I can agree with this. They are more consistent. Saying that Xbox don't have enough quality on their internal studios is what made me lol
I guess they can't use the RPCS3, because licence staying that it can't be use for commercial purposes, I am 100% sure that PS5 could run it.PS3 games as a streaming only option is crap, but it means that they are still nowhere near where they need to be with their x86-64 emulator or at least not at the performance level of Zen 2 / PS5 GPU, I suspect they have PS3 Cell Blades for it still.
Would be good if they said “PS3 games streaming only now, but to be downloadable at a future date”.
340 retro games probably means 300 PS3 games and 15 games each of PS1 and PS2, and 10 PSP games.
There are currently 418 PS3 games on Now. I'm guessing they'll slim that down by chucking out the cross gen PS3 / PS4 games or games that got remasters. But I bet that the lion's share of those games will be PS3.
I bought xbox one, because of gamepass. My purchase would have went to Switch, if it weren't for gamepass.I would agree that it will not have the same pull as GP. I would disagree that it really matters in the grand scheme of things though. I've never heard anyone use their voice to tell me they were buying one of 3 consoles because of subscription options yet.
I framed my statement with "their voice" to refer to the non-enthusiast friends who are not on message boards. All I am saying is I haven't seen evidence that the masses have started picking consoles because of how they can obtain games, and unless that happens, I don't think subscription will matter in the grand scheme of market share.I bought xbox one, because of gamepass. My purchase would have went to Switch, if it weren't for gamepass.
Sometimes, people want to play alot of games for cheap. And they will go to the console that does that.
Not everyone wants these console exclusives. Some people like 3rd party games. And want to play those games. So a service that offers those games for cheap, would be a must for these gamers.
The middle tier offer the best of ps now but its cheaper than before if you had a ps+ and ps now sub. It becomes more expensive for ppl that just wanted PS now for streaming games though.
LMAOOOOOPS sales is due to userbase numbers.
Xbox has half of Ps userbase. Yet, Halo 5 sold 9.5m.
That is almost 19m copies, if they had Sony userbase.
Its not because their games don't sell well.
I agree with you but tons of people were arguing otherwise in the other thread. Unless there are significant catalog changes I don’t see why this would move the needle more than PSNow did.Really? A subscription that has day one first party has more "pull" than a subscription that doesn't?
Well....
These guys get paid for this kind of analysis? Really?
Yup. Seems like this is a slight better seOr for downloading games.
I've got years of PS+ I paid like $29.99 a month for on my account and twice have sub'd to PSnow for a month because my wife wanted to paly a game, which was totally independent from my PS+ sub.
Don't think that's an option anymore.
Not the end of the world, but the separate services actually offered their own "flexibility" that tiered services don't.
Lolwut what about Netflix? Sub to watch 1 movie and then cancel?What I took from the Jim Ryan interview with GI.biz is that Sony believes its single player "one and done" narrative games don't fit with a subscription model because they don't drive long term engagement, people would subscribe for a month to beat them and then unsubscribe until the next one comes out.
When Sony releases live service games I think we will absolutely see them day one in the PS+ catalogue. No extra subscription required.
I am in front of you.I framed my statement with "their voice" to refer to the non-enthusiast friends who are not on message boards. All I am saying is I haven't seen evidence that the masses have started picking consoles because of how they can obtain games, and unless that happens, I don't think subscription will matter in the grand scheme of market share.
Oh come on. 750 games for the price of 2 starbucks coffees a months is not "obscenely expansive"locking classic games to a obscenely expensive tier and still having the balls to make PS3 titles streaming only?
If you can still buy it, yeah.If one wants the Premium tier, should one stock up on PS Now, now? PS Now subs turn into Premium, right?
It's simple maths. Sony makes like $4b a year with network services. Game development cost is a small slice of that.Going to need a fact check on that one there.
Popular console is what people buy. And ps4 was the talk of the town.LMAOOOOO
Why does Sony have this userbase again? Oh right people want their games.
I wouldn't blame people for this, but the publishers/developers themselves. They've been devaluing their games for years now, training people that anything that isn't seemingly free is too expensive.Reading through some of this thread I wonder if thats the general tone about this or if its just typical internet forum entitlement, where everything should basically be free and publishers are supposed to give away games they spend over 100 million dollars on making them.
Unless there are significant catalog changes I don’t see why this would move the needle more than PSNow did.
Also it seems PC users of PSNow (if there are any) don’t get anything out of the deal since there’s no PS5 streaming.
Nah bruh more like 300-400. Agee with your overall sentiment though.I have gamepass for PC and pay 120€ per year. That gives me like 100 games right now? Am I'm still fine with that as long as the quality is alright. didnt even download a single first party MS game.
adamsapple and I already discussed it. Sustainability is probably the quote you are referring to. Even though you couldn't bring a receipt. Sustainability and profit are not the same. MS has never mentioned profit with gamepass. It's not "simple maths"It's simple maths. Sony makes like $4b a year with network services. Game development cost is a small slice of that.
You can play the digital PS2 games available on tthe PS4 and PS5 digitally. Same will happen with PS1 games. If lucky (I wouldn't bet on itt), they may make the PS1 games crossbuy with the digital PSOne games available on PSP/Vita/PS3 ones.can you play any of your PS2, PS1 games on PS4 now?
You can't, it would be amazing if it happened but im inclined to think that they won't. They haven't supported cross buy for a while now.
Jim makes has more subbers and makes more money from subs than MS. With this new PS+ they will make even more money from subs. Sony also dominates MS on hardware and software sales, plus also in total gaming revenue and profits.Games Media for the foreseeable future: GamePass is better than PlayStations version.
Jim Ryan and PlayStation leadership: Our tentpole, must have, must play games are better than their GamePass.
The strategies couldn't be more clear at this point and (dumb) media will continue pitting GamePass against PS+.
He didn't say that. He said it's sustainable.According to Phil Spencer, Microsoft isn't losing money on Gamepass.
I replied to someone saying Microsoft is losing money on Gamepass. Phil Spencer said the exact opposite of that. Simple.adamsapple and I already discussed it. Sustainability is probably the quote you are referring to. Even though you couldn't bring a receipt. Sustainability and profit are not the same. MS has never mentioned profit with gamepass. It's not "simple maths"
I replied to someone saying Microsoft is losing money on Gamepass. Phil Spencer said the exact opposite of that. Simple.
No, he didn't. The exact opposite would be profit. Which they've never spoken of. The exact opposite of losing money is making it.I replied to someone saying Microsoft is losing money on Gamepass. Phil Spencer said the exact opposite of that. Simple.
If Netflix is anything to go by, and MS did say they wanted to be the "Netflix of gaming," they (Netflix) operated as a loss leader for years and years until their subscription base grew substantial enough and it was well over 100million before turning profit if I last recall. They also seem to go up in price practically yearly now.adamsapple and I already discussed it. Sustainability is probably the quote you are referring to. Even though you couldn't bring a receipt. Sustainability and profit are not the same. MS has never mentioned profit with gamepass. It's not "simple maths"
No, the exact opposite would be "Microsoft is not losing money on Gamepass", which is almost exactly what he said.Wouldn't the "exact opposite" of saying "Microsoft is losing money on Gamepass" be "Microsoft is making a profit on Gamepass"?
No, the exact opposite would be "Microsoft is not losing money on Gamepass", which is almost exactly what he said.
Microsoft could be losing money on Gamepass, but according to Phil Spencer, it isn't. He explicitly said that.Microsoft could be losing money on Game Pass and it still be sustainable so no, that's not what he said.
Exactamundo. I wonder what kind of numbers they need to finally make some money off it?If Netflix is anything to go by, and MS did say they wanted to be the "Netflix of gaming," they (Netflix) operated as a loss leader for years and years until their subscription base grew substantial enough and it was well over 100million before turning profit if I last recall. It is goes up in price practically yearly now.
It's a loss leader service playing the "long game." That is not rocket science or a trolling bash to say so. It's fucking logic.
You can still operate as a "loss leader" if your company sets aside a certain budget to cover sunk cost and use the language "the service doesn't lose money." My goodness people, he would shout from the heavens with the word profit if it were so.No, the exact opposite would be "Microsoft is not losing money on Gamepass", which is almost exactly what he said.
Microsoft could be losing money on Gamepass, but according to Phil Spencer, it isn't. He explicitly said that.
lwut what about Netflix? Sub to watch 1 movie and then cancel?
on the contrary, why would you pay a subscription to play the same game over and over? Better to buy it straight away
If I only play cod, why pay 15 a month when I can buy it forever for 70? Your logic is flawed
Sure, but that's not the case here, according to Phil.You can still operate as a "loss leader" if your company sets aside a certain budget to cover sunk costs.
Microsoft generally doesn't talk about the profitability of its subdivisions, afaik.My goodness people, he would should from the heavens with the word profit if it were so.
Do you have an example?They are using the identical language Netflix did all those years before they now happily say they turn profit.
Sure, but that's not the case here, according to Phil.
Microsoft generally doesn't talk about the profitability of its subdivisions, afaik.
Do you have an example?
He said just about the opposite about live service games.. they are subs in and themselves for gamers who focus on one game...What I took from the Jim Ryan interview with GI.biz is that Sony believes its single player "one and done" narrative games don't fit with a subscription model because they don't drive long term engagement, people would subscribe for a month to beat them and then unsubscribe until the next one comes out.
When Sony releases live service games I think we will absolutely see them day one in the PS+ catalogue. No extra subscription required.
I'm confused why people seem to be wondering about included games.. they are just repeating for the most part existing PSNow numbers as far as what the game count is.
So if you want to know, you can find that info online.
I'm not seeing much of a commitment to really get 1st party super early or something.
So here you go for PS4 games:
PS Now Downloadable Games - PS Plus Guide
Many PlayStation Now games are available to download. Almost all PS4 and PS2 games are downloadable, to play from your console with no latency issues.psnowguide.com