By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - How Sony will respond Game Pass?

DPsx7 said:
JWeinCom said:

So, it's not enough that it offers variety? Does Microsoft have to come to your house and force you to play a variety of games? What point are you even trying to make?

And no, it's not fine. This is something we've discussed among the mods. So, that's going to be looked at negatively going forwards. So, just use a normal S. It's in a far more convenient location anyway.

It doesn't and my point was made before. I think you're just trying to be a problem right now. Already stated it's not for most people but if anyone wants to try it then what do I care. I have like 300 PS4 games to keep me busy and it cost less than the rental pass. Their experiment changes nothing for me.

It's fine trust me. No reason to pull an attitude.

It's not fine. Trust me. I'm a mod on this forum. We've listened to a lot of feedback and have made it a rule not to use M$ in place of MS. Using it going forward is a problem and you will be moderated for it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt right now as you're a new user and politely informing you to stop with it. This isn't an attitude. It's a rule that we've come to agreement to as a mod team based on community feedback. It's similar to other such rules we have here such as back-seat moderating, calling another user a troll (that's what the report button is for) or name calling like Xbot, Pony, Nintendrone. So again, please refrain from using M$ going forward. If you have any questions about this, you can PM me or bring it up in the mod thread. Anything further here will be considered derailing.

And no, I'm not just trying to be a problem. I honestly have no clue why you would assume that someone playing games on a service that offers a wide variety of games would not play a wide variety of games. Particularly when the user in question listed the games he's played which seems in my estimation to be pretty varied. And when you could try out new games with no added cost, this seems like it would encourage people to try out games and genres that they normally would not have, if they had to pay between 20 and 60 dollars for the opportunity. 



Around the Network
DroidKnight said:
Two different companies = different strategies. I don't think there is anything that needs to be countered. Sony is doing great and why throw a wrench into it? If it's not broke don't fix it.

Indeed. I'm glad AAA single player experiences are still made. Not everything has to be multiplayer to remain profitable yet with gaas and game pass it is turning in that direction. Still no GTA 6, Grand Theft auto skipping an entire console generation because GTA online is so profitable...

In the end stuff will go back to normal. Microsoft experimented with AoE online and Microsoft Flight, didn't work. And now we have a proper Age of Empires 4 coming and amazing new Flight Simulator in a few weeks. Perhaps Sim City will go back to what made it great as well.

At some point people will get tired of all the early access releases, unfinished games evolving over time or not. It's always a gamble, follow the mainstream hype if you want to keep playing since those early access games that miss the hype train usually fall off the radar and never get finished. Same with episodic content.



SvennoJ said:
DroidKnight said:
Two different companies = different strategies. I don't think there is anything that needs to be countered. Sony is doing great and why throw a wrench into it? If it's not broke don't fix it.

Indeed. I'm glad AAA single player experiences are still made. Not everything has to be multiplayer to remain profitable yet with gaas and game pass it is turning in that direction. Still no GTA 6, Grand Theft auto skipping an entire console generation because GTA online is so profitable...

In the end stuff will go back to normal. Microsoft experimented with AoE online and Microsoft Flight, didn't work. And now we have a proper Age of Empires 4 coming and amazing new Flight Simulator in a few weeks. Perhaps Sim City will go back to what made it great as well.

At some point people will get tired of all the early access releases, unfinished games evolving over time or not. It's always a gamble, follow the mainstream hype if you want to keep playing since those early access games that miss the hype train usually fall off the radar and never get finished. Same with episodic content.

Yeah same, I would probably just quit console gaming if it wasn't for good quality AAA exclusives.

PC's do just about everything better with no pay-walled garden outside of games that are GaaS. These types of games I would rather not become popularized on Playstation as it lead to another another service that sets the standard for the generations to come.

Just like we've all been acclimatized to Live/PS Plus, DLC's and micro transactions. You'd have to be a little naive to think that these companies are not playing this for the long game.



sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

If you want to talk about 2020, so after SoT had 2 or 3 years to improve how does it compare to GoW that hadn't been updated? Or if you prefer to pick something from this year. How does it compare to TLOU2?

Just listing the advantage of a multiplayer title vs a single player title. Time is on ones side more then the other (If done right). At the moment LOU2 is being played more. But in a year from now? SoT can easily remain relevant where as the other needs a next gen re release with its delayed MP component to stay relevant. 

Still those multiplayer games with all these advantages are still worse evaluated and sold than the single player games Sony have been putting, so doesn't seem like these advantages even with several years of improvements made much of a difference. And I prefer to play a game complete and be done with it instead of playing the same game for a long time even more if it isn't as good as that other one.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DPsx7 said:
DroidKnight said:

Just click inside the parenthesis and it will get you there.

Oh crap, seriously? Only been here a week or two and didn't know that, thanks. It appears to just be on the front page though. Once in the forum listing I don't see it.

You can also go on the budy list, it will show green for all read, orange for new posts, blue for new posts that are answers to a post you made.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:

Just listing the advantage of a multiplayer title vs a single player title. Time is on ones side more then the other (If done right). At the moment LOU2 is being played more. But in a year from now? SoT can easily remain relevant where as the other needs a next gen re release with its delayed MP component to stay relevant. 

So games are only relevant if they are being played by a bunch of people today? Does that apply to movies and books as well? Should I never talk about Return of the Jedi when discussing films? How about Lord of the Flies with books? Exactly where is the cutoff line between relevancy and irrelevancy? Does a game suddenly go from relevant to irrelevant once it drops from 100,000 players to 99,999 players?

The whole idea that games are only relevant so long as they are being played came right from some GaaS game's marketing department.

Well being socially relevant is a given. I mean literally relevant, millions aren’t watching Return of the Jedi in 2020. Hope that makes sense because that’s what I meant. People actually playing the game in large numbers. I’m sure LOU2 will be ingrained in gaming history so that wasn’t what I meant. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

Just listing the advantage of a multiplayer title vs a single player title. Time is on ones side more then the other (If done right). At the moment LOU2 is being played more. But in a year from now? SoT can easily remain relevant where as the other needs a next gen re release with its delayed MP component to stay relevant. 

Still those multiplayer games with all these advantages are still worse evaluated and sold than the single player games Sony have been putting, so doesn't seem like these advantages even with several years of improvements made much of a difference. And I prefer to play a game complete and be done with it instead of playing the same game for a long time even more if it isn't as good as that other one.

It is a double edge sword. Polished single player game gets critical acclaim and practically guaranteed audience. Negative is little long term incentive to return. GaaS gets critically panned and it’s really anybody’s guess if it makes it past the first 6 months. But if it claws itself out a community, the long term rewards are great. 

Otherwise I get it, you do you. It’s different preferences we talking about. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

So games are only relevant if they are being played by a bunch of people today? Does that apply to movies and books as well? Should I never talk about Return of the Jedi when discussing films? How about Lord of the Flies with books? Exactly where is the cutoff line between relevancy and irrelevancy? Does a game suddenly go from relevant to irrelevant once it drops from 100,000 players to 99,999 players?

The whole idea that games are only relevant so long as they are being played came right from some GaaS game's marketing department.

Well being socially relevant is a given. I mean literally relevant, millions aren’t watching Return of the Jedi in 2020. Hope that makes sense because that’s what I meant. People actually playing the game in large numbers. I’m sure LOU2 will be ingrained in gaming history so that wasn’t what I meant. 

Why does a game have to be literally relevant though? What benefits does being literally relevant offer to a game?



Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:

Well being socially relevant is a given. I mean literally relevant, millions aren’t watching Return of the Jedi in 2020. Hope that makes sense because that’s what I meant. People actually playing the game in large numbers. I’m sure LOU2 will be ingrained in gaming history so that wasn’t what I meant. 

Why does a game have to be literally relevant though? What benefits does being literally relevant offer to a game?

Benefits include continued updates and content. Pretty nice for the community. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
d21lewis said:

I played Gears 5 from beginning to end BEFORE day one on Game Pass. Had one if the most enjoyable experiences of 2019 and didn't spend a penny on microtransactions (because I don't play multiplayer outside of co-op).

Gears is primarily a multiplayer experience, so most people aren't going to be able to say the same thing as you.

I have always played the campaign mode in Gears games and barley ever touched the online parts.