• 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

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I am confuzed. The guy he was replying to was lumping together a bunch of strawmen that he called Sony fanboys, and saying the only possible reason they don’t want a Sony gamepass is that they don’t like value. What could be more simple-minded than that? And how does JR get banned, and not this clown? Only one I saw “console warring” was the other guy. Serious question.
 

jhjfss

Member
EviLore EviLore Mod of War Mod of War DGrayson DGrayson I'll pay another year of gold to get Bryank75 Bryank75 back, right now. Can we get some reactions on my post to be the dream?? Everyone in abundance, give the strength emoji if you want our guy back!!!
he got banned again?
Donald Duck Lol GIF
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
EviLore EviLore Mod of War Mod of War DGrayson DGrayson I'll pay another year of gold to get Bryank75 Bryank75 back, right now. Can we get some reactions on my post to be the dream?? Everyone in abundance, give the strength emoji if you want our guy back!!!

Not sure about how it ended up like that, but I think permanent bans should only be for extremely insulting posts and so. I think few weeks off is good, 3 months max for so-called "console-warring". We've lost many good people in the past few months, we don't wanna end up with a shell of what is a great place to get news, discuss, and have laughs and banter. Some tolerance won't hurt.
 
Last edited:
Not sure about how it ended up like that, but I think permanent bans should only be for extremely insulting posts and so. I think few weeks off is good, 3 months max for so-called "console-warring". We've lost many good people in the past few months, we don't wanna end up with shell of what is a great place to get news, discuss, and have laughs and banter. Some tolerance won't hurt.
Bryank75 Bryank75 and I have went back and forth for ages. It's actually rare we agree on things. But you can tell this guy was passionate about what he loved. I've vouched for him several times, and I'll do it again.

#BringBryank75Back. #BBB aka big booty bitches. Let's goooooooo!
 
Last edited:

On Demand

Member
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.

I dont think Im alone when I say this when I'd rather pay for games like Metal Gear to be remade by a studio like BluePoint than to have to pay for a subcription that gives me access to the outdated version. Im not enthusiastic paying a subcription to play games with outdated textures at 1080p 60fps when games like Demon Souls and RE2 can be remade to play at 4k60. This is where the playstion and xbox crowd differ. Great for xbox fans, but too outdated for a majority of Sony fans. Sony isnt hurting for current and new games.

Excellent summation. This is exactly what’s going on and what I’ve noticed in regards to the discussion around this. Fanboys trying desperately to make what MS is doing seem better than it really is. As if Sony has to do something. Do something they’ve already been doing for 8 damn years. This sub service is basically a side project for Sony. It’s not their main goal of the entire brand like MS is doing and needs to do.

Last I checked, Sony is the more popular brand and sells more in every category and makes more gaming revenue. The last thing they need is a rental service. Some post on here, and definitely on trashEra, are the most out of touch and delusional opinions I’ve seen. It’s comical.

Your “sleeping beast” comment is something I touched on before. PSnow already has a much bigger library than gamepass. Over 800 games. They did this without it being the pinnacle of their goals. It was just something extra to offer on PlayStation. With options on PC and their TV’s (yes PSnow was already in Sony TV’s 8 years ago. Who’s the company that’s forward thinking again?). If they’re going to be putting a little more effort into this new tier service on top of what they already have, it’s pretty much cemented as having the bigger catalogue of games. I’m talking over 1000 games the year this launches. On top of that also by having more rotations of games and recent games.

To your last point. I generally agree. I don’t care at all about subscription services for games. Owning content is preferable to me. Brand new content more so. What I do like about Sony’s idea though is having access to hundreds of PS1PS2 games I’ve never played before. Not every game can be updated and the majority of those generations game library aren’t available to buy anymore. That’s where a sub service might be valuable to me. In its back catalogue, not new content. Brand new games I like I rather own. Especially as someone who prefers physical media.

I pretty much do the same with the streaming services I have, Netflix and Hulu. I mostly watch movies and TV shows from the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s. Their brand new content and originals are nice. But that’s not why I subscribe.
 

yurinka

Member
No they don't, if they had their own infrastructure in place they wouldn't rent it from AWS and Azure because they would have absolutely no need to do that at all. You don't see XBL renting from others to have their network up and running. Fact is there are a couple of big companies that own their own infrastructure and Sony is 100% not one of them. I'm sorry if it pains you.
Sony doesn't rent any infrastructure, they have their own ones created and owned by them. They only got AWS or Azure as software to remotely manage their own server cloud, which is only one of many tools they use to create, mantain and tweak their infrastructure.

Like any company they use external (meaning made by other company) software, or pay patents for using tech patented by someone else. In the same way, tons of hardware or software companies use software like Outlook or Gmail for their mail, and it doesn't mean their software or hardware belongs to MS or Google because they use this mail software. Like the software they use to manage their servers, the software they use for their mail is only a tool more between many of them they use to do their job. To say their server infrastructure belongs to MS or that they rent it to MS because they use Azure to manage servers doesn't make sense. Sony doesn't even use MS servers, they use their own ones.

In fact, any company uses a ton of external software and patents for server and cloud based stuff and this one to manage their servers is only one of many of them, it's a tiny part of everything related to all the work that requires the infrastructure: databases, file transfering, managing backups, payments management, edge platforms (like Akamai) and a lot more things.

In a similar fashion, Sony owns many game streaming patents for the game streaming stuff they (or companies they bought) built, meaning companies like MS, Google or Amazon who came later to implement their own game streaming solution very likely pay them because they use some of the game streaming stuff created and patented by Sony. And this doesn't mean that XCloud, Stadia or Luna belongs to Sony.
 
Last edited:

sircaw

Just a lil finicky
Bryank75 Bryank75 and I have went back and forth for ages. It's actually rare we agree on things. But you can tell this guy was passionate about what he loved. I've vouched for him several times, and I'll do it again.

#BringBryank75Back. #BBB aka big booty bitches. Let's goooooooo!
Totally agree with this statement.

I have spoken to Bo_Hazem Bo_Hazem D DarkMage Bernd Lauert Bernd Lauert Concern Concern CatLady CatLady Mod of War Mod of War EviLore EviLore and Riky Riky

We have all agreed to take individual time bans consecutively.

To make sure it is totally fair, I will start the ban process with one day, after that, each person's ban will double in length, that should make up for Bryant's long sentence.

I think we should stick with the order i have written, seems more than fair to me/


If you agree with this, leave a "lollipop_disappointed:

Let's get our Irishman back :messenger_heart:
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
This reads like a pr piece lol joke. It is undeniable that they are doing really well.

But you just explained why they will do it in the future (the bit in bold) and why they will go day one pc at the same time. The cost of making games is not getting any cheaper, a subscription model takes away a lot of the risk as the subscribers are heavily subsidising dev costs. Maybe even fully paying once you have enough subscribers. Plus all those pc sales will help too. Those that don't subscribe still buy games. It won't have the apocalyptic effect that you are imagining.

As this is a few years away, we can agree to disagree, and revisit this in the future. Bookmark this post though
Where is the evidence of this in the gaming industry?

Please don't say GamePass.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I have no idea how much or serious his non-console based ban is without seeing all the back end stuff he was doing.

But out of all permabanned guys on this board (at least when it comes to the console warring part), he's probably the least agitating and definitely different the past year. Whether he's geunine or trolling a fake attitude for laughs who knows. But unlike some eternal warriors who act as 100% brand defender as if he works at the company, you can actually get a conversation out of the guy across different threads.

If he gets reconsidered being unbanned, I have no problem with that.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
Where is the evidence of this in the gaming industry?

Please don't say GamePass.
The clues are there when all of Microsoft’s new studios talk about the gamepass alleviating the risk. Join the dots, and you will arrive at the same conclusion.
 
The clues are there when all of Microsoft’s new studios talk about the gamepass alleviating the risk. Join the dots, and you will arrive at the same conclusion.

I don't think that applies to third-party devs.

in the context of first-party, there's not as much pressure from MS to have a top-selling game compared to Sony or Nintendo. The goal is just subscriber retention and growth. The game's can be treated as loss leaders in a way
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
They're paying lip service to their new paymasters.

Surely you're not that naive.

Of course they are.. They are also without doubt being allowed to do what they want as gamepass is cushioning the blow for their paymasters. I would bet money that microsofts acquisitions were tied to GP growth. Not in the sense that it covered the 7.5bn outlay, but it's revenue covered or mostly covered the studios running costs.

Nice try with the naive comment though.

I don't think that applies to third-party devs.

in the context of first-party, there's not as much pressure from MS to have a top-selling game compared to Sony or Nintendo. The goal is just subscriber retention and growth. The game's can be treated as loss leaders in a way

Ofcourse it doesn't apply to third party devs.

Perhaps not loss leaders, but the outlay is less when subscribers are paying you monthly
 

reksveks

Member
In a similar fashion, Sony owns many game streaming patents for the game streaming stuff they (or companies they bought) built, meaning companies like MS, Google or Amazon who came later to implement their own game streaming solution very likely pay them because they use some of the game streaming stuff created and patented by Sony. And this doesn't mean that XCloud, Stadia or Luna belongs to Sony.
Based off what? Have we heard of any licensing deals? Have Sony ever mentioned any revenue from patent licenses? Specifically from gaming.

What patents do you think they are licensing out?
 
Last edited:

Wizz-Art

Member
Sony doesn't rent any infrastructure, they have their own ones created and owned by them. They only got AWS or Azure as software to remotely manage their own server cloud, which is only one of many tools they use to create, mantain and tweak their infrastructure.

Like any company they use external (meaning made by other company) software, or pay patents for using tech patented by someone else. In the same way, tons of hardware or software companies use software like Outlook or Gmail for their mail, and it doesn't mean their software or hardware belongs to MS or Google because they use this mail software. Like the software they use to manage their servers, the software they use for their mail is only a tool more between many of them they use to do their job. To say their server infrastructure belongs to MS or that they rent it to MS because they use Azure to manage servers doesn't make sense. Sony doesn't even use MS servers, they use their own ones.

In fact, any company uses a ton of external software and patents for server and cloud based stuff and this one to manage their servers is only one of many of them, it's a tiny part of everything related to all the work that requires the infrastructure: databases, file transfering, managing backups, payments management, edge platforms (like Akamai) and a lot more things.

In a similar fashion, Sony owns many game streaming patents for the game streaming stuff they (or companies they bought) built, meaning companies like MS, Google or Amazon who came later to implement their own game streaming solution very likely pay them because they use some of the game streaming stuff created and patented by Sony. And this doesn't mean that XCloud, Stadia or Luna belongs to Sony.
You are delusional if you really think that. It would've cost billions and billions to create something like Azure and you keep saying with a straight face they've done that only for PSN and Now....I'm 1000% sure that that is not the case simply because they can't ever recoup the cost like Azure and AWS do because they don't have clients but they build it just for themselves. This also means by your own statement that they own the infrastructure - so they must own serverparks and datacenters all over the globe because that's an huge part of what an infrastructure is. The roads, viaducts, bridges etc. ARE the infrastructure, NOT the cars and trucks that drive on them.
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
Of course they are.. They are also without doubt being allowed to do what they want as gamepass is cushioning the blow for their paymasters. I would bet money that microsofts acquisitions were tied to GP growth. Not in the sense that it covered the 7.5bn outlay, but it's revenue covered or mostly covered the studios running costs.

Nice try with the naive comment though.
There is zero evidence that this wouldn't be the case if GamePass didn't exist.

You've just typed out several sentences of speculation.
 
I pretty much do the same with the streaming services I have, Netflix and Hulu. I mostly watch movies and TV shows from the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s. Their brand new content and originals are nice. But that’s not why I subscribe.

Interesting. I'm just curious. Would you subscribe to a 'Sony Pass' containing most if not all of Sony's legacy movies and shows from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s? Sony Pictures Group include: Columbia Pictures, TriStar Picutres, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Animation, Sony Pictures Classic (indie films), etc.

According to its outdated wikipedia, it has more than 4,000 films.
List of Columbia Pictures movies from 1922. -> Columbia Pictures List
Sony Pictures movies here. -> https://www.sonypictures.com/movies
Sony Pictures Classics. -> https://www.sonyclassics.com/
Sony Pictures Animation. -> https://www.sonypicturesanimation.com/

Sony Pictures Television program -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Pictures_Television_programs
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Gold Member
There is zero evidence that this wouldn't be the case if GamePass didn't exist.

You've just typed out several sentences of speculation.
Of course, and your dismissal is based zero evidence as well.

You could be right or I could be. Neither of us know for sure.
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
Of course, and your dismissal is based zero evidence as well.

You could be right or I could be. Neither of us know for sure.
You said that "a subscription model takes away a lot of the risk as the subscribers are heavily subsidising dev costs" like it was a statement of fact.

It isnt because there is zero evidence to back it up in the gaming industry. That's all that needs to be said here.
 

Chukhopops

Member
You said that "a subscription model takes away a lot of the risk as the subscribers are heavily subsidising dev costs" like it was a statement of fact.

It isnt because there is zero evidence to back it up in the gaming industry. That's all that needs to be said here.
Speaking at Gamelab last year, Jumpship founder Dino Patti said that "Xbox Game Pass is the first time subscription is fair for developers." For Gooden, who is the sole developer on the project, it went beyond fair -- it was a game changer.

"Until that point I'd been bootstrapping," he said. "The game was funded out of pocket, through videography gigs and other one-off hustles. I was also doing publisher negotiations at the time, too, and the Game Pass deal allowed me to fund the rest of the game, make it profitable, and still do everything I wanted to do with a publisher, without having to get a publisher."
“The biggest part of the partnership for us is that Microsoft actually cares about the indie market,” Gritsay said. “Otherwise, well, there would be much fewer games on all platforms. They really give a chance to small studios to actually produce something and provide marketing awareness to people. I would say that for indie studios, I can’t even think of a con (with partnering with Microsoft) because they provide funding and marketing reach.”

“As for Game Pass, it allows more people to learn about the game, and actually play the game,” Gritsay said. “Because there is frequently this situation for many players where they will see a game in the store and they want it, but at the same time it is $30, $60, or even more, and so you maybe Wishlist it, and then you usually forget.”

“However, with Game Pass you just press a button and install."
"Since Descenders came out on Game Pass, the thing I did not realise would happen -- because you'd assume that you put something on Game Pass and sales tank, right? I had assumed that: why would anyone buy the game when they can literally see it on Game Pass?

"We were like, should we do this Game Pass thing? But we did it, and 1.0 came out, and I think it the launch was about three times as big as the Steam Early Access launch... You could say it was putting the multiplayer in, or it was not being Early Access any more, so more people bought it. But the biggest surprise for me was Game Pass."

So MS with GP bankrolls developers by giving them a sum of money to finish their project, marketing support, etc. How does that not take away the risk of launching on a platform with zero visibility and bombing?

And let's not talk about the visibility GP gives to indie devs.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
You said that "a subscription model takes away a lot of the risk as the subscribers are heavily subsidising dev costs" like it was a statement of fact.

It isnt because there is zero evidence to back it up in the gaming industry. That's all that needs to be said here.
Not a statement of fact as we don’t have the hard numbers. But that is how I have interpreted it when listening to the devs talking about the risks being reduced and allowing them creative freedom. The same as all the Sony fanboys concerned about its sustainability in every go thread. Surprisingly I haven’t seen you talking about statements of fact in those threads.

Unless the reality is like all the concern in the gp threads, where it’s not sustainable and every dev is one flop from doom.

What do you think that they are doing with the revenue?
 

yurinka

Member
Based off what? Have we heard of any licensing deals? Have Sony ever mentioned any revenue from patent licenses? Specifically from gaming.

What patents do you think they are licensing out?
Sony bought Gaikai to build PS Now (and get some game streaming patents) and later got 140 game streaming related patents more with the acquisition of Onlive. Then they continued developing their game streaming architecture and patented a ton of things more (you can google it or search in neogaf) as Sony, some of them pretty recent and still not implemented, like certain optimizations related to stream over 5G and use phone towers to use them for Edge computing and reduce latency or the addition of nvme ssds to their game streaming servers pretty likely for their announced future addition of PS5 games to PS Now. Some random example more: they patented browser-based cloud gaming https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170354878A1/en

I have no idea in which division or area Sony includes the revenue they get for licensing patents, or the costs they have for licensing patents other companies filled and they implemented or for when they sue someone for using stuff they patented without getting the license. Tech companies do this all the time with tons of patents filled by them or by others, so they don't announce each one publicly.

You are delusional if you really think that. It would've cost billions and billions to create something like Azure and you keep saying with a straight face they've done that only for PSN and Now....I'm 1000% sure that that is not the case simply because they can't ever recoup the cost like Azure and AWS do because they don't have clients but they build it just for themselves. This also means by your own statement that they own the infrastructure - so they must own serverparks and datacenters all over the globe because that's an huge part of what an infrastructure is. The roads, viaducts, bridges etc. ARE the infrastructure, NOT the cars and trucks that drive on them.
Since the start of PS Now (before starting to using Azure) they had their own PS3 hardware based servers because there is no other way to run PS3 games with 100% compatibility and at full speed. Later they added PS4 based hardware server racks and now they are making PS5 ones. They also filled or bought like over 200 cloud gaming related patents. Microsoft and Amazon can't build these servers because only Sony makes and own them. So Sony isn't using the (traditional, PC based hardware) Azure (or in the past, AWS) servers.

Sony -as happens with any other company with a big cloud/server based service/app/game- doesn't care if as it is the case some of their servers are stored in their own datacenters (Sony has them), most of them in 3rd party data centers from datacenter companies (traditionally the most used ones because it's the cheapest option) or -not likely because it's the more expensive option- in datacenters optionally provided by Azure or AWS to their customers (Azure/AWS/etc also have their own datacenters + operated outsourced datacenters from 3rd party datacenter companies spread around the world).

Yes, a company like Sony could make their own email app, but it's something dumb when there are products like outlook or gmail out there. They could also build their own type of databases, but there are many good ones out there that they can simply use. They could also make their own image edition tool but it's dumb when they can just get Photoshop.

Same goes with the software to remotely manage (which isn't an infrastructure) their own servers, they could build their own one but there's AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and so on out there. So in the past they were using AWS and now they moved to Azure. They don't care because this software is only a tiny part in all the hardware and software needed to run their business, in this case their PS Now and PSN cloud infrastructure, and these different server management services available in the market all offer them pretty much the same, in the same way they don't care if they servers are stored in a datacenter owned by this or that company, so they don't care to choose one or another. Pretty likely they choose the cheapest one for them in each case, as any company traditionally does.

But again, as happens with the email client, databases or image editing software it's dumb to build your own one when it's cheaper to use good products that someone else already did, which in terms of server space is to rent space to store their own servers in 3rd party data center companies and to remotely manage their cloud of servers to use something like AWS or Azure (plus additional related sofware tools like VPN and so on).

Not a statement of fact as we don’t have the hard numbers. But that is how I have interpreted it when listening to the devs talking about the risks being reduced and allowing them creative freedom.
Only some games are added every month to PS Now or Game Pass, while many hundreds if not thousands of games are added every month to the console, PC and mobile digital stores.

If as it's happening with music or movies the gaming market ends monopolized by a handful game subscriptions, many companies will dissapear because they won't be able to release their games there or at least not as frequently as they would want.

Some game subscriptions offer shitty payment conditions to devs, other ones change case by case but are more generous -specially for popular devs or publishers- (I know an indie who MS paid them almost the entire development for including their game day one on gamepass, other one got paid around 20% of the development budget, and others get barely nothing for including them on PS Now, Gold, Plus or the free games of the Epic Store mostly because are old small games from not popular devs) but their conditions obviously could change if instead of being a smaller business they grow a lot and become market leaders and monopolize gaming.

As dev, when submitting a game to a game store pretty much everything gets greenlighted if it's somewhat decent. In game subscriptions since there is only a limited amount of games added every month the platform holders carefully curate who and what they want there. Devs can't put any game they want on Game Pass, Gold, Plus or PS Now. Sony and MS act as picky gate keepers.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Tech companies do this all the time with tons of patents filled by them or by others, so they don't announce each one publicly.

If it's significantly large, it generally does get reported on in investor relations documents. You/people could figure out how much MS got from its patent licensing largely from android phones. It got as high as 2bn a year according to one analyst.

Then they continued developing their game streaming architecture and patented many things more as Sony, some of them pretty recent and still not implemented, like certain optimizations related to stream over 5G and use phone towers to use them for Edge comp
Yeah, but the patent system isn't the most robust in ensuring that it doesn't approval stuff with prior arts sadly. It sadly comes down to enforcement of those patents too often. Unless we see revenue or court cases, I don't think we should assume that Sony is getting a license for it.

Let me see if we can ever find out if Sony mentioned patent revenue.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
Only some games are added every month to PS Now or Game Pass, while many hundreds if not thousands of games are added every month to the console, PC and mobile digital stores.

If as it's happening with music or movies the gaming market ends monopolized by a handful game subscriptions, many companies will dissapear because they won't be able to release their games there or at least not as frequently as they would want.

Some game subscriptions offer shitty payment conditions to devs, other ones change case by case but are more generous -specially for popular devs or publishers- (I know an indie who MS paid them almost the entire development for including their game day one on gamepass, other one got paid around 20% of the development budget, and others get barely nothing for including them on PS Now, Gold, Plus or the free games of the Epic Store mostly because are old small games from not popular devs) but their conditions obviously could change if instead of being a smaller business they grow a lot and become market leaders and monopolize gaming.

As dev, when submitting a game to a game store pretty much everything gets greenlighted if it's somewhat decent. In game subscriptions since there is only a limited amount of games added every month the platform holders carefully curate who and what they want there. Devs can't put any game they want on Game Pass, Gold, Plus or PS Now. Sony and MS act as picky gate keepers.

If 3rd party devs feel like the offer to put their games on any service is not worth it, then they won't. Or some games will just be too cost prohibitive for the platform holder. No devs are receiving offers that they cannot refuse. But, for some, it gives them more exposure AND they still have their games for sale at the same time.

I should have been clearer, I was talking about 1st party studios in that post that you quoted.
 

yurinka

Member
If it's significantly large, it generally does get reported on in investor relations documents. You/people could figure out how much MS got from its patent licensing largely from android phones. It got as high as 2bn a year according to one analyst.


Yeah, but the patent system isn't the most robust in ensuring that it doesn't approval stuff with prior arts sadly. It sadly comes down to enforcement of those patents too often. Unless we see revenue or court cases, I don't think we should assume that Sony is getting a license for it.

Let me see if we can ever find out if Sony mentioned patent revenue.
I don't know the numbers, but I assume Sony both paids and gets paid a shit ton of money for patents in gaming and as the whole corporation. I assume corporations like that must move a lot of money with patents because from time to time -as in the case you mentioned with MS and mobile, or in the one I mentioned about Sony buying Onlive- they acquire companies only to get their patents.

It's in the last segment



Sadly the costs in the segment is too high to figure out the revenue from any patent licensing deals.
I don't get this, does it mean they got $2B (223B yen) of patent royalty revenue from a single licensing agreement in a FY? Or for all their patents? Or that they paid that to license an external patent (or multiple ones)?

If 3rd party devs feel like the offer to put their games on any service is not worth it, then they won't. Or some games will just be too cost prohibitive for the platform holder. No devs are receiving offers that they cannot refuse. But, for some, it gives them more exposure AND they still have their games for sale at the same time.

I should have been clearer, I was talking about 1st party studios in that post that you quoted.
Regarding 3rd parties, when already have a good business elsewhere obviously don't accept bad deals. Regarding with the exception of maybe MS, all the other big publishers -at least the ones who detail their numbers- game subscriptions are a very small part of their business, so they simply continue focusing on selling games and DLC/IAP.

Small indies instead have tiny revenues and often aren't profitable, so they often accept bad deals because at least it's something. Regarding the exposure, a few cases has been true (see Rocket League or Fall Guys got highly benefited from being included at launch on PS Plus), but every month they add new games and most of them don't get a popularity spike for being included there, maybe because the game isn't good/viral enough.

Fun fact: while ago a friend had a PS Vita game on PS Plus got a (not too big) sales spike for that game, but just after it got removed from PS Plus. It was like some people were going to get it in PS Plus but went too late so they ended buying it.
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
Not a statement of fact as we don’t have the hard numbers. But that is how I have interpreted it when listening to the devs talking about the risks being reduced and allowing them creative freedom. The same as all the Sony fanboys concerned about its sustainability in every go thread. Surprisingly I haven’t seen you talking about statements of fact in those threads.

Unless the reality is like all the concern in the gp threads, where it’s not sustainable and every dev is one flop from doom.

What do you think that they are doing with the revenue?
You're jumping around all over the place, but the reality is we have no idea of the revenue, or the costs because MS doesn't provide them. Nor do we have any idea whether such a model does really does take away the risk - just some first-party devs saying so.

No real evidence. So like I said, speculation.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
You're jumping around all over the place, but the reality is we have no idea of the revenue, or the costs because MS doesn't provide them. Nor do we have any idea whether such a model does really does take away the risk - just some first-party devs saying so.

No real evidence. So like I said, speculation.
I have not changed anything that I have said and I wont. My speculation/interpretation is that Microsoft are using the revenue to subsidise/pay the running costs of their studios. Which if true, would align with what their new devs have said regarding the risk involved.

I have no real evidence, just like you have no real evidence to the contrary. You are speculating that my speculation is wrong.

Your trying hard for the gotcha. Keep it up, and you might strike gold...
 

Hezekiah

Member
I have not changed anything that I have said and I wont. My speculation/interpretation is that Microsoft are using the revenue to subsidise/pay the running costs of their studios. Which if true, would align with what their new devs have said regarding the risk involved.

I have no real evidence, just like you have no real evidence to the contrary. You are speculating that my speculation is wrong.

Your trying hard for the gotcha. Keep it up, and you might strike gold...
You don't have to change anything lol.

But if you're going to make sweeping statements, the onus is on you provide the evidence for it. We don't have any idea of the difference in the bottom-line, or creative freedom these games would have, with GamePass vs without GamePass.

So it's just speculation, and should rightly be presented as such.
 

Leyasu

Gold Member
You don't have to change anything lol.

But if you're going to make sweeping statements, the onus is on you provide the evidence for it. We don't have any idea of the difference in the bottom-line, or creative freedom these games would have, with GamePass vs without GamePass.

So it's just speculation, and should rightly be presented as such.
As you are policing posts, I will remember to put an "imo" next time.

Can we expect the same attention to detail from you when the "not sustainable" crowd are speculating too?
 

Hezekiah

Member
As you are policing posts, I will remember to put an "imo" next time.

Can we expect the same attention to detail from you when the "not sustainable" crowd are speculating too?
It's great you've come around to a logical understanding.

No idea why you've been talking about Sony fanboys though - that could be construed as warring.
 
Streaming games is a fucking stupid idea and always will be.

It is. Sony should stop shoving it down gamer's throat. They should make BC games work through emulation, period. Stop with game streaming BS.

On a side note, the potential of game streaming is among the "non-gamers". The "casuals" who wouldn't buy a console or PC. Game streaming will be the easiest route to hook them into console-type of gaming. It should be viewed as a way to broaden the appeal of console type gaming. A way to reach more people beyond the 200 million console and PC owners.
 

On Demand

Member
Interesting. I'm just curious. Would you subscribe to a 'Sony Pass' containing most if not all of Sony's legacy movies and shows from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s? Sony Pictures Group include: Columbia Pictures, TriStar Picutres, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Animation, Sony Pictures Classic (indie films), etc.

According to its outdated wikipedia, it has more than 4,000 films.
List of Columbia Pictures movies from 1922. -> Columbia Pictures List
Sony Pictures movies here. -> https://www.sonypictures.com/movies
Sony Pictures Classics. -> https://www.sonyclassics.com/
Sony Pictures Animation. -> https://www.sonypicturesanimation.com/

Sony Pictures Television program -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Pictures_Television_programs

Yes i would.

I grew up watching a lot of movies that came came from TriStar pictures and the like.
 
Assuming as others have

5 dollars current PS+ no change
10 dollars current PS+ with current PS Now
15 dollars current PS+ with current PS Now with BC for PS1-3

The questions become what do they do for PC only users who won't benefit as much from PS+, technically PS Now already costs 10 dollars already so not really losing anything. Actually creates an incentive to get a PlayStation console because there is more benefit with PS+ included.

Then Sony gets to pay for any investments in BC by charging an extra 10 dollars a month. The question is whether they focus on streaming all of this or allow downloads. Whether they let you play PS1 and 2 digital games you already own. The fact that BC seems to be sandwiched into this sub model, suggests that it will probably be stream only, which is disappointing.
 
To me backwards compatability and downloading of games natively is key to a GP competitor. PSNow already has loads more games on the service, and its cheaper. It doesn't need to do day 1 first party releases.

I only care about "streaming" in gamimg as far as whatever extent it is involved in making Remote Play & SharePlay features work.
Not sure how you allow backwards compatibility on tier 3 and allow downloads but then box out people who already own the digital games, so I think this is going to just be streaming.
 
I do wonder if Sony will try throwing in some movies, music and anime creating some PS One or something solution in the long run though. But Sony Pictures don't produce enough output, Sony Music is doing whatever and in anime they should merge Crunchyroll into Funimation first (knowing Sony they will make worse Funimation app into the main app of anime, rather than using superior Cruncyroll app). I do expect them putting day 1 releases in a long run. Just like with PSN vs XBL it is gonna be a solid eventually (it took Sony 2.5 generations for that). By that time I believe Xbox will remove Gold, will introduce the ability to stream the games you bought, will introduce additional streaming services into Game Pass subscription and who knows what else. So just like right now, the ecosystem of Xbox will be much more superior while PS ecosystem is gonna be solid but kinda limited.
Not sure you can buy Crunchyroll and not try to flex that ownership now that they have a monopoly. So maybe they do a discounted bundle where like if you get tier 3 you get free or discounted crunchy roll/funimation.

If you already subscribe to Crunchyroll or funimation already, it creates an incentive to buy into PS+ and if you already have PS+ it makes that 3rd tier more valuable. We'll see, but all of these companies do this look at Disney bundling espn+ and Hulu.
 
Top Bottom