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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Pitch Perfect: PlayStation Now

Conina said:
mutantsushi said:

That makes Sony's subscribers look even more impressive because they aren't rationalized by console install base.
Not that MS' GP numbers relative to console base are particularly any better than Sony's. Although since MS
is selling GP to PC while Sony isn't currently (note the massive PC port push though), that suggests Sony
currently is leaving major sales market untouched, which can quickly be leveraged if/when PC offering is made.

^Thanks but I guess that points to the distinction of gaming ON a platform VS cloud gaming where it is only streamed TO what might even just be a TV these days. Of course I was more discussing Sony's PS+ which has hosted the games recently being ported, and which is closer comparison to GP in terms of newer and current-gen games which was the broader topic that section was cut out from... But in any case, I beleive the PSN local download option is console-only and not available on PC.

But I can't help but notice your selective quoting of me isn't even addressing the point of the passage it was drawn from, never mind the broader issues in my post. I don't really think that's an constructive way to communicate, if when "replying" and even quoting somebody's words, you ignore the vast part of their meaning.

I see the same approach in your "reply" to Signalstar just pasting in a spreadsheet. Of course, MS achieved it's "engagement" on back of freebie/discount give-aways. MS claims of longterm profitability are clearly based on nominal prices, not promotional freebies, but what does taking your reply at face value really imply? Sony has product that large numbers are willing to spend money for (47m+), while MS product must be given away and yet only achieves 18m in same time period. And we've been told that console sales/insall base no longer matter, so that shouldn't be an excuse, and GP is also on PC so MS has no excuse for lower subscribers.

So I come back to my first point, GP is not some special sauce threat that Sony must react to, they already have more profitable business and have no interest in reducing the profitability of their business since it's critical to their overall finances unlike MS situation where Xbox/GP is a hobby whose finances are an afterthought.

As to what Sony might do to improve, beyond the obvious incremental improvements in offering as we already see, I would say that ensuring they are present in all markets is important. That means a realistic offering for poorer markets, on the basis of not really losing any money but establishing or maintaining engagement with community, with growing national economies that can eventually be worth more directly. MS' Series S is good effort there, but Sony's digital PS5 is superior product that can pair well with economic subscription offering (as Series S promotes), with stronger product and fair service pricing they should be able to extend their global presence. And I think all console platforms should heavily market one of their unique advantages, the lesser amount of cheating compared to PC, that should be unique attraction in terms of online multiplayer content.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 02 July 2021

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

I don't feel like PS1 games have aged all that well. There aren't enough PS1 games that I'd need a subscription service for them. Would much rather just buy the ones I want than get a subsciption for that purpose. Most are available to download legally, and there are illegal means for the few that aren't. If they wanted to offer more PS1/2 games on the service that's neat, but it wouldn't convince me to subscribe if I hadn't already.

There are defenitely a lot of people who would feel like that. But to me at least, and I'm certainly not alone on this one eithre, there is a metric ton of PS1 games I would at least casually drop in for a few hours and at least 20, or perhaps even 30 that I would want to play through completely. Hogs of War, StarWars Phantom Manace, Kula World, Final Fantasy VIII and IX (never played VII and am waiting for to whole remake to be out), Final Fantasy Tactics, Rugrats, Hercules, Tombi 1 and 2, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid 1, Tekken 2 and especially 3, Castelvania (all available, never tried one of them actually) Tony Hawks Pro Skater (all available), Oddworld, Parappa the Rapper, Chrono Cross, Suikoden (always wanted to try that one out), Battle Arena Toshinden, Bushido Blade,... the list really goes on.

The appeal of an approach like I outlined in my op would not necessarily be in just PS1/2 games, not individually, and not en masse. It would be, eventually, to have every single thing that erver was and ever will be important about PlayStation in one service for one price.

But I honestly get your point. And I recognise that a lot of why I want PS1 games is nostalgia. ... On the other hand, Kula World and Hogs of War are just so good :)



mutantsushi said:
Signalstar said:

PS Now is cheaper and has a larger library of games than Gamepass...

Right. I feel the whole premise of this thread is off. Gamepass isn't some superior special sauce.
Gamepass' entire hype seems to hinge on "new" games. Which aren't better games, and in fact
a game that has had time to recieve patches is unambiguously a better game by my book.
So it comes down to appealing to people who have no patience, no impulse control crowd. OK.
Meanwhile people with patience, or just those who have been enjoying playing great older games
because their desire to play those doesn't suddenly disappear just because MS has a new shiny game,
they are enjoying more games, and quality games, for a lesser price via Sony's offering which is
also more generous in terms of allowing continued access compared to GP revoking games after their time.
Of course the ultrafans of Gamepass never will discuss Sony's offering, never mention it's subscriber numbers.
Some people then go along with that, forget about Sony's value, and feel they must "defend" against GP.
No need. Just look at the numbers. GP is not more attractive to more people, Sony's numbers are great.
EDIT: And irony is, we can take the GP ultrafan's mantra "console sales don't matter" and apply it to PSN/+.
That makes Sony's subscribers look even more impressive because they aren't rationalized by console install base.
Not that MS' GP numbers relative to console base are particularly any better than Sony's. Although since MS
is selling GP to PC while Sony isn't currently (note the massive PC port push though), that suggests Sony
currently is leaving major sales market untouched, which can quickly be leveraged if/when PC offering is made.
What do people think of prospects for PS+/Now on PC, possibly in collaboration with Epic given Sony's stake there?

In my op I did not want to say that GamePass is better than PSNow, that is very much subjective anyways. But it is certainly more sucessfull. And this is precisely because of the crowd of people you describe. People who want games day 1. The hype crowd. I'm honestly definitely part of that crowd when it comes to certain games. God of War, Shadow of the Colossus Remake, Devil May Cry V, SnakePass, What Remains of Edith Finch,... could not wait any longer than release day to play those games. And I think that is alright. Actully, i feel as though a lot of this industry is built around hype and the vast majority of people is not willing to play the latest, hottest game a year or two later.

But the pitch was not about "How can PSNow be as sucessfull as GamePass?" and more about "How can PSNow find it's own strong identity?"

And I certainly did not try to make it sound as if there are no current upsides to PSNow (with or without the comparison to GamePass).

But could I ask about your statement about GP not being more attractive to more people? I don't get it. I mean, if that statement was true, there would not even be a need for some (drastic) change and a pitch for what sort of change and subsequently this thread :) But I just goodled it and it says that GP has 23 million subscribers and PSNow 3 million. This suggests that GP is way more attractive to many more people, even with the first party output of Microsoft currently being inferiour to PlayStations in my opinion.



JuliusHackebeil said: But I just goodled it and it says that GP has 23 million subscribers and PSNow 3 million. This suggests that GP is way more attractive to many more people, even with the first party output of Microsoft currently being inferiour to PlayStations in my opinion.

Well actually, it's not correct. MS never actually said there was 23 million users, in fact their last update was 18 million at 31st december 2020, since then they didn't announce new figures.

Jez Corden said 23 million, and then backtracked stating he misunderstood some data, and is probably arround 22 million, but there is no official figures stating 22 or 23 million by MS. 

And maybe we'll get new figures by late July, we'll see.



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

JuliusHackebeil said:

But could I ask about your statement about GP not being more attractive to more people? I don't get it. I mean, if that statement was true, there would not even be a need for some (drastic) change and a pitch for what sort of change and subsequently this thread :) But I just goodled it and it says that GP has 23 million subscribers and PSNow 3 million.

I should have been clearer, I was referring to PS Plus numbers (47m+), which is think is just as relevant of a comparison if not more since it focuses more on newer modern games compared to Now's legacy stuff. Maybe the comparison is made because of streaming element, but I don't really hear people talking about using that with GP, it's just the "free" games and at that level Plus should be in consideration IMHO, certainly it's numbers shouldn't be discounted entirely. (not to mention when good games come out on Now, the comments here typically include somebody complaining about streaming and then somebody telling them it can be downloaded locally too... streaming just doesn't seem that desired by people ready and able to play on console/gaming platform that can run said games)

I do think the Now/Plus distinction is confusing and unclear (as I commented in current article on Now release of Nioh2/RDR2), and fixing that just by making the offering clearer, e.g. with all newer modern content on one service, possibly splitting out streaming from content as such, and if they are getting paid for latter the streaming could be free regardless if subscribed to classic or modern game services. I could see different sets of indy content being included to enrich both classic/modern offerings, or available to subscribe to entire indy offering as standalone. And of course, it could be incrementally improved with basic "wants" like more, newer games and that sort of thing. I guess I'm much more resistant against Day 1 impulse urges, if only because that means it hasn't yet gotten the patches it needs. You're better off waiting to play the fixed version, and also get a better deal, whether via subscription or discount purchase (and if you can get used to that, the "deal" of subscription also doesn't seem as amazing, never mind considering the option to resell used game discs, which GP fans somehow never mention when doing their comparisons which they expect you to worship).

Anyways, I think Sony is still one of most profitable companies in AAA gaming, and MS is  not challenging that, and while I see their offering evolving I don't see them sacrificing profitability since that is what holds up their company as a whole and being a mature business there isn't much case for abandoning profitability. I do see their relation with Epic potentially evolving, which could potentially be relevant for subscription business  in PC space.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 04 July 2021

Around the Network
SKMBlake said:
JuliusHackebeil said: But I just goodled it and it says that GP has 23 million subscribers and PSNow 3 million. This suggests that GP is way more attractive to many more people, even with the first party output of Microsoft currently being inferiour to PlayStations in my opinion.

Well actually, it's not correct. MS never actually said there was 23 million users, in fact their last update was 18 million at 31st december 2020, since then they didn't announce new figures.

Jez Corden said 23 million, and then backtracked stating he misunderstood some data, and is probably arround 22 million, but there is no official figures stating 22 or 23 million by MS. 

And maybe we'll get new figures by late July, we'll see.

Thanks for the clarification. Did not know that. But still, between 3 and 18, there is a massive difference. And I think it is fair to say, that GP is a bigger success with more consumer interest behind it than PSNow.



mutantsushi said:

I should have been clearer, I was referring to PS Plus numbers (47m+), which is think is just as relevant of a comparison if not more since it focuses more on newer modern games compared to Now's legacy stuff. Maybe the comparison is made because of streaming element, but I don't really hear people talking about using that with GP, it's just the "free" games and at that level Plus should be in consideration IMHO, certainly it's numbers shouldn't be discounted entirely.

There are several reasons for that:

- Xbox Cloud streaming is only available to GP Ultimate subscribers and the number of compatible devices was very small until a few months ago (only a few high end Android phones / tablets)

- most people subscribing to GP Ultimate instead of the normal GP sub already have Xbox One (or Series) hardware (or gaming PCs) which run the GamePass games much better locally than streamed

- Xbox consoles aren't supported Xbox cloud devices (yet?)... so you can't skip a 50 GB download of a GamePass game by steaming it on an Xbox console. And you can't stream Xbox Series games/versions to an Xbox One S for better performance / raytracing effects

- Save data sync for some games is extremely slow (f. e. Forza Horizon 4... probably all my DLCs / bonus cars have to be installed to the virtual Xbox, which is a blank slate every streaming session)

- Xbox cloud streaming quality was really bad until last week: 720p streaming with video artefacts and Xbox One S performance

But things got a lot better a few days ago: https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/06/28/xbox-cloud-gaming-now-running-on-xbox-series-x/

Now the Xbox games run on Series X hardware and are streamed in 1080p 60 fps... probably with some supersampling advantages for games that run in higher resolutions than 1080p on Series X hardware. With Windows PCs and iOS devices the compatibility for Xbox Cloud streaming has also gron immensely in the last weeks.

That said, PSNow streaming also got a lot better since April with the upgrade from 720p streaming to 1080p streaming (for PS4 games). PS3 games are still streamed in 720p as far as I know and streaming is the only option for PS3 games in that subscription (they can't run locally on PS4 / PS5 hardware and PS Now doesn't support PS3 hardware).



Signalstar said:

PS Now is cheaper and has a larger library of games than Gamepass...

Both true, but you're getting way better value with Game Pass. At least twice as many games monthly come to Game Pass, day 1 releases of all 1st party games and plenty of 3rd party day 1 releases. It's really not close which is the superior service. 



double post

Last edited by smroadkill15 - on 04 July 2021

As a general criticism to my pitch, I hear that history is not as enticing. PS1 games are fine, but hardly why everybody buys GP in droves - because that would be new first party games day 1.
Is there no way to change PSNow in a way that it becomes more of a success and stays unique? Is the answer really GP? No shame in a copy, if your competitor makes all the right moves I guess.

But aren't there some crazy pitches for PSNow still out there to show up completely new directions to persue?