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

Machiavellian said:
Fei-Hung said:

For me it's the middle Tier. I like PS Plus as it is, and it seems the middle Tier is only PS4 & 5 games. Right now there isn't much in terms of PS5 and the rest of the library is PS3 and 4. So this send it will be more of 4&5.

I know it's not a direct competitor to GP, but if PS Plus offerings remain better than Gold, and Sony keeps putting PS5 games in, 6-12 months after release, I'm happy.

People forget that PS Plus offerings are way better, with the added benefit off being able to keep them.

Elden Ring has been a huge reminder for my mates who have GP that they want o keep playing Elden Ring, but now have to stop playing or they may miss out on GotG. The other option is they carry on, and hope GotG is still there when they finish or returns back on GP.

I just hope Sony doesn't drop the ball on the quality and variety of games they offer on PS Plus

Where are you getting the info that you get to keep your PS plus games if you stop your sub.

As for something like Elden Ring on any game on GP, you do have the option to purchase for a discount which I have done a few times.

As far as we know, once you added a PS+ game to your library it will always be there. If at any moment you stop subbing you won't be able to play it, but at any given moment you come back it will be playable just fine. So what he was saying was that on subs like GP you may have to stop playing what you are hyped to play so you don't lose the window of that title availability while on PS+ you just add to your backlog and play whenever you want after finishing what you are doing. Now I don't know how GotG works, but that was what he was talking.

Elden Ring isn't on GP, and the point was not for the games you purchase, because those obviously are yours to keep (unless odd circumstances that can happen with fully digital purchases on any platform).



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
Mnementh said:
Machiavellian said:

As for something like Elden Ring on any game on GP, you do have the option to purchase for a discount which I have done a few times.

Did I miss something, because as far as I can see Elden Ring isn't on Gamepass and wasn't.

Nah, I believe the orginal comment was just using it as an example of a game that if it was on GP and leaving within a year would be a problem.  I was just commenting that GP subs could just purchase the game at the end of its term for a discounted price if they wanted to keep the game.



DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

Where are you getting the info that you get to keep your PS plus games if you stop your sub.

As for something like Elden Ring on any game on GP, you do have the option to purchase for a discount which I have done a few times.

As far as we know, once you added a PS+ game to your library it will always be there. If at any moment you stop subbing you won't be able to play it, but at any given moment you come back it will be playable just fine. So what he was saying was that on subs like GP you may have to stop playing what you are hyped to play so you don't lose the window of that title availability while on PS+ you just add to your backlog and play whenever you want after finishing what you are doing. Now I don't know how GotG works, but that was what he was talking.

Elden Ring isn't on GP, and the point was not for the games you purchase, because those obviously are yours to keep (unless odd circumstances that can happen with fully digital purchases on any platform).

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



twintail said:
ConservagameR said:

The info I'm most curious about for the Extra tier, is:

Will there be more additional games added, and how long before they are, or how often?

If so, then will some of those added games be AAA first or third party, and how long after launch before they're added?

Will existing games be cycled out, and if so, how many and how often?

Right now, Now is random like this. One thing though is that Sony makes it clear from game month announcements how long it remains in the service. 

Presumably, this restructuring is designed to get better deals for the service. 

I haven't dealt with PS Now so I was unaware of this. Streaming hasn't been an option for me until recently but I'm still not interested in it. I prefer my physical games played natively on a console for the most part.

With both services being brought together (more so in Premium), this leads me to believe the top 2 tiers remain more like Now, with games rotating in and out. The only question left will be what type of games and how often?

I'd actually guess Sony will quite likely hold back on the first party as much and as long as possible. For someone like me, if many first party titles landed in Plus Extra for $99 per year, 1 year after their launch, Sony would end up losing quite a bit of money from me, and that's just me. Maybe it will take 2-3 years before most Sony first party titles make it into the service then. That's something I couldn't wait around for.

Yet if I'm correct that games like Death Stranding and the Spiderman games will be on Extra from the get go, those alone should be worth it for me to jump up to Extra. I haven't played them yet and plan to eventually. Adding 400 other games on top of that, almost makes it a no brainer actually that I should sign up for Extra. At least for a year once my existing Plus sub runs out. That'll give me a year anyway to asses whether its worth keeping or downgrading. I have a hard time believing it would be a waste of $40 more any way you slice it, just to try.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

As far as we know, once you added a PS+ game to your library it will always be there. If at any moment you stop subbing you won't be able to play it, but at any given moment you come back it will be playable just fine. So what he was saying was that on subs like GP you may have to stop playing what you are hyped to play so you don't lose the window of that title availability while on PS+ you just add to your backlog and play whenever you want after finishing what you are doing. Now I don't know how GotG works, but that was what he was talking.

Elden Ring isn't on GP, and the point was not for the games you purchase, because those obviously are yours to keep (unless odd circumstances that can happen with fully digital purchases on any platform).

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).



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
ConservagameR said:

twintail said:

Right now, Now is random like this. One thing though is that Sony makes it clear from game month announcements how long it remains in the service. 

Presumably, this restructuring is designed to get better deals for the service. 

I haven't dealt with PS Now so I was unaware of this. Streaming hasn't been an option for me until recently but I'm still not interested in it. I prefer my physical games played natively on a console for the most part.

With both services being brought together (more so in Premium), this leads me to believe the top 2 tiers remain more like Now, with games rotating in and out. The only question left will be what type of games and how often?

I'd actually guess Sony will quite likely hold back on the first party as much and as long as possible. For someone like me, if many first party titles landed in Plus Extra for $99 per year, 1 year after their launch, Sony would end up losing quite a bit of money from me, and that's just me. Maybe it will take 2-3 years before most Sony first party titles make it into the service then. That's something I couldn't wait around for.

Yet if I'm correct that games like Death Stranding and the Spiderman games will be on Extra from the get go, those alone should be worth it for me to jump up to Extra. I haven't played them yet and plan to eventually. Adding 400 other games on top of that, almost makes it a no brainer actually that I should sign up for Extra. At least for a year once my existing Plus sub runs out. That'll give me a year anyway to asses whether its worth keeping or downgrading. I have a hard time believing it would be a waste of $40 more any way you slice it, just to try.

From the way it is worded on their blog (and sure I may be understanding wrong) the PS5 titles sure will be a rotation, PS4 most likely as well but PS1,2,3 and PSP will be added and not removed afterwards (but I also think it will be a small and constant inclusion, if there is rotation perhaps it will just be temporary because if there is effort to port there would be no good reason to toss that in the toilette afterwards, of course if they keep standalone sales them it is more likely the rythm of entry will be higher but removal also).



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:

Game Pass fans and gamers who simply want the best deal possible in terms of money, obviously want to compare the new Plus because being ok with it as is, doesn't help them. Game Pass is supposed to be the future of gaming, and its been out for a while now, so if Sony kinda ignores it, like they kinda are, then it doesn't bode well for that type of bang for your buck Netflix model. Nobody really wants to pay more for games, and who wouldn't want Sony first party day 1, but top quality for bargain prices just doesn't happen. That's not how things work unfortunately.

I think this is layout, so far, is a relatively decent proposal by PS. Some aren't happy about paying for BC in the Premium tier, but I'd bet this ends up an ongoing thing. Meaning instead of stopping BC like XB did, PS can justify continuing to bring BC titles until they all are added eventually.

While I need some more info, I'd guess I'll be moving up from Plus Essential ($60) to Plus Extra ($99). 400 more games, including some big AAA, for just $40 more per year seems like a steal to me. The BC games don't appeal that much to me personally.

The info I'm most curious about for the Extra tier, is:

Will there be more additional games added, and how long before they are, or how often?

If so, then will some of those added games be AAA first or third party, and how long after launch before they're added?

Will existing games be cycled out, and if so, how many and how often?

If Sony were to add games like Horizon Forbidden West or God of War Ragnarok, just 1 year after launch, that's something I could live with. If it's more than 1 year, then I just might stick with Essential and buy first party much closer to launch. I have to see what those 400 games are and whether they rotate in and out. If so then maybe Extra would still be worth it for me.

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.



DonFerrari said:
ConservagameR said:

twintail said:

Right now, Now is random like this. One thing though is that Sony makes it clear from game month announcements how long it remains in the service. 

Presumably, this restructuring is designed to get better deals for the service. 

I haven't dealt with PS Now so I was unaware of this. Streaming hasn't been an option for me until recently but I'm still not interested in it. I prefer my physical games played natively on a console for the most part.

With both services being brought together (more so in Premium), this leads me to believe the top 2 tiers remain more like Now, with games rotating in and out. The only question left will be what type of games and how often?

I'd actually guess Sony will quite likely hold back on the first party as much and as long as possible. For someone like me, if many first party titles landed in Plus Extra for $99 per year, 1 year after their launch, Sony would end up losing quite a bit of money from me, and that's just me. Maybe it will take 2-3 years before most Sony first party titles make it into the service then. That's something I couldn't wait around for.

Yet if I'm correct that games like Death Stranding and the Spiderman games will be on Extra from the get go, those alone should be worth it for me to jump up to Extra. I haven't played them yet and plan to eventually. Adding 400 other games on top of that, almost makes it a no brainer actually that I should sign up for Extra. At least for a year once my existing Plus sub runs out. That'll give me a year anyway to asses whether its worth keeping or downgrading. I have a hard time believing it would be a waste of $40 more any way you slice it, just to try.

From the way it is worded on their blog (and sure I may be understanding wrong) the PS5 titles sure will be a rotation, PS4 most likely as well but PS1,2,3 and PSP will be added and not removed afterwards (but I also think it will be a small and constant inclusion, if there is rotation perhaps it will just be temporary because if there is effort to port there would be no good reason to toss that in the toilette afterwards, of course if they keep standalone sales them it is more likely the rythm of entry will be higher but removal also).

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.



ConservagameR said:
DonFerrari said:

From the way it is worded on their blog (and sure I may be understanding wrong) the PS5 titles sure will be a rotation, PS4 most likely as well but PS1,2,3 and PSP will be added and not removed afterwards (but I also think it will be a small and constant inclusion, if there is rotation perhaps it will just be temporary because if there is effort to port there would be no good reason to toss that in the toilette afterwards, of course if they keep standalone sales them it is more likely the rythm of entry will be higher but removal also).

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.



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:
ConservagameR said:

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.

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.