The rumor is finally true - PS+ and PSNow merger

[ConservagameR]

Machiavellian said:

ConservagameR said:

That's because I never said Game Pass needs Sony validation. I said XB hoped for validation through a potential Game Pass competitor from Sony.

So saying what you think, or what you are, means everything, yet nothing, if you don't follow through and deviate instead?

Netflix is a service because that's what a service is. If Netflix started selling their own hardware to be able to make use of their service, that would no longer make them a dedicated service company. Now if those devices were free with a sub, then they would still be considered a service only company.

This means MS (with XB), as well as Sony (with PS), are both partially service companies. As I already put it, hybrids, though one is more of a true hybrid than the other at this point, or one is closer to becoming a full service you could say.

Companies do prefer employees with useful idea's that can execute. If their idea's aren't useful, then they just want a yes man who will do what they're told. Phil at the very least can execute. How many useful new idea's were his, that's hard to say.

I can't really argue much with that. MS would have to come up with some other big game plan prior if they were going to axe XB. For as long as XB has been around now, it looks as though MS thinks it's worth keeping no matter what.

At BOLDED:  You are going to have to help me understand the distinction of this statement.  What does that even mean.  Who is XB, are you saying fans of the Xbox or the Xbox division.  If its the fans  then I still have a hard time understanding this reasoning.  There is no fans I know of who is purchasing a GP sub because of Sony validating some way MS direction.  If its the Xbox division, it also does not work because GP is global to MS gaming not just the Xbox division.

If Netflix sold a dongle for their service, they would still be a service company.  Their primary focus of the company is their service and any hardware made towards delivery of that service would be just an extension of their business.

But MS is not a partial service company.  Their whole direction is towards putting their products in a service.  Actually when Nat took over that was the direction he took the company.  

Doesn't matter how many useful ideals are Phil, it only matters if he can execute them.  This is why you hire talented people because you do not have to have all the good ideals, you just need to recognize them and execute them.  This is why some managers succeed more than others.  Hell GP might not eve have been his original ideal, but it still does not matter.  If he as the manager took it, executed it and got the CEO fully behind it then its his success.

-Based on the initial point made earlier, of Spencer or Bond mentioning it directly just prior to Plus. I was referring to them in that point made.

-Ok fine then. Let's do it your way.

Sony is an electronics hardware company then. Not a gaming company. Not an entertainment company. Not a financial company. etc. Everything else other than the electronic hardware business is just an extension of that. So MS and Sony are in no competition because they're in completely different industries then.

Don't take into account any changes in Sony over the past 50 years, because there certainly hasn't been any renewed focus in that company whatsoever, but make sure to take mostly only that into account when it comes to MS. Okee dokee?

-Phil I believe, recently said XB games don't only have to be on services like Game Pass, that separate digital or physical is also necessary. Remember, it's about reaching everyone, everywhere, no matter how or where you want to play. Right?

-Execution is certainly important, yes, but it wouldn't be only his success. It would definitely be part of it, but he wouldn't get and shouldn't try and take full credit. Not that he has or would as far as I've seen. A good manager and leader shares or gives credit where it's due.