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

[Mr Puggsly]

DialgaMarine said:
Their first party titles are successful, and the library is pretty strong as is. As an avid PS user, I’m okay with having to buy new games, simply because that is what will guarantee the quality holds up in future titles. Sounds corporate slave-ish, but it’s the truth. Developers will not be as enticed to put forth effort if they know the game will just be cast into a giant clusterfuck where their product is mostly ignored unless it’s a huge name. Just how this shot goes.

Personally, I enjoy PS Now BECAUSE it’s mostly older games. It gives me a chance to play games from the past that I wasn’t able to enjoy before, while I wait for new AAA releases. I think it’s a great service, and Sony is doing a great job handling it.

Again, I am not suggesting PS Now needs to be Gamepass. I don't get the impression you read the OP.

Also, you ignore games that launch on subscription services can get more attention/players. MS tends to announce user numbers because of that very fact. So your theory games get ignored in subscription services is not reality. There are also indie games that get more attention from subscription services, not just AAA releases.

Content on Gamepass needs to be notable to keep people on the service. Content isn't just produced for Gamepass either. The content is sold outside of Gamepass and notable content is needed to hype the console.

The same applies to Netflix, HBO Go and other subscription services like that. They need to produce notable content to keep people. They don't thrive from a quantity of content, it needs to be good or atleast have an audience.

For $60 a year, I think PS Now is a good service for older games. In fact, I am saying it needs more old 1st party games from PS4.

Essentially everything you said is irrelevant because you seemingly didn't read my OP. Also, your assumptions seem inaccurate thus far.