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

[DonFerrari]

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

I didn't dispute they can or will make money on GP. That doesn't mean the quality of the content will increase. And with MS giving exactly 0 number on sales we can't even see how much the day one titles are selling overall.

Will keep in mind half of the studios being A-AA when you or some other MS fan try to do the "we now have as many studios so we will fight on the 1st party SW quantity and quality" and stuff like that =p. And yes GP with day one would be more sustainable with more A-AA titles than AAA.

Even with the PC purchases the MS games are selling lower than they did on X360 and much lower than what Sony titles are selling, and PS games are locked on PS, also not to forget that historically the revenue made on PC is much lower than on consoles. Even juggernauts like GTA gives preference to console.

Yes sure Sony could do better I have acknowledge it, and also gave the reasons why they don't currently (and sure it could change). It isn't a certainty on quality will go lower, it is a concern because of sustainability of the business model. Myself I would prefer it increases quality and quantity and sure people paying less, receiving more and being positive. Still that isn't what I have seem with Netflix and worry that can happen with GP, PSNow, XCloud, etc.

See, this is the problem with PS Now. Its so underwhelming that people can't stay on topic.

And this is you not want being war and staying on topic right? 

1. Software quality isn't determined by sales. I mean x sales doesn't equal x quality. More importantly, IPs get bigger budgets if they have big sales potential or if a risk is being taken.

Where have I said that sales determine quality? I was replying to sales saying that the GP increased the sales of MS titles, to which I replied we don`t have MS sales number to attest anything.

2. AAA games tend to require years of development, refer to Sony's delays. So B-A-AA and maybe indie-ish titles also exist to fill holes and offer variety in other genres. Not every project needs to be AAA. No big publisher is just in the AAA business, Sony included.

Have I said otherwise? Still most of Sony studios are AAA, and I haven`t complained about B-A-AA titles being made, have I? What I said is that you wouldn`t be able to sustain AAA studios with GP and that there is a possibility of it making the scope and quality drop exactly because quantity is more needed than quality for a subscription model with low entry price (how many MS fans have bragged about being able to get the best titles from MS, day one for 1-10 bucks? Will we pretend this isn`t money lost?) so I worry that this type of model could make a loss for the quality of the games.

3. It doesn't matter if other companies are having better software sales, I mean Nintendo dominates both Sony and MS. What actually matters, are games making enough money to justify their budgets?

Gran Turismo sales have declined significantly. Should quality go down? No, assuming sales are strong enough to justify that AAA budget.

Have I said otherwise? If sales or more precisely profit go down products may need to become cheaper or sell more, so it can reach a point where it would exactly go as I said.

4. Just wait and see what happens with MS's software quality. Thus far its already been years of improving quality but you remain skeptical.

If you can't stay on topic, at least stop making comments that ignore all logic.

Evidence of this improved quality? Because all we have is that this gen it was much worse than previous, and the recent titles aren`t any show of it being better than at the start of the gen.

Sure MS bought more studios and we need to see what they will come to, but to pretend GP have made improvements to the quality of the MS development have no evidence.