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

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.

I believe you are getting the wrong ideal.  Why would you download 4 games and try them for 15 mins.  Why not just download one game and play it enough to decide if you like it.  I only download one game, play it and if I like it I continue to play it until I am done, then I go to another game.  15 mins usually isn't enough to really tell anything as some games can be slow starters.

If you are going to go the short try method then why even download the game just stream it which takes seconds to get up and running and then if you like it you can download it and play.  I know I have done this a few times with some games because I was not sure about the gameplay.  

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.

You can ignore the 4 at a time, that wasn't the point. The point was that I don't download to try a game, I look for trailer and info on the game and if it seems something I'll like I pick it up, if I'm uncertain I won't and likely wouldn't do it even if was free. My son though would certainly love because he swap games like crazy.

Well services are not for everyone.  I like to explore new games and gameplay and get outside of my comfort zone.  GP delivers to me on that front.  If I am uncertain, then I can easily steam the game and see if I like it before downloading.  This allows me to experience all types of different games but then again this is how I use Netflix as well.  Pretty easy to explore stuff I normally would not go to the movies and pay for and I have been reward more than disappointed.  Its the reason I continue to sub to GP.  I would take the same approach to PS new service as well once it comes out and I can see what it offers but for right now, I am content with just PS Plus.

What if Sony copied exactly GP, that still does not validate the service.  This is the point I am contesting.  Whether Sony copies or does not copy has nothing to do with the validation of GP.  I believe you seem to forget but there are multiple services at this moment besides GP.  There is Google, Amazon, Netflix and of course Sony.  All of them do something different each trying to gain customers based on their strengths.  GP does not need Sony or anyone in the industry to copy the service in order to justify its success or existence.  Gaining subs is the only thing that justify GP not what your competition does.  MS does not need Sony to validate their direction just like Sony does not need MS to validate theirs.  I just do not understand your logic on this point.  It seems you are saying that anything MS does is a direct result of Sony but that is not the case.  I do not know any user that is saying, "Hey, I should think about getting GP because Sony is trying to copy the service".  The only validation GP needs is customers saying, "GP has great games for this sub price, I should get it".

I also do not believe GP was born because MS was behind Sony in marketshare, Instead of thinking of GP launching during the XB1 period as a result of competition with Sony, think instead of when a certain someone was removed as head of Xbox and a new chief came into power.  That person brought to the CEO a new direction and vison for not only Xbox but for MS and games in general.  MS whole outlook on games and its importance to the company changed as MS renewed their interest in PC gaming. One of the first direction was that all first party games are going to release on the PC.  Many people stated that this would kill the Xbox because there would be no reason to purchase the system.  Phil direction for the Xbox division was to combine both PC and console together, setup a cloud service and then get that service on every device that can play games.  GP was sold as a games service not an xbox service.  The fact that the CEO bonus is tied to GP growth instead of the Xbox business unit means its a MS company service not just the Xbox division.

Putting your AAA games on your service day one makes sense if you are not trying to tie your AAA games just to one device.  MS is not a hardware company so they do not look to tie everything to their hardware but instead they are a service company and it make sense put all your products behind services because this is what the company excel at.  150 million subs is probably the goal for GP and as a service company, this is the direction MS wants to go.  I have never heard MS make any statements about whether Sony direction is the correct path.  Actually I have not heard MS really mention anything about Sony when it comes to their services.  Each one is doing what makes sense for their business.

The reason why the Nin Switch didn't end up exactly like the PS Vita, is because that would've been stupid. When someone (like Nin) see's a product (Vita) as weak or a failure, they don't copy it exactly, if at all. It's the same reason why you see so many copies of Nike's.

If the new Plus service was a copy of Game Pass, then yes, absolutely, it would help to justify Game Pass. As I said earlier, new Plus removes some validation from Game Pass. It doesn't invalidate it, it just shows that it's not necessarily completely valid at this time, or maybe not at all.

Phil was an important part of bringing XB1 to market wasn't he? He wasn't the boss with the final say, but was Phil voicing his opinion that he believed XB was on the wrong path? People also didn't know that MS would go from XB1 to XBSS and XBSX. Another XB1 this gen would've led to the console sales being a disaster. Phil has also said they don't care about hardware as it's not needed to enjoy the full XB experience anyway, so why would their hardware matter?

As for Game Pass having nothing to do with Sony, that's just a case of turning a blind eye. It's like saying XB1X had nothing to do with PS4 and Pro. For someone to say that everything Sony has ever done, like the new Plus for example, was always pre planned and never had anything to do with XB would just be complete favoritism nonsense. The new Plus is no doubt a reaction from Sony to what the market is doing as well as their competition.

Well MS said it was all about Windows as a service with Win 10, which would continue forever supposedly, and then they coincidentally changed their minds and made Win 11 right about when they would've if they weren't actually a service in the first place. As for MS not being a hardware company, they do seem to be pushing all their (new) hardware far more than they ever did prior. Not just for computing, but 2 levels of next gen consoles at launch, with one is boasted as the most powerful hardware ever.

None of the explanation of day 1 matters if nobody else can really do it because it doesn't fit their profitable gaming businesses, gaming model. Having a sugar daddy who gives you their pocket change from their other businesses monopoly to keep funding your project to outlast the competition is all that matters considering the competition can't do that. It would be like trying to explain why PS TV's were great and why XB TV's weren't. PS had Sony so they could easily make TV's, when MS didn't make TV's and barely any hardware at all for that matter, so how was XB supposed to compete?

Game Pass isn't the end all be all for gaming, just like how PS TV's weren't. They were a nice extra for some (for a time), but that's it.

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.