers and Developers too

So therefore, I would like to know why you think its not sustainable or good? Is it because its Microsoft? is it because it means MS can add a lot more studio's and fund them?

With @Jaz007 's highly inaccurate views on XSS being unable to scale through the upcoming generation, and the complete ignorance behind gamepass sustainability, yet not even considered Microsoft's ability to easily absorb any such losses if it was the case.

Likely those opinions are due to hypocrisy.

@JGRockford Wow, go ahead and resort to insults there. I think you just want to wave the fanboy flag and call your arguments a win here. I've had the same views on either of these companies doing this for a long time now. There's no hypocrisy. And we'll see later on about the S. Time will tell who's right. And "absorb losses". Yes, that's the definition of unsustainable over a long enough time if that's the case. I never said Xbox was gonna die from it. I have a good PC and access to all of MS's games so it's not like I'm locked out from anything they make. I'll explain my thoughts on Gamepass in more detail later. I do want to answer @Bamozzy as part of a real discussion.

Insults?
If you see it that way, meh...

Great way to sum up a resume while I have been correcting misinformation and ignorance in the process.

In this case, Jaz007's opinion of XSS is of pure ignorance. The lack of understanding of how gamepass is sustainable is also an issue.

So yeah, if my viewpoint is one sided here, is simply to argue said ignorance and misinformation.

💩

I don’t have the money to care about if the products I buy are good for the industry. Game Pass is a good deal and opens games up to a wider audience, especially younger people who already subscribe to Netflix or newer gamers like my mum who just wants to experience a bit of everything. This is the PS5 thread so I’m not going to derail it but it’s a very privileged mindset to simp for corporations when they give quite a bit less than a single s**t about you. People said the same about digital games, about streaming. Look at how ubiquitous digital games are now, streaming will be the same and with EA Play, Game Pass, PS Now, Humble Choice etc, subscription based models will go the exact same way. You can still buy Just Dance on Wii, you’ll still be able to buy a physical game outright on your traditional expensive box under the TV.

@nessisonett Privileged? Wow, that's, false. If something isn't sustainable, lets go with that in theory for the moment, that means it collapses, it goes away. If a company wants to have some amazing consumer friendly option for the sake of it (not that anyone does that), but isn't gong to end up being profitable enough, basic economics says that won't help consumers for very long. Games being healthy is why we have so many choices. There's a lot of variety and choice in gaming. That's a good thing for consumers. You know what else is profitable for publishers? Excessive MTs, only digital purchases (no physical which is often cheaper), no used games, etc, all of which I'm not supportive of because they are anti-consumer. They don't transmit benefits to me in a positive way. Caring about myself is why I feel this way and calling that "a privileged minset" and "simping for corporations" is completely unsubstantiated and only thinking in the short term. It's also narrow-minded honestly and grouping others as how you imagine them to think instead of what's actually going on - which isn't productive.

Sony's statement about Game Pass being unsustainable can largely apply to them. Microsoft can perfectly sustain that model but Sony or Nintendo would probably have a way harder time since nowadays in the case of the former, the video game business is practically what's getting them the most profit and most of that comes from the sales of their dedicated hardware, and as for Nintendo that's practically all they know. Microsoft is completely safe in that regard because they're just that monolithic of a company that they can manage with how cheaply priced their subscription services are as long as it means turning Xbox into an ecosystem rather than just a platform for games while all their other products not only sell well, but are constantly being integrated into the Xbox brand in many different ways. It's why they even brought products like their Surface Book line into the fold and started marketing them as legit gaming laptops.

It's a perfect model for them honestly. It also opens up a lot of titles to more casual audiences who don't care about buying a new physical release each month and just want to sample some great titles. As long as it rakes in the money really. The Bethesda acquisition is probably making that platform very valuable for a lot of people considering DOOM Eternal's probably staying on there for good now.

I'd guarantee if Sony had the technical leverage and sheer amount of money MS had they probably would've done a similar thing. Hell they kind of tried with PS Now and are seemingly directly answering to it with PS Plus Collection. It's just that the latter will also push hardware sales since it's specifically for PS5, which is why that would be sustainable for them, because it sells the hardware.

Exactly!

Game subscription services are absolutely sustainable as it allows more people to a steady stream of content, which results in a steady stream of profits for both Sony and Microsoft from the subscriptions.

We have the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Google and so many others already well into the business of releasing content through a subscription. TV, movies, music, audiobooks, games, are products that customers can consume with the use of a subscription without resorting to the premium of buying the product outright.

If these companies weren't even looking at long-term profits, they would reassess their business plan to something that does!

In regards to others mistaking what I had mentioned with Microsoft specifically: in Microsoft's ability to easily absorb any such losses "if" it was the case.

If; being the operative word. Might've been have been the case on the infancy of Gamepass, you can be rest assured that it is now making profits.

Game streaming absolutely is sustainable when used correctly. Stadia actively tried to force itself into the market as a console killer and as a result is doing pretty miserably. Microsoft has the right attitude about it considering it's just a pillar that doesn't distract from their commitment towards making dedicated hardware for the core gaming audience. I don't see a future where streaming becomes the norm, but rather something that can just peacefully coexist. It's especially become more clear that's the way things will go thanks to the advent of cloud-exclusive games on Switch like RE7, AC Odyssey, Control and Hitman, with REmake 3 seemingly being on the way too.

Nailed it!
Google has made some major mistakes that has cost them dearly. They can either choose to absorb those costs until Stadia is more profitable, and/or reassess their strategy.

In comparison, Gamepass has been much more successful, and inclusive of a subscription service than the above.

@TheFrenchiestFry The problem with Stadia is exactly that it tried to insert itself into the player base. You just can’t do that with new tech. It’s much easier to wean the user on streamed gaming on their existing consoles like with PS Now and XCloud. We’re only just getting a digital only console this generation despite full game downloads being around for about 15 years. Yes, Moore’s Law applies so we’re likely to see a shorter turnaround with streaming and subscription services but the point remains that there needs to be time for the tech to settle in people’s minds and become ubiquitous before making huge moves like Google did.

@nessisonett Exactly. Google came in when the world clearly wasn't ready yet and it's probably going to take years for the entire world to actually be prepared for that kind of technological shift. The worst part is they were so confident in Stadia's ability to eliminate the need for dedicated gaming hardware and as a result its audience was extremely limited from the start.

@TheFrenchiestFry Well Amazon are trying to make moves too with Luna but I doubt that’ll work. I dunno why they bother other than some suits seeing a large market and thinking ‘we can do that’.

@nessisonett I will give Luna this. I haven't read anywhere so far about having to pay for games individually. They seem to be going the Game Pass route of paying a monthly fee and getting access to everything although Ubisoft is apparently setting up a seperate portal that will be paid within the service. It at least has that over Stadia, and has signficantly more games at launch