kyliethicc
Member
Well Sony just added The Last of Us Part II (for 3 months) and God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn (permanently.)
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Report: Sony overhauling PlayStation Plus with new tiers and streaming
Topher
Identifies as young
The only people that don't want Sony to have a gamepass like service are fanboys who are incredibly worried about their beloved corporation losing money which I find hilarious I might add, They also don't like value for their money
The primary concern for many is the possibility that this will result in lower quality games.
SportsFan581
Member
I know, they have been working to keep things fresher recently. For a long time though PS Now had a very stagnant, very PS3 heavy lineup. I assume that is why they feel they need to rebrand.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
Got my 1 dollar conversion set aside for the future posts each month.
March 2022 Gamepass games Vs PS++ games
'oh what a dissapointment'
'this month is a joke'
'oh always wanted to try X'
'Damn it I bought X already'
March 2022 Gamepass games Vs PS++ games
'oh what a dissapointment'
'this month is a joke'
'oh always wanted to try X'
'Damn it I bought X already'
Knightime_X
Member
With Duckstation, ppsspp being damn near perfect with even better features sony lost me.
If they can't get ps2 to run at higher resolutions I won't bother with paying a higher tier.
If they can't get ps2 to run at higher resolutions I won't bother with paying a higher tier.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
This is true, and what differentiates xbox game pass so much is that they include all first party AAA.
Chukhopops
Member
It’s all good until you look at any other metric: age of the catalog, average meta score, etc.Just an fyi, this was a comparison of PS Now and Game Pass libraries from earlier this year.
Obviously the exact number of games changes over time.
But the point is Sony has room to add hundreds of PS1, PS2, and PSP games to the service. With 400+ PS3 games already. That's enough for its own separate tier.
And with 400+ PS4 games already there, they can soon get to a point where they would have a library of over 500 PS4 & PS5 games.
Then you understand why one has 5-6 times the subs of the other despite a smaller user base.
JLB
Banned
em, which service(s) includes first party games day one?
kyliethicc
Member
Well sure, but once Jimbo took over he cut the price in half and now they have over 400 PS4 games to download for $5/month ($60/year.)
The issue is most people don't know that since Sony don't advertise it.
Over time they can add more PS4 & PS5 games, 1st and 3rd party, and end up with a huge library of games to download and play.
Its going to be their way of doubling the price of PS Plus. Add a premium tier for $10/month ($120/year.) A library of ~ 500 PS4 & PS5 games, download and play. No streaming, no old PS1 PS2 PS3 games, etc. Then they'll randomly add their 1st party games onto it as they go, probably with a few day 1 drops of some of their own multiplayer games. And maybe some of their lower budget games.
Then years later if they really need to, Sony can flip the switch and do 1st party day 1 drops. Not gonna happen unless they have to, tho.
Sure but remember Sony currently barely gives a fuck about PS Now. They barely add their own games to it.
PS Plus has over 45 million subs. Because they actually try to market it and make it appealing. Unlike Now which they neglect.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
remember_spinal
Banned
Nintendo watching from the sidelines like
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
So is this not going to have Day 1 releases for any of the tiers? NGL, I think they're missing an opportunity here. The answer is simply enough: just do a per-game contract subscription rate, set it between $3/MO - $6/MO, depending on the retail MRSP (physical and/or digital) of the game, give a higher grade say $9/MO that also gives you full access to DLC content and certain MTX items released during the contract's 1-year period.
The user is still legally obligated to pay to the terms of the contract (it's no different than contracts for mobile data plans or ISP internet service) and it can still count as a unit sold, while being cheap enough to where you may get that user to buy more games on similar contract plans in the same period. Just have a monthly code feature built into these versions of the game wherein the user has to verify their status with an online check, just once a month, and the game continues to function like a regular full-retail copy.
Because unless they are adding a well of new features to at least some of the PS1/PS2/PS3 games supported, like network online play and whatnot, I don't see a clean path for this service to get massive increases in subscribers if that's truly Sony's goal. They may be put off the idea of potentially hurting sales copies with including them Day 1 in the service but as seen with GamePass at least for some games its actually helped generate more revenue than it would've a more traditional method (they sold roughly 1.45 million copies of FH5 revenue-converted prior to its release in GamePass). And even ignoring that, they can take something like the Amazon Luna model but apply it on a per-game basis when it comes to new releases, and solve that problem right then and there.
3P are not going to be very keen to put a lot of their own new big releases into the service if Sony themselves are reluctant, though; they have to lead by example on this. Again take Microsoft for example; with games like FH5 and very likely Halo Infinite doing very strong in content revenue sales (which converted to retail units puts them in millions sold territory), that and user data/activity/further content revenue figures is going to be useful for convincing more 3P devs and pubs to put some of their bigger releases into the service, because now they have examples to be led with, data to go off of etc and it helps a lot that stuff is from the platform holder who owns the service itself.
It'll at some point have to be the same thing with Sony or else a lot of 3P aren't going to commit like that when it comes to Day 1 releases and that's going to neuter growth of the service itself. So I'm hoping they're considering Day 1 for at least some major 1P releases some way (like TLOU: Factions for example; there's almost no reason that can't be released as a Day 1 title here).
Like
SportsFan581
said, the games are on a service you pay either $9.99/MO or $14.99/MO for, in addition to still being sold through retail both physically and digitally. They aren't actually giving anything away.
You are thinking as if subscription models and direct-sales models can't co-exist when that is what Microsoft are already doing. IF there is a future where direct-sales goes away as an option it'll only be because the mass market has spoken to make it that way. And it's not like other business models in the industry haven't come and gone: the arcade business model and the shareware model with PC games up to the early-mid '90s for example have both gone from positions of prominence to very small pieces of the market now, and the market was able to adjust accordingly. It'll do so again in the future.
Lastly, why are you bringing up cumulative multi-divisional profits into a conversation about subscription streaming services? Shouldn't you be asking what Sony's profits from PS Now are, or NSO for Nintendo? Otherwise you're just referring to the direct-sales, traditional stuff which it isn't like Microsoft's abandoned that. And if you're referencing revenue, Xbox's total revenue for the fiscal year was only $500 million behind Nintendo's; Nintendo obviously had more profit than Xbox division but Nintendo only has gaming so I'd hope their profits were larger than Xbox's or there'd be a point of concern!
The user is still legally obligated to pay to the terms of the contract (it's no different than contracts for mobile data plans or ISP internet service) and it can still count as a unit sold, while being cheap enough to where you may get that user to buy more games on similar contract plans in the same period. Just have a monthly code feature built into these versions of the game wherein the user has to verify their status with an online check, just once a month, and the game continues to function like a regular full-retail copy.
Because unless they are adding a well of new features to at least some of the PS1/PS2/PS3 games supported, like network online play and whatnot, I don't see a clean path for this service to get massive increases in subscribers if that's truly Sony's goal. They may be put off the idea of potentially hurting sales copies with including them Day 1 in the service but as seen with GamePass at least for some games its actually helped generate more revenue than it would've a more traditional method (they sold roughly 1.45 million copies of FH5 revenue-converted prior to its release in GamePass). And even ignoring that, they can take something like the Amazon Luna model but apply it on a per-game basis when it comes to new releases, and solve that problem right then and there.
3P are not going to be very keen to put a lot of their own new big releases into the service if Sony themselves are reluctant, though; they have to lead by example on this. Again take Microsoft for example; with games like FH5 and very likely Halo Infinite doing very strong in content revenue sales (which converted to retail units puts them in millions sold territory), that and user data/activity/further content revenue figures is going to be useful for convincing more 3P devs and pubs to put some of their bigger releases into the service, because now they have examples to be led with, data to go off of etc and it helps a lot that stuff is from the platform holder who owns the service itself.
It'll at some point have to be the same thing with Sony or else a lot of 3P aren't going to commit like that when it comes to Day 1 releases and that's going to neuter growth of the service itself. So I'm hoping they're considering Day 1 for at least some major 1P releases some way (like TLOU: Factions for example; there's almost no reason that can't be released as a Day 1 title here).
Like
SportsFan581
said, the games are on a service you pay either $9.99/MO or $14.99/MO for, in addition to still being sold through retail both physically and digitally. They aren't actually giving anything away. You are thinking as if subscription models and direct-sales models can't co-exist when that is what Microsoft are already doing. IF there is a future where direct-sales goes away as an option it'll only be because the mass market has spoken to make it that way. And it's not like other business models in the industry haven't come and gone: the arcade business model and the shareware model with PC games up to the early-mid '90s for example have both gone from positions of prominence to very small pieces of the market now, and the market was able to adjust accordingly. It'll do so again in the future.
Lastly, why are you bringing up cumulative multi-divisional profits into a conversation about subscription streaming services? Shouldn't you be asking what Sony's profits from PS Now are, or NSO for Nintendo? Otherwise you're just referring to the direct-sales, traditional stuff which it isn't like Microsoft's abandoned that. And if you're referencing revenue, Xbox's total revenue for the fiscal year was only $500 million behind Nintendo's; Nintendo obviously had more profit than Xbox division but Nintendo only has gaming so I'd hope their profits were larger than Xbox's or there'd be a point of concern!
Last edited:
Lognor
Banned
Probably going to be a disaster. I fucking hate tiers. Look at the Nintendo Switch online tier shit. They could have just given us those N64 games at the current price. They didn't. I expect the same type of thing to happen here. The lowest tier will be worse than what we currently get and the highest tier won't be worth it.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
That’s some humble pie that needs to happen now.
skit_data
Member
We haven’t seen what it costs yet, though.
Excess
Member
Are you already justifying higher prices? Did you seriously just imply that?
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
A video game sub-service as a legally binding contract? Lmao no
Also third parties aren't going to care whether Sony commits to day one releases. They care about getting fairly reimbursed. That's all it takes.
Last edited:
FoundryMusic
Member
The Blue Accountants more like.Hype for the inevitable 180° about subscription services of some people in here
This is a joke of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons inside gaf, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.
yurinka
Member
Back in 2014, when Sony announced PS Now, mentioned that their long term plan for it was to include there games from all the generations of PlayStation history, and that they planned to bring it to PS, phones, tablets, tvs, computers, etc.
Regarding their PC strategy, it' pretty different: MS puts all their games day one on PC. Sony puts only some of their games, and all of them are 2+ years old.
Regarding their subscriptions strategy, MS puts all their games there day one. Sony doesn't put all their games there, and they do it when they are pretty old. Same goes with 3rd party games, MS bets mostly on day one games while Sony very rarely includes day one on PS Now (from time to time they do it with some indie in PS Plus). So Sony generates way more money than MS from games sales because they don't include new games in the subscriptions, get way more money than MS from subscriptions because has way more subscribers and make less big deals, and -pretty likely spends way less money than on securing games for the subscription services because they are older games.
Cross-play, cross-buy, cross-save and remote play were names introduced by Sony, probably even patented, because they were the first ones to implement them.
Sony is making more money than any console maker ever did in gaming history, their money comes mostly from selling games and DLC (subs are a tiny part of their revenue) and their 1st party games are selling more than ever. They already are generating more money with game subscriptions and have more subscribers than MS, and if this rumor/leak is true I think the distance will become bigger.
They don't have any reason to include all their 1st party games day one on a subscription. To do this would destroy their current strategy, that is the most successful ever.
Last edited:
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
I have ps plus and ps now. Wonder how they are doing that?
Chukhopops
Member
I mean, with a revamp and a focus on putting the whole catalog (not even day 1 games but just previous games permanently available) PSNow could be really good and huge. It’s just not there yet though.
In this clown of a thread-
People think a streaming/sub service is only good if it has new day one releases.
Couldn’t be a more idiotic opinion. A subscription service shouldn’t be dictated only by what new content it has. The overall library is what matters. I’m sure people who have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, don’t watch movies from 2020 only. They watch everything. In fact if you remove the back catalogue from those services the library would be massively smaller.
A new PS subscription tier with PS1PS2PS4PSP catalogue will be a huge selling point for a lot of people. On top of already having hundreds more games than gamepass.
Sony doesn’t need to put their new games on PSnow. They aren’t struggling to sell software like MS. There’s plenty of other reasons to use a sub service besides having immediate access to new games day one.
Funny how back catalogue games don’t matter anymore and aren’t good. MS’s whole Series X launch campaign was BC games and fanboys defended them for that.
There’s nothing wrong with having back catalogue games on a sub service as a selling point. PlayStation’s library is one of the most sought after.
Native support would be best though. Just let me play my disc.
People think a streaming/sub service is only good if it has new day one releases.
Couldn’t be a more idiotic opinion. A subscription service shouldn’t be dictated only by what new content it has. The overall library is what matters. I’m sure people who have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, don’t watch movies from 2020 only. They watch everything. In fact if you remove the back catalogue from those services the library would be massively smaller.
A new PS subscription tier with PS1PS2PS4PSP catalogue will be a huge selling point for a lot of people. On top of already having hundreds more games than gamepass.
Sony doesn’t need to put their new games on PSnow. They aren’t struggling to sell software like MS. There’s plenty of other reasons to use a sub service besides having immediate access to new games day one.
Funny how back catalogue games don’t matter anymore and aren’t good. MS’s whole Series X launch campaign was BC games and fanboys defended them for that.
There’s nothing wrong with having back catalogue games on a sub service as a selling point. PlayStation’s library is one of the most sought after.
Native support would be best though. Just let me play my disc.
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I keep hearing this. Where is the evidence of lower quality games being on subscription services? You consider Forza Horizon 5, Psychonauts 2, and Halo Infinite lower quality?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's the ever shifting narrative syndrome. I.e. goalposts.
There is something ironic with your username and this post.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Could be good for us all. 3 years for 1 pound please Sony.
captainraincoat
Banned
Day 1 ps5 exclusives is the only way this is gonna work…..people don’t want to pay a premium to play old games
yurinka
Member
PS Now was announced and released in 2014, way before than Game Pass existed. There are zero receipts to mention that XCloud has any advantage, we don't know how many use it or at least how many subscribers has Game Pass Ultimate.
Markio128
Member
I don’t disagree, which is why I personally think Sony would not sub 1st party games for less than £30 a month.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Then what do you play in between those day 1 releases on the services?
Goalpost Simulator?
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
This doesn't make sense, PS Plus already is the most successful game subscription available in consoles. With the mentioned improvements, it will be more successful than it already is.
Their revenue says it's a bettter business to sell them for $70 per game, selling them to 5/10/20 million people each one. And when sales cycle of a game is complete after 2 or more years, then to include some of them in their subscription service, or to port some of them to PC.
Last edited:
CheeseCake
Member
Switching to PC made me realize how nice it is not to be apart of the pathetic console warring that's going on in this thread.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Jim would need to be high on opium to think £30 a month would be a good idea
Last edited:
Same as what I pay currently for all of the game rental subscription services: 0.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Video games are the biggest entertainment industry globally and for a lot of people they feel like an essential utility in their everyday lives, so it could work. I'm also just talking about specific games, a VOD-like model but set up monthly and with rates that aren't insane.
People already finance certain electronics with locked annual month-based contracts, lots have financed getting new consoles by trading in old ones and old games, people already pay for seasonal DLC packages in advance etc. $6/MO to get Ragnarok Day 1 and paying $72 overall is going to look like a really good deal for some people, because then they may look at say the new COD also there for a $6/MO contract and go "Hey, let me get this too!"
It's a lot more feasible to justify $144 spread out over 12 months than it is $140 on one single day, especially when both still count as two sales. It'd also probably work out well since that means less need for Sony to reimburse devs/pubs for Day 1 content, regardless how cheap that reimbursement could be.
kyliethicc
Member
Agreed
Chukhopops
Member
Well for starters it supports current gen games… unless PSNow supports PS5 streaming? It’s also available in more countries, more platforms.
The approach is in essence the same but the difference is how much commitment is put into it from MS compared to Sony.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Gamepass is already sustainable. No need to be concerned.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I remember when this site was all in on agreement that streaming games was the devil, and it's garbo, "us pixel counting, DF thread arguing, 144Hz running, low input lag having enthusiasts want native," from PS Now to Stadia and everything in between.
Then xCloud happened. And now we argue what is better, as if we truly give a shit. Funny that.
yurinka
Member
No, according to this it would be merged with PS Plus as a third tier.
There is nothing left to do in the game expect getting all weapons upgraded (dont like stuff like that)?
That is how
short game
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
"Highest tier could include PS1, PS2, PSP"
So no PS3, PS4, PS5?
PS Now already includes PS1-PS4 (not sure if PSP games are tossed in too).
If no day one games come as Schreier says, then the biggest tier that can be made is PS+ (online gaming/monthly freebies) + PS Now (PS1-PS4 games). Sounds like their top option is just trying to have an all-in-one option at a discounted price, unless there's hidden services baked into it..... like all those anime channels which could be the top tier.
So no PS3, PS4, PS5?
PS Now already includes PS1-PS4 (not sure if PSP games are tossed in too).
If no day one games come as Schreier says, then the biggest tier that can be made is PS+ (online gaming/monthly freebies) + PS Now (PS1-PS4 games). Sounds like their top option is just trying to have an all-in-one option at a discounted price, unless there's hidden services baked into it..... like all those anime channels which could be the top tier.
Topher
Identifies as young
I didn't say the concern was justified. I just said that was the concern for many. Makes a lot more sense than this idea that folks are genuinely concerned about how much money Sony makes.