While most use this as console war fodder, I find it interesting to see real numbers in how much platform holders are willing to pay for content for their services.
Microsoft spent one million less than Sony, true. But PSN granted licenses to indefinitely maintain access the game; it's only accessible to Game Pass subscribers while on the service and, for all we know, an extra discount could've been applied since MS also got the forward for Ark 2.
oof46 gets it - it is interesting seeing this difference in platforms and the value placed on the different mechanisms of non-ownership.
Also, come on Excaliburps - "and another free for Ark 2" - please proofread your own submission text.
^ slight clarification, darthv72. You can drop your sub at any time and pick it up years later, it'll still be there to play.
In either event, RGB is spot on: "opportunity to keep it forever", as opposed to being given a time limit. With a game of this size, that's a very notable difference.
Also, I'm surprised nobody has acknowledged that the two deals are different in another key way. Gamepass is also on PC, giving Wildacard an additional player base to tempt with DLC purchases.
Honestly, this article is pointless. The two purchase prices were never going to align, because they aren't the same. Why compare them?
Xbox should pay less. GamePass has fewer subscribers than PS+ Essential and PS+ Essential games are in your library forever, so long as you keep subscribing. GamePass games come and go, and when they go, subscribers have to buy them. So a developer needs more money from Sony because they will take a bigger hit from going “free”.
Ever hear of enjoying gameplay over graphics? And besides I think the graphics are some of the best you can ever see in open world survival with a billion animals running around. Also its the only game you can tame ride dinos, breed them...you know fun experiences lol.
Completely agree with the sentiment, so I decided to Google it. I actually thought it was still basically the 2014/2015 instance of the build. It’s come along way and actually looks totally fine
Because the PS Plus version you keep as long as your subscription is kept. The Gamepass one, once it's off the service, it's off unless you want to pay for it. Which probably explains the prices both companies paid
Geez get a proofreader on your articles there mp1st. It really does not matter what they spent. No one is privy to the terms set between the parties AND they had the allocated monies to burn. It's nothing new and really does not deserve your uninvested attention or superficial passive interest.
And ? So MS saved a million nxt
How is this game so popular? The graphics alone turned me off from ever looking into it
It makes sense. Game Pass is for either 6 months or usually 12 months. PS Plus is permanent as long as you're subscribed.
Considering the horrible state the first game released in I'm honestly surprised. Maybe they're trying to bank on Vin Diesel being in the second lolz
Why Sony paid that much is beyond me. I highly doubt that Ark is highly playable by most PS Now subscribers.