Well keeping the BC games there at all times makes sense to me, but if Sony doesn't rotate the more recent games in and out, then the catalogue will only grow. Which would be great for consumers, but it's hard to believe that Sony isn't going to want to keep raising the prices to compensate.

If Sony does just that, and let's the catalogue grow, without direct price increases, then they are seemingly in a way, slowly making their way towards a Netflix model, and inching towards Game Pass. The main difference then being lack of day 1 first party. Though by that time, Plus Premium may have a massive advantage over XB and Game Pass when it comes to the BC catalogue available.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.