Sony is levelling up PS Plus by dividing it into three tiers and offering additional perks. For the new PS Plus Extra tier, you’ll get access to a catalogue of approximately 400 games on-demand, while the PS Plus Premium tier will add in a ton of retro titles on top. It’s a huge and necessary upgrade, incorporating many of PS Now’s features under a more presentable umbrella.
But, unlike competing subscription services like Xbox Game Pass, it won’t include first-party games at launch. In an interview with Games Industry, PlayStation boss Jim Ryan explained: “It's not a road that we're going to go down with this new service. We feel if we were to do that with the games that we make at PlayStation Studios […] the level of investment that we need to make in our studios would not be possible, and we think the knock-on effect on the quality of the games that we make would not be something that gamers want.”
PlayStation makes extremely expensive single player games, like Horizon Forbidden West and God of War Ragnarok, and has moved to actually increase the price of its titles on the PS5. Microsoft argues that Xbox Game Pass is sustainable, and that subscriptions lead to higher sales. Although, while the Xbox division is profitable overall, the organisation is overall less revealing with its balance sheets than its rivals, and it’s unclear how much the Redmond firm is using its trillion dollar warchest to prop up its subscription.
For Ryan, he’s not ruling anything out entirely: “The way the world is changing so very quickly at the moment, nothing is forever,” he said. “I don't want to cast anything in stone at this stage. All I'm talking to today is the approach we're taking in the short term. The way our publishing model works right now, it doesn't make any sense. But things can change very quickly in this industry, as we all know.”
Many, including Microsoft, believe subscriptions will be the future of gaming – as is the case with television, movies, and music now. Ryan, however, doesn’t agree: “Our PS Plus subscriber number has grown from zero in 2010 to 48 million now. And we anticipate, for our services, that we will see further growth for the subscriber number. But the medium of gaming is so very different to music and to linear entertainment, that I don't think we'll see it go to the levels that we see with Spotify and Netflix.”
Instead, he believes live service games like Fortnite are arguably a bigger indication of where games are going: “That phenomenon of the live service game has, in a very large part, fuelled the enormous growth in the gaming industry that we've seen over the last ten years. I think that trend towards live services will continue, and if you look for a model in our category of entertainment, which supports sustained engagement over a long period of time, live services games arguably fit that bill better than a subscription service.” Sony recently announced it has ten live service titles in production.
Despite all this, for Ryan, PlayStation is all about choice: “There are obviously many millions of people who are happy to subscribe to PS Plus. We offer them that option on the platform, and we think that we are offering a significantly improved option with the changes we have made. Equally, if people want to play Fortnite or Call of Duty or FIFA, and have their sustained engagement that way, that's fine, too. Nobody is obliged to do anything.”
[source gamesindustry.biz]
Comments 141
Agree with this. It could also mean we get less exclusives (if Game Pass is anything to go by). I’d rather have more, high quality exclusives (and have to pay for them) than get fewer, lesser quality exclusives for ‘free’.
ROLLS EYES 🙄
Or you know, they could always launch new games for a month or so, before taking them off so that they could form strong legs.
I know that my suggestion is the stupidest thing ever but I can't understand Sony at this point. No seriously, what the hell is Ryan doing?
The day gaming becomes a fully fledged subscription service is the day I stop gaming completely.
So they'll wait a year or so before making their games permanently free to subscribers. Still a big change.
I barely have time to play all the PS+ games I already have access to because I buy plenty games, subscription services don't really do it for me. £70 for a top quality AAA game is fine.
I wouldn't want them to lower the quality of games and mainly be mtx and multiplayer focused titles as then I'd just not bother with gaming.
Corporate spin. Basically ‘our way is the best way, the other ways are bad’. I don’t particularly agree with one approach over the other but this statement is fairly meaningless.
@Divergent95 First month sales are the most important so it wouldn't work for Sony.
@Divergent95 Running his business? 🤷♀️
Definitely agree with this. I’m happy to pay for most of the big first party games on day one if it means the quality doesn’t have to drop to stay afloat and everything I don’t buy day one I’ll just wait for a reasonable sale or wait for it to be on PS Plus, whichever makes sense in the moment. I do disagree with people saying Gamepass is causing quality issues with Xbox exclusives; I think people have had Gamepass-tinted-glasses on for the last few years and are finally realizing the Xbox first party lineup just isn’t as good as PlayStation’s (with a few exceptions, of course.)
I mean, based on the overall quality of Xbox exclusives, I'd say he's not wrong.
The Game Pass model is just a race to the bottom. It always is when cost is made more important than quality. If Sony stop making quality games, I will stop playing them. I don't care how cheap they are.
@get2sammyb And he is doing a terrible job (from a consumer viewpoint). Just my two cents 🙂
@AdamNovice I know, it was just a dumb suggestion. My point is that there's always a way, but nope, Sony is interested in milking that sweet money from us.
Those clambering for day 1 game pass type service better be happy with the undoubted future of the Netflix model with games being released half finished, and then cancelled when they don't hit user engagement kpi's.
Give me normal full priced titles that are complete over that with additional subs that catch titles that I might have not purchased at the time.
He's not wrong. If they made a 1 to 1 Game Pass competitor with day 1 offerings, they would need consistent food to feed their beast. Microsoft has the money and quantity to do that. Sony does not and I'm glad they aren't forcing their studios to keep up with that structure and pace.
@Divergent95 If people are willing to pay then why not, there games are popular.
@Ralizah That's my issue - he's still not said they're going to stay on it permanently once they reach the service.
If they're only staying 3 months this is no better than Now, and a let down...
He's got a point. I'm sure it's not great for morale to think a game you pour years of your life to is only worth a $10 rental to people.
I wouldn't be surprised to see smaller games like that rumored Sly Cooper revival come to PS Plus, but God of War? Spider-man? Definitely not.
expect bleeding edge, sea of thieves, state of decay 2, crackdown 3 level of day1 games
only advantage of xbox releasing day1 is the pc market since pc gamers been snubbing gamepass for a long time
I'm happy with this. I'm not a fan of subscription services anyway. I don't have any TV/movie or music subscriptions, PS+ is my only subscription service.
Also I don't think the games are expensive. £70 is a night on the town these days. Compare that with weeks to months of enjoyment gaming, 'nuff said.
The majority of people, these days, seem happy to pay out money to avoid actually owning anything. Call me stupid but I'll stick to paying for what I actually want.
Nonsense excuse
I’m also fine with paying full price for high quality games.
Sure the idea to have all the exclusives day 1 with a subscription service like game pass but as you see MS simply can not compete in terms of the quality of the games itself.
Just look at Netflix. Why they can not compete with high class movies that are made for the cinema? Simply because there is a trade off with such subscription services.
Paying 50-70€ for games like Horizon 2 or GT7 is fine for me.
PS simply love GT7 <3
Feels like the first time I've agreed with Jim Ryan in awhile. The proof of "subscription quality" is directly in front of us on you know where. Keep these massive legendary exclusives coming and I'll keep showing up to support them. Subscriptions are NOT the future of gaming.
He's right. If Gran Turismo 7 had launched onto a subscription service it would be filled with Microtransactions and forced online for single player. Thankfully I can pay £70 to avoid all of that.
@KundaliniRising333 Is it, though? It's easy to just say it's nonsense, but I'm going to assume he's run the numbers.
Going on about live service games again
-shudders-
@Divergent95 Your suggestion isn't stupid but it's not something you do when you're in a position of strength. Microsoft's strategy works for them because they can afford to lose money in an effort to get their games and their service as many places as possible since they don't have the exclusive titles/franchises to fall back on and they fell behind (for a couple of reasons) in the last generation. The traditional "Make high quality games that you can only get in one place" model continues to work for Sony. This is simply a way for them to split the difference between their 2 subscription services as PS Plus is damn near essential to have if you own a PS4 or PS5 while PS Now is just "kinda okay...I guess?". People can call it competing with Xbox Game Pass all they want but this is not that
@pip_muzz Well, I'm not defending what happened with Gran Turismo 7 in any way, but it's pretty obvious why that game has microtransactions in it: because they want to add content to it and it costs money to do that post-release.
Again, I think a more elegant solution could be made here, but let's not muddle up different scenarios looking for gotchas.
The comments section is always full of entertainment. One day, everyone is talking about "waiting for sales" and "not paying $70". Another day, "$70 is the right price". One day it's "gamepass sucks", the next it's "so when is sony gonna reveal it's gamepass".
I don't think gamers really know what they want. New IPs, but won't pay full price, but they want more kratos.
It’s going to still have an effect on game sales, I predict, and therefore may affect development budgets in the long run.
Perhaps game sales increase in some cases as they have stated on the Xbox side, but I think sales will slow for some of the titles. I think it all depends on how long they wait before putting new games in the service. For example, if we knew that it was 6 months, then I’d wait on buying GT7 right now but might buy HFW still rather than wait. If it’s a year, then I might have a harder decision to make. (It’ll be close to one year for Returnal and I’m glad to not have waited to play that because it was so good.)
@get2sammyb For Sony's tentpole releases I understand why they'd rather not put them on a subscription service.
Sony have however 8+ live service games in development. Launching games like that onto a subscription service can be beneficial for everyone as a whole. I think the instant dismissal of no exclusives on a subscription service may sadly make their live service games the worse for wear.
@pip_muzz Yeah, I doubt Factions 2 is coming to the service day 1. But a lot of the other live-service games might.
Not the biggest fan of Jim Ryan but I surely appreciate his stance on first party games.
Yeah i would rather pay and not let quality drop alot. I also have an xbox but mostly just play old games as the 1st party is not interesting at all and low quality. If people dont want to pay full price, they can wait for sales, and for those who are willing to wait long enough, can potentially get them added to the catalogue. This would be a great package for newcomers to the platform
"Microsoft argues that Xbox Game Pass is sustainable."
The key word Phil Spencer said was "sustainable," not profitable. That's not an accident. When more successful aspects of your company rake in billions of dollars a month in net revenue, you can sustain a lot of losses in other aspects of your business. It's math. Xbox revenue is such a tiny percentage of the money Microsoft makes whereas PlayStation revenue is such a large part of the money Sony makes. It's not at all a surprise (and partially where the danger comes from) that Microsoft can give away a lot of their Xbox profits and not even notice.
@Th3solution Love your avatar.
Game pass is like Netflix. In the beginning it was new and shiny. They dominated the streaming market and probably still do. But now other services appear as well Disney plus, HBO Max, Prime Video, Paramount plus and Apple TV just to name a few. In the future we will have Ubisoft plus, EA play, Take Two plus and game pass and all the other gaming developers with their own service and before you know it you have to subscribe to several of them to play your games. Because you will only get them digitally. Just like with streaming. To watch the shows and movies I want to watch I have to subscribe to several services and in the end I have to pay more money then I want to because everyone of these companies wants a piece of the cake. Really a great future for gaming. I have to puke.
People love to hate the guy, so everything he says will be viewed through that lens by a lot of folks. It's unfortunate because he's making some good points here. The gameindustry article is a worthwhile read for anyone who likes to hear the discussion from all sides.
Some will say he's greedy and lying about the balance sheets because Sony just wants more money, but what he's saying is very true - Fans want those massive, big budget AAA offline games.
The amount of folk who complain after every State of Play because there wasn't a huge game reveal should be indicative of that.
These are the games people want from Sony, and that's the feedback Sony are given regularly.
The way he talks about subscription based games being the way forward for PlayStation rather than subscription services rings true for me too.
Imagine if they could get two or three first party games like Destiny 2 or FF XIV on the new PS Plus.
There's a lot of money to be made in sub based games. Sony's strategy is really starting to take shape here. They're not running around the pitch chasing that streaming services ball (because, arguably, they can't afford to anyway). The word the gameindustry writer uses to describe it all is "pragmatic".
My favourite word.
The beauty of it is, Sony will never stop making those big single player titles.
If they do nail a few good online games and start raking in the cash, you won't have to play them to benefit from their existence, because the budgets for other projects will, at the very least, be stable.
As someone who still buys music (what’s up fellow vinyl fans), I am 100% fine with paying for video games as they release. Honestly, I’m happy to.
Microsoft has the money to sustain GamePass but it isn't exactly profitable. I rather Sony continue to do what they are doing.
I am still exactly where I was when PS5 games were announced to be £70. If the game is good enough and offers enough value to me I will happily buy it (whilst shopping around for a better price of course). For the top first party AAA titles i'm fine with that.
Horizon Forbidden West cost me £61 and I put over 100 quality hours into it, that was money well spent imho. (I also sold it on for £35 but that's a separate argument)
The trouble is the games in the middle that I am interested in but not 100% sold on. Previously I would wait for them to hit £0-30 in a sale, take a risk and buy then. However the first party games don't seem to be dropping so fast. Take Returnal for example, i'm interested but dislike Roguelike's and Roguelite's. Not going to drop big cheddar on a game i'm unsure of but it's still £52.49 when on sale. No thanks.
Exactly just look at halo infinite and some of ubisofts latest games which also are trying to focus on streaming
This really is the exact same article as the "exclusives not coming to plus" article. I mean, c'mon guys.
I’d rather have big exclusives than a Gamepass-like any day.
Eh, I much prefer buying the games I like once and keep them forever. If I like the game then I'm willing to pay for it and if not then I'll just ignore it. Game services are convenient and all but at the end of the day, the games are locked behind a paywall and I had to keep paying just to have them on my library and there's always the fact that games can just be removed from the service with just a snap of a finger.
Take Big Jimbo's comment with several teaspoons of salt (I'll save the tablespoon and ladle for more outlandish stuff). This is just corporate fear of how it might affect their bottom line.
Haven't seen any public financials of Game Pass to make a calculated evaluation of this but what I will say is, if it works for cinema and TV, why wouldn't work for games? Shouldn't it be profitable as well since the production costs are also in the millions?
@Ashina this is exactly where I'm at after giving Game Pass a go for a good 6 months+. If i want it I'll just buy it (probably on sale). Really seems more economical overall. To each their own though.
And with my main online gamer of the family close to moving out I hope to just drop even the basic PS sub.
@Divergent95 Umm, investing heavily in studios, procuring some of the most talented people in the industry and keeping them. You look at the well documented development troubles of Halo, Fable, Perfect Dark, etc and you realize talent really matters. Meanwhile insomniac turns out blockbuster AAA games every 2 years.
@Widey85 It's DOA to me if first-party titles don't stay on the service. It's already inferior to GP insofar as games don't launch on there day one.
But, you know, in a few years, it might be worth subbing to if you grab a PS5 and want access to a bunch of first-party exclusives. That's contingent on games actually staying on the service, though.
@RubyCarbuncle same here!
@RubyCarbuncle exactly. It waters down the product. When a game is designed for a specific, customized hardware, you can get something truly special.
Thing is; putting Returnal on there - that is a fairly recent game - some people may be inclined to not purchase at launch and now wait for it to hit the service. Same issue happens on Xbox’s side (except not with First Party obviously). I wonder if this will happen.
@Ralizah Agreed - that's the big Game Pass thing for new console owners (or their parents), it gives you a big library straightaway without huge additional expense.
This needs to have older Sony games on it permanently so those joining PlayStation have a great library to start with - and it'll make them more likely to buy new first party games day one
As this is a massive launch effort, we’re rolling out the new PlayStation Plus offering in a phased regional approach. In the June timeframe, we’ll begin with an initial launch in several markets in Asia, followed by North America, Europe and the rest of the world where PlayStation Plus is offered.
Does that mean the UK will get this last? Or will everyone have it by June?
Yes please don't put Sony exclusives into one of these packages.
I think the answer is: Demos
Game Pass is a place to demo games before purchase. Microsoft has said again (and again) sales of games in Game Pass are HIGHER than those not in GP. So sales of Forza Horizon 5 were higher with it in GP (with the very nice GP discount price) than if it were released as a stand alone game.
Sony does mention in it's PS Premium Tier "Time-limited game trials will also be offered in this tier, so customers can try select games before they buy"
I think they should be leaning into this going forward, because again with GP you can try before you buy. It would be cool if they could do, for example, a 2 hour trial on all games...done at the system level. Instead of a separate version that is a limited demo. I know I would buy more games, an enticing PS Plus discount, if I could actually try them out for a bit. And again I think that is the major appeal of GP.
Instead of "yeah maybe...I'll wait until is on Game Pass" it could be "yes I was intrigued, tried the demo day one, ended up really enjoying it, and purchased it with the PS Plus discount"
@K1LLEGAL Returnal is almost a year old now - the issue is if they don't bring their games that are over a year old to the service it loses value.
If it's mostly third party games or first party only stay a few months it doesn't encourage people to stay subscribed or choose it over Game Pass - and it's much cheaper for Sony to put older first party games on it over newer third party ones
Surely there's no harm in putting them on the service after 3-6 months? Pretty sure the average SP AAA game has made most of it's 'traditional' money by then?
Dont ever make them free day 1 like Xbox. Why do you think PS exclusives are so well built and Xbox devs cant even make 1 good non repetitive game. (FH same game since the first one)
Sucks to pay full price for a game but its how it works.
Works for Xbox because there games have the same development level of mobile game…
I’m happy as long as they provide good service for the historic titles, I’d like to see vita games in the service.
Also mobile steaming is needed.
It’s not entirely true, there’s been some great MS exclusives since I’ve had Gamepass. FH5 and Halo the end of last year. Plus they have Gears 5/Tactics and some other decent last gen titles too. The line that Xbox doesn’t have any games has gotten old.
My issue I’ve noticed is that those same games are also riddled with ***** microtransactions, which Sony to give them credit, have stayed away from in their mainline games. Well until recently with GT7 where they are now putting them into £70 games, not a trend that I hope continues but with a big push for ‘live service’ games on PlayStation I think it’ll start happening more often than not.
@TheCollector316 #36
Do not confuse sustainability with losing money.
It is not just "math". There is science behind providing people with something at not a high-profit margin, to attract them to the other products. This is assuming that the "Game pass" model is never profitable, and is only breaking even.
Have too agree quility will drop if games are made for day one on service Sony don't have Microsoft's money. How many times have people comment gamepass has no games and day one games are poor, yet these are the ones begging for Sony too do the same.
Can see it being a lot like game pass with people begging that ever new game comes day one!
Every time I read the “subscriptions lead to higher sales” line I’m left puzzled. I like a decent cup of coffee in the morning so I have a coffee bean subscription. You know what I don’t buy at the supermarket anymore? Coffee beans.
@Amnesiac That is a silly comparison.
Do you think developers/companies making games do not assess their cost-benefit analysis when they are approaching gamepass to put their games on it?
What makes you think that they do not make money? Buying coffee from a shop means that you are giving money to Company A and not B.
A Game is made primarily by one company. You either buy it, or you play it through subscription. But one way or another, same company that made the game is going to see a sort of benefit. Benefit will largely depend on whether game was sold or was played on game pass. But It does open developing company to a bigger market share than if they exclusively focused on just "Selling" games.
Think of Leasing with a balloon payment at the end vs financing.
@TrolleyProblems
I am not confusing sustainability with losing money, though. Sustainability, financially speaking, means you at least break even overall (i.e. Game Pass itself might lose money, but as long as Microsoft overall does not go in the red, they can sustain it indefinitely).
I agree with you otherwise.
At this stage in my life I’m far more interested in new games and devices like PSVR2, than saving a few hundred quire a year through a sub (which wouldn’t even by true in my case as I tend to but I hen cheaper then trade on).
Maybe when I retire that’ll change. Then I’ll have less money and more time, and subs would make sense.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent someone from buying games day one, @RubyCarbuncle without the need to have a subscription. There is not a single game on the Game Pass that cannot be bought separately. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I fail to see the logic of your statement. No one is forcing you to join a subscription service, and the opportunity to buy games outright persists...
@TheCollector316
There are divisional-based performances that are just as important and relevant. It is unfair to assume that Xbox division is designed to only leech off of other divisions.
In grand scheme of things, there has to be a reason why Xbox Division (a division primarily been seen as money sinking for Microsoft) continues to exist.
Just speaking facts and not lying.
People just get manipulated into hating one man for no real reason (or console warring propaganda) though so there the rage coming for anything he will say. 🙄
@TrolleyProblems It’s silly not to buy something if I already receive it through a subscription? We have a vastly different understanding of silly.
All I’m asking is for someone to explain how subscriptions lead to higher sales, and so far nobody seems to be able to do it.
I pretty much agree.
By putting AAA 1st party games on the service at launch ends up being a numbers game to try and trump Microsoft in numbers and have a knock on effect in quality.
But you would also either alienate traditionalists buying retail copies or worse yet cannibalize into their own retail sales.
I can however see them putting weekend trails at launch and perhaps adding them when sales stagnate (or 6 months after release)
Reading between the lines I can see they might make a studio or 2 for "GaaS" games which would be added on the service on launch.
These games live and die by the community so need all the help they can get.....and retail sales lost on these titlese would just be made up by microtansaction anyways.
In all honesty, @suikoden I think anyone who says that the Game Pass has no games, either hasn't looked to see what is available on there, or just isn't willing to accept the notion that it does in fact have any quality games. Add to that, that it will not be long before all those brand new studio acquisitions will still beginning to churn out their day one releases on to the Game Pass at no additional cost to those subscribed to the service. Up until now, Xbox may not have had any of the AAA+ titles such as The Last of Us 2, God Of War, Ghost of Tushima, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding or Days Gone (personally, I think that was one of the better games released last generation), but to say Xbox doesn't have quality games is exceptionally unreasonable, and in truth, over the 7 years of the last generation, these 6 titles are all there were that could possibly be considered AAA+ and exclusive to the Sony platform. Xbox has had quality exclusives, they're just not of the same ilk...
There's a reason there's no decent console-selling exclusives on Xbox these days.
If Sony were to drop day 1 play on ppp it'd very likely affect the quality of the exclusives overall.
Look what happened to Halo...😑
@BritneyfR_ee
Totally agree since series consoles and game pass only FH5 comes close to a top Sony exclusive, the rest on game pass including Halo Infinite are second class in comparison.
Paying £70 for HFW of such AAA quality is definitely the better way to go.
@Fiendish-Beaver It persists now yes but my point is if it goes away then I won't bother with gaming anymore as a hobby and I'll pursue something else instead. I'm perfectly ok with services like this being an optional alternative however. I just hope I'm worrying over nothing here.
@UltimateOtaku91 Halo Infinite has issues because of 343, not gamepass.
@Amnesiac
Odd, because I keep getting told that I rather buy my game whether it is on a subscription or not at every turn.
Are we even talking about the same user base?
And I have explained it right above. In post #66. Read it again. It is not my problem if you can't seem to understand that you still "make money" if your game is downloaded, similar to royalty revenue.
You do not need people to explain this to you. Please spend some time educating yourself by researching, instead of asking people to beat their heads against a wall that doesn't intend to budge.
The exception is where you make a lumpsum deal for any downloads on gamepass and are paid up front.
@Amnesiac The line comes from the fact that not everyone stays subbed to gamepass 100% of year. Gamepass is good way to test games before purchase. Xbox also offers a good discount on games through gamepass which in turns cause people to purchase said game while still subbed, so they can play while unsubbed.
I'm sure your coffee bean subscription isnt giving you in store discounts.
@Floki yes but 343 may not of had the budget to fix most of the things on time or add certain things at launch due to budget
Sony needs to do what works for them, and the curated legacy content for old systems (except Vita, RIP Vita) will actually probably get me to play my PS4 more since the PS2 is currently my most used Sony system these days. They’re not going to put their AAA big sellers on something like this and that’s fine since I care about the side of Sony Jim Ryan killed, quirky lower budget stuff. Returnal and Ratchet are the main reasons I even want a PS5 tbh, I’m over stuff like Horizon, Last of Us and God of War at this point.
What I REALLY want is Sony to start making stuff like Gravity Rush, Puppeteer, and Ape Escape again, maybe put that on this where it’ll stand a chance of getting more attention, like what Gamepass does for indies.
@UltimateOtaku91 You think Microsoft with all of their $$$ shortchanged the budget of HALO because of a model that they’ve gone all in on for years and have repeatedly stated works well for them? You know that sounds stupid right?
@Sakisa I wholeheartedly agree with your post.
@UltimateOtaku91 343 had the time and budget. They have failed to deliver a quality product going back since they took over development for Halo Reach. Halo 4 wasn't good, Halo 5 wasn't good, and the MCC wasn't good. These games all released before Gamespass was thing. Arguably Halo Infinite has been their best tittle yet.
@Floki ah I see well maybe Microsoft will give halo to a different developer then such as ID software
100% agree with topic. Gamepass is the worst thing for gamers and the gaming industry imo. I want to think about what I am buying and not sotting in front of a service with everything there waiting for a download to be played for 5mins and then switching to the next one to see how that is. I am too old for this maybe vut honestly, poor devs and their hard work. games become less valuable because of this. and I think that's a shame.
I don't think the option to buy games will ever go away, @RubyCarbuncle, nor do I think that having a subscription will ever become compulsory (the nearest they get to that is with requiring Plus (then Essential) to play games online). There is a persistent rumour that Xbox might do away with the need to have Game Pass to play online (and some games no longer need that now anyway). If they do that, it will be interesting to see how Sony will respond; ie. if you can play online with your mates on the Xbox, why pay to do the same on the PlayStation...?
@Reeneman Netflix can't deliver a quality show/movie cause it Netflix. They was never about quality in the first place. Look at Disney+ and Disney, they've managed to released 2 banger in the year (encanto and Turning Red), 3 if you wanna count Luca. These are just about better than any full price movie in the cinema.
@Eldritch Thanks! I’ve been rocking’ it for a while and was considering changing but it just so indicative of my mindset sometimes. 😄
Only multiplayer heavy games would work for subscription. Story focused games would lose a lot of money if they get released day one on sub.
@UltimateOtaku91 That what Halo fans are hoping, or just put the main games out to pasture
@ORO_ERICIUS How mighty of you to think that your financial situation applies to everyone?
What is the basis of your comment when you say that Gamepass is the worst thing that has happened to gamers? What sort of evidence do you have for stating this?
What "poor devs" are you referring to? And Do you want gamestop and similar companies to stop selling used games? do you want to lose the option to resell your games? None of those options help dev either.
@Floki this is a good point especially with 343 as an example. I think the lack of regular quality first party exclusives from MS is down to mismanagement of their studios rather than Gamepass. They struggled massively during the Xbox One lifespan and that was before Gamepass was even a thing. They have The Coalition who are quality and Turn 10 but they’ve really struggled elsewhere.
@TrolleyProblems I've quoted the phrase from the article "subscriptions lead to higher sales" twice, and you continue to read it as "make money", so I'm not sure which of us has the more severe reading comprehension issue. Since your'e struggling to argue your case, I'll help you out. "You're absolutely right Amnesiac, it makes no sense to buy a game that you have access to through a subscription. However, developers still make money through streaming contracts and timed exclusivity deals. That being said, only a nitwit would equivocate that source of revenue with profit from unit sales."
@Th3solution lol Nah, don't change it. It's class. Reminds me of my young days on the Atari. 🤣
@Divergent95 you’re right, your suggestion is the stupidest one ever.
No understanding of basic business even considered before you posted this. I’d be ashamed and probs just delete the comment 😂
Yeah, that's not happening. Ryan is full of 💩 like always, and this is straight up fear mongering about "Oh if we change anything, our exclusives will suffer, so they're not included in the plan". Such a baseless excuse.
Jim is spot on with this in my opinion.
It’ll be interesting to see what the quality of MS’s new studios output in the coming years considering their day one release with game pass. Wouldn’t be surprised if budgets and therefore quality are effected…
I'm normally not a fan of those big AAA exclusive titles so I'm good with the suscription. I'll still buy the games I like.
@Fenbops Microsoft has generally struggled since the original Xbox to deliver "quality" exclusives. This isn't something that started the during Xbox One. The Xbox One generation was only slightly worse than the previous generations (not by a lot), and the only thing they was missing was a decent Fable game, and true Rare game.
Microsoft has just finally learned they that can't rely on the back of other developers forever. As game development has changed a lot since the 360 days, and developers don't need big publishers any more to get games out the door. As we have seen a lot studio start to self publish.
@Floki This is a very reasonable explanation. The only thing I'd push back on is that presumably a certain number of subscribers would buy games if they weren't subscribed. In other words, for subscriptions to drive game sales, they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose.
I'll use a better example than coffee. I have a Criterion Channel subscription. I can stream any movie that Criterion has in their collection for the duration of my subscription. Even though it doesn't make economic sense, sometimes I find a movie that I really love and buy a copy of it. Does this happen enough to offset the sales lost from the movies I would have bought but didn't because I'm content to just stream them? I don't think so, but the answer is probably different for everyone.
Also, I think Blue Bottle Coffee does offer in store discounts for subscribers, but it's been a while since I've been in one their stores, though. Since I have a subscription.
Those saying games decline in quality due to releasing day one on Game Pass, what games have released day one on Game Pass then a sequel or other IP being of poor quality for it? I think people can judge once all the big games have released day one for example like Halo Infinite, Halo 5 wasn’t on Game Pass day one so the next new Halo game can be judged after Infinite.
Gaslight Jim
@Amnesiac Since we are going to behave like you understand any of this, here is some food for thought.
"No Amnesiac You are not looking at the full picture. Sales of any kind generates Revenue, which is directly associated with Making Money. Making Money is essential to making profits of any kind. Revenue is the money generated from normal business operations, calculated as the average sales price times the number of units sold or services rendered. The only thing being argued here is the definition of what 'digital units sold' means and what sort of activity generates it. Also it makes full sense to buy the game when all you are given is a base game as a demo. Then whether you wish to spend more money on extra things, or dlc is left entirely up to you."
Also, if you truly understand profit and loss, please stop giving stupid analogies like coffee beans and subscriptions to coffee per day. it is dumb and it doesn't fit the situation. Anyone with half the understanding of financial statements and transactions will let you know that your analogy doesn't describe the situation properly.
@Amnesiac #102
Your analogy again assumes that there is not a deal offered that mitigates this risk for the developer. It would be silly to assume that a developer is putting their games for free of charge on any subscription, just like the moviemaker allowing a subscription service to put their movies on said service "for free". If the forecast suggests that there is money to be made, a company has a choice of pursuing such a deal. No company does anything that doesn't benefit them. game makers or movie makers are established, maintained, and conducted for the purpose of making a profit. Profit is generated from any form of revenue. "Making Money" is necessary to see any form of profit.
Whether a person "buys" a game Or a royalty fee is procured by allowing a game to be on service is concerned, it has to provide enough rate of return to be considered a worthwhile venture.
Your "The only thing I'd push back on is that presumably a certain number of subscribers would buy games if they weren't subscribed. In other words, for subscriptions to drive game sales, they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose." this misses the scenario that is mine.
I constantly buy a game after playing its base version to have access to "everything". Playing a base game allows me to make my decision in a better light. Do Demos do the same? Sure. Is Gamepass version of "demo" better, yes.
"they need to generate more incremental sales than the potential sales that they lose" means you are speaking of opportunity costs. But you aren't assessing people like me, who buy the game to play everything. There are a few of us.
I understand the economics of this decision, but what about third party first day release?
Clearly he's right, look at Halo infinite, incredibly cannabalized and made with Micro transactions in place with multiplayer becoming incredibly bare bones, if there was no gamepass it would clearly be a full features $60 release, not separated to maximize profits, also Microsofts actually output is still incredibly paltry
@PlayStationGamer3919 You are right, however, the question is, will the revenue from subscriptions offset such a loss from unit sales?
I am quite sure that Sony has a massive team that assesses these numbers, and it may not be feasible for them until a certain number of subscriptions are achieved to break things even. Would it take time for them to reach such a number though that helps them break even? Yeh. Will they potentially lose money in the process until such a state is achieved? yes probably.
They may simply not wish to take the risk.
@Subsided How do you describe GT7?
@TrolleyProblems yes microtransactions suck but are unfortunately hard to escape from, but GT7 is still an incredibly polished game with tons of modes and options, and they are held to a much higher standard with those microtransactions hence the major uproar from making it harder to obtain vehicles and the 1 million in credits to make up for it, if it was on a gamepass you can bet there would be less modes, worse progression making those microtransactions necessary, and no making up for making it harder, so even though microtransactions are in it, they can easily be called for those who like to rush and not necessary to obtain something they want
@Subsided I am not going to bet on any assumption that pushes a random thought in any direction.
No Polished game is worth 70 bucks and then microtransactions. You have simply made it to be the case, but not everyone has. Whether it is MS or Sony, it is a horrible practice.
Also, it is clearly not only me who is pissed off with it. Please research articles and read people who feel deceived by what was provided to reviewers for review, and what was given out to customers a day later.
Ryan needs to be launched into the sun. Every comment that guy makes is cringeworthy.
Sony is playing in Nintendo's pond now. MS is moving into the future. Is what it is.
Unfortunately I found a PS5 before an XBSX so I guess I'm Sony till the next gen as I won't buy multiple consoles.
@pip_muzz
I see what you did there lol
Jim Ryan being a clown like always. Putting games on services doesn't affect the quality at all and he's only saying this because MS does it. This service would be so much better if we had day one releases .
@UltimateOtaku91
They had an enormous budget to work with for infinite. More than the Forza or Gears series has ever received.
343’s piss poor management is why Halo Infinite is the way it is.
I agree with this. I would rather pay for quality and yeah a day one release on a subscription is not going to bring quality in the long run.
All one needs do is look at the state of Halo's single and multiplayer offering to see that there's some truth in that statement. Still doesn't excuse what they're doing with GT7 though.
Sony make, well used to i guess make many more 'niche' games that didn't sell fantastically but were appreciated, maybe they could sell them as the day one additions, and save their annual blockbuster for regular release.
Not true at all.
Jimmy just wants your 70, yeah sales would take a dip but having these on day one would mean more subs to the service so the games make money another way.
@Divergent95 So your solution is to make them tank their sales in the first month because it will be free with a subscription?
@Balosi So you want to see them Ubisoft their games up oh im happy they didnt go down that road.
@TrolleyProblems I dont agree with you on that point at all not even in the slightest. I have played so many great games that would be worth €70 without the shadow of a doubt. A Elden Ring, Horizon, Dark Souls, Demon Souls, Witcher 3 those games can justify that price quite easy for me if i look at the game te alone. The original FF7/8/9/Breath of Fire 4 all games that i spend more then hundreds of hours on FF8 300 hours and i loved them all even those games where worth that price for me. I payed 169 gulden for some SNES games and with inflation i would not be surprised if these games where more expensive then now. I do agree that heavy monetized games like FIFA/COD/BF/NBA2K could easy go for €50 and still make a killing next gen sweat does not make the price increase justified.
I believe this before gran turismo 7 always online & mtx fiasco, but now? Nah.
@Flaming_Kaiser not sure if you read me well bud.
I said no game is worth 70 bucks and "then microtransactions"
I didn't say that no game is worth 70 bucks on its own merit.
With that said, you know not every one can afford games at that price inflation and ***** isn't in people's favour. Where ever there is a discount possible, take it. Worry about your pocket and not some multi million dollar corporation. They are required to keep it going for their own sake. You are to manage your own pocket.
@Floki
The original Xbox had a fantastic exclusive library. They came out of the gates STRONG with the OG Fat Box.
The 360’s first half was good on exclusive games, too. Then the house that Gates built tried too hard to go after the Wii crowd and the foundations started cracking.
The Xbone is where Microsoft’s formerly grand mansion fell apart for a few years and it took them a long time to get back to their previous standing. Arguably they haven’t yet, but they’re making solid progress. The Series X will end up with a very strong exclusive library, something the XBONE failed to do for its entire lifecycle.
@TheRedComet
Xbox one partially helped Ps4 become what it was.i think.
@ATaco
I don’t think Halo Infinite is a good case to use for subscriptions dumbing down games.
Halo Infinite is the way it is because 343’s management has been God awful since the day they were founded.
They spent WAY too much time developing the Slipspace engine that powers Infinite. They’d have been better served licensing a different engine or building on the Halo 4 branch of Bungie’s engine.
@TrolleyProblems
No doubt it helped Sony a lot. I say that because the PS4 didn’t really hit its paces with must have exclusive games until 2016. But Microsoft fumbled the ball so badly before launch in 2013 that it made people distrust them (for good reasons) and then the console launched and spent years without any good exclusives whatsoever. At least Sony was dropping decent exclusives like Infamous Second Son and doing the best port job ever with the Last of Us remastered. Killzone Shadow Fall also helped a good bit in the early days. None of them earth shattering, but they gave gamers confidence that even more was on the way.
Two things really helped Sony with the 8th Gen war. One, they had successfully turned around the PS3 and built a cadre of loyal new fans plus brought back long term PS fans who went 360 early on after the PS3’s disastrous launch (like me) back into the fold later in its lifecycle. It set the PS4 up for early success regardless of what Microsoft did.
Two, Microsoft shot itself in the leg with a 12 gauge shotgun during the lead up to the Xbox One, having already blew a hole in the other leg with a .357 magnum during the later years of the 360 with the whole Kinect fiasco.
The Kinect/Wii people had already moved to mobile gaming by 2013. Then they had the audacity to come up with a super restrictive DRM scheme (that they thankfully went back on, although it can be argued that they were ahead of the curve; I think gamers would be far more accepting of the original plan now, since most games need some sort of online connection just to be playable these days) and most importantly didn’t have anything exclusively worth playing for nearly 5 years after the XBONE launch.
Had Microsoft not bent their actual gamer customers over a table during the last three years of the 360’s life by pushing us away by focusing solely on Kinect and then proceeded to launch a console so disastrous that even the team who launched the PS3 didn’t look half bad, I think the numbers for the PS4 and Xbone would have been very, very close. A repeat of the PS3 and 360 at the end of their lifecycles.
@TrolleyProblems That maybe true but when i was a young kid i worked hard to save up the cash to be able to buy it. With 4 gulden a hour you can see how long it took to buy it but besides that.
Stuff gets more bigger, more detailed with a lot more risk and tons of people that work on it. What would you like to trade of?
We want everyone to get a honest wage, we want to play to special games but get mad if its more expensive, different/exotic kind of games like those from Sony Japan studio are now gone and thats a damn shame.
We all want the best and in the end that comes at a price closure of a fantastic studio, monetization, cooky cutter games (Ubisoft games) or bigger prices.
@TheRedComet Dont MS will bent you over the table again once they buy up everything and kill of the competition.
Im certain of thing the way they entered the console market and the way they act now I just dont trust them one bit. Not now and or ever in the end its US Corp.
Just like all the big corporate including Sony and Nintendo one thing they have that makes me more nerfous is the unending cashflow they have not because i trust Sony or Nintendo more but i know they dont have enough cash to shape the market the way MS can.
That is between a company and its workers my friend. How company negotiates with them isn't based off of how much they charge us. Wages aren't magically increased because they are charging more for the game.
You are either paid competitively or you move on to companies that can better manage it.
@TheRedComet wholeheartedly agreed!
@Flaming_Kaiser #135
You trust Sony after gt7 debacle?
@TheRedComet Both the OG Xbox and earlier 360 library was good, but it was nothing mind blowing or groundbreaking. Phantom dust, Fuzion Frenzy, and Blinx 1 and 2 were all fantastic games on the OG Xbox. Blue Dragon on 360 was also my favorite game of the generation.
But there is a reason we only still just have Halo, Gears, and Forza.
@BritneyfR_ee Agreed 100% with this statement! As much as I miss paying cheaper prices ($60 for PS3-PS4 and $50 for PS2), things could be worse.
@Floki
Halo: CE, Halo 2, Unreal Championship, Project Gotham Racing, the only US release of Shenmue II (and the best version of that game), Jet Set Radio Future, MechAssault, Ninja Gaiden Black, Dead or Alive 3, Panzer Dragoon Orta, the only console you could play Knights of the Old Republic, etc.
Out of the Xboxes, the OG Box had by far the best line up of exclusives.
@Flaming_Kaiser
I love Sony, but they’ve pulled some bull crap the entire time they’ve been making PlayStations. Just like everyone else.
@TheRedComet Many of those games wasn't exclusive and could be played on PC or even Mac.
@TheRedComet Its the same with every Nintendo with the NES was the same when they where the biggest. Every to big Corp is not to be trusted.
The way they started to try to buy Sony to make a console for them and trying to buy Nintendo shows me they are nothing more then a evil big corp.
Just like all US based corporate big business. (Google, Amazon, Walmart, Apple) by killing of the competition or buying them just like they are doing no by buying up everything and trying to kill off the competition in that way.
And please dont come with Insomniac or the other small acquisitions that where all companies that worked almost exclusively for Sony with everything.
@Floki
At the time of their original releases for the ones I mentioned, only KOTOR was available on PC. The rest were Xbox exclusives until later on.
@jrt87 I agree 100%..I don't hate Xbox titles but they don't engage me like exclusives Sony has and I easily get a lot of time of their games
@Flaming_Kaiser
Dude, companies buy companies. There are regulation committees to manage this. You do not need to stand there with your picket signs heh
If it is approved, regardless of what your basis for moral grounds is, it has been approved.
@TrolleyProblems Some people are clueless if one company owns it all you are screwed. Like a Walmart that destroy the local economy a Amazon that undercut prices and steals products to produce them cheaper.
In the US approved does not say a lot to me with massive lobbes by big Corp themselves.
But they have more problems in the US women rights, gay rights no netneutrality, lobbies in congress, one of the biggest Western countries that try to make voting impossible for minorities. I guess im going to politica now so ill be quiet.
@Flaming_Kaiser I think you need to pay attention to what i said Kaiser.
Point is, if law allowed it, it is what it is. There is no book out there that says what is and isn't right. If Governing body isn't working out, go for the governing body, and not the company.
Company is naturally going to look out for themselves. it is common sense.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...