Don is trying to argue semantics. I am arguing Sony could do better than Knack.

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you're saying, but I don't think the goal of Gamepass is to sustain all gaming software coming from MS.

More importantly, this isn't a console war debate. I think PS Now is cool for what it is, but PS Now sucking at 1st party PS4 games is just a Sony issue.

I already agreed before that Sony could put better games than Knack on the service. Still your premise is that it could be better if it weren't for Sony.

You probably are. The goal of Gamepass is to make profit. And having it with low price, and filled with AAA games every 3 months plus several 3rd parties AAA is something that is extremely costly and thus why some of us think this business model can make quality and scope drop.

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).

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.

You pretend your words don't imply anything, but you're actually making claims.

1. You're suggesting quality is gonna go down because declining software sales and Gamepass. But you don't really know if game budgets have been impacted, gone up or gone down. Its all pointless speculating, but you act as if your speculation is valid.

I`m claiming it CAN nor that it WILL. If you want to pretend that loss in revenue don`t impact available budget then that is on you.

2. MS isn't sustaining their AAA games with Gamepass alone. Therefore that whole argument you're making is pointless. Its also possible many users who don't want to buy full price games are opting for Gamepass thus increasing revenue.

Yes I know they aren`t sustaining with GP. And again without numbers, that MS doesn`t give, we don`t know if they are getting more profits or less, nor the long term effect.

3. If sales or profits go down significantly or stay modest, IPs might just disappear. That generally just happens. You're suggesting Gamepass will cause this happen which hasn't been the case thus far, several years in.

Again, I`m suggesting it CAN not that it WILL. Several years in? There haven`t been a single game that started development after GP was launched, much less a long time passed. For reference PS+ had much better games on PS3 than on PS4, and the biggest reason and change was they looking biggest reason for PS+ was the MP not the games. So let`s wait to see the drivers of GP and MS strategy in the gen before you say there is no way it could happen.

4. I am not saying Gamepass improved the quality of MS software, I am saying MS is improving the quality of their software while running Gamepass. Hence, quality hasn't been impacted by Gamepass. No evidence Gears 5 and Forza Horizon 4 were negatively impacted by Gamepass. Halo:MCC got a massive overhaul and launched Gamepass. Hence, quality has gone up and output is going to increase.

If Halo Infinite is a notable release, I guess that would be more evidence MS is improving quality of their software.

Yes quality have gone so much better that MS was praised all this time for their 1st party efforts right?

But to get back on topic. Is it time for Knack 2 to save PS Now?

I like Knack 2, but have no idea what you want from this point, and does PSNow needs saving? We already discussed that PSNow purpose and strategy isn`t what you want it to be.