Forums - Sony Discussion - PS Now could be an awesome service if it wasn't for Sony.

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:
The funny part is imagining that if PSNow wasn't owned by Sony it would have more Sony owned content. How does the Xcloud and Stadia fare on Sony games?

I think you clarified Sony's strategy. The competitors aren't putting up any notable Sony 1st party games of this gen (not even old stuff), therefore Sony shouldn't either... even on their own service. Its an interesting strategy, I can't think of any other company doing that. I mean Disney+ has tons of Disney content, even new stuff. Sony though, "let them have Knack."

Well your title "PSNow could be awesome service if it wasn't for Sony. And your biggest complain is the lack of 1st party Sony games. Unless I became iliterate over the past day, this if means that if some other company owned PS Now it would be awesome and also would solve the problem you have with lack of 1st party games. Except it wouldn't, any other company owning the service and there would be 0 Sony games on it.
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Do you care to explain how a service that is like over 5 years, perhaps 10 years if we count since Gaikai purchase would be an afterthough compare to a service that is under one year old? Also sure I preffer to pay less than pay more, but we also know that quality have a cost and if the quality of the games Sony release would decrease because they would have less budget available since they would be selling for like 10 instead of 60 I wouldn't be happy with the end result since it is better to pay more for something good than to pay cheap for shit.

You said it not me. PS Now is a far older service and yet GP (2 years btw) has a more robust service to its gamers. The only real benefit PSNow offers is streaming. But you know that wasn’t what I was referring to. It’s the inclusion of all first party content instead of giving old scraps and making it available day 1. Like I said before, Xbox’s loss this gen is my gain and compared to GP, except in streaming, the competition does look like a afterthought. It would be wrong if you to assume all games going forward are somehow cheaping out because they are made for the service. Sure smaller games like Bleeding Edge were made for it, but I have seen no evidence of Forza Horizon 4 or Gears 5 being less then full content games. Yet they were both added day 1. You better then that and it’s not like we can’t buy physical anymore, it’s a option and it’s not like every XB user has GP.

The games you listed were made before GP was even a thing, give it a full gen focused on GP and make the math. PS+ that is something much cheaper than GP, having 40M subs at 50USD year, and even with royalties, profit from exclusives and profit from HW the department doesn't make over 300M per year in profit. So I wouldn't expect much over 100M profit from this, GP have less subs and much higher cost so how many AAA games do you think it could sustain (don't forget MS have to pay a good buck for the other companies there). Show us the viability of GP sustaining 15 studios making AAA games.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think you clarified Sony's strategy. The competitors aren't putting up any notable Sony 1st party games of this gen (not even old stuff), therefore Sony shouldn't either... even on their own service. Its an interesting strategy, I can't think of any other company doing that. I mean Disney+ has tons of Disney content, even new stuff. Sony though, "let them have Knack."

Well your title "PSNow could be awesome service if it wasn't for Sony. And your biggest complain is the lack of 1st party Sony games. Unless I became iliterate over the past day, this if means that if some other company owned PS Now it would be awesome and also would solve the problem you have with lack of 1st party games. Except it wouldn't, any other company owning the service and there would be 0 Sony games on it.
sales2099 said:

You said it not me. PS Now is a far older service and yet GP (2 years btw) has a more robust service to its gamers. The only real benefit PSNow offers is streaming. But you know that wasn’t what I was referring to. It’s the inclusion of all first party content instead of giving old scraps and making it available day 1. Like I said before, Xbox’s loss this gen is my gain and compared to GP, except in streaming, the competition does look like a afterthought. It would be wrong if you to assume all games going forward are somehow cheaping out because they are made for the service. Sure smaller games like Bleeding Edge were made for it, but I have seen no evidence of Forza Horizon 4 or Gears 5 being less then full content games. Yet they were both added day 1. You better then that and it’s not like we can’t buy physical anymore, it’s a option and it’s not like every XB user has GP.

The games you listed were made before GP was even a thing, give it a full gen focused on GP and make the math. PS+ that is something much cheaper than GP, having 40M subs at 50USD year, and even with royalties, profit from exclusives and profit from HW the department doesn't make over 300M per year in profit. So I wouldn't expect much over 100M profit from this, GP have less subs and much higher cost so how many AAA games do you think it could sustain (don't forget MS have to pay a good buck for the other companies there). Show us the viability of GP sustaining 15 studios making AAA games.

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.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Well your title "PSNow could be awesome service if it wasn't for Sony. And your biggest complain is the lack of 1st party Sony games. Unless I became iliterate over the past day, this if means that if some other company owned PS Now it would be awesome and also would solve the problem you have with lack of 1st party games. Except it wouldn't, any other company owning the service and there would be 0 Sony games on it.

The games you listed were made before GP was even a thing, give it a full gen focused on GP and make the math. PS+ that is something much cheaper than GP, having 40M subs at 50USD year, and even with royalties, profit from exclusives and profit from HW the department doesn't make over 300M per year in profit. So I wouldn't expect much over 100M profit from this, GP have less subs and much higher cost so how many AAA games do you think it could sustain (don't forget MS have to pay a good buck for the other companies there). Show us the viability of GP sustaining 15 studios making AAA games.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Sony has the ability to add more 1st party games to PS Now, but they're also grossly limiting what 1st party games get added. I named a bunch of games that could be added even before the heavy hitters.

Based on your response, it seems you're saying exactly what I thought. Our perspectives on Gamepass are different. Your response suggests you see Gamepass as its own thing, I see it as an additional revenue stream.

I'll keep it short and simple. Since all Xbox games started coming to PC and Gamepass was created, software quality has actually gone up and MS has acquired many new studios. You anticipate quality will go down, but that hasn't happened. I suspect revenue has actually gone up because games are selling better with the added PC support and Gamepass actually brings in additional revenue.

I once thought MS probably spends a good chunk of the Gamepass revenue on 3rd party content. But then I used PS Now, which has significantly more 3rd party games at a lower price. Hence, I bet MS spends much less Gamepass revenue on 3rd party content than Sony does with PS Now. MS instead relies on 1st party games to push subscriptions and has had more success in regard to subscriber numbers.

Anyhow, none of that really matters. What MS does with Gamepass has nothing really to do with PS Now. I clarified multiple times I don't expect PS Now to become Gamepass.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I think you clarified Sony's strategy. The competitors aren't putting up any notable Sony 1st party games of this gen (not even old stuff), therefore Sony shouldn't either... even on their own service. Its an interesting strategy, I can't think of any other company doing that. I mean Disney+ has tons of Disney content, even new stuff. Sony though, "let them have Knack."

Well your title "PSNow could be awesome service if it wasn't for Sony. And your biggest complain is the lack of 1st party Sony games. Unless I became iliterate over the past day, this if means that if some other company owned PS Now it would be awesome and also would solve the problem you have with lack of 1st party games. Except it wouldn't, any other company owning the service and there would be 0 Sony games on it.
sales2099 said:

You said it not me. PS Now is a far older service and yet GP (2 years btw) has a more robust service to its gamers. The only real benefit PSNow offers is streaming. But you know that wasn’t what I was referring to. It’s the inclusion of all first party content instead of giving old scraps and making it available day 1. Like I said before, Xbox’s loss this gen is my gain and compared to GP, except in streaming, the competition does look like a afterthought. It would be wrong if you to assume all games going forward are somehow cheaping out because they are made for the service. Sure smaller games like Bleeding Edge were made for it, but I have seen no evidence of Forza Horizon 4 or Gears 5 being less then full content games. Yet they were both added day 1. You better then that and it’s not like we can’t buy physical anymore, it’s a option and it’s not like every XB user has GP.

The games you listed were made before GP was even a thing, give it a full gen focused on GP and make the math. PS+ that is something much cheaper than GP, having 40M subs at 50USD year, and even with royalties, profit from exclusives and profit from HW the department doesn't make over 300M per year in profit. So I wouldn't expect much over 100M profit from this, GP have less subs and much higher cost so how many AAA games do you think it could sustain (don't forget MS have to pay a good buck for the other companies there). Show us the viability of GP sustaining 15 studios making AAA games.

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).

Last edited by sales2099 - on 06 April 2020

 

 

Around the Network
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Well your title "PSNow could be awesome service if it wasn't for Sony. And your biggest complain is the lack of 1st party Sony games. Unless I became iliterate over the past day, this if means that if some other company owned PS Now it would be awesome and also would solve the problem you have with lack of 1st party games. Except it wouldn't, any other company owning the service and there would be 0 Sony games on it.

The games you listed were made before GP was even a thing, give it a full gen focused on GP and make the math. PS+ that is something much cheaper than GP, having 40M subs at 50USD year, and even with royalties, profit from exclusives and profit from HW the department doesn't make over 300M per year in profit. So I wouldn't expect much over 100M profit from this, GP have less subs and much higher cost so how many AAA games do you think it could sustain (don't forget MS have to pay a good buck for the other companies there). Show us the viability of GP sustaining 15 studios making AAA games.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

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

Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994