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

Forums - Sony Discussion - The rumor is finally true - PS+ and PSNow merger

Sony has to say that games exist on a rotation basis. They can't legally promise that games will remain forever on the service.

This isn't different to their current policy for PS Now. Many games remain on the service, some don't.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

OK, in that respect yes.  Its the same as Games with GOLD which is included with GP Ultimate so pretty much the same situation.

And unless because of odd reasons a title you wanted to play on GP you delayed for a long time (I may be wrong, but titles on GP stay for several months for the most part right?) there is no real need to stop what you are playing just to not lose the opportunity to play that title on GP for free (as you said if you really want to play it you can buy with a discount, and of course if the person really wanted it them probably would have played long ago on the service). But that is the thing of customers, we will always find something to complain about =p

I don't think GP model is the future for Sony because of the type of games they make and also don't want Sony to change to a model that would better fit GP, but there is no denial that it is an excelent model for customers (the only odd thing for me is the praise people give to how many titles they tested that they wouldn't otherwise, which the way I read is that they considered it mid to garbage tier that if they had to pay they wouldn't play, and that gives voice to the quantity over quality - quantity and variety isn't bad anyway since it is more likely for you to find something you like if there is diversity in there).

GP is not the future for Sony, its the future for MS because MS is a service oriented company.  MS has put most of their products behind services and they have spent billions building out their infrastructure.  This is not an area that Sony excel in and really not their business model.  Sony does not really need to go down the route MS is going but if they are going to compete as a service then the 2 services will always be measured against each other.  If you have a PS console then there is benefit but as I stated, Sony services are extension of the PS eco system, MS is looking to make GP a stand alone service for games that can be played on any device, not tied to their console.

I disagree with your last paragraph.  Its made on a assumption that people believe titles they would not have spent money on is low tier or garbage but instead people just do not like to risk their money.  What happens is that when you do play these games and then they surprise you then as a consumer you are willing to purchase the next game from that developer.  GP and other services take the risk out of purchases and introduce consumers to experiment more and go outside of their comfort zone.



ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

I disagree with your first paragraph. What Sony does has nothing to do with the success or movement of GamePass.  GP is not validated if Sony response to it or not.  Its been very evident that MS does not care what Sony does because they are moving in totally different directions.  MS and Sony have totally different views about their service.  MS is looking to build GP as a stand alone service that can be run on any device.  Sony want to continue to tie in their service to their console.  Its the reason why MS can make the decisions to put their games day one on the service because MS view GP as a Netflix service for games while Sony views their service as an extension of the PS system.

Also MS did not stop BC, licensing deals stopped BC which will be the same issue Sony will have for any games not developed by them.

It wasn't that long ago that either Spencer or Bond said Sony was coming out with their own version of Game Pass soon. That was no doubt said because of hopeful validation and because of it's potential competition.

Now as Sony, and some of the media and fans have been saying all along, less of them anyway, that this new Plus service wouldn't be a direct competitor to Game Pass. Which I would definitely agree now that it is not.

This absolutely removes some validation of Game Pass, because if this new Plus service was obviously direct competition, there would be a whole lot of, I told ya so's, and boasting of whichever service was obviously the better offer and deal.

Instead, Game Pass is clearly it's own thing still, trying to make a go of it, as well as this Plus service. The Plus service however, combines Now, which should help overall, and already has more history and a larger and steady subscriber base.

Both have pluses and minuses. Both are worth subscribing to, depending on your gaming wants and needs, or just get both if you can afford them. That's not an option for many though, so they'll have to choose, which is great, because it's all about choice. Phil has been clear XB is all for choice.

As for why MS put's their first party on Game Pass day 1, you're partially right, but it's more so because they can easily afford to. When you've got the worlds largest bank vault that consistently replentishes itself, you can easily do things like that, where others just can't because it won't work based only on the model.

When it comes to the licensing, is that because MS can't get them period, or because they don't want to spend the money there for whatever reason? If XB is doing all the work that needs to be done to get the BC games to the existing systems, but making no profit whatsoever, then why pay big money for licensing? Sony will be able to do this with the income from this new service structure, aside from the rare deals that are just refused to be made.

Not sure I understand your thinking.  Why would MS care if Sony responded to GP or not. That just does not make any sense.  No company does something hoping their competition tries to copy it to justify their investment.  If anything they hope they do not respond at all or until its to late and they have solidified that market. GP was born not because of Sony but because MS is a service company and that is the direction they have been moving all of their products.  MS does not care if Sony combined PS now and Plus and I am sure they still do not care now.  They have their own plan and it really has nothing to do with what Sony does because they are on 2 different paths.

It makes way more sense to put your games day one on the service if you are not looking to lock your service to one piece of hardware.  MS is not looking to just gain the amount of subs selling Xbox consoles, they are looking to get subs for every device that can play games.  Sony on the other hand, is looking to get subs based on the number of users purchasing their console, having their biggest games not sell to those people hurts their bottom line.  MS made the decision to go all in on GP so they will take less sales to expand the service.  Sony is a more cautious and safe route but then again the 2 companies are not going in the same direction.



ConservagameR said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep. Problem with only increasing new games is the cost they need to pay for the owners of the content.

Which is easily paid off if the sub base is growing as expected. If not, then ya, you gotta either cycle out old content or raise prices.

From what I know these contracts are paid on expected number of people that will play and how much that company would lose in revenue by that person deciding to not buy the game because played for free. So growing base also increases the cost Sony pay for the game to be there. It really is a fine tunning of amount and type of content versus price to have both a good number of subs and profit.



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."

Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

And unless because of odd reasons a title you wanted to play on GP you delayed for a long time (I may be wrong, but titles on GP stay for several months for the most part right?) there is no real need to stop what you are playing just to not lose the opportunity to play that title on GP for free (as you said if you really want to play it you can buy with a discount, and of course if the person really wanted it them probably would have played long ago on the service). But that is the thing of customers, we will always find something to complain about =p

I don't think GP model is the future for Sony because of the type of games they make and also don't want Sony to change to a model that would better fit GP, but there is no denial that it is an excelent model for customers (the only odd thing for me is the praise people give to how many titles they tested that they wouldn't otherwise, which the way I read is that they considered it mid to garbage tier that if they had to pay they wouldn't play, and that gives voice to the quantity over quality - quantity and variety isn't bad anyway since it is more likely for you to find something you like if there is diversity in there).

GP is not the future for Sony, its the future for MS because MS is a service oriented company.  MS has put most of their products behind services and they have spent billions building out their infrastructure.  This is not an area that Sony excel in and really not their business model.  Sony does not really need to go down the route MS is going but if they are going to compete as a service then the 2 services will always be measured against each other.  If you have a PS console then there is benefit but as I stated, Sony services are extension of the PS eco system, MS is looking to make GP a stand alone service for games that can be played on any device, not tied to their console.

I disagree with your last paragraph.  Its made on a assumption that people believe titles they would not have spent money on is low tier or garbage but instead people just do not like to risk their money.  What happens is that when you do play these games and then they surprise you then as a consumer you are willing to purchase the next game from that developer.  GP and other services take the risk out of purchases and introduce consumers to experiment more and go outside of their comfort zone.

Well the Premium tier will allow you to stream on PC, so it isn`t totally locked to a console, still yes it isn`t anywhere similar to GP that can also be played on phones and TVs (from memory in the past PSNow or Gaikai could be played on smartphone, so perhaps in the future when their network is better spread and installed they could increase the coverage of devices).

If you are confident the product is good than the fear of bad investment isn`t that considerable =p ... the thing is we do know that on average consumers buy 12 games per system at most recent gens, so most people wouldn`t buy the majority of GP games anyway. But I was talking about the way they themselves phrase it is similar to saying they didn`t expect the game to be good but played just because it was free.



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
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

GP is not the future for Sony, its the future for MS because MS is a service oriented company.  MS has put most of their products behind services and they have spent billions building out their infrastructure.  This is not an area that Sony excel in and really not their business model.  Sony does not really need to go down the route MS is going but if they are going to compete as a service then the 2 services will always be measured against each other.  If you have a PS console then there is benefit but as I stated, Sony services are extension of the PS eco system, MS is looking to make GP a stand alone service for games that can be played on any device, not tied to their console.

I disagree with your last paragraph.  Its made on a assumption that people believe titles they would not have spent money on is low tier or garbage but instead people just do not like to risk their money.  What happens is that when you do play these games and then they surprise you then as a consumer you are willing to purchase the next game from that developer.  GP and other services take the risk out of purchases and introduce consumers to experiment more and go outside of their comfort zone.

Well the Premium tier will allow you to stream on PC, so it isn`t totally locked to a console, still yes it isn`t anywhere similar to GP that can also be played on phones and TVs (from memory in the past PSNow or Gaikai could be played on smartphone, so perhaps in the future when their network is better spread and installed they could increase the coverage of devices).

If you are confident the product is good than the fear of bad investment isn`t that considerable =p ... the thing is we do know that on average consumers buy 12 games per system at most recent gens, so most people wouldn`t buy the majority of GP games anyway. But I was talking about the way they themselves phrase it is similar to saying they didn`t expect the game to be good but played just because it was free.

Its not a matter of confident of a bad investment, its going outside of your comfort zone.  You are more willing to try something that does automatically click your "I am buying this no matter what" compared to, I might buy this when its this price to, Not sure if I even like this type of game.  Services give you the ability to explore more then the safe bet and allow you to venture into other types of games you would normally not play if you had to pony up money first.  The reason why most consumers only by a limited amount of games is not because they only want to play a limited amount, its because they usually only going to purchase the safe bet that geared toward what they know.  It does not matter if most people would not purchase the majority of games on a service as what we have heard from many developers, after putting their games on GP, they get a bigger engagement of customers.  Getting more customers to engage and try your game especially if its a new product is worth more than hoping you happen to hit the mainstream itch.  I know just for myself, I have played way more games since getting GP then I have in the past because there is no risk out side of time to try some games that I usually would not purchase but I have found that are excellent.  This is nothing new, its what happens with any service that allows you to consume content for a cost.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Well the Premium tier will allow you to stream on PC, so it isn`t totally locked to a console, still yes it isn`t anywhere similar to GP that can also be played on phones and TVs (from memory in the past PSNow or Gaikai could be played on smartphone, so perhaps in the future when their network is better spread and installed they could increase the coverage of devices).

If you are confident the product is good than the fear of bad investment isn`t that considerable =p ... the thing is we do know that on average consumers buy 12 games per system at most recent gens, so most people wouldn`t buy the majority of GP games anyway. But I was talking about the way they themselves phrase it is similar to saying they didn`t expect the game to be good but played just because it was free.

Its not a matter of confident of a bad investment, its going outside of your comfort zone.  You are more willing to try something that does automatically click your "I am buying this no matter what" compared to, I might buy this when its this price to, Not sure if I even like this type of game.  Services give you the ability to explore more then the safe bet and allow you to venture into other types of games you would normally not play if you had to pony up money first.  The reason why most consumers only by a limited amount of games is not because they only want to play a limited amount, its because they usually only going to purchase the safe bet that geared toward what they know.  It does not matter if most people would not purchase the majority of games on a service as what we have heard from many developers, after putting their games on GP, they get a bigger engagement of customers.  Getting more customers to engage and try your game especially if its a new product is worth more than hoping you happen to hit the mainstream itch.  I know just for myself, I have played way more games since getting GP then I have in the past because there is no risk out side of time to try some games that I usually would not purchase but I have found that are excellent.  This is nothing new, its what happens with any service that allows you to consume content for a cost.

On my end it is usually more about time than money, and if I`m not willing to invest my time then paying for the game is secondary. I do like free games and surprises but I`m a completionist so hardly I would go GP to download like 4 games, try for 15min to see if I may like and them play what I prefered of them, but that is me =p



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."

Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

It wasn't that long ago that either Spencer or Bond said Sony was coming out with their own version of Game Pass soon. That was no doubt said because of hopeful validation and because of it's potential competition.

Now as Sony, and some of the media and fans have been saying all along, less of them anyway, that this new Plus service wouldn't be a direct competitor to Game Pass. Which I would definitely agree now that it is not.

This absolutely removes some validation of Game Pass, because if this new Plus service was obviously direct competition, there would be a whole lot of, I told ya so's, and boasting of whichever service was obviously the better offer and deal.

Instead, Game Pass is clearly it's own thing still, trying to make a go of it, as well as this Plus service. The Plus service however, combines Now, which should help overall, and already has more history and a larger and steady subscriber base.

Both have pluses and minuses. Both are worth subscribing to, depending on your gaming wants and needs, or just get both if you can afford them. That's not an option for many though, so they'll have to choose, which is great, because it's all about choice. Phil has been clear XB is all for choice.

As for why MS put's their first party on Game Pass day 1, you're partially right, but it's more so because they can easily afford to. When you've got the worlds largest bank vault that consistently replentishes itself, you can easily do things like that, where others just can't because it won't work based only on the model.

When it comes to the licensing, is that because MS can't get them period, or because they don't want to spend the money there for whatever reason? If XB is doing all the work that needs to be done to get the BC games to the existing systems, but making no profit whatsoever, then why pay big money for licensing? Sony will be able to do this with the income from this new service structure, aside from the rare deals that are just refused to be made.

Not sure I understand your thinking.  Why would MS care if Sony responded to GP or not. That just does not make any sense.  No company does something hoping their competition tries to copy it to justify their investment.  If anything they hope they do not respond at all or until its to late and they have solidified that market. GP was born not because of Sony but because MS is a service company and that is the direction they have been moving all of their products.  MS does not care if Sony combined PS now and Plus and I am sure they still do not care now.  They have their own plan and it really has nothing to do with what Sony does because they are on 2 different paths.

It makes way more sense to put your games day one on the service if you are not looking to lock your service to one piece of hardware.  MS is not looking to just gain the amount of subs selling Xbox consoles, they are looking to get subs for every device that can play games.  Sony on the other hand, is looking to get subs based on the number of users purchasing their console, having their biggest games not sell to those people hurts their bottom line.  MS made the decision to go all in on GP so they will take less sales to expand the service.  Sony is a more cautious and safe route but then again the 2 companies are not going in the same direction.

You partially answered your own question. MS would care, because what if PS follows suit and directly competes? That hinders them in terms of competitive lost sales, but helps in terms of validation, which should help gain some sales. MS and XB, who've made it clear they believe the Game Pass, Netflix like, sub and service model is the future of many things, especially gaming, no doubt then assume PS would follow suit, otherwise PS would cease to exist in the future, wouldn't they?

Perhaps Game Pass was the model XB has planned to go with, far before it was announced, though it doesn't seem to fit all that well with the XB1 launch direction for that gen, so it seems coincidental that it launched during a time when XB was in dire need of a win because Sony was gaining more and more of a lead against the XB1 offering. I would personally guess that it's maybe both, but the increasing need to please gamers and get them back into the XB camp now made the Game Pass model worth it, when it likely wasn't viewed that way by MS in the past.

It doesn't matter how much you want to do with the hardware and software, putting your multi hundred million dollar AAA games on the service asap only makes sense if you have billions of pocket change to burn, or you're willing or able to take the chance and hope it works out a decade or two down the road. Netflix could do that because they were a new company and sub service is what they offer, period. XB can do it because they have an endless supply of money from MS computer software. PS cannot do it because they're too established in some ways, and same with Sony. Sony also doesn't have the money to burn because their big money maker is PS. Sony investors won't allow it unless their is no other option.

Right now both brands are going in different directions, yet the thing is, both have hinted to the fact that even though they believe they're taking the right path, that the other just may be correct, which would mean a change of course eventually to match them. Based on how Nin is doing, maybe just maybe all 3 companies can get away with doing their own thing with only slight overlaps.

Last edited by ConservagameR - on 31 March 2022

DonFerrari said:
ConservagameR said:

Which is easily paid off if the sub base is growing as expected. If not, then ya, you gotta either cycle out old content or raise prices.

From what I know these contracts are paid on expected number of people that will play and how much that company would lose in revenue by that person deciding to not buy the game because played for free. So growing base also increases the cost Sony pay for the game to be there. It really is a fine tunning of amount and type of content versus price to have both a good number of subs and profit.

So your service would have to lead to more users playing those games than expected, due potentially to mass exposure, for the content owners to get their monies worth, for it to be viable to simply increase the catalogue over time? I see.

I'd guess this isn't the case for most games, and that it's only fewer titles that receive a massive player base. So for a few content owners it's totally worth it, and for the rest not so much. Sony no doubt must be able to spread the wealth a bit someway to some degree.

I would still think as long as the sub base is steadily increasing, Sony should be able to just pay off the content owners, shouldn't they? I don't know why they couldn't just offer a little more to keep the content on the service. It wouldn't be near as profitable though if the sub base isn't increasing quickly enough.

As you said, fine tuning and finding a balance.



PS Now failed, doesn't surprise me that it's rolling into PS Plus. It's older than Game Pass and only has 3.2 million subscribers as of March 2021. I've had PS Plus the whole time I've had my PS4 and PS Now since late 2020. I'm going for the highest price, as I want to play some legacy games.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 144 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima