By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think you clarified Sony's strategy. The competitors aren't putting up any notable Sony 1st party games of this gen (not even old stuff), therefore Sony shouldn't either... even on their own service. Its an interesting strategy, I can't think of any other company doing that. I mean Disney+ has tons of Disney content, even new stuff. Sony though, "let them have Knack."

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.
sales2099 said:

You said it not me. PS Now is a far older service and yet GP (2 years btw) has a more robust service to its gamers. The only real benefit PSNow offers is streaming. But you know that wasn’t what I was referring to. It’s the inclusion of all first party content instead of giving old scraps and making it available day 1. Like I said before, Xbox’s loss this gen is my gain and compared to GP, except in streaming, the competition does look like a afterthought. It would be wrong if you to assume all games going forward are somehow cheaping out because they are made for the service. Sure smaller games like Bleeding Edge were made for it, but I have seen no evidence of Forza Horizon 4 or Gears 5 being less then full content games. Yet they were both added day 1. You better then that and it’s not like we can’t buy physical anymore, it’s a option and it’s not like every XB user has GP.

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.

You leave the details to MSs team, that isn’t the problem of us. Phil says it’s sustainable and I find it hard to believe they would plan this out years in advance knowing just how little money they would be making.

Did you know game sales increase for GP titles over time? That’s because GP users recommend titles to friends without the service. Word of mouth is a powerful thing. Maybe devs pay MS to stay on the service for the exposure, we honestly don’t know their full revenue stream beyond just paying subscribers. And we know at least half of MS studios are A-AA and buying outright is still a majority option for gamers.

Ever considered the revenue coming in from PC gamers? Both outright buys and PC GamePass? MS doesn’t lock their games behind a console anymore. 

Overall I think you agree that Sony could be a little less stingy with their 1st party on a service emphasizing PlayStation experiences. And GP being an objectively better service just drives the point home all the more. But you shouldn’t assume quality will go down because all games will be made for the service, that’s a FUD narrative and I think while I’m not above it you are (compliment).

Last edited by sales2099 - on 06 April 2020

Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.