Jim Ryan said Sony is now taking PS Now very seriously. At the same time, they still want big first-party launches like The Last of Us Part II to be 'pure', on console only at first.
I got the psnow, I like it a lot, there’s a lot of stuff for me to play. I think by keeping games “pure” keeps their quality up. I’m ok waiting awhile for the games to hit it as long as they keep the quality up
Sony doesn’t want to take away the attention to that launch. To them it’s watering it down if they are day and date on psnow. That’s cool but I do expect more 1st party to come to the service but maybe 6 months to a year later. I’m fine with that
It's the right decision. Look at The Last of Us part 2, it's set to become one of the bestselling PS4 games ever (it has a realistic shot at 15 million units). BUT, if it was included in PS Now at launch just think of the amount of people who would choose not to buy it and pay for a month of PS Now, or use a free trial of PS Now instead. The reason Sony can charge full price is because they are making a high enough quality game that people are willing to pay for it.
There is no proof that keeping your games "pure" it increases the quality. That makes no sense 😂
@Zeref By keeping 1st party pure, I take that to mean that by not including 1st party on launch they will be increasing sales to drive higher revenue. Said revenue can be used to give developers more time to make a quality game and also drive profits. It's reason not proof. Will MS devote the time and money to their studios to create extremely high quality games going forward given the lower revenue they derive? I paid $2 for 16 months of Gamepass. So I can play those games for $2 for a long time. I suspect MS is willing to forgo short term profits to draw people into their ecosystem. In the future I'd expect something like a multi tiered subscription model. Basic and premium. With Basic you wouldn't get 1st party at launch but have to wait some amount of time. With a premium you'd pay more but get the games on launch.
That makes no sense . . . . . Who's surprised. From the replies is it a little clearer or do you need a little more
It’s not lame. Imagine if movies came to Netflix day 1. Why would anyone bother to go to the cinema? Obviously a lot of people will stay in their homes to spend way less while the big screens suffer If people have to wait for games to be in a streaming service to play it then they didn’t have intention to support the game in the first place Funny how we supposedly didn’t buy our games A few years back and now it is them who are not buying their games I apploud Xbox and Phil for doing that, but not everyone has to follow. After all Windows is part of the same family so MS has a reason to do that. Sony and Nintendo don’t
Your example is better suited to new releases at retail and for some time... it actually applied. That is until studios felt that Netflix was cannibalizing sales from retail. Hence they started imposing a 28 day delay for new releases coming to the service, but on-demand services werent getting the same ban. That is because on-demand was a direct rental per movie unlike netflix which was a flat rate for a set amount of time (month to month) with no limit to the number of times you could watch. As it is now, Netflix no longer receives "new releases" like they used to but it doesnt seem to be effecting the service because they are filling some of those voids with their own content (quality can be iffy). Redbox gets new releases the same time that retail does and many people enjoy that model and (again like i said below) a rental can also turn into a buy if the consumer likes what they are playing. Personally I dont do a lot of rentals myself but i do like how there is that option. Options are never a bad thing but it seems when it comes to Sony's games... it is (or so many would have you believe). Why are so many against a rental option all of a sudden? The quality of their games doesnt seem to be suffering and would only get better the more people are engaged.
"support a game" these are multi-billion dollar companies man, don't think they need your charity lmao. Now indie developers with Day 1 purchases I completely agree with
yeah I was wrong. 😭🤬
I'd prefer "pure" over games designed around MT to support the fact they're not making any money on them directly
but what about pure launches that have MT’s like UC 4?
Kribwalker I'm not going to reply to you seriously, but I just want you to know how hard I am rolling my eyes after reading that.
I played UC4, and I don't recall there being MT. Unless you're talking about the MP, which I didn't play. If they deliver the SP stuff the way they have been all gen, I'm good with it. If they make games that are designed around trying to keep people engaged at expense of that quality, while throwing in MT which are pointless or predatory, then I'll take a hard pass, and criticize them for it then. I'm not going to criticize them on a hypothetical situation, or change my comment for something completely different than what I was talking about. Online services like this, PSNow, or Game Pass, can not support big AAA games indefinably at the prices they're being offered at. Even disregarding the special offers. There will have to be additional monetization involved, or massive subscriber numbers, and the best way to retain subscribers is to keep them engaged.
I think krib believes or really wants to believe MT focused games and Games with MT's are one in the same. Most MT's are s#it though
This notion that GamePass devs don't get any money is ridiculous. Microsoft pays them a significant amount of money upfront to license the games. Yall really think they split 10 dollars a month with hundreds of devs? 😂
Nah they're just not desperate like a certain other console maker lol.
Its not lame its how you keep your console relevant unlike other companies.
Yes the article is lame. Sony wont "launch" games on PSNow, the proof is in how poor Gears 5's physical sales are. Yes MS said they had 3 million users in the first few days but that number hasnt exactly sky rocketed either. GOW had over 3 million in sales within its first day. Lets see if MS will have another high profile launch on game pass.
I don't think I will ever be a fan of this streaming crap. Edit: I know it's inevitable, but I will always support consoles until we can't anymore.
I feel the same way. I have no problem with streaming existing of course, but I will always support physical consoles and games over streaming.
PS now is not only streaming, you can download a fare amount of games actually. Gamepass is all downloads..
Cloud gaming is for poor casuals
Yes of course. /s Just like the console is the poor mans PC as told to by us by the PC Master Race. Cloud gaming is choice of playing. Just like console is over a PC or PC is over console. Streaming to a device is a choice of game play. And I would expect most users investing in streaming, at least initially, will definitely not be casuals at all. It will be made up of those that like to game and try new things. Case in point I don't know many casual gamers buying into Stadia at the moment. Most are gamers who play quite a lot on other devices. As for cloud gaming I suspect you meant streaming because technically any game using a server somewhere on the internet (multi-player, or using services for socializing/messaging, PS+/Gold) is essentially using cloud based services for those gamin purposes. Not to mention a lot of that talk about AI in the next PS5 will be using the cloud for additional processing, etc... The only time streaming is bad (IMO) is when it is the only option to play. Which would mean Stadia. When you live or die by streaming it becomes the losing option. Contrary to that, Microsoft gaming ecosystem in the future will be made of options of how you will play (locally or streamed) with their catalog. And with their increased focus on PSNow I assume Sony will offer similar options in the future with how you are able to play the games you own or subscribe to in the PS ecosystem. Streaming for these two companies will just be an option of how you can play but, not the only option. In fact, I think those that only play when they are sitting in front of the monitor at home will be the true casuals. A true gamer will play on a console/PC/stream at home and take the action with them via mobile continuing their gaming experience wherever they are. Not stuck playing among artificial an outdated construct of gaming boundaries set by a single piece static hardware.
PS now is a great value for money.. Think of all the games you never considered playing or buying , or even the ones you own you can stream them without using hdd space..
If you care about resolutions it's only 720p when it comes to streaming games.
But PSNow now has local downloads on PS4. You only stream PSNow games if you're playing from PC
Not on every game. Some games can only be streamed and I believe that the goal is to get all of them 100% streaming. Here the key is control. They want to control your gaming 100% so they can squeeze as much money out of you as possible. They want to see the tiniest opportinity to take money from you. In order to do that, they need total control.
Anubis Psnow was 100% streaming before , they've only implemented local downloads recently. So Sony is doing the exact opposite of what you are saying.
I dont think people realise that you can download PS4 and PS2 titles , and totally bypass streaming, but of course you have to stream PS3 titles because the PS4 does not play PS3 titles out of the box. But the fact that i have the choice to download or stream a PS4 title like the latest God Of War for example is a good thing. I can see Playstation + and Playstation Now megring, because people wont justify paying for 2 services after a while to get games, one of them being a lucky dip of 2 games a month (Playstation Plus).
Same here. I will never buy digital games or sign up for a streaming service. People don't realize how much these will hurt gaming.
Psnow isn’t just streaming it’s a digital service and you can download and play games.
You can download games to your HD with PS Now. Not just streaming...
Same, f**k streaming.
Kojima seems to like streaming, so I guess all the anti-streaming folks will jump on board now. "We’ll start seeing completly different games these next five years as 5G spreads. There’s one big thing I have in mind related to streaming as well. I can’t say anything more as I don’t want to spoil though (laughs)." https://www.dualshockers.co...
And when he said that, everyone didn't jump on board. The Xbox fans did at the hint of MS doing it, but PSNow had a tepid relationship with PS gamers for a while now. They didn't hate. They didn't love. It just was there. There was optimism early on with PS fans, and I wasn't personally negative about it. I'm still not. I just don't see it as a replacement for current game distribution. It'll be an option going forward, and like when Sony first offered it, those who want to use it can, and it has the potential to grow the market into areas it didn't exist before.
Rain Xbox fans did ? Since when could anyone stream games on xbox, isn't it all local downloads?
Ok F Kojima, why would i care about his opinion or any one for that matter Streaming service sucks and tbh 720p and input lag make me hate it even more
When it comes to exclusives that's the way it should be,the very reason consoles are made & to be bought.
Exactly. However i am afraid we are a dying breed. Kids these days most dont want to buy consoles.
If exclusive are put to this type of services then way bother with ps4 or xbox whn there exculsive can be played on PC no matter if they just for a while, makes owning a console pointless and your better of with a gaming pc.
That's why I agree that exclusives especially 1st & 2nd party belong on consoles first & foremost,after 6 months to a year then put them on PS Now unless the game didn't sell well then put it on PSNow earlier.
Yet month after month sales charts are mostly made up of games also available on pc. Nintendo is really the only one of the three that show the majority of its games sold are actually exclusive The majority of PlayStation and Xbox owners just want an affordable box that offers decent power and a large library. Yes they also want exclusives but it’s proven not to be the main factor.
@Captain, except when those exclusives actually release and sell in the 6-10 million range. Sorry, but even though the entire user base isn't playing every single exclusive, it doesn't mean that not catering to those people with exclusives is going to help them sell consoles, and the whole point is to get people to buy the console, because when people buy those 3rd party games on the platform, the console holders make their licensing fee, or make money from the sale of the game on their store. Make it so people don't have to buy the console by putting those games cheap on there day one, and then people go and play them on PC, and the platform holders don't make the money from the licensing fees, as most of those people go to Steam or some other store. Sony doesn't even have a PC store, so there isn't even potential for them to make money on an OS store like MS has.
Rainslacker it is about balance. Hardware, software, marketing and so on. It’s just sad to see the hardcore here act like exclusives are all that matters. Of course they are important, so is third party. You think Sony entered the console business and took charge because they had the best game studios? Don’t make me laugh. Sony took control of the third party market from Nintendo and Sega and ran with it. It’s both sickening and annoying how the most vocal people on this site all they talk about is exclusives, all while ironically most involved with the console wars. Jee, let’s put 2 and 2 together shall we?
I'm okay with this. Making high budget AAA games and releasing them day 1 on a streaming service can not be feasible. With the exception of Gears 5 and now Outer Worlds, Microsoft's first party games were terrible and their quality almost reflected a game launching on a streaming service. They'll surely revert back to this once the uptake rockets. I just can't see studios putting in the effort if their game is going to be undervalued
What kind of logic is that? If a studio knows FOR CERTAIN that millions of people can play their game day one of release, that'll cause them to become lazy? Contrary to pushing their creative freedom to stand out in that service?
You don't understand how much these games cost to make. Sony has been selling millions of copies of their games for full price. Many Sony games have sold more copies at retail that even the the "numbers of users" on gamepass. That's how they pay for development. Putting them on a service for pennies is not going to recoup that money. Microsoft is doing what they are doing by subsidizing the service with money from other aspects of Microsoft.
“ If a studio knows FOR CERTAIN that millions of people can play their game day one of release, that'll cause them to become lazy?” Who said they’d become lazy? MS has no streaming service and their current service is well below PSNow and other services when it comes to market share. MS will surely stop the exclusive launch on GamePass when it picks up.
@gamingunited I don't understand how much this game cost to make? GTA cost more than most movies to create and more time in development. That drivel about sales doesn't refute this baseless claim that "developers will try less because their game is on Gamepass." Case in point is Indies. PS4 was the indie king with Resogun and Warframe. Nowadays, the best Indies are on Xbox with Ori and Cuphead directly because of Gamepass. So much so, Sony is renewing focus on them.
He's not having a dig at a studio's creativity but realistically the publishers willingness to hand over the money to bankroll a project. Being creative often means being innovative which means longer dev time and if done right you produce rdr2, tlou, gow and not crackdown 3. A real big game can cost hundreds of millions to make and if you let everyone play it for 9.99 a month and they are done in one month two at most (which seems to be when people move on to the next big thing) then you've lost out on the remaining $40 per head. However if your game features a killer single player but it's real meat is in its multiplayer which gears fits then subscription makes sense as you can't just play the campaign and be done you might re sub occasionally for the mp or buy it outright
The studio will be as lazy or work as hard as their producer and resources allow. Most high profile games dont get paid directly by sales, just by production being funded. Then, they usually make bonuses on sales, but that's not a gaurantee. The number of sales they may or may not get isnt what the devs use to decide how much effort they're going to out into a game. That's something the investors will decide for them based on expected sales. In MS case, they're funding the development for use on game pass and regular sales on top of that, so they can determine their own budget.
@ReadyPlayer22 I don't know who you're calling lazy. But the bottom line is always money. If you can't pay your staff to work for 5 years to make a game that game isn't going to be made, it has nothing to do with "being lazy". What is your point? GTA 5 was sold at retail. Perhaps you should look at the list of games Sony has published, you might be surprised how many popular Indie and indie VR games Sony has published.
What kind of logic? Pal you need only look at Microsoft's stance on first party games. They clearly sway towards games as a service with titles heavily influenced by a microtransaction economy. I'm not at all interested in those kinds of practices. So if having to buy a game at full price at launch means I can avoid those pitfalls instead of a producer/developer trying to maintain subscriptions, then I am happy to continue that way.
Exactly! I keep seeing some say "the values great" but the games on most of these services do not interest me. Like you said I don't see games that take the time and MONEY to make like HZD, GOW, Uncharted etc even existing if this was the go to model.
The bulk of a new releases sales come within the first month, maybe two. After that there is no reason a new release game should not come to their on demand service. They have seen the impact of their new releases for movies on on demand and games would be just as if not bigger impact in driving subs. It isnt like a person who rents wont at some point buy. In many cases a rental actually leads to a buy so its a win / win. They get $ from renting to the consumer and then they get more $ from selling to that same consumer if they liked what they played. Id say they will prob wait about 6 months tops before new releases show up on PSNow.
A game that releases earlier in the year and is popular can still pull in quite a but in sales until the holiday season. Even after the initial two months, they can drop the price and continue to make money. Just because the majority of sales are done, doesnt mean that there isnt significant money to be made. These services can only pay so much for content and maintain profit, and the newer a game is, the more it's going to cost to put on the service.
Rain, no argument there. But what i said is also true. People who choose to rent now can buy at a later date. Just like games, whose sale decline after their initial release, can also continue to sell well after (like you say). Both things are true. IF (key word) Sony opts to put newer releases on PSNow then it will only serve to make them money in both regards. As a rental as well as a sale from said rental.
They can buy at a later date, but I doubt most people who play and complete a game go on to buy it. Or if they do buy it, they're going to be doing so at a reduced price because it's later in the games life.
You clearly do not understand business. There's a thin line between being overly gamer friendly and bankruptcy. When you have a good product you sell it for the maximum for the longest amount of time. The more money made the higher chances of another product after. Why undercut yourself. I think smaller titles/devs will benefit more than the bigger budget titles and devs receptively. Look at how much MS allegedly had to pay to get Devil May Cry on GP....That money has to be recouped from somewhere and as it stands I dont think MS has enough subs for those practices including dollar sales on the service to be sustainable.
I would be happy to pay more if Sony’s first part games came to it like game pass . Say what you will but gamespass is most definitely the best value service available.
But they wouldn't exist because the money it takes to create them wouldn't be feasible because they do never make the return to put back into development. MS is subsidizing GamePass with cash from its other branches.
And shoving Micro transactions and downgrading their games to make up for it.
@Hardiman You have any proof of this or are you just pulling the "facts" out of thin air?
Hey Shaggy show me games the quality I spoke of being created with services as the model! You can't because they don't exist! Keep GamePass and enjoy it. I'll stick with narrative driven SP games.
@Hardiman I dont have to prove anything, I'm not the one making claims about how Microsoft's Games Pass business model works, you are. You're the one that needs to prove their model doesnt I work, I just asked for proof of this.
Shag my whole point is they don't exist on the service model and again you know that because they don't EXIST! Not making wild claims! Just stating facts!
So... in other words you CANT provide proof it doesnt work. Why didn't you just say so?
Companies like Sony and Nintendo who have high quality exclusives that makes a lot of sales doesn't need gamepass. Gamepass was made because a monthly subscription was better than the horrible software sales on Xbox. You can be sure that if Xbox had the sales that Nintendo and Sony have, they would have never made gamepass