Support NeoGAF

[HeisenbergFX4]

All in on MLB The Show for the PC.

The modding will be OFF THE CHAIN!!!

I hope it comes to PC this next year as I put so much time into that game all top tier players on my DD team and all of them are parallel 5 even my bench players.

 

[elliot5]

But 20/month is the price of GamePass Ultimate and the Nintendo Switch Online premium tier combined, and that’s before you even factor in the various discounts you can get.

I’m not ditching the quality (tons of good games in the catalog) but the price seems really steep.

$20 a month is steep, but so is $10/month for PS+ (and Gold for that matter). That's why they offer the yearly price as the equivalent of $5 to get you to frontload the cost. That's why my guess was a $15 month equivalent when prepaying for the year. They want to discourage monthly subs and lock you in for longer. Again, just a guess.

The floor is $10 a month which is what PS+ is now though.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Please don’t. Current PSN prices:

God of War £7.99
GT Sport £6.39
Bloodborne GOTY £14.99
Spider-Man £17.49
Ratchet and Clank £6.39

What we are seeing currently is exactly what happened with the PS4. An early adopter tax on exclusives. In a year or two normal business will be resumed (deep sales on games like Returnal & Ratchet and Clank as sales dry up). Sony have to compete against serious third party publishers with their prices, Nintendo don’t.

Those are all PS4 games.

 

[kyliethicc]

Hopefully this is it.
I don't really have an interest in older games, so having an option not to pay for games your never going to play in neat.

That's what the article says.

There will be a tier just for PS4 PS5 games, and another tier for old PS123 games.

 

[Spitfire098]

Pretty sure Sony said the gamepass model is unsustainable. Guess they changed their mind.

The salt. May it never run out.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

No thx

 

[Topher]

Sony has sure been following MS' trends lately. People criticized MS for putting games on PC, then sony does the same. Then Sony tries to avoid Cross-Play, but then does the same. Then people say GamePass isn't profitable/sustainable, then sony does the same thing lol.

That is a lot of mischaracterization. Sony never committed to putting all its games on PC day one like MS so no, they did not do "the same". Sony had a ton of cross-play games in place with PC long before it became a controversial issue on console. And Sony was talking about putting first party games on a subscription service day one as "unsustainable".

 

[DeepEnigma]

The salt. May it never run out.

Neither does reading past the headlines

 

[reksveks]

Think they are clearly referring specifically to services and the marketing points

Do we have the revenue from just ps plus and ps now? Definitely don't have it for GP.

BTW I am not arguing that PS+ and PS Now doesn't generate more revenue that Gamepass and Gold. No one knows as far as i know.

From the supplementary information

Network Services is revenue recognized through the PlayStation™Network of PlayStation®Plus, PlayStation™Video, PlayStation™Now and advertising revenue.

100,444 M Yen for 2021Q2 = 913 million USD off 47.2m ps+ users and ~4m ps now users; dumb maths suggest that highest ARPU possible is 913M/(47.2M*3) = $6.44 however thats with some really dumb assumption that PS video and advertising drives no revenue. I have also pretended that all PS Now members are PS+ users.

Based on an estimate of 20M GP subscribers; MS would need to have a ARPU of 913/(20*3) aka $15.2 to match it using all my bad assumptions.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Since 2018 the guys beating the GP and now will have to praise service lol nothing like day after day Congratulations to visionary Phil Spencer He saw that it didn't pay to restrict Xbox games on pc Saw the future that was the services And cloud gaming. dictating the industry

Releasing games on PC when your parent company has windows and your consoles always sell the least is stuff of a visionary? About your last sentence... It's almost like PS now didn't come out before game pass.

 

[Draugoth]

So no big titles?

 

[GymWolf]

Hype for the inevitable 180° about subscription services of some people in here

Spoiler

This is a joke of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons inside gaf, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.

 

[Banjo64]

Those are all PS4 games.

It’s the latest game from Santa Monica, Polyphony and Insomniac’s flagship 2018 game.

Nintendo are selling straight up Wii ports like Skyward Sword for £40 and it’s sold 5 million copies.

Games like InFamous Second Son weren’t significantly discounted until the PS4 had been on the market for 2 years either. To compare that to what Nintendo do is laughable.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hype for the inevitable 180° about subscription services of some people in here

Not seeing that at all, actually. Seeing them stick to their guns, actually. Oh, and reading past the headlines too.

 

[GymWolf]

Not seeing that at all, actually. Seeing them stick to their guns, actually. Oh, and reading past the headlines too.

Yeah i know, i was joking, although i'm not gonna be surprised if someone is gonna change idea.

We still need to see if this is real and how sony is gonna handle things.

Like, if i can play infamous 1 and 2 in 4k60 because sony decide to give an xbox BC type of upgrade to some of their older games, i could see myself paying for some months...

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

So no big titles?

When he throws the words “game pass” into this it makes what he is saying confusing.

Game pass offers AAA titles day one and this PS service does not appear to be doing that so why is he saying this will compete with game pass?

If the PS service offers retro games for a subscription fee that’s great but that isn’t a game pass competitor IMO

 

[Hendrick's]

 

[reksveks]

Game pass offers AAA titles day one and this PS service does not appear to be doing that so why is he saying this will compete with game pass?

The problem is that we don't know if the comparison is being made from him or from the documents internally, he doesn't really clarify.

I am wondering what happens to PS Now users on PC/Mobile

 

[fart town usa]

If this service contains PSX/PS2 titles, I'll be subscribing. If it's just PS4 titles, definitely gonna skip.

Much more interested in old games.

 

[DeadOblivion78]

Now this is going to be interesting and funny because the same people on every thread screaming “GamePass is a failed experiment” will now magically change that opinion to be the best idea ever.

It'll be worse for Sony because they don't the cash surplus to feed a gamepass service endlessly.

 

[Corndog]

It's dead in the water with AAA day and date, unless they do something like 3 months or 6 months after release guaranteed. It's certainly no gamepass competitor without that part.

Even 1 year. Also they could add pc version as well.

 

[Topher]

Of course they are - new content is what drove thier highest increases in subscribers.
And you can't compare movies generally since "new releases" are movie theater exclusive at first. So neither subscription or paid was typically getting them for home use day and date prior to covid. The bottom line is old tv shows and old movies isn't enough, just like old games isn't enough. There is a reason netflix and Disney plus and apple tv are spending billions in new exclusive content - to drive subscriptions.

Just like a lot of AAA games are not on steaming at first. Seems completely comparable to me.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If it's just PS4 titles, definitely gonna skip.

It already exists. This is just a rebranding with possibly added older system titles.

Now the question is, will the emulator wrapper be in those PS1/2/PSP games so you can download natively like you can PS2/PS4/PS5 currently.

More than likely it will be since it existed on the PS3/Vita already.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It'll be worse for Sony because they don't the cash surplus to feed a gamepass service endlessly.

Of course they have the cash. Whether it makes sense to do it or not is the issue

 

[Corndog]

i subscribe to jason schrierer platinum on kickstopper. it entitles me to four twitter outrages and six clickbaits per month, but does not include news about blizzard employees being creepy

You forgot being added to his Twitter block list.

 

[Orpheum]

Fucking called it

 

[Corndog]

I think the profit model hurts when you release your games day and date and pay for exclusivity deals.

If its just for legacy and some new games from time to time post release it wont cost as much to uphold.

MS on the other hand releases their games day 1 and they cost $300M to make, they need a certain sub count that i'm sure they have outlined internally that they need to reach before they even make a dime.

it's a risk that might not pay off unless they get a huge sub count, as stated in this thread Netflix needed over $200 million subs to make a profit - potential is there but its ambitious

That doesn’t account for things like dlc, cosmetic garbage. If they get you in the ecosystem they can milk your wallet other ways.

 

[jshackles]

It already exists. This is just a rebranding with possibly added older system titles.

Now the question is, will the emulator wrapper be in those PS1/2/PSP games so you can download natively like you can PS2/PS4/PS5 currently.

More than likely it will be since it existed on the PS3/Vita already.

Hopefully we'll be able to play the PS1 and PS2 games we already bought for the PS3 / Vita. Them asking me to pay to have access to something I've already paid them for is gonna be a big "nope" from me.

 

[bitbydeath]

Does this mean they’re going to expand PSNow outside of the few backwater places it currently resides?

 

[DeepEnigma]

i subscribe to jason schrierer platinum on kickstopper. it entitles me to four twitter outrages and six clickbaits per month, but does not include news about blizzard employees being creepy

 

[reksveks]

Does this mean they’re going to expand PSNow outside of the few backwater places it currently resides?

Good question

 

[Agent X]

So this is basically what Schreier's article says is coming.

The names and pricing is just my guess. I have no clue what they'll call each tier.

Spoiler

Your guess is similar to what others have said earlier in this thread. The problem is that this really does not make much sense if you consider what PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now currently offer. Using your example:

• Tier 1 is essentially PS Plus as it exists now
• Tier 2 is PS Plus along with a reduced version of PS Now, for the same price as PS Plus and full PS Now. (More on this in a moment.)
• Tier 3 is PS Plus, the full PS Now, and PS1 and PSP games.

PS Now currently offers PS2, PS3, and PS4 games. Why should they remove PS2 and PS3 games from tier 2 and limit them to tier 3? Why not just leave well enough alone?

Also, is there really that big of a retro inclined audience that would shell out an additional $5/month for PS1 and PSP games? I love the old games, but I'm not even sure that I would do that, myself.

I feel that there must be some inaccuracies with what Mr. Schreier is proposing in his article. There's no way that it will pan out exactly like this. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I can see them rolling the PS1 and PSP games into tier 2 (because PS2 and PS3 games already exist in PS Now), and then tier 3 would have some other highly attractive benefit (such as "day one" game releases--not necessarily all first-party games) to warrant an extra 5 bucks a month.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hopefully we'll be able to play the PS1 and PS2 games we already bought for the PS3 / Vita. Them asking me to pay to have access to something I've already paid them for is gonna be a big "nope" from me.

Agreed. Don't pull a Nintendo, Sony.

They'll probably pull a Nintendo.

 

[ManaByte]

I have PS+ banked until 2025. There had better be some kind of conversion process.

 

[BlvckFox]

Dope, I’m down.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I have PS+ banked until 2025. There had better be some kind of conversion process.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Your guess is similar to what others have said earlier in this thread. The problem is that this really does not make much sense if you consider what PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now currently offer. Using your example:

• Tier 1 is essentially PS Plus as it exists now
• Tier 2 is PS Plus along with a reduced version of PS Now, for the same price as PS Plus and full PS Now. (More on this in a moment.)
• Tier 3 is PS Plus, the full PS Now, and PS1 and PSP games.

PS Now currently offers PS2, PS3, and PS4 games. Why should they remove PS2 and PS3 games from tier 2 and limit them to tier 3? Why not just leave well enough alone?

Also, is there really that big of a retro inclined audience that would shell out an additional $5/month for PS1 and PSP games? I love the old games, but I'm not even sure that I would do that, myself.

I feel that there must be some inaccuracies with what Mr. Schreier is proposing in his article. There's no way that it will pan out exactly like this. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I can see them rolling the PS1 and PSP games into tier 2 (because PS2 and PS3 games already exist in PS Now), and then tier 3 would have some other highly attractive benefit (such as "day one" game releases--not necessarily all first-party games) to warrant an extra 5 bucks a month.

PS Plus and the full PS Now is $20, not $10

The point of tier 3 is the streaming capability (that's why PS3 can't be in tier 2). The retro games would just be added bonuses. You can download PS4 and PS5 games with tier 2, but you can only stream them with tier 3

 

[ElCasual]

Having a subscription service that gives access to PS1/PS2/PSP/PS3 and PS Plus games seems like a no brainer to me.

This. You have a physical disc of a PS1 or PS2 game? WE DONT CARE!!! PAY US FOR PLAY THE SAME DIGITAL GAME THAT YOU OWN.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

I wonder if there's going to an upgrade path for already existing PS+ subscribers because I've got quite a lot of years stacked due to sales. Hopefully it's like what MS do with Xbox Live Gold and the $1 upgrade a month to Ultimate, but Sony have shown themselves to be extremely greedy recently so that's probably a pie in the sky hope.

 

[kyliethicc]

Your guess is similar to what others have said earlier in this thread. The problem is that this really does not make much sense if you consider what PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now currently offer. Using your example:

• Tier 1 is essentially PS Plus as it exists now
• Tier 2 is PS Plus along with a reduced version of PS Now, for the same price as PS Plus and full PS Now. (More on this in a moment.)
• Tier 3 is PS Plus, the full PS Now, and PS1 and PSP games.

PS Now currently offers PS2, PS3, and PS4 games. Why should they remove PS2 and PS3 games from tier 2 and limit them to tier 3? Why not just leave well enough alone?

Also, is there really that big of a retro inclined audience that would shell out an additional $5/month for PS1 and PSP games? I love the old games, but I'm not even sure that I would do that, myself.

I feel that there must be some inaccuracies with what Mr. Schreier is proposing in his article. There's no way that it will pan out exactly like this. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I can see them rolling the PS1 and PSP games into tier 2 (because PS2 and PS3 games already exist in PS Now), and then tier 3 would have some other highly attractive benefit (such as "day one" game releases--not necessarily all first-party games) to warrant an extra 5 bucks a month.

Because apparently the plan is to add hundreds of PS1 games to the service. (Guy with a decent track record on era claims they will add hundreds of PS1 and PS2 games.) Currently there are no PS1 games on PS Now.

Of course Sony want to try to charge a premium for classic games. The few who care will pay more. Also it's probably just a start. Bigger goal is to set up the 3 tiers. Can always change perks around based on feedback.

PS Plus and the full PS Now is $20, not $10

The point of tier 3 is the streaming capability (that's why PS3 can't be in tier 2). The retro games would just be added bonuses

Well technically Plus and Now are $60/year each, $120/year total with 12 month subs.

 

[Little Chicken]

So no big titles?

So pushing the cost of timed exclusive money hats on to the consumer...

 

[Topher]

So pushing the cost of timed exclusive money hats on to the consumer...

Timed exclusive? Huh?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Because apparently the plan is to add hundreds of PS1 games to the service. (Guy with a decent track record on era claims they will add hundreds of PS1 and PS2 games.) Currently there are no PS1 games on PS Now.

Of course Sony want to try to charge a premium for classic games. The few who care will pay more. Also it's probably just a start. Bigger goal is to set up the 3 tiers. Can always change perks around based on feedback.



Well technically Plus and Now are $60/year each, $120/year total with 12 month subs.

We're going by monthly prices here though right? As it stands it's $10 for PS+ and $10 for PS Now

Who knows about 12-month prices. I don't even think MS lets you purchase GPU for 12 months still. Sony might follow suit with that too

 

[legacy24]

Hope they move basic online features to a free tier. Fuck everyone for charging for that.

Would be nice to see a family plan like Nintendo has as well.

hope cloud saves are free, locking them behind plus is bs

 

[Sosokrates]

Why was the title changed?

 

[Agent X]

PS Plus and the full PS Now is $20, not $10

Yeah, I suppose, if you pay for a month at a time. If you pay for a yearly subscription (like I do), then PS Plus is $60/year, which comes out to $5/month. PS Now is also $60/year. Both together would be $120/year, which is $10/month.

The point of tier 3 is the streaming capability (that's why PS3 isn't in tier 2). The retro games would just be added bonuses

Yes, but PS Now already has streaming capability and PS3 games. Why should Sony remove those features from tier 2 and offer them only to tier 3? That would be worse than what already exists.

Besides, is there any good reason why Sony would think people would pay more for tier 3 just to get PS3 or PS2 games?

Like I said, I think Mr. Schreier must be wrong on some details here. Either that, or Sony is really bungling this up by making their subscription services noticeably worse.

 

[Little Chicken]

Timed exclusive? Huh?

I expect this service to offer more paid timed exclusivity from 3rd party titles, which has been an emerging strategy from Sony since the announcement of the PS5.

 

[Badlucktroll]

Better have some select Ps3 games with fps boost (killzone 2, folklore, motorstorm, resistance).

 

[Jimmy_liv]

Unless their games are coming day and date to the service it isn't really competing.

 

[Gameplaylover]

Why was the title changed?

I guess it would have triggered too many people.