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.
1. Software quality isn't determined by sales or budget. There are examples of critically acclaimed games that don't have a massive budget or sales. Can you honestly say every game with a AAA budget is quality? Absolutely not. We saw The Order: 1886.
2. AAA games tend to require years of development, refer to Sony's recent delays. So B-A-AA and 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.
3. It doesn't matter if other companies are having better software sales, I mean Nintendo dominates both Sony and MS with seemingly lower budget games. What actually matters, are games making enough money to justify their budgets?
Halo 5 apparently sold 5 million in months. Maybe that's less than previous, but I think that still justifies big budget Halo games. Halo Infinite will probably sell better between X1, Series X and PC combined.
Gran Turismo sales have declined significantly. Should quality go down? No, assuming sales are strong enough to justify that AAA budget. Maybe overall profits go down, but quality can stay high.
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.
Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 06 April 2020