Xbox GamePass Is Awesome & PlayStation Can Learn A Thing Or Two From It

PvsA writes:

"Like many gamers, I am hesitant about subscription services when it comes to video games. Downloads can be a pain."

[rdgneoz3]

With bundling PSNow and PS+, it doesn't make much sense seeing as you don't need PS+ to play PSNow games (which you can play on the PC without any additional charge). "You do not need a PS Plus membership for online multiplayer on PS Now,” senior marketing manager Brian Dunn wrote on the PlayStation Blog (2018), “which stays the same for both streaming and downloaded games." With price bundling, Ultimate for a year is $180. PSNow + PS+ for a year is $120.

That said, PSNow does need more marketing.

[darthv72]

You know Sony is watching Gamepass for inspiration. They have watched many things MS has done and in some way have come out with their own spin on it. So for them to add in day one releases may not happen (yet) but they will probably change things to add in more newer releases after the first month at retail. One way or the other Sony is going to bring newer releases to PSNow much quicker than they have been.

[JesusBuiltmyHotrod]

Um m the only difference is first party games day one which sony can do tomorrow if they want to..but they don't need to. Their games are selling millions..Stop trying to make it like Sony HAS to match gamepass, they don't.

[Kumakai]

Kind of a huge difference considering how important you guys claim 1st party games are.

That’s like saying the only small difference between a between a train and a plane is travel time... Obviously a huge difference of hours vs days even tho both will do the job. And in competition, better is better.

Game pass has a much newer game library in general just FYI.

[BehindTheRows]

Um, 1st Party games ARE important. It’s not simply a claim and that’s something Microsoft needs to learn from Sony.

That said, I agree that it’s a fairly moderate difference, but still think Now has plenty to offer by comparison.

[TKCMuzzer]

Look, Gampass is a bargain at the moment as MS has been able to throw all recent 1st party games on it so players have more than enough. The problem comes when they have to constantly keep that stream of 1st party games coming.
The question is, will people pay for it if they are only getting 1 or 2 1st party games every 3 or 4 months?
If Sony threw all their PS4 exclusives onto PSNow it would be ridiculous value, but only for the customer.
If a game sells 6 or 7 million you keep it separate from a subscription service until interest lowers.

I also don't think people are really aware of how many games are on PSNow and how many you can download, plus they are good games. I scrolled through them and thought, if i was new to Playstation and had no games, I would subscribe, it would take months to get through what is on offer.

Sony just need to shout louder, MS have been banging the gamepass drum and Sony need to bang the PSNow drum.
People who usually says its no good, pretty much have no idea whats on it.

[crazyCoconuts]

Not a big change architecturally though, is just a business decision.

[King_Noctis]

“ Um m the only difference is first party games day one which sony can do tomorrow if they want to”

That hasn’t happened yet, and until that happen, it is one of the reason why Gamepass is better.

You also forgot to mention third party games, native offline gameplay, and cheaper subscription bundle as well.

[Teflon02]

the hell is native offline gameplay LOL
"Get instant access to a huge collection of more than 800 PS4™, PS3™ and PS2™ games on PS4™ or PC"
Lets be honest. You know like 450 or so are PS3 games that gotta stream yes. The rest is all downloadable games at any point.

[isarai]

"Native offline gameplay"

Lol what is this an EA press conference? It's called downloading, and yes PSNow has that to for any PS4 game in the service.

Also a bundle is kinda pointless when you don't need PS+ to play PSNow games online.

This is what's bothering me about all the comparison articles and comments. They dont even know WTF they're talking about. Look i don't even like streaming services, but if you're going to compare the two at least get your facts straight. One thing that aggravates me more than anything is people pushing/spreading their ignorance.

[King_Noctis]

“Lol what is this an EA press conference? It's called downloading, and yes PSNow has that to for any PS4 game in the service.”

My point being that all Gamepass’s games can be downloaded, not just a handful of them. Not just Xbox One only game. I guess I don’t know what I’m talking about right?

[crazyCoconuts]

I'm sure just like MS has a spreadsheet that offsets game purchases by subscription income short and long term, Sony does too. And Sony's predictions probably don't look as rosy for them given the potential losses on game sales. Maybe the 3 month God of war thing was an experiment to validate those assumptions. I've questioned why Sony wouldn't have pushed PSNow more in the past, brought it to more devices, etc. It very well might come down to it not making money for them.

[Orionsangel]

Stop being so loyal to one brand and never seeing any fault in them. You make it so obvious that you're a fanboy who falls in line.

[isarai]

It's business 101 not brand loyalty. Why sell your product at a discount when millions are more than willing to pay full price? Makes sense yeah?

[WelkinCole]

If Sony put first party on ps now as soon as they come out that effecitvly means they are multi platform. That should not happen.

[yomfweeee]

The only thing GP has that Now doesn't is Day 1 first party. Sony won't do that. Not at the price it is now.

[King_Noctis]

So we are ignoring streaming vs download?

[Teflon02]

You can download all PS4 and PS2 games on PSNow. You could for like 2 years now maybe? Only PS3 games are streaming only. On PC all is streaming of course. But atleast you get the streaming option

[yomfweeee]

Yes, you are. You can download all PS4 games. That is more than all games on GP total.

[ThinkThink]

Only some of the games can be downloaded from PSnow, not all.

[SolidGamerX]

No one is ignoring it.

"You are free to download as many games as you like, depending on the space available in your PS4™ system storage. After downloading you can play games offline."

https://support.playstation...

[badz149]

@King_Noctis @ThinkThink

IGNORANCE

https://www.playstation.com...

[King_Noctis]

“ @King_Noctis @ThinkThink

IGNORANCE

https://www.playstation.com...

Did you forget to mention that only a fraction of those games are downloadable, Einstein?

[TKCMuzzer]

They shouldn't do it. If were not careful we are going to lose that feeling of new game releases, new hype. Its all going to become a mundane experience.
Great games need launch hype, they need launch experiences, they need to be treated differently.

[Chris12]

Why can't you have that still?

[moriarty1889]

how to give away major AAA exclusives for free and kill sales and money the devs need to ensure proper support and sequels??? Gmaespass is a great value but it really has hurt sales of games like Gears 5 and others by people getting it for free. They should keep them off for a year or more so that fans support the games at launch and devs can properly recoup the money they invested so thy dont have to nickel and dime the fanbase with mtx later. Just my opinion.

[Silly gameAr]

Exactly.

[Fluttershy77]

I tell you what; Microsoft doesn't like give things for free just because... if they are doing it (which they aren't: is a subscription service and they charge you for it), is because they consider it to be worth it... The coalition belongs to Microsoft, and if Gears 5 inclusion on GP has hurt its sales (I don't know that but lets say it has) you need to wonder how many new subscribers to GP Microsoft got from such inclusion. How much more money is MS gonna milk from them in a 6 months period? Every single month. How about a year? Two?
What if the service becomes really popular, then MS could decide to raise it lets say just 2 bucks: then how much more money will they make?

[TKCMuzzer]

How does that work? I have six months gamespass for £14. I wont renew at its current price because MS can not sustain a stream of game unique to Xbox. GTV may be big but who hasn't already bought and played this, i'm not going to pay a subscription for games i played years ago, same with PS.
There is no way my £14 has covered the cost of their games and Xbox Live, it was just a hook to get me to try. Getting people to sign up for £1 is easy, a no brainer but keeping them for more than £10 a month is a lot harder and i am a statistic that proves it.
Your assumption is that people will continue to pay and pay even if no decent content is available, thats a big gamble.

[Teflon02]

TKC me too. I got when it was a dollar a month for 2 months when Forza Horizon 3 came out I think it was. Instantly cancelled though. Never even thought about getting it again. I'm not paying that price. I find it would make more sense paying for now because you get streaming and downloading options, alot more titles that aren't going to surprisingly disappear on you etc. But I still wouldn't as I just buy every game I want

[Thundercat77]

Xbox software sales are low and that is why gamepass services was created.

On a business perspective, what do you think is better? Low sales or at least a monthly subscription service?

This is why Sony and Nintendo doesn't need to do this. They have amazing good software sales.

[Bronxs15]

Gears 5 launching on gamepass day one. Yet gears still sold more than gears 4. People act like it’s some kind of contract. If if you get gamepass you can never buy a game again. Theirs nothing wrong with paying 10 dollars and trying out a bunch of great games and then purchasing ones you like to either support the dev or own the game without having to pay mknthky to access it. Also games leave so if someone tried a game for a cheap price and like it they have the option to purchase the game too.

There was a time people rented games too. Before Netflix killed the video store.

In my case Xbox live for a year cost 70 but I was able to get gamepass ultimate which includes Xbox live for 100 on Black Friday. So for 30 dollars more than live alone I get to play all the great games on game pass for a year. Doesn’t mean I won’t buy games anymore.

Nothing wrong with just acknowledging they Microsoft just giving different options and values to different gamers. Microsoft is Open to different models and options. It’s why they had ea access very early while Sony blocked it Cus they did t want competition for their ps plus service on their platform.

[rainslacker]

I wouldnt likely buy a game at full price if I had it available on a service I already subscribed to. Games I've gotten in ps+ which I didnt already have I might still buy for my physical collection, but itd be at a pretty reduced price. $60 isnt worth it if i have already played the game.

Been like that for me since video stores used to rent games. If invented it, chances are, I never brought it because it was old to me.

Others may feel differently, but most gamers I know are like that

[isarai]

Thats what ive been wondering, like ok i pay $10, every game on there has to get a cut of that$10, and i use that month to play through a new release, so how is a cut of $10 compared to a full $60 sale still enough to fund the studios?

Like i played both Crackdown 3 and Gears 5 for a total of $4 vs $120 if i bought them separately. Yeah thats a steal for me but what does that do for the studios behind the games and just how sustainable is that in the long run?

[EasilyTheBest]

I Sarai, I had an Xbox One before Gamepass came about. I bought it second hand. In 12 months I bought 4 games all used. How much money did Microsoft & the studios get out of me?
Now I have gamepass I play gears 5, forza 4 & a ton of others, id never had gone out & bought those games full price I would have waited & maybe paid £10 for them.
Right now I'm paying around £14 a month for gamepass ultimate & will continue to do so.
Do you get what I mean?

[moriarty1889]

exactly it isnt. Look at what they have done with Gears 5 and how people have complained how they have monetized it post launch to the extent they have. $9.99 for a skin that you could grind and earn in Gears 4. Such a small number of mp maps at launch plus other things. Coalition knew they would lose money at launch by being a f2p game in gamespass so they set out a roadmap and a pricing plan with it to try and recoup the initial losses up front from less sales. Thats the problem with GP as it will lead to more of the devs doing this and it is not sustainable for the devs longterm in order to win ms over some subs in the short term.

[rainslacker]

Maybe only one of ten people may play that game, so you have to look at it from the larger picture.

The best you can say is that barring a recurring or yearly sub, they lost the sale because of.game pass, but for MS games, they made the money on the sub.

Most people dont really buy that many games. MS may lose money on the hardcore gamer, but makes it back on the casual. Hardcore gamers are also still likely to buy other games as well.

For 3rd party, MS is paying them a set fee for a period of time to include the game, and those games tend to come out after the prime selling phase of a game, where the publisher isnt shipping many, if any physical copies, but with GP they get a set fee, and chance people may buy when the game leaves the service, or by taking advantage of the discounts. Distributors and retail are probably hit harder by that than the publishers are, since theyll still have stock which becomes harder to sell(which is part of the criticism that it devalues games)

For now, GP is a good value. I cant find fault with it, but I'm skeptical about it's long term implementation, and the true effects of all these various services on the market and industry remain to be seen. That obviously doesnt stop persistent assumption and poatilation though.

[LordJamar]

Jeez you styles still calling it unsustainable just cause you don’t understand business. That’s why Microsoft job not yours

[rainslacker]

Ms is making money off the subs. In theory, about $120 a year, which is about equivalent to 2 1st party game purchases, which they may or may not get from people buying games on the system, since they may not buy a first party game. Actual profit will shift, because there are operating expenses involved. However, revenue often looks better than profits, and costs can be hidden in other things.to support whatever business goal they may have with the service.

Itd be pretty costly to get 3rd party day one games though, and would be a risky form of marketing since an expensive livense may not draw in an equal number of subs.

If MS is ok with what they're doing with their games, it's not our place to judge. GP is a really good value right now. If it changes in the future, or the quality of MS 1st party changes, then it would be worth revisiting the value of the service.

Personally, I'm still saving my free trial for whenever a 1st party game comes out I want, but if it's like the last forza, I'll just buy it, because to play it for 2 years on GP would cost me a lot of money(ignoring specials which would still require other purchases I dont want). $60, and I've played it for quite some time off and on.

[Silly gameAr]

These sites have really been trying to push gamepass lately. I feel like gamepass is being shoved down my throat.

[ThinkThink]

It's not being shoved down anyones throat, It's an option. Just like PSnow. You can't really fault MS for Marketing more than Sony. Or maybe you can..

[rainslacker]

Makes you wish there were more games to talk about to be honest. News is slow this time of year until around the start of February. It's like this every year

[Silly gameAr]

Yeah, there's no real news. Mostly opinion pieces and speculation.

[Thundercat77]

PlayStation stream of high quality exclusive games is awesome and Xbox should learn a lot from it.

Xbox is not the leader in the market. In fact, Sony and Nintendo are doing way better without a gamepass service so the question is , if Xbox gamepass is so "awesome", then why is not helping them in their position on the market?

[MadLad]

Possibly because it's a relatively new service that came along around the end of the console generation?

[TKCMuzzer]

Ok, I ask you like many, is it sustainable? Can MS keep enough 1st party games coming to make it worth the price? not the lure me in £1 for 3 months, the real monthly price.

[MadLad]

@TKC
I guess my response would be why wouldn't it? It's subsidized by console sales, the price of the service itself, and Live.

[DarkZane]

Gamepass is awesome when you can get it for $1 a month, but at full price, it's a hard pass for me, it's not worth it.

[TKCMuzzer]

This is the crux of the whole thing, its great at the moment because most people are using it at a massive discount.

[rainslacker]

I'd love some real numbers that break this down. So many people on here perpetuate the value in comparison to them having gotten 1-3 years, leaving out XBL sub costs, dirt cheap. If GP were always $1-2 a month, I'd easily subscribe. I didnt have xblg so the deal wasnt prudent to me last year.

I think hard user count numbers won't come anytime soon. And I certainly dont expect a break down of the average sub cost per month. I'd suspect even active subs is less likely than total subs since launch, as that seems to be how MS releases any number this gen

[Dragonborn12345]

Playstation cant copy xbox, they have a lot of singeplayer games, while xbox has a lot of multiplayer games with microtransations. So they cant put it day one.

[Tross]

With the difference between PS4 and XB1 sales, I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say Sony doesn’t need to “learn a thing or two” from anything MS is doing. If anything, it’s the other way around.

[waverider]

Wrong. Dead Wrong. Sony doesnt need to do the same as microsoft. They are forced to put their first party games there because they dont sell enough. It just so easy to see that. A clear example of this why would sony put Spiderman day one on the PS Now. By the summer it already sold more then 13 million copies, we are talking about one billion with a single game... Again. The marketshare is totally diferent!

[rainslacker]

If Sony did, then I wonder if GP would still be heralded as the best. Or what would become the new thing.

People would say sonh copied MS, but in the end, does it matter? Being first isnt being best.

Not that I think Sony will release day one on psnow. I wouldnt mind if they did a demo thing with it though, and gave the option to buy the game from psnow.

[PhoenixUp]

“Ultimate is where the deal really does increase exponentially, with it’s inclusion of Xbox Gold, and it even has a month of Spotify, and EA Play respectively.”

Indeed it’s a great deal. PS Now would do well to have similar promotions

“Not only that, but bundle it with Plus for an even better deal.”

Why? You don’t need PS+ to play PS Now games online so bundling would be meaningless. Plus bundling wouldn’t change much since you can still just pay $120 a year for them combined, which is $10 a year which is the same monthly cost as getting each individual service.

[sprinterboy]

Just have a 2 tier ps plus 1) original ps plus £35 for the year or £55 with psnow included?

[Fraggle1987]

Game pass needs better games. Ps now has it beat in this regard

[Orionsangel]

All Sony has to do with PSnow is add more downloadable games, add newer titles and above all else feature launch titles.

[Elda]

Sony needs to keep doing their own thing.

[phantomexe]

I think if sony did what MS is doing game quality would start going to crap over the long term. You have to be short sided not to see it. Why invest millions into a game if your going charge ppl 10 bucks a month over 12 months and give then 4 or 5 AAA games from in house studios. Yea you don't have to be a business wizz to see where that's going... Now if you want to add games 2 or 3 years old sure but not brand new AAA games. On side note i did try psnow trils of cold steal and my net did not stream that well. Its cool service but if you can't download it then it's a waste of time. Before one of you guys say look at netflix i'd replie there going broke and streaming movies and games are way different. So please sony don't do what MS doing because i don't want games that are just tossed together in the future just so we can keep ppl subscribed.

[TheHateTheyGive]

This same article again, jesus. Sony does not have to put their critically acclaimed exclusives on psnow day 1 because they sell great by themselves. Xbox can learn alot from sony, why dont we see those articles. Game pass is all xbox one has to offer.

[LordJamar]

Sony’s is slowly doing it with ps now with their big exclusives