I haven't seen too many people being concerned about how much money Sony's making. If anything people asking for day 1 games on PS Now are the opposite of worrying about Sony's money. Far more people concerned about MS' bottom line. Neither makes any sense to me since companies should be offering the most to support GAMERS bottom line. Regardless any concern about game quality is pretty unjustified.
Again, he went out of his way to say it's not losing money. So what you said makes no sense.
kyliethicc
earlier in this thread, so I'd also be interested in what he thinks.
Jason throws 'GamePass' in to his post regarding Sony's plans to unite their PS Now and PS Plus offerings and the Xbox fanboys lose their minds
We don't even know what the final service is or will be offering
This thread is comedy gold
Please warriors, continue...
They have different patents and said multiple times that they are working to bring PS Now to mobile, so this is coming.
They recently patented a joycon like Dualshock shaped controller to attach to phones and tablets with an edge to tilt the screen. Considering they are bringing PS Now to mobile and that they plan to bring their PS IPs to native mobile games, and that PS5 features BT 5.1 and wifi 6 for a great remote play, I think it's super likely they will release this.
They are limiting PS1 and PSP games to the streaming tier, which pretty likely means they will use the PS3 emulators they had for that, so PS1 and PSP would be streaming only, and would run these games without trophies. To don't include trophies would make easier to add hundreds of games super fast. To port the games to PS4 and program trophies game by game would highly reduce the number of games added because the investment wouldn't be worth it for most devs since almost nobody would buy PS1 and PSP games today unless properly remastered/remade.
You’re probably right - I actually think gamepass undervalues games in a way, so I’m not necessarily a fan of the idea that Sony follow suite.
The PS1 and PSP games available released for PS3 are already tested, and their emulators wouldn't require extra development. They wouldn't need to program anything to put all the PS1 and PSP games available for PS3 on PS Now. They only would need the permission/licensing from thei IP/game owners.That's a good idea, and I've just had some similar thoughts. I think we're almost there. I had a good discussion back and forth with
I think if we're going with a three tier arrangement, it might turn out like this:
- Tier 1: PS Plus as it exists now.
- Tier 2: PS Plus and a "download only" version of PS Now, which would encompass downloadable PS2 and PS4 games (as they are now), plus PS1 and PSP games. (This is where we differ. Why would Sony need to use the PS3 emulators for PS1 and PSP games? Sony has already created and used PS1 and PSP emulators for PS4.)
- Tier 3: PS Plus and the complete PS Now with both downloads and streaming. Along with the platforms in tier 2, this would add the PS3 games (available only through streaming), and hopefully by then Sony will have also brought streaming to mobile phones, tablets, and smart TV platforms.
I don't think PS1 and PSP games would be enough of an enticement to justify a higher priced tier for the masses (think of Nintendo Switch Online with N64 and Genesis games), but streaming might be, especially if they greatly expand the service to reach a broader range of devices. This would be more in line with Microsoft's arrangement of their online services, without necessarily being an exact clone.
If you want to play any of Sony's console games on your PC, phone, or smart TV, then you need tier 3.
If you want to play PS5 games on your PS4, then you need tier 3.
www.gamesindustry.biz
No, he never said Game Pass isn't losing money. He said Game Pass is sustainable.
"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"
"We want to make the games bigger and better, and hopefully at some stage more persistent. So 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."
-Jim Ryan, April 2021
PlayStation's Jim Ryan: "We want to give gamers certainty that they're buying a true next-generation console"
On its own, there probably isn't too much to say about last night's PlayStation 5 event.There were a handful of AAA fir…
Take that for what it is worth, but all this speculation about day one this and that was answered months ago.
I said they didn't grow from the start of January to the end of September of 2021. Meaning they had around 18M in both places. Which is compatible with growing a 37% from I think it was from July 2020 to June 2021 (this growth would be made in the 2nd half of 2020).
CallingXaero Gravity
Yup. A combo of convenience, digital games have sales and the fact discs became mandatory installs starting with Xbox One/PS4. So might as well just go digital.
Services like these aren't profitable for years. They need a really large user base over time and than they get profitable and you have bound a large group of users on your system that might still buy games.
So they grew from 13.1M to 18M between June 2020 and Jan 2021 (around +700k subs per month) then went completely flat for 8 months… almost immediately after launching new consoles.
True.
Gamepass isn't 1 thing either...
Xbox fans want this to be representative of a competitor to gamepass so bad so they can feel like their subcription holds merit and to feel like Microsoft is ahead of the curve. People forget gamepass came years after Psnow.... Truth of the matter is Sony doesnt need a game pass equivalent, its selling plenty of digital and physical games at full price, but it does neeed to offer a deal that is better than what ps now has for consumers to feel more comfortable siging up for a subcription. Playstation has a more expansive library than Xbox, and it truly is a sleeping beast if they could leverage more of that library while still selling new games at full price.
This is exactly why PS should capitalize on thier expansive library. I never said GamePass did it first, Xbox just did it better and I am absolutely loving the service despite your attempts to diminish its relevance.
It'll simply show Sony gamers that corporate Sony is no different than MS.
That’s opposite of my way of thinking. It’ss lot of money but I will happily pay for quality single player game. Returnal lasted 30 hours and ratchet took me 15.
?? Halo Infinite single player releases on Xbox Game Pass day one. Microsoft are also focusing more on Single Player content as well. Unlike Sony, Microsoft haven't increased their game prices to $70, it's $60.
Yeah and that’s dumb too
Why do people keep banging on about sustainability when the next tweet explicitly says that new first-party games won't be on the service? This isn't the same as MS playing catch-up with the competition and having to eat a significant drop in first-party sales.
sustainable != profit... it can literally mean anything, this is pure PR speak.
Yeah, that's why Microsoft are launching Xcloud on Xbox One consoles, because after Halo Infinite releases all other Microsoft games will be exclusive to Xbox Series consoles. Like Redfall launches next year on Xbox Series and PC.
If there’s one thing about Jim…he knows their PlayStation fans will happily gobble up another Sony money grab and defend it.
People are jumping to conclusions because Jason mentioned Gamepass on that title when honestly he shouldn't have. I'm sure it's bringing him the clicks though.
