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

[DonFerrari]

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

Well your title "PSNow could be awesome service if it wasn't for Sony. And your biggest complain is the lack of 1st party Sony games. Unless I became iliterate over the past day, this if means that if some other company owned PS Now it would be awesome and also would solve the problem you have with lack of 1st party games. Except it wouldn't, any other company owning the service and there would be 0 Sony games on it.

The games you listed were made before GP was even a thing, give it a full gen focused on GP and make the math. PS+ that is something much cheaper than GP, having 40M subs at 50USD year, and even with royalties, profit from exclusives and profit from HW the department doesn't make over 300M per year in profit. So I wouldn't expect much over 100M profit from this, GP have less subs and much higher cost so how many AAA games do you think it could sustain (don't forget MS have to pay a good buck for the other companies there). Show us the viability of GP sustaining 15 studios making AAA games.

Don is trying to argue semantics. I am arguing Sony could do better than Knack.

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you're saying, but I don't think the goal of Gamepass is to sustain all gaming software coming from MS.

More importantly, this isn't a console war debate. I think PS Now is cool for what it is, but PS Now sucking at 1st party PS4 games is just a Sony issue.

I already agreed before that Sony could put better games than Knack on the service. Still your premise is that it could be better if it weren't for Sony.

You probably are. The goal of Gamepass is to make profit. And having it with low price, and filled with AAA games every 3 months plus several 3rd parties AAA is something that is extremely costly and thus why some of us think this business model can make quality and scope drop.