Forums - Gaming Discussion - What threat does Gamepass pose for Sony in the long run?

JWeinCom said:
Ashadelo said:
On a side note, has Sony ever said why they abandon IP's? Cause some of their Ip's had pretty big followings back during the PS1/PS2 era, but now..... No one even talks about those games.

I feel like Sony's overall philosophy is really to give developers control over what they make, more so than Nintendo or Microsoft. 

For instance, when Naughty Dog moved on from Crash Bandicoot to Jak, and Insomniac moved on from Spyro, they just sold the franchises. Same thing seems to be the case for Jak, Infamous, and so on. Franchises that seem to last the longest are ones where the original studio is still involved like God of War or Ratchet and Clank. 

Sony is more likely to keep the dev and be done with the IP, whereas Microsoft's philosophy seems to be to keep the IP and give it to a new developer, as they did with with Halo and Gears. When they need new IPs, their strategy of late seems to be to buy developers.

Nintendo's strategy falls somewhere between the two. They will generally have developers move on to different things, but also keep the franchise going with new teams. Like what they did with Luigi's Mansion 2, Punch Out!!!, DKC, and so on.

The strategies have their pros and cons.

I always got the impression, similarly to you, that Sony let their devs do their thing. Most creatives want to move on, eventually. Nobody wants to be known for just one thing and never evolve. Naughty Dog, as an example, moved on from Jak because they wanted to try something new. I like to think Sony MOSTLY respects the creators enough to not want to disrespect the IP. 

And seriously, there's something of value to be said about knowing when it's time to move on. Uncharted is a great franchise but I'm happy to see them move on. I'd be completely satisfied if 4/Lost Legacy was the end of that franchise. I'm also happy if Bloodborne doesn't get a sequel. Not everything needs to be Franchised.



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Around the Network

You can already see GamePass having a positive effect on Sony for Playstation gamers. PSNow not only now offers the ability to download PS4 titles, but they also put more of an emphasis on recent first party titles. Clearly they have a long way to go before reaching what GamePass offers, first party titles day one, but it's a step in the right direction. GamePass also gets a ton of smaller scale titles day one as well that many people don't even notice because they're too focused on AAA games. You can also see GamePass inspiration in whatever that PS+ collection of games for PS5 is called. It's blatantly inspired by GamePass.

I don't see GamePass as a means to get Sony to be the "next Sega" or get them out of the industry. I think eventually you'll see Sony offering the exact same type of service. Complete with day one launches of their first party titles. This will be great for indie devs because they can sell their games to launch on either service to the highest bidder. We just gotta hope Sony follows MS lead and doesn't lock anything to the service. One thing people conveniently forget when they're trying to tell us that every game MS makes now will be small GaaS type shovelware to feed GamePass lists, is that all of this stuff is available the same day to buy outside of the service.

And did someone really say earlier that they didn't think there was any value to the service, and thus never looked into it? Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't you look into it, and then decide whether it has value or not? If I am trying a new beer, I taste it and then decide if it is any good. I don't see the name of it, decide it's bad and then move on lol.



Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

I feel like Sony's overall philosophy is really to give developers control over what they make, more so than Nintendo or Microsoft. 

For instance, when Naughty Dog moved on from Crash Bandicoot to Jak, and Insomniac moved on from Spyro, they just sold the franchises. Same thing seems to be the case for Jak, Infamous, and so on. Franchises that seem to last the longest are ones where the original studio is still involved like God of War or Ratchet and Clank. 

Sony is more likely to keep the dev and be done with the IP, whereas Microsoft's philosophy seems to be to keep the IP and give it to a new developer, as they did with with Halo and Gears. When they need new IPs, their strategy of late seems to be to buy developers.

Nintendo's strategy falls somewhere between the two. They will generally have developers move on to different things, but also keep the franchise going with new teams. Like what they did with Luigi's Mansion 2, Punch Out!!!, DKC, and so on.

The strategies have their pros and cons.

I always got the impression, similarly to you, that Sony let their devs do their thing. Most creatives want to move on, eventually. Nobody wants to be known for just one thing and never evolve. Naughty Dog, as an example, moved on from Jak because they wanted to try something new. I like to think Sony MOSTLY respects the creators enough to not want to disrespect the IP. 

And seriously, there's something of value to be said about knowing when it's time to move on. Uncharted is a great franchise but I'm happy to see them move on. I'd be completely satisfied if 4/Lost Legacy was the end of that franchise. I'm also happy if Bloodborne doesn't get a sequel. Not everything needs to be Franchised.

I tend to assume that most decisions companies make are based on profits rather than respect or integrity. 



LudicrousSpeed said:


And did someone really say earlier that they didn't think there was any value to the service, and thus never looked into it? Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't you look into it, and then decide whether it has value or not? If I am trying a new beer, I taste it and then decide if it is any good. I don't see the name of it, decide it's bad and then move on lol.

Not me saying that, but  game pass don't have any value for me, i play on playstation + nintendo + PC, my favorite game is strategy & RPG, my favorite series is Crusader kings 2&3,  I looked into the passe after the bethesda buyout, what i seen, its even Ck3 or eu4 is in pass you still have to buy DLC, and the pass not guarantee the game will not get out of pass one days, so i will end with useless DLC... and you cannot mod at all.. really the game pass is useless for player like me, not even need to try that.

But i can see many players where the gamepass is a killer app ! and i even think at the gen after ps5 & xbox series, sony will be forced into a service too or losing big !

Anyway big high 5 for microsoft lately even i don't like them, they play their card very good (but the digital console) and its very good for competition and the players !



It's more a threat to the console gaming industry as a whole. The hardcore get lured in and converted to no longer buying games, big pile of revenue lost. They already lost me as a customer since I played the games I wanted to play with a month of game pass. Saved me about $700 (console plus games), great for me but revenue lost to MS and the studios that made those games. And as a side effect, since I played it on my gaming laptop I didn't get all that into the games the same as if I had sat down in front of the big tv at night.



Around the Network
Runa216 said:
Nighthawk117 said:

99% of those games are jack shit.

Well this sort of response is not helping. I've been scouring the game lists for Xbox and PS and Switch games the last few hours and I can assure you, many of these games are not 'jack shit' and are, in fact, pretty good. 

Progress! :)



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

 

SvennoJ said:
It's more a threat to the console gaming industry as a whole. The hardcore get lured in and converted to no longer buying games, big pile of revenue lost. They already lost me as a customer since I played the games I wanted to play with a month of game pass. Saved me about $700 (console plus games), great for me but revenue lost to MS and the studios that made those games. And as a side effect, since I played it on my gaming laptop I didn't get all that into the games the same as if I had sat down in front of the big tv at night.

Guess that’s why Windows Store and especially Steam are essential to their strategy. That’s your short term revenue stream essentially, along with Xbox console gamers continuing to buy outright. 



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

 

Runa216 said:

Oh, there are differences between DRM and Gamepass/Now. no doubt. However, it's just another step towards taking control away from the consumer. Game companies have been trying to limit how much control people have for ages. they fought likened used games to piracy and fought it until people resisted, they tried to implement DRM in many ways and people resisted, Microsoft tried to make the Xbox One Always Online from the get-go and people resisted. now they're following in the path of Netflix and once again trying to control what people can play and how they can play it. It's not the same, but it's another way to get to the same point. 

Long story short, forcing us into monthly subscriptions and curating what is on there controls us, at least a bit. It's not inherently bad on its own - Netflix and other video streaming services are great - but for an interactive medium it does encourage playing now, playing often, and not waiting just in case something goes down. It forces you to be online. It's a good deal, for sure (Both Now and Gamepass, in their own ways), but it's just a far easier to digest version of Always Online DRM in a manner of speaking. 

I play games at my own pace. It's why I don't even borrow and never used to rent. It's also why I don't play Games as a Service games, games with recurrent spending, or many online games. IT's also why I love Sony's offerings: Almost all of their games are singleplayer offline games.

Clearly these online games and these service models have an audience - they keep making money - but there will always be plenty of people who want games that aren't on the clock. I'm one of them, and I'm not the only one. 

I am in no way knocking PS Now or Gamepass, but those services aren't for me either.

I also have never subscribed to a tv streaming service not even free trials.  I had custom shelving made to build a Movie and TV show library.  The problem I'm having now is completing some of my TV series collections.  Everything fine and then season 6, 7, or eight only available through Amazon, Netflix, ABC, I'm thankful some of these are still completed in other countries and I just import them in through customs.  I did have to acquire a region changeable Ultra-high definition blu-ray player. 

Once this starts happening with Video games; I'm done.  I'll just buy for older systems or replay what I have. Or for that matter play what I have for the first time, my backlog spans generations and brands.

I hope Gamepass is successful but I won't be forced into it. 



...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.

Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

I feel like Sony's overall philosophy is really to give developers control over what they make, more so than Nintendo or Microsoft. 

For instance, when Naughty Dog moved on from Crash Bandicoot to Jak, and Insomniac moved on from Spyro, they just sold the franchises. Same thing seems to be the case for Jak, Infamous, and so on. Franchises that seem to last the longest are ones where the original studio is still involved like God of War or Ratchet and Clank. 

Sony is more likely to keep the dev and be done with the IP, whereas Microsoft's philosophy seems to be to keep the IP and give it to a new developer, as they did with with Halo and Gears. When they need new IPs, their strategy of late seems to be to buy developers.

Nintendo's strategy falls somewhere between the two. They will generally have developers move on to different things, but also keep the franchise going with new teams. Like what they did with Luigi's Mansion 2, Punch Out!!!, DKC, and so on.

The strategies have their pros and cons.

I always got the impression, similarly to you, that Sony let their devs do their thing. Most creatives want to move on, eventually. Nobody wants to be known for just one thing and never evolve. Naughty Dog, as an example, moved on from Jak because they wanted to try something new. I like to think Sony MOSTLY respects the creators enough to not want to disrespect the IP. 

And seriously, there's something of value to be said about knowing when it's time to move on. Uncharted is a great franchise but I'm happy to see them move on. I'd be completely satisfied if 4/Lost Legacy was the end of that franchise. I'm also happy if Bloodborne doesn't get a sequel. Not everything needs to be Franchised.

@JWeinCom, your statement about Naughty Dog and Insomniac selling Crash and Spyro then moving on is wrong , Mark Cerny was given in his words a bag of money to start up Universal interactive and needing content he approached ND who were renting space on the universal lot and offered to fund their next game in return for the IP that IP went onto become Crash. Cerny did the same deal with Insomniac who were also on the lot, so both IP's became owned by Universal before they were even made, Sony came into the picture much later when they saw Crash at a developer fair and arranged the playstation publishing deal.

The rest of your reply is spot on with them allowing developer freedom and looking at the games that followed it paid off in spades.



mjk45 said:
Runa216 said:

I always got the impression, similarly to you, that Sony let their devs do their thing. Most creatives want to move on, eventually. Nobody wants to be known for just one thing and never evolve. Naughty Dog, as an example, moved on from Jak because they wanted to try something new. I like to think Sony MOSTLY respects the creators enough to not want to disrespect the IP. 

And seriously, there's something of value to be said about knowing when it's time to move on. Uncharted is a great franchise but I'm happy to see them move on. I'd be completely satisfied if 4/Lost Legacy was the end of that franchise. I'm also happy if Bloodborne doesn't get a sequel. Not everything needs to be Franchised.

@JWeinCom, your statement about Naughty Dog and Insomniac selling Crash and Spyro then moving on is wrong , Mark Cerny was given in his words a bag of money to start up Universal interactive and needing content he approached ND who were renting space on the universal lot and offered to fund their next game in return for the IP that IP went onto become Crash. Cerny did the same deal with Insomniac who were also on the lot, so both IP's became owned by Universal before they were even made, Sony came into the picture much later when they saw Crash at a developer fair and arranged the playstation publishing deal.

The rest of your reply is spot on with them allowing developer freedom and looking at the games that followed it paid off in spades.

I was referring to the franchises being sold to Activision later on. I assumed that Sony owned the license at that point either directly or indirectly by that point. Am I wrong on that?