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

Forums - Sony Discussion - (Rumor - Jason Schreier) PlayStation Plans New Service to Take On Xbox Game Pass?

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Game streaming can become low latency enough early enough on home fibre connections, but on phones? With console quality games? I seriously doubt that.

PSP offers quite a large selection of games that are good candidates for phone/tablet ports, PSV ones could be a bonus addition. We can obvioulsy rule out PS5 ports to mobiles, the latter won't have enough computing power for some more years, but older home consoles are at reach of recent mobiles running true ports of them.
I don't rule out streaming, but I can see current limits to its widespread adoption. Don't think mobile game streaming could already be easy just because movie streaming already is, movies have far lower requirements on latency and buffering can efficiently cover hiccups in the transmission, but gaming must be real time and interactive, you can't downolad more data in advance to mask small transmission problems.

The tech has been around for a few years, and it's only going to improve. There are already anecdotes of phone streaming, either from servers or from a console via remote play) of the experience having few issues. Of course, considering what is required of game streaming, this is a case by case situation.

The issue I see with porting is that licensing is going to inevitably be the roadblock that prevents many publishers from wanting to follow through. FF7 Crisis Core has licensing issues with it's theme (credits?) music; Gran Turismo PSP will never be ported because of car and track licensing). If publishers really wanted these sort of games on mobile devices, they would've done the porting themselves years ago. 

Streaming also have licensing issues of it's own, but if native versions are being streamed than perhaps that makes the hurdles easier to get over. Ill admit, I'm not entirely sure. 

Of course, if PSP/ Vita games did come to mobile devices natively, that would be great. 



Around the Network
twintail said:
EricHiggin said:

Ya that's the thing. Locking it down to the service would get some push back (dunno how much exactly), even from some XB fans.

Depends on if BC will be done entirely through streaming or not. I'd assume PS3 games will still be streaming only, so that would mean top tier.

SNY could have BC as a totally separate option where anyone can buy PS1, PS2, and PSP, BC games for cheap and emulate them on PS4 and PS5.

I know SNY offering a lower tier than $60 Plus right now seems unlikely, but that very well may be offset by a PS Pass Plus and Premium.

Anyone with PS4 or PS5 could still pay to download and play PS1, PS2, and PSP games this way. Premium get's you all that and PS3 streaming.

Day 1 exclusive new IP would be perfect for SNY marketing to be able to say they're offering exclusives on the service without putting the known heavy hitters on there. They would also get the benefit of more early exposure to new IP without having to rely on a $70 gamble as some see it.

Sure, there's definitely a lot of ways Sony could go about some of these supposed features, like BC. If Sony can offer native/ emulated versions (that could be separately bought) that would be ideal. I just personally see this as being more effort than it's worth. But if Sony can pull it off, then great.

In this regard, I do think that Sony needs to be all-in with their own titles. Of course not every game can be brought forward (like the GT series), but Sony needs to really push to have any many titles as possible. 

On another note, I'm not sure if Sony would offer a lower priced tier to this service. Like, I get why it seems like a good idea but if ppl aren't paying the current price (or even the discounted price of $39) for online, I'm not sure why they would for $29. Maybe a market exists, but a lower priced tier sounds like it's for ppl who want to downgrade more so than getting new users on board. And if that is the case, how many from the former are dropping PS+ entirely? Subscribers fluctuate per quarter, but they remain mostly constant.

That said, there's definitely a lot of routes Sony can go with this. After all, they've already experimented with PS Video in Poland, the PS Collection offering a bunch of titles for PS5 users to play, day 1 indie releases, the odd expansion of PS Now as a service. It seems to me that they've been scaffolding their efforts to a more complete subscription service. Let's not forget that PSN is their main revenue and profit driver, so they'd naturally work on bettering the service as a whole to continue strengthening it as a means to make money. 

I look forward to seeing what they have to offer, to see if the benefits and pricing are worthwhile. As much as I think having something similar to GamePass (clearly not the same) would be ideal, I may just stick with PS+ normal for the foreseeable future. 

Well if people are paying for the BC games, individually or through a sub, SNY can make it worth it, assuming there's enough interest. I also agree SNY should push to make sure all possible PS BC titles are available asap. Third party is another story since it's not as simple.

There would be some sub downgrades, no doubt about it, but my question would be how many who aren't paying for Plus, who have a PS3, PS4, or PS5 right now, would get the PS Pass since it would only be $30? Some won't sub no matter what, but how many would for a year of online, for only half the price of a game? How many will upgrade from Plus to Premium? Lastly, how many newcomers will enter the PS ecosystem who wouldn't have otherwise, due to the new PS Pass or PS Premium level being offered? Can this at least offset Plus as is now, and/or can it grow the service user base?

If they're going to fairly closely compete with GP content, I'd personally like to see a layout like this, which would actually be 4 tiers.

$29 - PS Pass - (basic online gaming access)

$69 - PS Pass Plus - (PS Plus as it exists with it's online access, free games, and discounts)

$149 - PS Pass Premium - (PS Plus, PS Now, day 1 exclusive new IP, all BC games made available, previews and early access, better discounts)

$249 - PS Pass Platinum - (PS Plus, PS Now, all day 1 exclusives, all BC games made available, previews and early access, VIP discounts, etc)

SNY could not have the $30 tier, leaving 3 tiers total. Though that base tier (Plus) or whatever it were called, should remain $60 or drop to $50.

Plus at $70 would simply require either a few more free games per year, or just higher quality overall compared to prior. (only with $30 base option)

With GP ultimate being $180, I don't think SNY could go higher than $250. With their proven track record of first party exclusives, at $70 each, with usually 2-3 dropping per year, $250 should be worth all the new exclusives, plus VIP discounts.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 05 December 2021

EricHiggin said:
twintail said:

Sure, there's definitely a lot of ways Sony could go about some of these supposed features, like BC. If Sony can offer native/ emulated versions (that could be separately bought) that would be ideal. I just personally see this as being more effort than it's worth. But if Sony can pull it off, then great.

In this regard, I do think that Sony needs to be all-in with their own titles. Of course not every game can be brought forward (like the GT series), but Sony needs to really push to have any many titles as possible. 

On another note, I'm not sure if Sony would offer a lower priced tier to this service. Like, I get why it seems like a good idea but if ppl aren't paying the current price (or even the discounted price of $39) for online, I'm not sure why they would for $29. Maybe a market exists, but a lower priced tier sounds like it's for ppl who want to downgrade more so than getting new users on board. And if that is the case, how many from the former are dropping PS+ entirely? Subscribers fluctuate per quarter, but they remain mostly constant.

That said, there's definitely a lot of routes Sony can go with this. After all, they've already experimented with PS Video in Poland, the PS Collection offering a bunch of titles for PS5 users to play, day 1 indie releases, the odd expansion of PS Now as a service. It seems to me that they've been scaffolding their efforts to a more complete subscription service. Let's not forget that PSN is their main revenue and profit driver, so they'd naturally work on bettering the service as a whole to continue strengthening it as a means to make money. 

I look forward to seeing what they have to offer, to see if the benefits and pricing are worthwhile. As much as I think having something similar to GamePass (clearly not the same) would be ideal, I may just stick with PS+ normal for the foreseeable future. 

Well if people are paying for the BC games, individually or through a sub, SNY can make it worth it, assuming there's enough interest. I also agree SNY should push to make sure all possible PS BC titles are available asap. Third party is another story since it's not as simple.

There would be some sub downgrades, no doubt about it, but my question would be how many who aren't paying for Plus, who have a PS3, PS4, or PS5 right now, would get the PS Pass since it would only be $30? Some won't sub no matter what, but how many would for a year of online, for only half the price of a game? How many will upgrade from Plus to Premium? Lastly, how many newcomers will enter the PS ecosystem who wouldn't have otherwise, due to the new PS Pass or PS Premium level being offered? Can this at least offset Plus as is now, and/or can it grow the service user base?

If they're going to fairly closely compete with GP content, I'd personally like to see a layout like this, which would actually be 4 tiers.

$29 - PS Pass - (basic online gaming access)

$69 - PS Pass Plus - (PS Plus as it exists with it's online access, free games, and discounts)

$149 - PS Pass Premium - (PS Plus, PS Now, day 1 exclusive new IP, all BC games made available, previews and early access, better discounts)

$249 - PS Pass Platinum - (PS Plus, PS Now, all day 1 exclusives, all BC games made available, previews and early access, VIP discounts, etc)

SNY could not have the $30 tier, leaving 3 tiers total. Though that base tier (Plus) or whatever it were called, should remain $60 or drop to $50.

Plus at $70 would simply require either a few more free games per year, or just higher quality overall compared to prior.

With GP ultimate being $180, I don't think SNY could go higher than $250. With their proven track record of first party exclusives, at $70 each, with usually 2-3 dropping per year, $250 should be worth all the new exclusives, plus VIP discounts.

Do you and some others here honestly love a company that couldnt give a rats ass about you so much that you would want to be ripped off by them for Day 1 releases when an other company can do it for much less just cos your worried your fav company might not make enough money?.



zero129 said:
EricHiggin said:

Well if people are paying for the BC games, individually or through a sub, SNY can make it worth it, assuming there's enough interest. I also agree SNY should push to make sure all possible PS BC titles are available asap. Third party is another story since it's not as simple.

There would be some sub downgrades, no doubt about it, but my question would be how many who aren't paying for Plus, who have a PS3, PS4, or PS5 right now, would get the PS Pass since it would only be $30? Some won't sub no matter what, but how many would for a year of online, for only half the price of a game? How many will upgrade from Plus to Premium? Lastly, how many newcomers will enter the PS ecosystem who wouldn't have otherwise, due to the new PS Pass or PS Premium level being offered? Can this at least offset Plus as is now, and/or can it grow the service user base?

If they're going to fairly closely compete with GP content, I'd personally like to see a layout like this, which would actually be 4 tiers.

$29 - PS Pass - (basic online gaming access)

$69 - PS Pass Plus - (PS Plus as it exists with it's online access, free games, and discounts)

$149 - PS Pass Premium - (PS Plus, PS Now, day 1 exclusive new IP, all BC games made available, previews and early access, better discounts)

$249 - PS Pass Platinum - (PS Plus, PS Now, all day 1 exclusives, all BC games made available, previews and early access, VIP discounts, etc)

SNY could not have the $30 tier, leaving 3 tiers total. Though that base tier (Plus) or whatever it were called, should remain $60 or drop to $50.

Plus at $70 would simply require either a few more free games per year, or just higher quality overall compared to prior. (only with $30 base option)

With GP ultimate being $180, I don't think SNY could go higher than $250. With their proven track record of first party exclusives, at $70 each, with usually 2-3 dropping per year, $250 should be worth all the new exclusives, plus VIP discounts.

Do you and some others here honestly love a company that couldnt give a rats ass about you so much that you would want to be ripped off by them for Day 1 releases when an other company can do it for much less just cos your worried your fav company might not make enough money?.

GP is a rip off. 

Basic GP should be $100 per year, not $120.

Ultimate GP should be $120 per year, not $180.

MS are obviously crooks. Nobody buy GP because MS is anti consumer.

Is this what you meant?



EricHiggin said:
zero129 said:

Do you and some others here honestly love a company that couldnt give a rats ass about you so much that you would want to be ripped off by them for Day 1 releases when an other company can do it for much less just cos your worried your fav company might not make enough money?.

GP is a rip off. 

Basic GP should be $100 per year, not $120.

Ultimate GP should be $120 per year, not $180.

MS are obviously crooks. Nobody buy GP because MS is anti consumer.

Is this what you meant?

Why do you want Sony to charge 249 a year instead what gp is offering?...



Around the Network
zero129 said:
EricHiggin said:

GP is a rip off. 

Basic GP should be $100 per year, not $120.

Ultimate GP should be $120 per year, not $180.

MS are obviously crooks. Nobody buy GP because MS is anti consumer.

Is this what you meant?

Why do you want Sony to charge 249 a year instead what gp is offering?...

Same reason I prefer more palatable restaurants vs fast food. A Big Mac here and there, but otherwise I'll pay more for what I deem better quality.

Now if a nice restaurant can offer the same quality for fast food prices, I'm all for it, but that's highly unlikely for many reasons.



Hiku said:

If there are no new games on Day 1, then it doesn't sound too appealing to me. But I guess it depends on what kind of older games they'll add.

DonFerrari said:

Annonymous source, pass it with a mountain of salt, anyway PSNow is already the competitor for GP+XCloud it is only a matter of is Sony willing to improve it enough to be competitive?

I'm not sure they were anonymous? I think asking not to be named means they don't want the publication to publish their names. But the publication could have had them confirm their identities to them. That's how it tends to work with anonymous sources at least.

Yes I know, and how many of these rumors have we had in recent past that were totally wrong? Most of them I would guess.



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."

Doesn`t make sense for Sony to offer the multiplayer part of PS+ for cheaper as that would make they lose a lot of money since we do know that most subs are because of the multiplayer (just look at the 1.5M PS3 had even with 85M consoles sold versus 40M PS4 had on a 110M console sold).



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."

DonFerrari said:
Hiku said:

If there are no new games on Day 1, then it doesn't sound too appealing to me. But I guess it depends on what kind of older games they'll add.

I'm not sure they were anonymous? I think asking not to be named means they don't want the publication to publish their names. But the publication could have had them confirm their identities to them. That's how it tends to work with anonymous sources at least.

Yes I know, and how many of these rumors have we had in recent past that were totally wrong? Most of them I would guess.

Depends on what you mean by these? Are you referring to reports by Jason Schreier?



EricHiggin said:
zero129 said:

Why do you want Sony to charge 249 a year instead what gp is offering?...

Same reason I prefer more palatable restaurants vs fast food. A Big Mac here and there, but otherwise I'll pay more for what I deem better quality.

Now if a nice restaurant can offer the same quality for fast food prices, I'm all for it, but that's highly unlikely for many reasons.

Here you go with the food analogies again lol. Are you really saying Xbox Game Studios/GP this year have been comparable to fast food when games like Flight Sim=90 meta, Psychonauts 2=87, Age of Empires IV=81, Forza Horizon 5=92(highest rated new game this year), Halo Infinite=87 have all reviewed very well? Looks like the fast-food restaurant has beat out fine dining restaurant this year .