PS Now could be an awesome service if it wasn't for Sony.

[DonFerrari]

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

It all depends what you call better 1st party support. Because probably you would like to have something like gamepass and day one, that certainly would have a big impact on PS4 revenue.

And if you think Sony is afraid of it and that they do have more data than us and is better at analyzing the market (they have won 3 of 4 gens after all) then you shouldn't be asking if I think it would hurt. Sony wouldn't do it for the lols, so I believe they are doing the best decision for their business.

If the person have a PS4 and use the service to download those games then Sony would be losing sales of the games. And for the reason they put some games, may be similar to why HZD will launch on PC to test and validate their hypothesis, see how much it would impact sales of those games and also how it affects the subscription.

Just look at PS+ they had made a service that offered a lot of value for the yearly sub, but had like 2M subs when multiplayer wasn't there but great games were given away. When they changed to MP locked but not many good games gave away they are now about 40M subs. Seems like they validate that the best way to nick and dime users were locking MP instead of offering better games. They may be doing this type of test on PSNow.

Sure it wouldn't nose dive. Still why would Sony decide for a setup that would give less profit? But yes even though I have no access to PSNow in Brazil and I prefer to own, yes it would be good for the service and should get more subs (we don't have numbers to estimate the impact in profit, but Sony seems to consider it would be negative) if they had more first party content.

My ideal is Sony would copy Gamepass, but that's unlikely nor what this thread is about. I clarified the service should at least have most 1st party content that's several years old. I feel Uncharted 4 and Infamous:SS are reasonable requests, and so should God of War in the near future.

If not giving PS Now fairly recent content was best, it shouldn't have Horizon:ZD or Uncharted:LL. You see Sony as an infallible company due to their success, I don't.

Horizon is coming to PC now because the console version's sales have mostly dried up and perhaps they want to hype the sequel. Sony has already allowed a bunch of games on PC and they have data from that. This is just a rare exception where it will be a true 1st party game coming to PC.

We all knew (or should have known) that PS+ was a stepping stone to copying Xbox Live. Sony knew there was money to be made charging for MP because MS proved it. Although, I do credit Sony for making free games part of the service.

Adding more 1st party content to PS Now could actually increase revenue. We have to assume games like Horizon and Uncharted:LL came to PS Now to boost subscriptions.

Again, I just pointed out Gravity Rush 2 is on PS Now, but exclusive to PS4 users. That means I can't access it on the PC. Frankly, that's bullshit. But maybe Sony should do more of that if they're truly concerned what PC users can access. Let PS4 users have access to more exclusives and tell PC users to suck a dick.

Nope not that I see Sony as infallible, what I see is that on the lack of better information then our best is what we have. So if Sony analysis is that the current action is the best approach for them and we don't have data that contradicts that I will consider that what Sony is doing is probably the best option for them. Mainly because companies act to maximize profit so all their actions shall be assumed with that intention.

The data that Sony have for games released on PC is fairly small and obsolete, same as if they were to base the sales potential for 1st party based for what they had until PS3, that changed a lot.

No one had data of how much having free games would entice customers to sub to a service, be it standalone or as part of another. That experiment shown that gamers didn't had much value for it. PSNow is similar stuff, less than 2M for the streaming of how you put 450 PS4 games and 350 PS3 games for 60 a year, that isn't bad. Gamepass with day one and major promotions didn't really cross 10M permanent users.

Sure more 1st party could increase revenue, but I was pointing profits (which could also improve), but it could also decrease revenue and profit from the PS4 and SW sales themselves and that could be for a bigger portion than the gains. We don't have numbers for that, so again I assume Sony decided to what make more money to them.

Yes you pointed to GR2 and I doubt Sony ever clarified why and may even have some licensing issue, but yes I don't think makes sense to restrict it.