Sony has ruled out any hopes of PlayStation 5 exclusives being bundled up as part of a subscription service and effectively given away at launch. Asked about Microsoft’s own Game Pass initiative – which sees all Xbox Studios titles added day one – PlayStation boss Jim Ryan suggested that it makes “no sense” for the organisation to do that, as the economics currently don’t work.
“For us, having a catalogue of games is not something that defines a platform,” he told GamesIndustry.biz, perhaps a little pointedly at his rivals. “Our pitch, as you’ve heard, is ‘new games, great games’. We have had this conversation before – we are not going to go down the road of putting new releases titles into a subscription model. These games cost many millions of dollars, well over $100 million, to develop. We just don't see that as sustainable.”
Ryan continued that Sony wants to commit to improving its output, and it doesn’t want to involve itself in a race to the bottom. “We want to make the games bigger and better, and hopefully at some stage more persistent,” he explained. “Putting those into a subscription model on day one, for us, just doesn't make any sense. For others in a different situation, it might well make sense, but for us it doesn't. We want to expand and grow our existing ecosystem, and putting new games into a subscription model just doesn't sit with that.”
Despite what Ryan says here, there’s no doubt that the Japanese giant will be monitoring the balance sheets closely, and once it believes that there’s more money to be made through subscribers than full-price sales, it’ll no doubt change its tune. Right now, though, with titles like The Last of Us: Part II and Ghost of Tsushima breaking records at retail, it’s not hard to understand PlayStation’s perspective – especially when Microsoft has more or less admitted that it’s losing money on its approach.
[source gamesindustry.biz]
Comments 101
Sony, it's ok to be wrong
@HotGoomba Why do you think they're wrong?
Basically Sony sell too many games so why take that away for a cheap subscription? Same reason Nintendo won't be jumping on that bandwagon
Financially they’re right. Why lose all that profit when their sales break records.
For gamers though - I hope they revamp PS Now so it becomes more like the PS+ Instant game collection, with exclusives that have had price drops to 20$ and a curated selection of other, older games.
The biggest difference between the 2 consoles, and respectively Game Pass and PlayStation Now, is that Sony have many more, and usually much better exclusives than Microsoft, which they are obviously reluctant to put straight onto PS Now.
“For us, having a catalogue of games is not something that defines a platform,”
That's how most people define a platform. But financial wise I understand their approach. I prefer the Game Pass model but it's much harder to make a profit out of it.
@carlos82 I'm glad someone mentioned Nintendo because whenever Game Pass is talked about everyone always goes straight to Sony.
I completely agree. It wasn't good for the music or movie industry, but it was good for consumers early on. Do you really think we would get the amount of big blockbuster movies if the theaters didn't exist? No, they cannot make money just bringing blockbusters straight to streaming. That's what Sony wants to continue to do. Make big AAA single-player games and sell them for what they are worth. In the end the subscription model will affect the quality of the product and the consumer loses out to big business once more.
@Pat_trick I think he's talking about how Microsoft's big bullet point for Xbox Series is "4000 games to play" or whatever marketing line they have.
Sony has obviously been more about Demon's Souls and Spider-Man and blah blah blah with PS5. So new games.
@carlos82 Yeah, it would have to be a lot more expensive, or they would have to release less games, or smaller games. And I don't like the sound of any of that.
Actually I agree with Ryan to a degree, but I do think they'll need to offer a value proposition. Putting those games on PS Now 24 months after launch offers a good value proposition to consumers and maybe a nice revenue stream for Sony. I've said AAA games going to Game Pass day and date on Game Pass just isn't sustainable.
@get2sammyb I was more so kidding, but I just really like the concept of Game Pass
Kind of relieved to hear this. I don't mind that game pass exists as a supplement, but if every one of us was to go for a subscription model so we can access 1000s of games, is there as much of a need for the platform holders to develop new and better games?
I think Gamepass is a strong model but I do agree that it doesn't lend itself well to making big first party games. I kinda like event first party games are like the blockbuster movies. They just don't make as much sense on a streaming service. However, the subscription for older, indie and third party games does make sense.
@seanobi Why give me a reason why not.
Honestly, I don't get the love for Gamepass. Is it any different on Xbox? I have the PC one on trial at the moment, and on the whole there are better games on PSNow, then there are on PC Gamepass (for me). Genuinely curious.
Then: "No, thanks! I would actually like owning my games."
Now: "Look at all these games I could potentially play for a cheap cost per month, although it's physically impossible to go through all of them and keep up with it before they are rotated out and won't ever own any of them."
Good. I want them to continue to focus on big AAA titles and not the buffet style that is Game Pass. Sure there may be the odd tasty morsel in the latter but you'll have to wait for these and in the meantime settle for mouldy cheese and out of date cocktail sausages.
😉
Gamepass is amazing and Sony just do not undrestand that gamers want value for money. Someone new to consoles for the first time what would they choose, Sony where every first party titles will be £70+ or microsoft where you have access to all first party titles for current gen and next gen all for a flat monthly fee along with EA access. Not to mention all the other games on gamepass. You also get brand new releases as well.
Since signing up for gamepass i have not bought a PS4 game or xbox game
It isn't sustainable, they're right. According to analysts at Wall Street GamePass has been in the red since it started and the debt is increasing. And with the cost of development set to increase I can't see developers being interested in a low return from GamePass for long, they'll want to sell their games for a higher profit.
Another example of subscriptions not being sustainable is Netflix. It hasn't seen a profit in 10 years, it's deficit continues to increase despite millions of more subscribers than GamePass and the cost of content production being much lower.
Sorry, but I think in time, GamePass will fail.
I depends what do people want. Do they only want liveservice games full of MT maybe smaller games that are less expensive too make. If you dont make money with the you have too monetize too a big degree. If you look at Spotify the money does not reach the artist smaller artist struggle too make money. No i think the big companies have enough lets spread the wealth instead.
One thing I don't see people talking about is the Gamepass model incentives micro-transactions to make their money. I've yet to see this lead to an amazing game too. So mediocred games with micro-transactions vs. 70 dollar blockbuster first-party games. I prefer the latter.
I've also been wondering how Gamepass is sustainable. I'd be curious if they are taking a loss on it to gain market share.
"it doesn't make sense to give PS players value for money, in fact we're increasing the prices of all 1st party games just to show how much we care.." (and this coming from someone who has just splashed out 700 squid for PS5 and accessories)
There's no doubt PS are taking us for granted in the next gen and it's going to cost them dearly. It's PS3 days all over again...
You don't need to include first-party games in PS Now, you just need weekly content and NEWER games... it's an absolute shambles at the moment... I bought it in the recent sale and it's just sad-looking and obsolete when compared to anything else out there...
Sony is paying the price of having expectations. I’ve been following the Series X the same I’ve been following PS5 and after each MS show the talk peters off within a day. Every time MS makes a showing everyone says “Fine. But what’s Sony up to...?” So now PS5 is out there and people are trying to eat it up.
Even if Sony had put the pre-orders a week out this would’ve happened. It happens with iPhones all the time and iPhones are twice the price.
Defenately agree with him. Make awsome games, sell for what they are worth then inject those sales figures back in to the dev teams to make bigger and better experiences for us. I wouldnt be happy with subscription based gaming personally. Look at the quality of MS 1st party compared to Sony's. You can defenately see which company has injected the funds in to the projects.
Agreed!
Game pass-like stuff isn't needed on PlayStation.
However, I do feel the collection of games in Now must be increased. Previous gens had so many great titles it seems a waste to not include those to Now. At this point, the amount of games in Now is very lackluster considering the 1000s of titles under the PlayStation brand.
And while you're at it, overhaul the interface and create a more user-friendly way of browsing games. 👍
Doesn't matter either way if I can't get a PS5
@get2sammyb @AJDarkstar Microsoft never said it isn't profitable, just not a big money maker. Sony is right to say gamepass doesn't work for them, but saying the service is unsustainable is just personal opinion. There is no financial evidence to support it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/xbox-game-pass-is-not-a-big-money-maker-right-now-but-microsoft-is-thinking-long-term/ar-BB17gsVe
@get2sammyb Ah, that makes sense.
@blacklivesmatter and that's a problem for the industry, Game Pass has lost billions, and isn't economically sustainable for the industry. Well, if you want good AAA games and not GaaS money sinks that is. I personally want Demon's Souls and Ratchet & Clank type experiences, and if Game Pass becomes the model I'm sorry but those games will disappear. Putting games like that on a subscription service two to three years later though might be profitable and good value for money.
Let's see if this sticks by the time PlayStation 6 rolls around.
I still don't really see the point of Game Pass. Maybe it's all psychological and I'm a bit broken. I've got a 12 month Ultimate subscription, so all those games are there. But considering I can dip and dive into any of them, I feel rarely inclined to bother. It almost feels like having them as free commodities cheapens their worth.
I recently bought Origami King, TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushima, and considering I paid full price I felt way more inclined to finish them. Which I did. Meanwhile there's a lot of stuff on my X that has only been grazed over, as I've been fickle and just tried multiple titles. Maybe it's just me <shrugs>.
@b1ackjack
Yeah same here. Even when there's been games I bought digitally this gen because they were cheaper at the time I've since re-bought on disc if I enjoyed them because I don't ever want to lose access to the ones I love the most.
People saying that's not going to happen are kidding themselves. I've lost digital games THIS gen from my library due to licencing. And periodically games disappear from my library and I have to restore the licence to play them.
What happens when these systems are cut off from the PSN and you can't restore the licences? You're screwed that's what.
With a disc I don't have that problem. As for patches, there are ways to deal with that through digital archiving, and even if they are unavailable a disc is still shipped in a playable state for folk who don't even have internet access, they have to be for legal reasons.
People who believe in the digital era I feel it will bite them on the butt one day.
@seanobi Its 7 days i think we did get generation exclusive games. What are people crying about its such a mess in the world firsrworld problems.
Correction: 'It doesn't make money for us'
@RedShirtRod actually in earnings calls Microsoft confirmed it has lost over $2bn so far. When you look at the cost of development of Halo Infinite, so far $500m, and Gears 5 $300m it doesn't take a genius to work out that the subscription fee doesn't cover those costs, let alone make a profit. That means for Game Pass to be sustainable one of 3 things has to happen:
1) The monthly fee has to rise significantly
2) The games have to generate income from elsewhere, which means grindy GaaS micro-transaction hell.
3) The quality of the games on Game Pass has to plummet.
To be honest raising number of subscribers won't help MS with Game Pass, like it didn't Netflix, it will just make the content more expensive to secure. Plus, honestly, right now? There's nothing coming to Game Pass so far that compares to Sony's first party games. I do think Sony will need to respond somehow, maybe with PS Now or PS+ game collection, but they shouldn't copy the Game Pass business model because it isn't sustainable.
@get2sammyb I mean, for $20/mo you do get access to NES/SNES games, which is kind of Game Pass-ish.
I love Nintendo, but it's "Services" are generations behind.
I just wish both Sony and Nintendo would make basic Cloud Storage a standard (and free) feature.
Don't know why they keep asking this. PS4 games are selling at record numbers. They've no need to and in fact that's why they'll be bumping prices up as well.
I hope PlayStation continue to add value to PS Now though. The PS+ Collection thing seems a bit weird imo. I wonder if that'll mean the monthly games go away and they'll just add to "the collection" instead?
@RedShirtRod With the games Sony makes its not sustainable. How many firstparty Sony titles have MT, boosters, sponsord DLC its a lot less then MS. And i rather keep my kind of games. Singleplayer and not monitized too hell.
@AhabSpampurse I agree with you the amount of stuff sometimes makes me think ah never mind i dont feel like playing it.
People need to stop complaining, this is business , if you agree buy and if you not agree don't buy simple as that . Don't waste on typing or commenting. There is no democracy when it come to business it's only money and money.
@captainsandman Yes, these are my thoughts too.
I think the risk of the GamesPass model is a gradual watering down of the game quality. I admit, I do think GP helps indies and low budget releases to get exposure. But AAA gaming quality would likely start to erode, if it hasn’t already over on Team Green - I can’t comment as I don’t have an Xbox. And I think that’s telling, in and of itself — none of the Xbox exclusive properties have been world-shaking enough to convince me to join the ecosystem.
There might be a place for GP model as a mid-level game release system, and like Netflix for example, the people who partake in it will be thrilled with what they get, I’m sure. But we need the options to have big budget releases from developers too. I agree that the movie industry would really be hamstrung if the theaters shut down and all new content was only accessible on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.
PS plus on the other hand needs to change. They could just merge it with ps now already and give us to choose the monthly games that we want from list.
As a gamer who plays on all platforms I'm happy MS and Sony are going in different directions this gen.
Game Pass is wonderful and amazing value right now but I don't think it is sustainable, particularly for the sort of AAA story driven narrative games that Sony fund.
@Th3solution I agree. I do love the game pass model for the middle to indie type of games. I don't know how it works out for them but it seems to be the type of games that belong on that sort of platform. Then adding in older AAA games in the mix to fill some of the void. I think that model is sustainable. I don't think it's sustainable to bring all 1st party games day 1 and then for us to expect the same volume or quality of AAA titles. I like Microsoft's Game Pass. I have it on PC and it's a great value add. I just see that there is a lot to be desired from their 1st party library. I discovered my love for Forza Horizon 4 and I was surprised that I enjoyed playing through GoW 4 but outside of those series the middle ware and indies are keeping me around.
@AhabSpampurse I have PsNow, and I feel this same thing. I just tend to flit from game to game, without giving any single one the attention it deserves. I think part of it is thinking 'well I don't actually own it, so what's the point in getting into it. If my subscription expires I won't be able to play it anymore'. I don't know, it's weird isn't it.
I don't want Game Pass to be the standard for how games are consumed but I do think it's a good service for those with less income and is a sustainable business model. Jim Ryan is the same guy who bashed backwards compatibility, cross-play, talked about 'we believe in generations,' and has had to reverse course on all of this. On top of that, prices for PS5 versions of games will be higher despite the fact PS4 and PC versions will exist. I'm convinced more than ever Sony made the wrong leadership choice.
So I see Microsoft being a good middle to indie game platform and Sony pushing their AAA games to sell systems. Having game pass on PC makes it the perfect generation to own both a bomb ass PC and a PS5. That way you get the best of both worlds.
@blacklivesmatter 'all first party titles for current gen'... Remind me, what were they called again????? Microsoft keep saying they do first party titles but the only thing that comes to mind in the last 2 years is Crackdown 3.
I can see his point. And I've no interest in another ongoing subscription anyway. There's enough of those already. Obviously Sony's stance isn't going to please everyone but I guess that's the upside to having different console options.
@phil_j I get you. I play 30 minutes of a game on Game Pass PC and if it doesn't grab me I delete it. If I would have purchased that game I would have given it a little more time to win me over. Same thing with music. Unlimited options and I jump from album to album and never give them the time they deserve. Back in the CD days I would listen to them on repeat and a lot of albums get better on 2nd and 3rd listens. I don't give stuff that chance anymore.
Gamepass is amazing there's no denying that but lets face it the reason MS push it so hard is because really its all they have, if MS were where they were last gen they wouldn't have considered it at all but due to being bottom they had to come up with something big. its great for players but Sony don't need it, if Ghost and TLoUP2 were on a PS Now Day 1 then they wouldn't have been huge hits this year and that's the point, Sony and Nintendo games do way better then MS games do so why lose that?
As for Gamepass long term? Look at Netflix, at first it was the only one of its kind but slowly others saw how much money you can make from such a thing and so we have Amazon Prime, Disney +, Hulu, HBO MAX, DC Universe and so on, suddenly all that content Netflix had is mostly gone and they were forced into making more original content what they can't afford. Lets face it we will start to see a massive rise in Gamepass like things next gen and MS will start seeing these games go and never come back, makes you wonder how long the gravy can last before it crashes.
@Flaming_Kaiser I agree. I don't think Gamepass works for Sony. It looks like it's working for Microsoft. I think it's ok to state both.
@AJDarkstar I included the article that says otherwise. If you don't want to read it that's fine but I've got nothing to add beyond that.
@SirAngry I would be interested in checking out that call. Everything I've seen says that revenue is up for Xbox. If you're saying that Revenue is up for services but gamepass is losing money something doesn't add up.
https://www.purexbox.com/news/2020/07/xbox_content_and_services_revenue_up_65_percent_in_microsoft_q4_results
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if Sony actually did it but I think there will be reduced quality as that model plays out.
Microsoft hasn’t had nearly as many quality exclusives drop as they once had, whereas Sony knocks it out of the park constantly. I completely understand why Sony don’t take that approach.
@SirAngry game pass has lost billions ???
The one worrying thing is saying that they want to make games more persistent. Hopefully they don't go down the "live service" route.
This is typical 2020s economy. Microsoft doesn't care right now if Game Pass is profitable or not. Their aim is to beat the competition, reel them in and then the money will start coming.
Sony, who needs the PlayStation to be profitable, can't afford to offer a similar service for the same price, because they need the PS to make a profit to survive.
Meanwhile the consumer is looking at it like "why is Sony anti-consumer, I'm going to Microsoft".
Stuff like this happens all the time in our current economy. Spotify didn't make any money at first. But it had so money investors that it was able to aquire a monopoly. Now musicians hardly earn money for their music anymore, because Spotify needs a profit, and the musicians can't ignore Spotify anymore, because it's basically the only medium left to reach their listener.
Same happened with Uber-like services and et cetera. It's basically how new monopolies are made in these days. Antithesis of capitalism. And the worst thing is that consumers are clamoring for it, because they get something for cheap in the short term.
Sony is absolutely right at the moment in not offering a service like Game Pass. It's sad to see people call it greed.
Look Jim comes across as a bit of a grump at times, but he is absolutely right. Game Pass is bad for the industry. If you like single player, story driven games like last of us, like uncharted, like ghost etc. then game pass is not sustainable. At least not for a company like Sony or Nintendo where the gaming division makes up the bulk of their profits.
Microsoft can afford to absorb the cost within their wider business to get people on board and locked within their ecosystem. But if all publishers followed that route, gaming would be in a sorry state. We would be seeing a lot more cookie cutter mmo's and service driven games coming our way.
Sony and Nintendo cannot afford to take the loss. Particulalrly if gamers want them to reinvest in high quality software, and steer clear of riddling their games woth micro transactions.
Im not saying Game Pass is bad for consumers. In its current state it represents ridiculous value to the player. But i have real concerns about the medium to long term viability of such a programme
Yup, sony make pristine single player games with no mtx, of course it doesn't make sense for them to put it on subsscription service freely, it's like wanting new zelda and mario free on nintendo subs service.
The reason microsoft can put it is because their games didn't sells as much as sony and nintendo, when the last time gamers hears microsoft games as a game of the year contender in this gen? Also their big AAA games is full of mtx.
A big difference is Sony and Nintendo need their game divisions to be as profitable as possible. Microsoft only needs it cover its costs at the moment and hope it grows. I hope in the long term Game Pass does not damage the industry for the smaller developers
@get2sammyb a remake and an expansion arent great examples of 'new games' though...
@GADG3Tx87 Netflix actually make a good net profit. They spend a significant amount on new content but operating profits were around 6.5billion annual in June 2020. Net profit is far lower but still close to 1billion.
@Pinkman maybe so but its also slim picking if you arent big on series. A lot of stuff as much as i like Netflix its not easy finding something too watch.
@Deljo You think it would make sense for Square Enix too go all in on the Gamepass? For me cheaper games or something like the SoC, GoW, GoT, Spiderman, the Last of Us, Uncharted, Days Gone or whatever Sony exclusive games it not even up for debate for me. Or would you rather have liveservice Ubisoft cookiecutter games.
@Pinkman
Netflix is in 12 billion dollars of debt which according to well documented reports has been increasing year on year since 2010.
Here's one report but if you look it up there are many more.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/23/netflix-offers-2-billion-more-in-debt-to-fund-its-content-spending/?guccounter=1
@phil_j For me gamepass has been a cheap gateway in to many third party titles I wouldn’t otherwise pick up than it has been for exclusives, I had PSNow for a little bit but was often underwhelmed by the choice of third party games and the first party stuff arrives quite a while after I’ve finished them anyway.
The absolute killer though is the backwards compatibility, you can’t stream red dead 1 via PSNow because the latency is shocking, but you can fully install it on a One X with full enhancements that are at remaster levels.
@RedShirtRod revenue isn't the same as profit. If my revenue (income) is £100 and my expenditure (costs) are £300 even if I increase my revenue to £200 I'm still making a loss. That's where Game Pass is. There's also the dropped sales revenue, taking Gears 5 it sold badly, for obvious reasons. Sorry, but without that sales revenue Microsoft with current GP subscriptions is never making the money back to develop that game. Then you have the lost sales revenue on top, who is going to buy a game you can play for free with a free trial? That's what I did. Played the game on a month's free trial, cancelled my subscription and I know others who did the same. Microsoft seem willing to take the hit to make it work for now. But long term Game Pass does not survive in it's current format.
@captainsandman ERM.... You do know trolls world tour made more money then it would in a theater right?
Theaters were designed due people not having tvs at home..... Also theaters are becoming outdated now there should always be a option to either pay a set fee to watch it at home or go have the ***** theater experience
@Jarobusa yeah, it's pretty well known the fees they've had to pay to get games on it in the industry, and then you have the server costs, and the lost sales revenue from games like Gears 5. Satya Nadella described it recently as an important loss leader to help establish a concept in the market place. What is it? 10m subscribers or thereabouts? That's not enough to cover the costs of Microsoft's own development program let alone paying fees to secure other games.
Know what else isn’t sustainable? Paying £70 for a game, especially in this current climate. At least with Xbox Game Pass we’ve got the option of playing first party games on release for £8 a month, much more affordable and consumer-friendly.
@MaccaMUFC Neither is big budget games that are charged at the same price as they have been for 20 years.
Gamepass model is not substainable for single player games. Either Microsoft focus on multiplayer games or their single player games quality will definitely go down in the long run.
@GADG3Tx87 I stand corrected. I thought they were holding around 8billion I'm cash.
Very interesting.
@SirAngry I've never heard of a company breaking down profits by department. Only revenue. You can make educated assumptions based off of expense reports but if a company is going to break down their finances into net income or profits by department then there is no point of having those departments inside a single company.
@RedShirtRod of course there is, and of course they do. It makes tax avoidance easier for starters. Plus investors like having breakdowns, and indeed need breakdown to question the board of directors on the running of the company. Game Pass loses money because that what the CEO says. They're constantly having to defend the loses made by the Xbox Division to investors as well. That I think is unfair, because without the Xbox Program Direct X / 3D wouldn't be where it is, and that's vitally important to the health of Microsoft, but I do think at some point Phil Spencer and co will need to turn a profit.
@phil_j For me, the Game Pass love comes from:
1. Downloading and installing games (instead of streaming)
2. Day one games (Streets of Rage 4, Carrion, Tell Me Why, etc.)
$15/month for GP Ultimate is equivalent to purchasing three $60 games/year. I have already played and completed 15 games (granted not all of them were $60 games, but still) on GP this year, and I didn't even pay full price because even GP goes on sale sometimes.
It also includes being able to play online and the ~4 games/month they let you "keep" from Games with Gold. I'm pretty sure you don't have to pay to play online on PC, so you may not relate to that benefit, but my PC is not the best, so that part of the deal does matter to me.
Bottom line, if you don't care about "owning" your games, that value cannot be beaten.
I don't care if its "sustainable" because it works how it works right now and I'm taking advantage of it. If Microsoft changes how it works in the future, I'll re-evaluate. Game Pass is currently awesome, and the best reason to own an Xbox.
BTW, for reference, I also own a PS4 and have purchased over 50 games for it. I'm platform agnostic, and also own a Switch along with several retro consoles as well.
Putting your exclusives day 1 on a supscription model is a terrible idea. It is why Microsoft turned Halo into a GaaS model and Xbox players will be playing Halo: Infinite for the entire generation and no other new entry.
It is why the quality of exclusives goes down in favor of more AA smaller titles that you can pump out faster to keep content up.
It promotes the notion of quantity over quality, and does appear to be unsustainable.
I’m happy to hear Jim Ryan say this personally.
The thing about GamePass is that it was never designed to REPLACE hard copies of games. It was always envisioned to be a supplement / situational alternative to purchasing games.
There are a couple of points to consider here.
1) Plenty of people will own gamepass AND STILL buy blockbuster releases. I own Gamepass. I still plan to buy the next Forza Horizon when it comes out. I still plan to buy the next Halo when it comes out. I still plan to buy the next Gears when it comes out. I still plan to buy quirky hits like Cuphead, etc....
But that doesn't mean GamePass loses its value on games I would NOT buy, but still want to play. I would not have bought Anthem, or even Destiny, sight unseen. But I wanted to play them, and if I liked them, I would then buy them. Same with the Tomb Raider gaimes, etc.
2) There are times, particularly given the current economic conditions, where one wants to play a game but has to wait, financially because, well, priorities. This is where Gamepass will make its value known. If I can't AFFORD Halo on launch day, I can still play it. Because I have gamepass. If I can't AFFORD Madden on launch day (don't forget GamePass ALSO includes EA Access now), I can still play it.
3) Finally, sometimes as hardcore gamers, we forget that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of gamers are not hardcore. Gamepass is marketed towards casual gamers who pick up a game every once and a while, or who only play blockbusters and then put them down and don't pick up a controller again until the next blockbuster. It isn't marketed towards the kind of gamers who care about frames of animation and hitboxes.
Honestly, I wish Sony had a credible response for Gamepass, but I understand their position and accept it. As a man now with competing priorities, gamepass is a safety net to help ensure I don't miss much as far as games on Xbox. Sony simply trusts that I am going to buy it, NO MATTER my circumstances. Sometimes that will be the case, and other times, I'm just going to miss out.
@AdamNovice The thing is I couldn’t justify paying £70 for single player ‘one and done’ games which take less than a day to complete and they make up most of the PS5 first party exclusives. On the other hand I could justify that price with games like Halo and Gears of War which features a single player campaign as well as multiplayer modes which further increases the game’s replay value.
Most PS exclusives play out like Hollywood blockbusters but the actual gameplay isn’t impressive at all, it’s like your playing out a movie along with a lot of cutscenes in between. How many PS exclusives have actual multiplayer and games that rely solely for multiplayer like Sea of Thieves?
I’m not saying PS exclusives ain’t good, in fact I believe they are fantastic and the reason I’ve owned 3 PS4’s and will get a PS5 in a few years time solely for it’s exclusives but there’s a reason why I’ve owned 3 PS4’s and that’s because most of the exclusives were ‘one and done’ type games and had nothing to make me keep the consoles.
I'd rather pay $60 for great AAA games with 30-40 hours of content than pay monthly subscription for GaaS games with majority of its content locked behind a paywall.
Sure it is not sustainable... Only reason Microsoft can do this is because they have Microsoft Office and Windows cash cow that subsidize all their business models.
@PupTwilight Absolutely false. The first Trolls made 346 million worldwide plus additional money being made afterwards in streaming and digital/physical purchases. Big budget movies can generate billions in revenue. This has not proven to be possible without the theater model. Not to mention that movies that hit theaters also make a decent amount of money on home video and streaming deals. Please educate yourself before making outlandish claims. While the Trolls World Tour was somewhat of a success story it would have fared better with theater revenue.
@captainsandman dude I work in the audio industry and this is so true. People think it was torrents that killed the music industry. Nope, it was Spotify. Spotify is the disgusting stain that just keeps getting bigger. Subscription services only do not work. I'm sorry but they don't. They may be great for a consumer but they suck for the creative teams and talent making the media. Just look at netflix (not too bad at the moment but getting there), how many shows get cancelled after a season or 2? How many crap original movies and series do they have? Too many. Quality of their titles is not up to par with the likes of say: The Office, GOT, Californication, Weeds, The Wire, South Park etc etc. Yeah there is a gem every once in a while but it's not common. Its gonna happen to gaming if we are not careful
If Crackdown 3 is going to sell 400,000 copies then sure - maybe it's better used as an asset to promote game pass. If Spiderman sells over 13,000,000 it makes a lot less sense to chuck that onto a subscription model. Microsoft puts their new games on the service because they're generally not good enough to sell on their own.
@RedShirtRod Dont forget al lot of MS games are heavy monetized and thats what i really dont want.
@MaccaMUFC If you are giving me a example like Sea of Thieves like its a good thing no just no. It was a useless rushed out of the gate game which was't cheap. It only shows the worst of this generation push out the game early and add stuff later. Its in gamepass because it was a massive dumpterfire
@everynowandben Why not wait a month games drop in price like hell. You own your games you can sell them or trade them in.
@Flaming_Kaiser I was using Sea of Thieves as an example of a first party online-only game. Sure it was bare bones when it first released but since then it’s had a lot of content added making it a more complete game. It’s in Game Pass because it’s a first party game and that’s what MS is doing now going forward, adding every first party game to Game Pass on day one and they won’t be “massive dumpster fires” either unless you consider Forza, Halo, Gears of War, Fable, State of Decay as “massive dumpster fires”? I’d much rather play all them for as little as £7.99 a month than pay £69.99 for each one, which is what PS5 owners are going to have to do with PS5 exclusives. Then you’ve got The Medium, Scorn, Avowed and Stalker 2 being Xbox console exclusives but don’t know if any of those will be added to Game Pass as of yet.
Good, why do we need a game pass , because people are too cheap to buy games? just because MS does something dosnt mean sony has to copy
@Flaming_Kaiser I played the following games this year on Game Pass:
Battletoads
Bridge Constructor Portal
Carrion
Life is Strange 2
Man of Medan
Metro: 2033 - Redux
Metro: Last Light - Redux
New Super Lucky’s Tale
Observation
Ori and the Blind Forest: Definitive Edition
Plague Tale: Innocence
Resident Evil 7
Sea of Thieves
Streets of Rage 4
Superhot
Untitled Goose Game
What Remains of Edith Finch
World War Z
So far, I’ve spent around $85 on Game Pass Ultimate.
I don’t think waiting a month is going to allow for me to pay that small of a price to play all those games, especially considering I need online to play some of these, and others don’t even have physical copies available to purchase even if I wanted to buy them that way. On top of that, playing a game on day one of its release is satisfying to me as it allows me to be in the conversation as it’s happening.
@everynowandben Its good for you but that doesnt make it sustainable. And where are the blockbuster singleplayer games?
Plus i see a few PS Plus titles a lot of smaller games yeah so what point do you want too make.
@Flaming_Kaiser Okay, but I don’t care if GP is “sustainable” or not. I don’t work for Microsoft, and I’m not required to think about their business strategy. The way GP works right now - what it is right now - is awesome. If it sucks in the future, I’ll stop subscribing. Simple as that.
Not sure how you define “blockbuster single player game” but most of the games I listed are both single player and high in quality. Other AAA single player games that are or were on GP this year include: Red Dead 2, Doom, Wolfenstein 2, Dishonored 2, Outer Worlds, Remnant, Witcher 3, FF15, DQ11, Kingdom Hearts 3, all the Halo games, all the Gears games...I could go on - not sure what you’re looking for.
I’m not trying to suggest that Sony should adopt the Game Pass model. All I’m saying is that GP, in its current form, is awesome.
@everynowandben
Good for you but think a little further if its not sustainable then you will be left with none of those games anymore. We will get the Ubisoft cookiecutter rehash every year with GaaS and massive monetized games. Im sure MS would love that.
@Flaming_Kaiser I’m okay with not owning every game I play, and I find that doom and gloom scenario you’re suggesting incredibly unlikely.
At least we still have PS Now and the upcoming PS Plus Game Collection...
@HotGoomba But they are right
It's okay for Microsoft, because they don't have the range or quality of exclusive titles which Sony has. They don't have the studios, they haven't been investing multi-millions into numerous games, so it's more cost-effective for them to bung some cash at publishers and give away low-cost access to everyone else's output. For my tastes, the studios they recently bought won't change that.
Very different situation for Sony and Nintendo.
Game Pass is on PC, but I haven't taken it up there. Not interested in most of the games, so for me at least, it's a waste of money no matter how low the cost.
@HiglyPoeticOryx I was kidding lol
It makes no Money MS has already confirmed it next gen games will not be on gamespass for ages it is not financially viable MS had to do something Sony is winning by a huge margin.
it might be pro consumer but I don't think it's pro developer. Developers need funds to create games, having a game under a subscription model will make it hard for them to achieve ROI........unless the developer itself also has deep pockets like MS does.
Tap here to load 101 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...