Top
370°

Why Xbox Games Pass Matters To PS4

"Only time will tell, but you can bet that whatever the future holds, Sony will react accordingly."

The story is too old to be commented.
Travis3708173d ago

Let me tell you why it doesn't. PS4 has the exclusives, PS4 has the 3rd party support, PS4 has the console market and PS4 has sold 70+ million consoles. It doesn't matter what MS tries to do anymore, they can't do anything now. Sony nor Nintendo should be worried.

Hardiman173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

I don't understand why some people can't understand that Sony has gotten to the numbers it has not because of PS Now or any of that jazz(those are options not the main course) but because they have first, second and third party games on lock! They have built a reputation through the years of having quality titles and it's translated into success!

Cyborgg172d ago Show
chiefJohn117172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

Everyone knows this, same goes for Nintendo and Xbox. Most fans are coming from the previous consoles, but that's completely irrelevant to the topic. Game pass or PsNow doesn't have to sell consoles. It's about making more money and reaching out to gamers in other ways. This is why PsNow exist in the first place. I don't get why y'all can't see that. What was the point of ps+? See where I'm going? EA games naturally sale a ton so why do ea access? Understand?

InTheLab172d ago Show
Death172d ago

@Hardi,

It’s hard to say PS4 has the numbers it has because of games mostly due to the fact there are regions such as North America where console sales are pretty even between the two despite the “games on lock”. If the sales disparity was the same in each region, then it would be a little easier to say it’s the games. It would be just as easy to conclude exclusives have no impact since sales of PS4 and Xbox One in North America are pretty close.

Sony’s reputation in North’s America has translated to similar sales to Microsoft.

The rest of the world appearantly doesn’t care for Xbox or America or both. Maybe the exclusives make a difference in other regions, but I think it has more to do with nationalism and distribution networks.

kreate172d ago

i just want games. Not game pass.

FinalFantasyFanatic172d ago

I think people think there is still some other secret sauce they can come up that can make up for not having what the product was designed to do. Play games.

ColonelHugh172d ago

@Death
"The rest of the world appearantly doesn’t care for Xbox or America or both."

Xbox ≠ America! People do not eschew Xbox solely out of a desire to avoid American products, nor is it a duty for Americans to support Xbox out of pride for their country!

Hardiman172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

@Colonel I'm glad you said something cause his comment about Xbox being tied to America as a reason it doesn't sell in other regions is insane!

If Xbox did more things like NIntendo and Sony(make good and NEW SP games) it would sell more then this Game Pass would be icing and not the main course!

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen172d ago

@chiefJohn117

I see what you're saying, but PlayStation isn't successful because they are worrying about Microsoft is doing. PlayStation is in the position it's in because of it's library of unique, amazing, and graphically impressive first party games, which is the reason why that title and that article are ridiculous.

Markusb33171d ago

Exactly Sony are past reacting now they are so far ahead. They have no worries or major problem with competition no matter what lies crapgamer, dealer, colt Eastwood tell.
This generation was over a while back.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 171d ago
chiefJohn117172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

I'm not gonna argue and debate, just gonna say it's about money. If Sony see they can make more money and by doing something gamer friendly, why not? I do think Sony will wait and see first and crunch numbers.

OB1Biker172d ago

I think and hope it will push Sony to make ps+ even better and give great value with only one subscription.

Christopher172d ago

1. None of this is about selling more consoles or winning, it's about making money and giving more options to your consumer.

2. Having more exclusives doesn't mean people don't want it or wouldn't use it. In fact, having more exclusives would likely mean way more subscriptions.

3. This isn't a PS4 vs Xbox item. They're are going to be way more people who play in Xbox who won't subscribe to this than will and the same is true on PS4. This is a People Who Want Games Via Netflix Service and People Who Want To Buy Individually And Own Them thing. Console platform had absolutely nothing to do with this. It's about consumer trends and desires on content delivery.

GamingSinceForever172d ago

In the beginning PS Now was exactly like Netflix where you didn’t have to have dedicated hardware.
XBox Game Pass does require a console or PC.

Godmars290172d ago

1. Options that often require more money, as apposed to selling something worth the value of the initial purchase.

2. Returns to the issue that the Xbox offers few true exclusives. That what few they do are online multiplayer.

3. This is about creating a trend where upon Xbox owners subscribe to a service for games, and while MS dictates what is and isn't accessible, brand loyalist tout it as the best thing ever to the public.

stokedAF172d ago

Exactly. Depending on the success of this it could force Sony’s hand to compete. This has nothing to do with the games themselves but the delivery of games as a service.

I don’t get why people are so defensive lol. Lashing out in rage “what don’t you get?!” If psnow started including their launch titles on the service you would see a massive spike in that service. The question is whether it’s successful enough for Sony to have a choice in the matter to stay competitive in the next generation. Exclusives aren’t where the stupid money is, third party is that golden goose and if you innovate delivery then you can take serious ground.

Jinger172d ago

@Godmars

"2. Returns to the issue that the Xbox offers few true exclusives. That what few they do are online multiplayer."
So Halo, Gears, Forza, Cuphead, Crackdown, State of Decay, Ori etc. are online only MP? Huh, Those campaigns were cleverly disguised then...

Christopher172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

@GodMars290

1. That has nothing to do with Netflix of Games. It's all about GaaS and the initial investment being lesser means people are more likely to invest more in GaaS. The cost to download games is already existing. Switching from an upfront single point of sale on a game versus moving to an open-ended business structure with other ways to get people to spend money (while at the same time allowing many to spend a lot less). The costs behind this aren't traditional and already exist, the cost is in marketing the right amount of GaaS or just getting enough people to subscribe who don't utilize the content at a value that costs them more than $12 a month.

2. No, it doesn't. And I love the idea that because of Forza, Halo, and Gears of War, we totally forget about the mostly SP focused exclusives (Oni, Cuphead, Quantum Break, Ryse, Rare Replay, Sunset Overdrive, etc.). I can literally list more SP focused exclusives for XBO than I could MP focused exclusives.

3. Nope. It's an option. And you make it a 'fanboy' thing and to say that 'brand loyalists tout it as the best thing' is the same as saying 'brand loyalists tout PSNow as the best thing'. It's a lazy response that focuses on a story to keep things about fanboys rather than the industry of video games. And I think turning it into a 'loyalist' thing benefits other 'loyalists' just as much those who are being touted in a negative manner here. It's all just ammo to feed a desire to belittle other 'loyalists'.

Godmars290172d ago

@Christopher:

Your direct reply has nothing to do with my comment.

And this is directly about creating - furthering - a tread that will reduce if not remove the value of physical media. If not make a platform that would be far more favorable to the games are done on mobile.

Christopher171d ago

***Your direct reply has nothing to do with my comment. ***

Yeah, it absolutely does and you denying it doesn't change it at all.

Godmars290171d ago

@Jinger:
What are you even talking about?

Either the games you bring up weren't directly commissioned by MS, were in development indies they picked up, or their SP campaigns where nothing worth talking about. Quantum Break especially.

@Christopher:
One: the Netflix of gaming is and has been called Steam. Only they don't charge a monthly fee for all access. If they did they'd likely have to ask for $100+ to make it viable.

Two: Is Xbox were to become the Netflix of console gaming, that $10 a month would only go up as library access increased - if it ever did. My main issue with services such as these is the amount of control it gives a company.

Three: I make it a fanboy thing because that's your only perspective. You don't regard the quality of titles you bring up, how they were reacted to, sold or accessible, its only that you can say MS has a connection, that that's all I need to dismiss them, that you see any value or weight. You see nothing regarding gaming much less consumer rights.

Christopher171d ago (Edited 171d ago )

***One: the Netflix of gaming is and has been called Steam.***

Wrong. That's just a complete digital storefront. This is a monthly subscription to access a library of games that you have no rights to other than monthly access to what the provider dictates, games can be removed/altered at any time, and is actually like Netflix. A licensing change can remove the game from being capable of being played entirely via Game Pass, a licensing change only removes the game from Steam's storefront, not your personal library if you purchased it.

***Two: Is Xbox were to become the Netflix of console gaming, that $10 a month would only go up as library access increased - if it ever did. My main issue with services such as these is the amount of control it gives a company.***

Not necessarily true if the GaaS allows them to make up the costs that you can't make with Netflix. You have movies, not supplemental/optional content per movie. Games have grown into the additional content business for a decade now.

And, to target this from the article's stand point that Sony would benefit from it, the issue of control is absolutely no less in regards to PSNow, which Sony already operates. The issues with the company control isn't new and isn't an argument as to why it wouldn't be beneficial to Sony when they already have such a platform with that problem going for years now.

Those who do not want the company to have more control over their content will not utilize Game Pass, nor with the same type of people on Sony platforms utilize it if that's of concern to them as well. But, gamers already utilize such a system on the Sony side via PS Now, yet having it for new releases and not streamed it suddenly becomes an issue for Sony?

Remember, this discussion isn't about your opinion of Netflix of Games, it about whether it matters to PS4 and Sony as a business decision for their consumers.

***Three: I make it a fanboy thing because that's your only perspective. You don't regard the quality of titles you bring up, how they were reacted to, sold or accessible, its only that you can say MS has a connection, that that's all I need to dismiss them, that you see any value or weight. You see nothing regarding gaming much less consumer rights.***

My perspective is fanboy? I'm not the one who brought up loyalists as a main point. I'm not the one who made it about number of exclusives as a arguing point, again. Please point me to where I brought up anything but business in this topic until I responded to you.

This discussion is about a service and whether it would be beneficial to Sony as an option for their gamers as it might be for Microsoft. The resounding answer is that their differences in number of exclusives or market reach has no bearing as the real divide here is in those who want a Netflix for Gaming and those who don't. Gamers who want a Netflix of Gaming exist on all platforms.

Godmars290171d ago

meh.

This "discussion" is about Sony copying something that MS has yet to do much show to be any level of successful. As such has only been touted as a game changer when the Xbox's one real success was based on Sony messing up with the PS3. And that's arguable.

Christopher171d ago

***This "discussion" is about Sony copying something that MS has yet to do much show to be any level of successful. As such has only been touted as a game changer when the Xbox's one real success was based on Sony messing up with the PS3. And that's arguable.***

IF you have no interest in discussing the business of this, then you probably should stay out of submissions discussing such a thing.

Godmars290171d ago

What business? Nothing has actually been done yet. More than that, until and unless there are significant numbers to report MS isn't likely to report anything. Just spin it.

The way Sony has with PSNow.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 171d ago
trooper_172d ago

This article is retarded.

Why should this matter to Sony when they’re doing well and delivering the games?

Death172d ago

It should matter to Sony’s fans that are missing out on some pretty nice options. EA Access and Gamepass are great options to have for gamers that want to get more for their money. If you can afford to buy all the games you want to play in these plans, by all means do it. If you are like most gamers on a budget these are hard to beat.

Shouldn’t cheap access to games including new exclusives be better than the feeling you get knowing your favorite console sold more?

trooper_172d ago

No it shouldn't.

Keep telling yourself that.

LP-Eleven172d ago

@ Death: How are Sony fans "missing out" on Game Pass? It will mostly be a way for Microsoft to push their own properties (already unavailable on the PS4). This won't change anything, in that regard.

Artemidorus172d ago

None of them would be worried they all sold well.

PrematuaProcrastin8a172d ago

You do realise ms has enough capital to perform a hostile takeover of Sony if they really wanted to? If they are serious about taking the gaming market by the balls, which all the rumours from the past year suggest, there is nothing that Sony, Nintendo, or all your fellow fanboys in the world could do about it.

Veneno172d ago

That would only prove the point that Microsoft is clueless about what it really means to be a platform holderand a real force in the industry.

ColonelHugh172d ago

They don't actually have that kind of capital. I don't know where you got that idea, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't a reliable source.

PrematuaProcrastin8a168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

@colonel Hugh Sony is worth about 40 billion, while ms has at least 135 billion just in its savings account at the moment. Look it up.

Sitdown172d ago

So you really think Sony doesn't pay attention to what Microsoft is doing? Glad you don't run the company.

Markusb33171d ago

I agree and if Sony holds out till 2020 for ps5 and make it bc with upscaled games as launch titles like the last of us 2, death stranding, gt sport complete ed, i honestly believe their momentum will carry on and they can transition very easily.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 168d ago
PhoenixUp173d ago

Why would Sony need to react

Eonjay172d ago

The answer is they wont. Its just a dance and show. Its just another 'Look at me' move that, upon closer inspections, isn't worth much to most people.

Death172d ago

Games are a “dance and a show” now? I question the motives of anyone that calls themselves a gamer that are against Gamepass or EAAccess. You can still buy games and own them. With either service you can also get them for a discounted amount. Where exactly is the downside to this?

Rude-ro172d ago

Why do you have to buy them?
$10 a month for the service, $8.00 off you buy the game... but why buy it? How do the microtransaction and dlc work? Is that why would have to buy it? So, the service is beta basically?

TankCrossing173d ago

Sony may not need to, but us gamers surely hope they do. Just imagine how good a Sony Game Pass would be!

Godmars290172d ago

To be fair, not one not featuring day-one releases.

Not that they need such. Especially considering the specific titles being offered would benefit more from such easy access than say a SP like Last of Us 2 or lost Horizon.

TankCrossing172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

PS Now? I think the quality kills it for a lot of people (myself included). Compressed 720p and stereo sound just isn't adequate for games mastered with much higher audiovisual fidelity.

If Sony can improve on PS Now it could be great, but at the moment it isn't really viable for keen gamers.

I'd be very pleased if Sony strengthen PS Now, even if they don't match the "day 1" aspect. Patience is a virtue and a money saver :)

Aceman18172d ago

I've said it b4 I like buying and collecting my games so game pass means nothing to me, but if others see a benefit great.

To be honest I'm not sure majority of PS4 gamers care that much. M$ has to be footing some of the cost for 3rd parties for this. If i was a major 3rd party publisher I wouldn't let my game(s) hit that service without major compensation.

GamingSinceForever172d ago

If they actually got 3rd party to buy into uploading games day one then it’s game over.

Now you’re weighing how important it is to own the games within your budget versus experiencing more games than you could ever afford while they are available.

TankCrossing172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

Fair enough on collecting things, I know you aren't the only one.

EA were asked about why they put their games in the vault, and they said that basically the games industry is terrible at making money off of games beyond the launch windows. Movies, TV, and music keep going through TV/radio and such for ages, but games basically just stop making money.

By putting their catalogue in the vault, their older games make them a bit of money through the subscription when that had otherwise stopped. That's where Game Pass can make headway with 3rd parties. I'd imagine it will take a fair amount of bung money from MS to get anything up more promptly (which is also something I wouldn't put past them), but games that aren't really selling much any more may as well go on it. That's fine by me, as it's not as if games suddenly turn terrible after a short sell by date.

OB1Biker172d ago

Not Sony game pass. Improved ps+

OffRoadKing172d ago

Nah dont really care for the GAAS business model, on the surface it may sound good but I think it will be more problematic in the end with them looking to get more money through monetiization. Sony is doing fine with their current setup and dont really need the "incentive" to drive interest in games.

manabyte77172d ago

Don’t try to speak for anyone but yourself. My thoughts couldn’t be more opposite of yours. You’re an outspoken Xbone fan. Keep those trashy policies away from Sony.

TankCrossing172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

I'm the kind of "outspoken Xbox fan" that hardly touched an Xbox One up until the X came out. The kind that also owns a PS4 Pro, and really enjoys many of Sony's games.

I'd snap up a Sony Game Pass immediately. I'm buying God of War, Detroit, Spiderman, and possibly Days Gone anyway, so it'd be great value for me before even considering 3rd party games or anything else I'd otherwise not have bought.

GamingSinceForever172d ago

No doubt it would be awesome, but unless there is a significant dip in console sells I would consider it unnecessary and foolish for Sony.

Besides in order for it to work you would have to monetize the games for the long run, which isn’t something that Sony focuses in much.

ILostMyMind172d ago

It would be perfect. But Microsoft's...

OB1Biker172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

'improved in what way?'
Imagine exclusive games come to ps+ one year after launch (not necessarily all of them) . That would be amazing value and yet still do justice to disc retail copies.

TankCrossing172d ago

Ah right. Yeah it is a little surprising that neither Sony or Microsoft particularly feature their own games there. You'd think it'd be the cheapest way for them to run it.

Personally I am not a fan of PS+ or Gold. I'd like to see both services stamped out, with the benefits rolled into a genuinely optional subscription. Even if the end result was the same, the multiplayer paywall has always felt dirty to me.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 172d ago
173d ago Replies(1)