The rumor is finally true - PS+ and PSNow merger

[ConservagameR]

Machiavellian said:

ConservagameR said:

You partially answered your own question. MS would care, because what if PS follows suit and directly competes? That hinders them in terms of competitive lost sales, but helps in terms of validation, which should help gain some sales. MS and XB, who've made it clear they believe the Game Pass, Netflix like, sub and service model is the future of many things, especially gaming, no doubt then assume PS would follow suit, otherwise PS would cease to exist in the future, wouldn't they?

Perhaps Game Pass was the model XB has planned to go with, far before it was announced, though it doesn't seem to fit all that well with the XB1 launch direction for that gen, so it seems coincidental that it launched during a time when XB was in dire need of a win because Sony was gaining more and more of a lead against the XB1 offering. I would personally guess that it's maybe both, but the increasing need to please gamers and get them back into the XB camp now made the Game Pass model worth it, when it likely wasn't viewed that way by MS in the past.

It doesn't matter how much you want to do with the hardware and software, putting your multi hundred million dollar AAA games on the service asap only makes sense if you have billions of pocket change to burn, or you're willing or able to take the chance and hope it works out a decade or two down the road. Netflix could do that because they were a new company and sub service is what they offer, period. XB can do it because they have an endless supply of money from MS computer software. PS cannot do it because they're too established in some ways, and same with Sony. Sony also doesn't have the money to burn because their big money maker is PS. Sony investors won't allow it unless their is no other option.

Right now both brands are going in different directions, yet the thing is, both have hinted to the fact that even though they believe they're taking the right path, that the other just may be correct, which would mean a change of course eventually to match them. Based on how Nin is doing, maybe just maybe all 3 companies can get away with doing their own thing with only slight overlaps.

What if Sony copied exactly GP, that still does not validate the service.  This is the point I am contesting.  Whether Sony copies or does not copy has nothing to do with the validation of GP.  I believe you seem to forget but there are multiple services at this moment besides GP.  There is Google, Amazon, Netflix and of course Sony.  All of them do something different each trying to gain customers based on their strengths.  GP does not need Sony or anyone in the industry to copy the service in order to justify its success or existence.  Gaining subs is the only thing that justify GP not what your competition does.  MS does not need Sony to validate their direction just like Sony does not need MS to validate theirs.  I just do not understand your logic on this point.  It seems you are saying that anything MS does is a direct result of Sony but that is not the case.  I do not know any user that is saying, "Hey, I should think about getting GP because Sony is trying to copy the service".  The only validation GP needs is customers saying, "GP has great games for this sub price, I should get it".

I also do not believe GP was born because MS was behind Sony in marketshare, Instead of thinking of GP launching during the XB1 period as a result of competition with Sony, think instead of when a certain someone was removed as head of Xbox and a new chief came into power.  That person brought to the CEO a new direction and vison for not only Xbox but for MS and games in general.  MS whole outlook on games and its importance to the company changed as MS renewed their interest in PC gaming. One of the first direction was that all first party games are going to release on the PC.  Many people stated that this would kill the Xbox because there would be no reason to purchase the system.  Phil direction for the Xbox division was to combine both PC and console together, setup a cloud service and then get that service on every device that can play games.  GP was sold as a games service not an xbox service.  The fact that the CEO bonus is tied to GP growth instead of the Xbox business unit means its a MS company service not just the Xbox division.

Putting your AAA games on your service day one makes sense if you are not trying to tie your AAA games just to one device.  MS is not a hardware company so they do not look to tie everything to their hardware but instead they are a service company and it make sense put all your products behind services because this is what the company excel at.  150 million subs is probably the goal for GP and as a service company, this is the direction MS wants to go.  I have never heard MS make any statements about whether Sony direction is the correct path.  Actually I have not heard MS really mention anything about Sony when it comes to their services.  Each one is doing what makes sense for their business.

The reason why the Nin Switch didn't end up exactly like the PS Vita, is because that would've been stupid. When someone (like Nin) see's a product (Vita) as weak or a failure, they don't copy it exactly, if at all. It's the same reason why you see so many copies of Nike's.

If the new Plus service was a copy of Game Pass, then yes, absolutely, it would help to justify Game Pass. As I said earlier, new Plus removes some validation from Game Pass. It doesn't invalidate it, it just shows that it's not necessarily completely valid at this time, or maybe not at all.

Phil was an important part of bringing XB1 to market wasn't he? He wasn't the boss with the final say, but was Phil voicing his opinion that he believed XB was on the wrong path? People also didn't know that MS would go from XB1 to XBSS and XBSX. Another XB1 this gen would've led to the console sales being a disaster. Phil has also said they don't care about hardware as it's not needed to enjoy the full XB experience anyway, so why would their hardware matter?

As for Game Pass having nothing to do with Sony, that's just a case of turning a blind eye. It's like saying XB1X had nothing to do with PS4 and Pro. For someone to say that everything Sony has ever done, like the new Plus for example, was always pre planned and never had anything to do with XB would just be complete favoritism nonsense. The new Plus is no doubt a reaction from Sony to what the market is doing as well as their competition.

Well MS said it was all about Windows as a service with Win 10, which would continue forever supposedly, and then they coincidentally changed their minds and made Win 11 right about when they would've if they weren't actually a service in the first place. As for MS not being a hardware company, they do seem to be pushing all their (new) hardware far more than they ever did prior. Not just for computing, but 2 levels of next gen consoles at launch, with one is boasted as the most powerful hardware ever.

None of the explanation of day 1 matters if nobody else can really do it because it doesn't fit their profitable gaming businesses, gaming model. Having a sugar daddy who gives you their pocket change from their other businesses monopoly to keep funding your project to outlast the competition is all that matters considering the competition can't do that. It would be like trying to explain why PS TV's were great and why XB TV's weren't. PS had Sony so they could easily make TV's, when MS didn't make TV's and barely any hardware at all for that matter, so how was XB supposed to compete?

Game Pass isn't the end all be all for gaming, just like how PS TV's weren't. They were a nice extra for some (for a time), but that's it.