By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 31 March 2022
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

GP is not the future for Sony, its the future for MS because MS is a service oriented company.  MS has put most of their products behind services and they have spent billions building out their infrastructure.  This is not an area that Sony excel in and really not their business model.  Sony does not really need to go down the route MS is going but if they are going to compete as a service then the 2 services will always be measured against each other.  If you have a PS console then there is benefit but as I stated, Sony services are extension of the PS eco system, MS is looking to make GP a stand alone service for games that can be played on any device, not tied to their console.

I disagree with your last paragraph.  Its made on a assumption that people believe titles they would not have spent money on is low tier or garbage but instead people just do not like to risk their money.  What happens is that when you do play these games and then they surprise you then as a consumer you are willing to purchase the next game from that developer.  GP and other services take the risk out of purchases and introduce consumers to experiment more and go outside of their comfort zone.

Well the Premium tier will allow you to stream on PC, so it isn`t totally locked to a console, still yes it isn`t anywhere similar to GP that can also be played on phones and TVs (from memory in the past PSNow or Gaikai could be played on smartphone, so perhaps in the future when their network is better spread and installed they could increase the coverage of devices).

If you are confident the product is good than the fear of bad investment isn`t that considerable =p ... the thing is we do know that on average consumers buy 12 games per system at most recent gens, so most people wouldn`t buy the majority of GP games anyway. But I was talking about the way they themselves phrase it is similar to saying they didn`t expect the game to be good but played just because it was free.

Its not a matter of confident of a bad investment, its going outside of your comfort zone.  You are more willing to try something that does automatically click your "I am buying this no matter what" compared to, I might buy this when its this price to, Not sure if I even like this type of game.  Services give you the ability to explore more then the safe bet and allow you to venture into other types of games you would normally not play if you had to pony up money first.  The reason why most consumers only by a limited amount of games is not because they only want to play a limited amount, its because they usually only going to purchase the safe bet that geared toward what they know.  It does not matter if most people would not purchase the majority of games on a service as what we have heard from many developers, after putting their games on GP, they get a bigger engagement of customers.  Getting more customers to engage and try your game especially if its a new product is worth more than hoping you happen to hit the mainstream itch.  I know just for myself, I have played way more games since getting GP then I have in the past because there is no risk out side of time to try some games that I usually would not purchase but I have found that are excellent.  This is nothing new, its what happens with any service that allows you to consume content for a cost.