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

ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure why you stated GP isn't the end all for gaming as I doubt anyone actually made that statement, but I would say that GP is the end all for MS as they have put their whole company behind it.  MS isn't copying Sony, they are moving in their own direction.  MS sees a future with multiple competing services which there already is and they see probably more players coming.  I am sure Apple will enter when they are ready.  One thing for sure, there are billion of devices out there and all of these companies are looking for a way to get their eco system on them all if possible.  

Day one on GP make sense if you are building games for a service not a console. You still think of MS as a console maker and they are making games for the Xbox but instead MS direction has changed and they are a service company making games for GP and the Xbox is just one device they will use to deliver those games.  This is my opinion but I believe GP is more important to MS as a company than the Xbox division.  Sony and even Nintendo make games for their hardware and their services are just extension. 

Actually the Xbox was competing very well against Sony until Don M decided to try to make the Xbox One into an entertainment system.  That is why he got the boot and Phil is now the man in charge and he has since put the division and MS in the right direction.

Plenty of people, and most of the media, seemed to think Game Pass was the future of gaming, hook, line, and sinker. So much so they believed or were flat out convinced that PS Plus Pass or whatever it was called, would compete directly with Game Pass. Even after Sony and fewer others made it clear that wasn't going to happen because Game Pass wasn't all that. I do agree that XB pretty much has no choice but to continue this direction. There is little room to maneuver from here on in.

Well if that's the case, then PS and Sony are also a service company. Sony tried already but cancelled their service if I'm correct. PS has been offering a service for over a decade now, while expanding, and also offering everything else they do, like hardware, no different than XB, so if XB is a service company, than so is PS. I'd say as a company, XB is just like Switch. It's a true hybrid. Where as PS is one step behind that with the Vita as a semi hybrid.

Yes but why didn't Phil do more to solve that problem or why didn't Phil remove himself from the problem? Same can be said for crazy Ken. PS was doing great until Ken went Don M with PS3 and let the 360 right through the door. XB didn't even have to knock. They just sat down and ate PS's lunch.

Actually I do not know where you get this plenty of people and the media saying the future is GP.  I am sure MS would love that type of pub but the future of games do have services there.  In what type of compacity well who knows, all the players going to fight for the consumer dollar and there will probably at some point be a weeding out based on who has the best content on a consistent basis to sustain the service.  Services will be like anything else an option just like Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV you name it are all options but people still purchase their movies and TV shows.

Yes, Sony has a service but that does not make then a service company.  Their whole business is not dedicated to creating and sustaining their services. Sony does not create content to put on their service, I believe we established the difference already on this point.  Instead Sony create content to put on their console.  After their games has run their sells on the console, then they put it on their service just like they do with PC games. 

MS on the other hand create games for their service which is the direction I have stated is the difference and direction between Sony and MS. As we have already stated, MS has immediately giving access to all of their games on their service including the PC.  Sony is always looking to protect their sales on their console first.  MS is looking to expand their content on GP first, that is why purchasing a huge company like Activision is within the cards because content is king to gaining subs and consistent content to sustains GP.

We can what if all day long on why this or that, who cares, its the past.  Its evident that Phil had a plan because once Don was removed, he took over and every since then he has been making decisions that has fast tracked him into being not just the head of Xbox but Right now he is the head of gaming for MS which as stated is a totally different direction from where MS was going before Phil took over.  Its also evident he has the ear of CEO Nat and must be feeding him truffles and ice cream because getting MS to commit to 70 Billion to Activision is not a small task if you understand what MS culture use to be like.  For that kind of cash, you can believe that GP is a core business for MS not just another division.  



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

Plenty of people, and most of the media, seemed to think Game Pass was the future of gaming, hook, line, and sinker. So much so they believed or were flat out convinced that PS Plus Pass or whatever it was called, would compete directly with Game Pass. Even after Sony and fewer others made it clear that wasn't going to happen because Game Pass wasn't all that. I do agree that XB pretty much has no choice but to continue this direction. There is little room to maneuver from here on in.

Well if that's the case, then PS and Sony are also a service company. Sony tried already but cancelled their service if I'm correct. PS has been offering a service for over a decade now, while expanding, and also offering everything else they do, like hardware, no different than XB, so if XB is a service company, than so is PS. I'd say as a company, XB is just like Switch. It's a true hybrid. Where as PS is one step behind that with the Vita as a semi hybrid.

Yes but why didn't Phil do more to solve that problem or why didn't Phil remove himself from the problem? Same can be said for crazy Ken. PS was doing great until Ken went Don M with PS3 and let the 360 right through the door. XB didn't even have to knock. They just sat down and ate PS's lunch.

Actually I do not know where you get this plenty of people and the media saying the future is GP.  I am sure MS would love that type of pub but the future of games do have services there.  In what type of compacity well who knows, all the players going to fight for the consumer dollar and there will probably at some point be a weeding out based on who has the best content on a consistent basis to sustain the service.  Services will be like anything else an option just like Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV you name it are all options but people still purchase their movies and TV shows.

Yes, Sony has a service but that does not make then a service company.  Their whole business is not dedicated to creating and sustaining their services. Sony does not create content to put on their service, I believe we established the difference already on this point.  Instead Sony create content to put on their console.  After their games has run their sells on the console, then they put it on their service just like they do with PC games. 

MS on the other hand create games for their service which is the direction I have stated is the difference and direction between Sony and MS. As we have already stated, MS has immediately giving access to all of their games on their service including the PC.  Sony is always looking to protect their sales on their console first.  MS is looking to expand their content on GP first, that is why purchasing a huge company like Activision is within the cards because content is king to gaining subs and consistent content to sustains GP.

We can what if all day long on why this or that, who cares, its the past.  Its evident that Phil had a plan because once Don was removed, he took over and every since then he has been making decisions that has fast tracked him into being not just the head of Xbox but Right now he is the head of gaming for MS which as stated is a totally different direction from where MS was going before Phil took over.  Its also evident he has the ear of CEO Nat and must be feeding him truffles and ice cream because getting MS to commit to 70 Billion to Activision is not a small task if you understand what MS culture use to be like.  For that kind of cash, you can believe that GP is a core business for MS not just another division.  

I'm not sure where you got this idea that I think services are a cancer to gaming and have no place. PS Plus is a service and has been around for well over a decade and is doing so great its expanding. There is a time and place for everything, it just depends on when, where, and for how long.

Then MS or XB is no different. Win 10 was a service, until it wasn't. Windows 11 is a service, or not, or who knows? XB can't be a service because the main difference vs PS is day 1, which isn't the key to what makes a service a service. There are many aspects. Now you could say that you think that XB services are simply better offerings than what PS provides.

If Game Pass and services were so important to the point they were everything, XB wouldn't be selling hardware anymore. If anyone can get Game Pass anywhere, there's no need to complicate things and waste time and resources on hardware. XB would rather use those funds to grow Game Pass, through more games, better games, cheaper monthly pricing, etc.

Phil didn't need a plan beyond a Netflix of gaming perhaps. Nobody did. It was beyond obvious in many ways to many people how XB1 had screwed up, just like with PS3. All Phil had to do was a 180 with most mistakes and many problems would be solved. BC was even something that was being complained about enough by fans of XB1 and PS4, so that was a no brainer for Phil to fill in the lacking gaps of first party. As for if Phil had Game Pass as an ace up his sleeve this whole time, maybe, maybe not. I'd have to believe that prior to Game Pass, if the 180's made had led to a strong enough comeback by themselves, it's likely Game Pass wouldn't have seen the light of day because it wouldn't have been needed.

XB is important enough to keep around for MS for a few reasons, one being the main reason by far. That has been clear to some for quite a while now. The acquisition funds say something, but not near as much as some would think. Just look at what MS put into Mixer and Ninja, all just to drop it when it didn't work out. That's not to say they'll drop XB, because I don't think they would since it's core, but Game Pass on the other hand, that could go if need need be.

Last edited by ConservagameR - on 04 April 2022

Hmmm seems to me that they need to add a PC only streaming tier for the PS Now subscribers who only play on PC....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

ConservagameR said:

I'm not sure where you got this idea that I think services are a cancer to gaming and have no place. PS Plus is a service and has been around for well over a decade and is doing so great its expanding. There is a time and place for everything, it just depends on when, where, and for how long.

Then MS or XB is no different. Win 10 was a service, until it wasn't. Windows 11 is a service, or not, or who knows? XB can't be a service because the main difference vs PS is day 1, which isn't the key to what makes a service a service. There are many aspects. Now you could say that you think that XB services are simply better offerings than what PS provides.

If Game Pass and services were so important to the point they were everything, XB wouldn't be selling hardware anymore. If anyone can get Game Pass anywhere, there's no need to complicate things and waste time and resources on hardware. XB would rather use those funds to grow Game Pass, through more games, better games, cheaper monthly pricing, etc.

Phil didn't need a plan beyond a Netflix of gaming perhaps. Nobody did. It was beyond obvious in many ways to many people how XB1 had screwed up, just like with PS3. All Phil had to do was a 180 with most mistakes and many problems would be solved. BC was even something that was being complained about enough by fans of XB1 and PS4, so that was a no brainer for Phil to fill in the lacking gaps of first party. As for if Phil had Game Pass as an ace up his sleeve this whole time, maybe, maybe not. I'd have to believe that prior to Game Pass, if the 180's made had led to a strong enough comeback by themselves, it's likely Game Pass wouldn't have seen the light of day because it wouldn't have been needed.

XB is important enough to keep around for MS for a few reasons, one being the main reason by far. That has been clear to some for quite a while now. The acquisition funds say something, but not near as much as some would think. Just look at what MS put into Mixer and Ninja, all just to drop it when it didn't work out. That's not to say they'll drop XB, because I don't think they would since it's core, but Game Pass on the other hand, that could go if need need be.

I am not sure where you got the ideal I believe you have a good or bad opinion on gaming services.  I am pretty sure I have made no reference to that opinion since most of my points are against your stance that GP needs Sony validation. 

PS Plus is not a service, PS Now is a service.  I believe you are getting confused on the difference between the 2.  Never stated that this was not so, the difference I continue to state is the direction.  I also made the point, that MS stance on GP is that its the driving force for their future and this new service by Sony is still an extension of their console business.  There is a clear distinction on how each company views their services.

See one does not equal another.  Just because GP is considered the global direction for MS the company does not mean that they do not still make the Xbox console.  Just like MS makes mice, keyboards, surface PC and laptops.  The hardware are extensions of MS business while the services is the Main goal, its the opposite of how Sony view their eco system where the console hardware is the main and their services are extension of it.

Not sure if Phil direction was a no brainer, really does not matter, he made the right decisions and in the eyes of the CEO, those decisions gained him promotions from head of xbox to head of gaming for MS.  So whether those decision were no brainers means nothing, execution is what companies look for.

Xbox will be around for as long as MS can sell consoles, just like them selling mice, keyboards, laptops ect.



A more rational organisation makes sense, but as others said, top tier should offer more than what has been leaked.
Anyhow, a single service platform with different levels makes the gamers life simpler and allows to make them nicer offers, for example users could receive some free weeks of higher level services after they bought a given amount of products and/or services, this is just one of the things that become easier if the service platform is unified.
Then there is a big benefit for Sony, marketing costs drop and their effectiveness rises. This can be more beneficial than the savings on services operating costs.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf said:

A more rational organisation makes sense, but as others said, top tier should offer more than what has been leaked.
Anyhow, a single service platform with different levels makes the gamers life simpler and allows to make them nicer offers, for example users could receive some free weeks of higher level services after they bought a given amount of products and/or services, this is just one of the things that become easier if the service platform is unified.
Then there is a big benefit for Sony, marketing costs drop and their effectiveness rises. This can be more beneficial than the savings on services operating costs.

It combines the features and price of PS+ and PSNow, plus adding a PS1, PSP games plus expect more PS2 games and the trial. What else exactly was you expecting that isn't day and date of all their 1st party titles? And it is also sensibly cheaper than competitor.



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:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

A more rational organisation makes sense, but as others said, top tier should offer more than what has been leaked.
Anyhow, a single service platform with different levels makes the gamers life simpler and allows to make them nicer offers, for example users could receive some free weeks of higher level services after they bought a given amount of products and/or services, this is just one of the things that become easier if the service platform is unified.
Then there is a big benefit for Sony, marketing costs drop and their effectiveness rises. This can be more beneficial than the savings on services operating costs.

It combines the features and price of PS+ and PSNow, plus adding a PS1, PSP games plus expect more PS2 games and the trial. What else exactly was you expecting that isn't day and date of all their 1st party titles? And it is also sensibly cheaper than competitor.

Suddenly I realise I misunderstood your first post and that top tier just had PS3. Maybe, though, I'd put some legacy stuff in tier 2 too, so tier 3 should have some more just to keep the difference as large. But not too much more, though, as I fear trying to compete with Game Pass with a similar offer could end up damaging the market turning too many gamers into bulimic consumers of cheap, short and abundant games.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Alby_da_Wolf said:
DonFerrari said:

It combines the features and price of PS+ and PSNow, plus adding a PS1, PSP games plus expect more PS2 games and the trial. What else exactly was you expecting that isn't day and date of all their 1st party titles? And it is also sensibly cheaper than competitor.

Suddenly I realise I misunderstood your first post and that top tier just had PS3. Maybe, though, I'd put some legacy stuff in tier 2 too, so tier 3 should have some more just to keep the difference as large. But not too much more, though, as I fear trying to compete with Game Pass with a similar offer could end up damaging the market turning too many gamers into bulimic consumers of cheap, short and abundant games.

Gotcha.

Yes they could have offered perhaps PS2 titles that were already on PSNow... or even like the Top 50 of both PS1 and PS2 libraries on mid-tier. But from the reasoning of the boss it is that they know just very few people want the classic/legacy titles so that is why the premium is for those, they expect most to sign the mid tier to have PS4 and PS5 content.



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:

I'm not sure where you got this idea that I think services are a cancer to gaming and have no place. PS Plus is a service and has been around for well over a decade and is doing so great its expanding. There is a time and place for everything, it just depends on when, where, and for how long.

Then MS or XB is no different. Win 10 was a service, until it wasn't. Windows 11 is a service, or not, or who knows? XB can't be a service because the main difference vs PS is day 1, which isn't the key to what makes a service a service. There are many aspects. Now you could say that you think that XB services are simply better offerings than what PS provides.

If Game Pass and services were so important to the point they were everything, XB wouldn't be selling hardware anymore. If anyone can get Game Pass anywhere, there's no need to complicate things and waste time and resources on hardware. XB would rather use those funds to grow Game Pass, through more games, better games, cheaper monthly pricing, etc.

Phil didn't need a plan beyond a Netflix of gaming perhaps. Nobody did. It was beyond obvious in many ways to many people how XB1 had screwed up, just like with PS3. All Phil had to do was a 180 with most mistakes and many problems would be solved. BC was even something that was being complained about enough by fans of XB1 and PS4, so that was a no brainer for Phil to fill in the lacking gaps of first party. As for if Phil had Game Pass as an ace up his sleeve this whole time, maybe, maybe not. I'd have to believe that prior to Game Pass, if the 180's made had led to a strong enough comeback by themselves, it's likely Game Pass wouldn't have seen the light of day because it wouldn't have been needed.

XB is important enough to keep around for MS for a few reasons, one being the main reason by far. That has been clear to some for quite a while now. The acquisition funds say something, but not near as much as some would think. Just look at what MS put into Mixer and Ninja, all just to drop it when it didn't work out. That's not to say they'll drop XB, because I don't think they would since it's core, but Game Pass on the other hand, that could go if need need be.

I am not sure where you got the ideal I believe you have a good or bad opinion on gaming services.  I am pretty sure I have made no reference to that opinion since most of my points are against your stance that GP needs Sony validation. 

PS Plus is not a service, PS Now is a service.  I believe you are getting confused on the difference between the 2.  Never stated that this was not so, the difference I continue to state is the direction.  I also made the point, that MS stance on GP is that its the driving force for their future and this new service by Sony is still an extension of their console business.  There is a clear distinction on how each company views their services.

See one does not equal another.  Just because GP is considered the global direction for MS the company does not mean that they do not still make the Xbox console.  Just like MS makes mice, keyboards, surface PC and laptops.  The hardware are extensions of MS business while the services is the Main goal, its the opposite of how Sony view their eco system where the console hardware is the main and their services are extension of it.

Not sure if Phil direction was a no brainer, really does not matter, he made the right decisions and in the eyes of the CEO, those decisions gained him promotions from head of xbox to head of gaming for MS.  So whether those decision were no brainers means nothing, execution is what companies look for.

Xbox will be around for as long as MS can sell consoles, just like them selling mice, keyboards, laptops ect.

That's because I never said Game Pass needs Sony validation. I said XB hoped for validation through a potential Game Pass competitor from Sony.

So saying what you think, or what you are, means everything, yet nothing, if you don't follow through and deviate instead?

Netflix is a service because that's what a service is. If Netflix started selling their own hardware to be able to make use of their service, that would no longer make them a dedicated service company. Now if those devices were free with a sub, then they would still be considered a service only company.

This means MS (with XB), as well as Sony (with PS), are both partially service companies. As I already put it, hybrids, though one is more of a true hybrid than the other at this point, or one is closer to becoming a full service you could say.

Companies do prefer employees with useful idea's that can execute. If their idea's aren't useful, then they just want a yes man who will do what they're told. Phil at the very least can execute. How many useful new idea's were his, that's hard to say.

I can't really argue much with that. MS would have to come up with some other big game plan prior if they were going to axe XB. For as long as XB has been around now, it looks as though MS thinks it's worth keeping no matter what.



ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

I am not sure where you got the ideal I believe you have a good or bad opinion on gaming services.  I am pretty sure I have made no reference to that opinion since most of my points are against your stance that GP needs Sony validation. 

PS Plus is not a service, PS Now is a service.  I believe you are getting confused on the difference between the 2.  Never stated that this was not so, the difference I continue to state is the direction.  I also made the point, that MS stance on GP is that its the driving force for their future and this new service by Sony is still an extension of their console business.  There is a clear distinction on how each company views their services.

See one does not equal another.  Just because GP is considered the global direction for MS the company does not mean that they do not still make the Xbox console.  Just like MS makes mice, keyboards, surface PC and laptops.  The hardware are extensions of MS business while the services is the Main goal, its the opposite of how Sony view their eco system where the console hardware is the main and their services are extension of it.

Not sure if Phil direction was a no brainer, really does not matter, he made the right decisions and in the eyes of the CEO, those decisions gained him promotions from head of xbox to head of gaming for MS.  So whether those decision were no brainers means nothing, execution is what companies look for.

Xbox will be around for as long as MS can sell consoles, just like them selling mice, keyboards, laptops ect.

 I said XB hoped for validation through a potential Game Pass competitor from Sony.