• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Report: Sony overhauling PlayStation Plus with new tiers and streaming

Bryank75

Banned
The only people that criticise a platforms games being available on other platforms like PC are rabid fanboys.

The only people that don't want Sony to have a gamepass like service are fanboys who are incredibly worried about their beloved corporation losing money which I find hilarious I might add, They also don't like value for their money 🤷‍♂️

Me personally I'm all for a monthly fee Sony service if it's good value.

A very simplistic take but simple is what you do best and what you are...
 

Wizz-Art

Member
I wonder - knowing Sony doesn't own their own internet infrastructure - if they'll pay money to Microsoft to rent serverspace from Azure?
 

ParaSeoul

Member
I was just thinking about something...if Sony is basically putting these 2 services together, and if they are all going to be available everywhere, how are they doing it?
One of the reasons why PSNow had stalled in terms of countries it was available was because of their streaming service right? They had no infrastructure for a lot more countries as far as i know, specially in south america, etc...where they probably had no servers for that, specially considering PS3 streaming is literally done by PS3 consoles.

My point is...PSNow branding was tied to the streaming part of it...so if they don't turn PSNow also as a "download" service for all games how are they pulling this off everywhere they already have PSPlus? We'll need to be able to play those games natively as a choice i think.
 

ParaSeoul

Member
Let tier 1 just be online play for a cheap price. I know they'll never make online free again at this point but this is probably the next best thing.
 

Goalus

Member
It's funny knowing that Microsoft indirectly profits from Sony's new plans.
Is it a fact that Sony use MS Azure to build their service? That partnership was merely about 'exploration', and I would have thought they might prefer Google now that Stadia is no longer a competitor.
 

Wizz-Art

Member
The thought of your fave company getting money from a competing company is probably something you should feel indifferent towards.
I think it absolutely funny and ironic - with the console war going on in the background and how serious some people take that while both companies just work together.
 

Wizz-Art

Member
Is it a fact that Sony use MS Azure to build their service? That partnership was merely about 'exploration', and I would have thought they might prefer Google now that Stadia is no longer a competitor.
You didn't read the article that was linked?
 

Leyasu

Member
I think that Sony will continue to grow their first party studios with acquisitions (ignore Jim and his organic bullshit) until they have parity in studio numbers to Microsoft. Then they will launch their own day one service.

They see what Microsoft are doing (basically the world’s biggest crowd funding projectand know full well the benefits of having the development of their games fully funded or partially by subscribers.

I was thinking that they could do it at the end of the generation, but they already have a strong first party stable and could make it work if they subside it with third party releases.

My first and last paragraphs sort of contradict each other, but I am on a phone and can’t be bothered to edit it. But you all know what I mean
 

Goalus

Member
The logic goes like this:
- They formed a strategic partnership in 2019 to explore game streaming technology and possibilities.
- We have not heard anything since then.
- Since then, Google has given up on their ambition to be a content provider. They are now a technology provider only, and we know their tech is good.
- If I were Sony, I'd consider Google to be the better partner nowadays because they are no longer competing at the content level.
- The result is the question that I asked earlier.
 

Wizz-Art

Member
The logic goes like this:
- They formed a strategic partnership in 2019 to explore game streaming technology and possibilities.
- We have not heard anything since then.
- Since then, Google has given up on their ambition to be a content provider. They are now a technology provider only, and we know their tech is good.
- If I were Sony, I'd consider Google to be the better partner nowadays because they are no longer competing at the content level.
- The result is the question that I asked earlier.

So basically like the human that goes into a shop, ask questions about a product and check it out completely but goes home and orders it online from another retailer? Yeah, quite far fetched that's happening between two big companies.
 
So basically like the human that goes into a shop, ask questions about a product and check it out completely but goes home and orders it online from another retailer? Yeah, quite far fetched that's happening between two big companies.

What they had back then is only MoU or memorandum of understanding. Is there specificity that came to light after that? I'm genuinely curious.
 

yurinka

Member
I think that Sony will continue to grow their first party studios with acquisitions (ignore Jim and his organic bullshit) until they have parity in studio numbers to Microsoft. Then they will launch their own day one service.
Organic growth isn't bullshit, it's what they are doing: all their gamedev studios are highly increasing their headcount and they are acquiring studios who previously did work for them during a lot of time in many games. They said that will continue doing that.

And Sony said multiple times they won't put their games day one on their game subscriptions. In fact, Bloomberg also says Sony won't put their games day one there.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
The article literally says Now as a brand will be killed.
Jason said in Twiter 'This new service, expected in the spring, will LIKELY retain the "PlayStation Plus" branding'.

The article says 'Documents reviewed by Bloomberg SUGGESTS that Sony plans to retain the PlayStation Plus branding but phase out PlayStation Now.' 'Details on Spartacus MAY still not be finalized'.

So it can be called something like:
-Tier 1: PS Plus
-Tier 2: PS Plus Collection
-Tier 3: PS Plus Now (but I think it would be better something like PS Plus Streaming, PS Plus Cloud, PS Plus Ultimate, PS Plus Max, PS Plus Pro, PS Plus Premium)

I wonder - knowing Sony doesn't own their own internet infrastructure - if they'll pay money to Microsoft to rent serverspace from Azure?
Sony obviously owns their internet infrastructure. They did a deal with MS to share R&D on cloud tech, and seems they switched the software to manage the servers of Sony's clouds from Amazon AWS to MS Azure, that's all. It's like saying that if Ford got new tools to mantain and tweak their cars, these cars no longer belong to Ford but now to the company who made these tools now owns these car. It doesn't make sense.


I was just thinking about something...if Sony is basically putting these 2 services together, and if they are all going to be available everywhere, how are they doing it?
One of the reasons why PSNow had stalled in terms of countries it was available was because of their streaming service right? They had no infrastructure for a lot more countries as far as i know, specially in south america, etc...where they probably had no servers for that, specially considering PS3 streaming is literally done by PS3 consoles.

My point is...PSNow branding was tied to the streaming part of it...so if they don't turn PSNow also as a "download" service for all games how are they pulling this off everywhere they already have PSPlus? We'll need to be able to play those games natively as a choice i think.
PS Now is available in 19 countries, Stadia in 22, XCloud in 26, Amazon Luna in 1 country. Sony plans to continue adding countries to the list, but like in the other game streaming services it will be limited to some countries because game streaming needs to put the servers really close to the users to get a decent latency. Which means a lot of money putting a ton of servers around the world. Even more considering that each game streaming server can handle way less users than a video streaming server or a website or app server.

So since game streaming services can't support -as of now, with their current size- worldwide coverage, they decide to cover the countries that generate over 80-90% of the revenue this kind of games generate and I assue they may skip some who have shitty internet connections or ISP data capped plans only.

This new service will have 3 tiers: tier 1 will be the existing PS Plus, which will continue available worldwide. Tier 3 very will continue limited to these countries, maybe adding soon a few more to the list. Tier 2 seems to add a base Game Pass / PlayStation Collection like list of PS4/PS5 games to download, so since it doesn't feature streaming can be available worldwide.

Regarding the current PS Now, it allows you to stream hundreds of PS2, PS3, PS4 games to PS4, PS5, PC and soon smartphones, tablets and smart tvs (in the past it also streamed to a few Sony phones and tvs). But it isn't limited to streaming, it allows to download and play locally all the games that can run locally (this is, you can download PS2 and PS4 games to run them in PS4 and PS5).

I assume that with the new service they will merge PS Plus and PS Now into a same service with different tiers to make it easier to understand:
-Tier 1, PS Plus: The current PS Plus
-Tier 2, PS Plus Game Pass: Tier 1 + downloadable versions (in PS4 and PS5) of all the PS4 and PS5 games included in PS Now
-Tier 3, PS Plus Ultimate: Tier 2 + extended demos + streaming of PS1, PS2, PS3, PSP, PS4, PS5 games in PS consoles/PC/mobile/smart tvs
 
Last edited:

Wizz-Art

Member
Sony obviously owns their internet infrastructure. They did a deal with MS to share R&D on cloud tech, and seems they switched the software to manage the servers of Sony's clouds from Amazon AWS to MS Azure, that's all. It's like saying that if Ford got new tools to mantain and tweak their cars, these cars no longer belong to Ford but now to the company who made these tools now owns these car. It doesn't make sense.
I'm sorry to tell you this but they don't. They always rented from others.
 

yurinka

Member
I'm sorry to tell you this but they don't. They always rented from others.
I'm sorry to tell you you're totally wrong.

Sony owns PSN, PS Now and a ton of related game streaming and streaming patents. Even the server racks are made, patented and owned by them because they use PS3 and PS4 hardware, nobody else can make or own them. They don't use standard server racks, so nobody cant rent them to them. And obviously nobody cant rent PSN or PS Now to Sony because Sony are the only ones who created (and part of them companies they bought many years ago), developed and own them.

The only thing Sony rented, like any other company with big cloud services with worldwide coverage as PSN or PS Now (that needs to have servers across the world) is datacenter space to store their servers. Sony owns these servers, the cloud service hosted on them (PSN, PS Plus, PS Now, etc) and operates them remotely. They (not Sony, but also MS, Spotify, Amazon, Facebook, Google, random websites and as I said, mostly any big app/websites/services/ISPs/etc that runs in a big cloud) rent most of their datacenter space (+ related maintenance/bandwitdh/electricity/etc) because it's cheaper than to own them, since these 3rd party datacenters offer their service to many clients at the same time inside a single datacenter (they may host there stuff from Google, MS, Sony, Facebook, Uber, mobile and console game servers, random websites, ISP stuff, corporate company stuff, etc) so costs get shared between them, and because in small regions where they have only a few users doesn't make sense to build a datacenter, hire related maintenance staff etc just to store a few server racks. It's cheaper just to rent some datacenter space to any random 3rd party datacenter company available there and to operate these serves remotely.

And well, even if these companies rent most of the datacenter space they use, they also own their own datacenter which traditionally is a small portion of the total servers spread around the world. Most of their servers are located in outsourced 3rd party datacenter companies but operated by them.

Datacenter space isn't internet infrastructure, is just to a space to store their servers in a building ready for it and with related maintenance staff. Same goes with Azure, it's only a software to manage their servers remotely. Servers that run a cloud software/service (in this case PSN or PS Now) created and owned by Sony and that has nothing to do with the software they use to manage their servers, which can they replace by any other one from the competition since most of them basically offer pretty much the same and doesn't impact at all their own cloud software/service.
 
Last edited:
A very simplistic take but simple is what you do best and what you are...
 
Want: Full history of Sony published games since PS4 and a consistent release of newer titles (1 year post launch?). Discounts on dlc and upgrades.

Expect: high pricing and poor conversion ratios from extant services. Exclusive bonuses in MP games.

Imperative to include ps5 at this stage too. Last gen alone is not good value.
 

Wizz-Art

Member
I'm sorry to tell you you're totally wrong.

Sony owns PSN, PS Now and a ton of related game streaming and streaming patents. Even the server racks are made, patented and owned by them because they use PS3 and PS4 hardware, nobody else can make or own them. They don't use standard server racks, so nobody cant rent them to them. And obviously nobody cant rent PSN or PS Now to Sony because Sony are the only ones who created (and part of them companies they bought many years ago), developed and own them.

The only thing Sony rented, like any other company with big cloud services with worldwide coverage as PSN or PS Now (that needs to have servers across the world) is datacenter space to store their servers. Sony owns these servers, the cloud service hosted on them (PSN, PS Plus, PS Now, etc) and operates them remotely. They (not Sony, but also MS, Spotify, Amazon, Facebook, Google, random websites and as I said, mostly any big app/websites/services/ISPs/etc that runs in a big cloud) rent most of their datacenter space (+ related maintenance/bandwitdh/electricity/etc) because it's cheaper than to own them, since these 3rd party datacenters offer their service to many clients at the same time inside a single datacenter (they may host there stuff from Google, MS, Sony, Facebook, Uber, mobile and console game servers, random websites, ISP stuff, corporate company stuff, etc) so costs get shared between them, and because in small regions where they have only a few users doesn't make sense to build a datacenter, hire related maintenance staff etc just to store a few server racks. It's cheaper just to rent some datacenter space to any random 3rd party datacenter company available there and to operate these serves remotely.

And well, even if these companies rent most of the datacenter space they use, they also own their own datacenter which traditionally is a small portion of the total servers spread around the world. Most of their servers are located in outsourced 3rd party datacenter companies but operated by them.

Datacenter space isn't internet infrastructure, is just to a space to store their servers in a building ready for it and with related maintenance staff. Same goes with Azure, it's only a software to manage their servers remotely. Servers that run a cloud software/service (in this case PSN or PS Now) created and owned by Sony and that has nothing to do with the software they use to manage their servers, which can they replace by any other one from the competition since most of them basically offer pretty much the same and doesn't impact at all their own cloud software/service.

A whole wall of text practically saying Sony indeed doesn't own the infrastructure PSN and PSNow runs on, which was my point from the begining. PSN and PSNow is theirs duh, nobody said otherwise as far as I know but that's besides the point. The network that it runs on - the serverspace they're renting are owned by others and as far as I know you do agree with that it seems when reading your post. You don't seem to realize that Azure has huge datacenters on practically every continent which in fact are owned by Microsoft themselves. While others indeed need to rent them to keep their services up and running Microsoft owns the infrastructure needed to have their services up and running at all times.
 
Top Bottom