Its not that Sony make more exclusives or that they cost a certain amount of money.  The real issue is that Sony just do not have the infrastructure or advantage MS has not mention the 100% commitment to a service type of infrastructure like MS.  PS Now is more like an addition to Sony then a major piece.  If they wanted to go scale the same way as MS it would cost them huge in servers, infrastructure and cost.  Also MS has committed to putting their first party games on PC as well.  People criticize MS for this move but the reason is that MS is pushing gamepass on both PC and xbox hardware.  MS needs the PC subs even more than they need the xbox subs and doing both helps keep gamers on PC using MS software and staying in their eco system.  Basically what MS want is what Netflix has.  You cannot purchase a device that doesn't have a Netflix app or a way to stream Netflix to thus giving them a huge advantage in gaining and keeping subs.  MS basically want to do the same thing.

I believe Sony has reaslize this, which is why they are not trying to get their first party games on PC but they are still not commited to PSNow which means if MS reach their goal, it would be interesting if Sony changes tune to follow suite.  Its a much bigger risk for Sony to move from the safe and traditional methods of the console war but for MS, I believe they feel they have bigger monsters to slay.

Have I said rising the price would help them? Nope I didn`t, even more because I already said multiple times that usually I buy most games several months or years after release when they hit 10-15USD. So launching for 70 will only make even less games worth of day one for me. I was just explaining that saying games shouldn`t increase price because they are selling more isn`t factually true.

And your observation about the subs is also off. You are comparing developing a single app or software and having it as sub instead of single purchase versus hundred of games. It is quite obvious that Office 365 or Photoshop aren`t really going to be sub for a month, they are ongoing for several years. That way customers end up paying more than if they bought it fully in one payment, reason why for myself I buy instead of sub. Now with games if you can sign one or twice a year and play all the games you have interest then suspend you effectively will pay a lot less. That is the reason it was said that GP work better with Multiplayer, GAAS and episodic games instead of single player story heavy games, and why myself and quite some other people are against the model.

Do you believe MS pays every developer for every game on gamepass a price upfront as if the game was brand new just released to the store.  That would be like Netflix, HBO and other content providers paying 20 bucks for each user for a movie that streams on their service.  What I am comparing is development time compared to MS own created content.  This is why MS can and does put their first party games on the service day one.  As for the other content that is on Gamepass, you know they have already had their time in the limelight because they do not come to the service day one.  Meaning MS isn't paying a price for those games to appear on the service as if it was brand new or even close. 

The concept is the same, the service pays for itself no matter the type of content.  The more diverse the content the more subs you get and that will also include every type of game not the ones you feel works the best.  All games work the best because they appeal to multiple different gamers.  It appears to me you are looking at the business model through your own purchase habit but you are just one gamer.  From what I have seen from just games in general to Phone games, PC and console there is a huge section of gamers that do not share your view, this is the appeal of GP.  What matters for MS is subs and they need them at a certain scale where the service pays for itself and development of pretty much any game they want to deliver.  This doesn't mean MS will stop selling at retail, why would they, they still get paid no matter what.  They can still get your money and get their constant sub money as well.  

Not sure where you got that I think MS pay full price for devs by the number of users on the base. I do know how Sony do with PS+ and it is more likely similar to how it is done on GP and PSNow. The dev and Sony have an idea of the remaining sales potential of that title that have been out for couple of years and also the potential new sales it could get from being show on PS+ "marketing". From that they remove potential sales lost by offering it for free on that platform. And them negotiate the money exchange to cover that loss and give the dev a little extra cash.

And will you say that a series with 10 seasons and 24 episodes per season won't have more staying power for sub than a single movie of 2h? It is impossible to deny that the model of GP (even more for day one launches) is made to be sustained on GAAS, episodic and Multiplayer games not on single player games that you finish in a week. Because let`s say Sony done the same as MS, even if you have 3 masterpieces on the service per year someone that is just wanting to get the juicy out of it will have the signature for a month or two during the year and be able to play those 3 games for 20 USD instead of 180USD. If you think that doesn`t impact revenue I don`t know what to tell you.

I believe we need to first get some terms correct here.  Gamepass is not a GAAS. You seem to be trapped in this thinking and that is probably why you keep bringing it up and using it as the business model.  Gamepass is a subscription service for games which is the same as PSNow.  The difference is that MS is including MS console and PC games to the service, including cloud play on mobil and probably going to do other devices as well.  The difference between the 2 service is the breath that MS is looking to take gamepass and not lock it to just being a Xbox service.  

Now that we got that part out of the way since I do believe you already know it.  Lets remove the whole GAAS part out since this is not the business model being used for the service.  This is why when you make statements that it will need to use GAAS business model it doesn't make sense and is incorrect.  Yes, someone could pontentially just get the service for a month and play one or 2 games they want then end their sub.  People could do the same thing with Netflix and other subs that do the same thing, the question is why do they continue their sub.  Because if you continue to bring out content, they will continue their sub.  Once you get the sub and quit you only get to do that once.  The next time you do not get the free option as you probably should know.  

You do not understand the business model nor does it seems you comprehend human nature.  If what you state was true, then Netflix, Hulu and all the other subs would have gone out of business a long time ago.

No need to clarify GP is no GAAS, I know what it is and I know what GAAS is. What I said and perhaps you sidewalked it is that GAAS model is the type of game that works better on subscription platform, just as series work better than movies for streaming services. And no it isn`t the same as PSNow. PSNow could be said to be the equivalent of what XCloud+GP became (still there were games that you could play by having the sub and others you need to pay specifically for that game). Main difference is that GP have day one for all MS games while PSNow only include some Sony games and long after release, and it is also available on PC in case you don`t know. Not sure if it changed or not, but If you used PSNow on PS4 to play PS4 games you could opt to play offline.

Since you want to keep the intention that "I don`t understand BM, human, etc" let`s just stop this conversation before it gets aggravated. But keep also pretending MS games are focussed on MP while Sony is focussed on SP, or which had much more sales to lose going for a day one subs model. Bye.

Nothing strange about it. Even right now Sea of Thieves is the third best selling game on Steam and the MCC did always get a big push with every new game released on it. 

Even Grounded which was only a beta release was in the top three for a few weeks...with a full release even that will sell some million. 

And yes, the games released on Gamepass for PC the same day as on Steam or even before a Steam release.

No, I did not sidewalk that GAAS works as a better model, I just do not believe it is the model that works better for a game delivery sub service.  The 2 models actually do not have a lot in common.  GAAS is one game with multiple updates with paid content that extend the game and produces revenue.  Gamepass and PSNow are content delivery service for a Sub for multiple games whether big or small.  Free to play model like GAAS games are not what either Gamepass or PSNow do they are totally different business models.   

As to Gamepass and PSNow difference is MS not keeping it confined to just MS games.  PSNow is confined to just games that play on the PS and Sony isn't really trying to move it beyond that boundary.  MS is leveraging the PC and their console titles.  Also MS has extended GP to android and you can bet they will also have that app working natively with TVs and other devices just like you see with Netflix.  The difference between Sony and MS is that MS is betting hard with GP while Sony is fine with PSNow being restricted to just PC and PS system.

Gamepass needs all types of different content whether its MP or SP, GAAS, AA, AAA you name it.  The breath of the service is what will gain them subs and keep it.  The reason I say you do not understand the business model is that you keep bringing up GAAS as if its relevant but the business model is not the same. 

Last but not least, I have no clue why you believe I stated that MS games are focused on MP and Sony on SP.  I never made that assertion.  I stated that MS needs content period and that includes all types of games.  If anything the studios they purchased all make SP type of games including the new purchase of Bethesda. MS isn't losing sales by bringing those games day one to GP or I should say not in the long run.  Yes, GP doesn't have the enough subs yet but that is the whole point of what they are doing.

Microsoft is sort of late to the party. PS Now was once available on PS3, PS Vita, Smartphones, and Smart TVs. The audience response was not there so they pulled back and focused on PS4 and PC, (obviously PS5 next). Maybe Microsoft will have more success on those other platforms with Gamepass than Sony did with PS Now. We will see.

I personally believe Sony was not aggressive enough and tried to keep the walled garden a little to high.  It seems MS plans are different which can afford them greater success but it definitely does still pose a lot of risk.  Having deep pockets helps alot as well and with the Bethesda move, it appears all of MS is behind their initiative which gives the games division a huge source of income to make very aggressive moves and take big risk.  I believe that MS isn't late to the party but instead is probably pushing at the right time.  Sony had the right ideal but they could not be as aggressive as MS or have the deep pockets to commit in the same way.  Either way, we will see how this all sort out.  I believe the business model is definitely viable but it will take way more than 15 million subs.  The good thing for MS is that they are generating a lot of buzz with their latest purchase and from another thread they gained 5 million subs since April.  Thats a decent bump without the preorders for the new console.