Support NeoGAF

[Swift_Star]

Then it’s a not a game pass competitor. Simple as that.

It doesnt need to be.

 

[itsjustJEFF]

PlayStation has been quietly increasing their workforce to get quality games out quicker. But they're still focused on quality AAA which is great imo

I got busy with work and had to just post LOL

But it does seem that they have been slowly creating teams within teams, maybe to focus on AA games and could fill the gaps... if they ever do decide to go full GP. As everyone still expects them to release AAA titles and expect a certain "quality" from a lot of their studios.

 

[ethomaz]

How are they getting less money though? They get 100% of Game Pass revenue, as opposed to the much lower percentages they'd get on physical sales at retailers, digital sales of 3rd party games, and any renting or used game sales. So it's entirely possible for gamers to spend less money AND Microsoft to get more money from them, it's just taking away the cut from the middlemen

Man... that is another bullshit.

They don't get 100% of the Gamepass revenue... the revenue is split after they covered the servers and maintenance costs.
Every game on gamepass receive a parcel of the revenue.

How much time do you believe it takes to cover a $200 million budget game with these parcels?
That is why you don't understand why with normal day one sales you have more budget to invest in games... and so you can maintain and even increase the quality... you can't do that if you lose day one sales and rely to cover the costs over a subscription service.

 

[Max_Po]

It doesnt need to be.

Exactly, even Nintendo is enjoying charging for online and "+ Expansion"

I think it is unique enough to be successful .. however I think many will agree that PS3/360 era games need enhancements to be enjoyable.

I can't go back to visit sub 720p 30 fps trash on 4k panels

 

[ethomaz]

Exactly, even Nintendo is enjoying charging for online and "+ Expansion"

I think it is unique enough to be successful .. however I think many will agree that PS3/360 era games need enhancements to be enjoyable.

I can't go back to visit sub 720p 30 fps trash on 4k panels

Even 1080p looks bad in 4k panels.
The things only start to become better after 1440p but to be good needs at least something around 1800p.

 

[DarkMage619]

All I'm asking is for anybody to explain with any actual logic, "Why does being Day 1 on a subscription service mean quality will lessen?"
Nobody seems to want to try and answer that because they don't have any actual logic and are just making it up because they like Playstation exclusives better. Do you somehow think people would stop subscribing to a service that gets them Playstation exclusives Day 1? That would be a fuckton of money they'd be getting every month, where exactly would the loss of income or lower commitment to quality come from? Or is it just trying to not be viewed as a hypocrite after all these years of laughing at Game Pass because "every consumer is perpetually on an infinite amount of $1 conversions". Give me any modicum of logic or reason instead of just acting like it's an objective known fact

I've never see anyone prove Game pass lessens game quality nor have I seen anyone explain that if that quality lessens how would that service continue to exist. I have a feeling they have no evidence. If a service has bad games people won't sub. Game pass had more subs than PS Now and Now was cheaper. I'm thinking the Game pass game quality is fine.

It's perfectly fine that Sony doesn't do Game pass like service. I do wish they would remove cloud saves from behind a paywall though. How can people attack MS for having Netflix behind a paywall yet support Sony cloud saves being behind one? Cloud saves actually benefit gamers.

 

[kingfey]

Because you get less money.
You don't invest the same amount to get less revenue at end.

It is that simple.
You could not understand but it is business 101.

Subscription money is guaranteed money. 12 month of the same revenue will make more than what 5 AAA game make.

Gamepass as 25m is able to pull $3b. You will need to sell 50m copies at the price of $60 without any cuts to make that money.

 

[NEbeast]

Actually this proves the opposite. 20 years ago Theater was actually good. These days it is all targeted at people easily fooled by marketing (i.e. comic book nerds) and it is largely complete trash. All of the great shit is on streaming, and they have massively huge budgets because they are all in competition with each other. If we had the same type of competition in gaming that we do in normal entertainment, gaming budges would probably be 5x more and we would be getting wild shit.

Are you living in the multi verse? What is this I'm reading, or did you drop the s?

 

[Swift_Star]

Even 1080p looks bad in 4k panels.
The things only start to become better after 1440p but to be good needs at least something around 1800p.

1080p looks perfectly fine on my QN90A though…

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

I will show you an example.

Your game have a budget of $200 million.

Games at day one sells a lot at full price... for exemple 5 million units will give you at day one $350 million in revenue.
You covered your costs and already have margin to start to profit.
Your next game will have a budget or $200m or more again and you already can start to work on it.

You put in a subscription service on say one... you get a very little parcel per month of the revenue based in how your game is played on the program.
You basically did not covered your costs at day one... you still needs to see if it will cover it in the next months or even years.
Your next game will probably have a lower budget because you don't want to face that situation again.

That is the reality that you seem to go blind.

1. People still buy games that are on Game Pass so it's not like they're forgoing all that income
2. The income is much more stable, and happens all year round instead of mainly being focused around the months of big releases
3. Constant revenue makes it way easier to manage all the studios instead of relying on every single game being a massive hit
4. There's more people willing to subscribe to Game Pass for a month or two to try out a game than people willing to buy full price Day 1 games, those people often get sucked in or end up buying that game after
5. Most people don't constantly unsubscribe and resubscribe for a month, or constantly abuse the $1 conversion multiple times, despite what people here seem to believe
6. That isn't "the reality", it's your reality where up is down so long as Sony says so

 

[93xfan]

He's absolutely right in that most PlayStation gamers would rather keep the awesome games coming than to see decreased investment in their 1st party games

Why is it all or nothing? Smaller games can and should be Day one

 

[Swift_Star]

1. People still buy games that are on Game Pass so it's not like they're forgoing all that income
2. The income is much more stable, and happens all year round instead of mainly being focused around the months of big releases
3. Constant revenue makes it way easier to manage all the studios instead of relying on every single game being a massive hit
4. There's more people willing to subscribe to Game Pass for a month or two to try out a game than people willing to buy full price Day 1 games, those people often get sucked in or end up buying that game after
5. Most people don't constantly unsubscribe and resubscribe for a month, or constantly abuse the $1 conversion multiple times, despite what people here seem to believe
6. That isn't "the reality", it's your reality where up is down so long as Sony says so

Só it’s all that on the PS side expect the devaluing that happens when putting day and date games on GP. Good for Sony.

 

[ethomaz]

Subscription money is guaranteed money. 12 month of the same revenue will make more than what 5 AAA game make.

Gamepass as 25m is able to pull $3b. You will need to sell 50m copies at the price of $60 without any cuts to make that money.

Man you make like MS is not splinting the revenue with all the 3rd-parties there lol

Sure Gamepass is 100% revenue to MS lol

Só it’s all that on the PS side expect the devaluing that happens when putting day and date games on GP. Good for Sony.

They think MS get all the revenue from Gamepass... that is why they can't understand.
Gamepass should have no 3rd-party game if that was the case.

 

[Bragr]

Just PR speak for we want your $70 still

Yes. Even the most die hard playstation fans should see through this.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Só it’s all that on the PS side expect the devaluing that happens when putting day and date games on GP. Good for Sony.

Except there is no devaluing

 

[ethomaz]

1. People still buy games that are on Game Pass so it's not like they're forgoing all that income
2. The income is much more stable, and happens all year round instead of mainly being focused around the months of big releases
3. Constant revenue makes it way easier to manage all the studios instead of relying on every single game being a massive hit
4. There's more people willing to subscribe to Game Pass for a month or two to try out a game than people willing to buy full price Day 1 games, those people often get sucked in or end up buying that game after
5. Most people don't constantly unsubscribe and resubscribe for a month, or constantly abuse the $1 conversion multiple times, despite what people here seem to believe
6. That isn't "the reality", it's your reality where up is down so long as Sony says so

None of your points has any relevancy with what I posted lol

 

[Swift_Star]

Except there is no devaluing

Sure, jan.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Man you make like MS is not splinting the revenue with all the 3rd-parties there lol

Sure Gamepass is 100% revenue to MS lol


They think MS get all the revenue from Gamepass... that is why they can't understand.
Gamepass should have no 3rd-party game if that was the case.

They don't split the revenue, it's a one time payment for each game to be on there, but based on what they paid for Guardians of the Galaxy it seems like those payments aren't that big

 

[ethomaz]

They don't split the revenue, it's a one time payment for each game to be on there, but based on what they paid for Guardians of the Galaxy it seems like those payments aren't that big

Another bullshit.
Paying in advance are exceptions and even in these cases you need to remove that payment from your revenue.

 

[Swift_Star]

They don't split the revenue, it's a one time payment for each game to be on there, but based on what they paid for Guardians of the Galaxy it seems like those payments aren't that big

You can’t be serious… you really can’t.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Sure, jan.

Why have Xbox exclusives increased in quality since the Day 1 came into effect?

 

[Hendrick's]

Subscription money is guaranteed money. 12 month of the same revenue will make more than what 5 AAA game make.

Gamepass as 25m is able to pull $3b. You will need to sell 50m copies at the price of $60 without any cuts to make that money.

Predictable revenue is the Holy Grail.

 

[Swift_Star]

Why have Xbox exclusives increased in quality since the Day 1 came into effect?

Halo infinite really disproves what you’ve said.

 

[TrebleShot]

The proof is in the games themselves MS are yet to release a single game close to the quality of most Sony 1st party games, where is their ghosts or last of us or uncharted or spider man honestly the list goes on.

GP so far has has three notable big hitters , one is essentially a massive tech demo in flight sim, Horizon 5 is packed to the brim with MTX and is a reskin of Horizon 4, halo infinite has been nothing short of mid tier. If the content doesn’t improve significantly there’s no point in having games day 1 since whether it’s day 1 or day 40 the content is always king and MS is still lacking the pull of Sony.

Sony doesn’t need to make 1st party day 1, so why would they?

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Another bullshit.
Paying in advance are exceptions and even in these cases you need to remove that payment from your revenue.

You can’t be serious… you really can’t.

At this point it's becoming quite clear it's not worth my time arguing here, have fun in your echo chambers, don't forget to do your official Playstation prayers each night and buy your $70 games so that Playstation can continue milking it's fanbase who wouldn't stop supporting Playstation even if Sony openly said they were on Russia's side in this conflict and donated all their money to their cause

 

[Zeroing]

Oh wow this thread... then I am the troll.
So I understand everyone likes cheap games, but they want good games with quality... BUT then we have people who preorder broken games, buy the same copy paste game every year and so on... Does not compute!

Anyway, history tells us that a group defended Microsoft's online behind a paywall because it would lead to better MP games, Sony and Nintendo followed it. Yet Microsoft who had been lacking in exclusives and relied more in 3rd party, compared to Nintendo and Sony, comes up with this amazing idea called Gamepass and Sony and Nintendo will not follow.

Can we say, Sony and Nintendo value their studios and IPs, because bottom line is MS has nothing to lose by putting their exclusives day one on gamepass... they never relied on exclusives like Nintendo and Sony.

To finish off, All big 3 are into gaming to make money too. Gamepass is just and incentive to gain buzz and market share over Nintendo and Sony... it is all great now, until they decided to up the prices or do whatever they want, nothing this good lasts too long on the gaming industry.

 

[kingfey]

Man you make like MS is not splinting the revenue with all the 3rd-parties there lol

Sure Gamepass is 100% revenue to MS lol


They think MS get all the revenue from Gamepass... that is why they can't understand.
Gamepass should have no 3rd-party game if that was the case.

You have to remember, that this money is from 25m users at $10 price, not 50m at $10. MS also have the money from 3rd party cut, which they get from other games. So essentially, MS isnt paying any money for devs, from gamepass.
MS could assign those gamepass for their 1st party development only. And put the cost of gamepass, on their profits from xbox business (3rd party cut).

Sony can make more money than gamepass, due to their userbase. Instead of $3b, Sony can generate $6b at 50m users paying $10 a month. That is 20 AAA game development at the price of $300m production cost per year.

Sony managed to sustain PSnow for years with 3m users.

 

[Hezekiah]

not hard to understand, its why disney isn’t putting Dr Strange and The Multiverse of Madness on Disney + day 1

Yep, and Disney+ has 130m subscribers.

 

[Swift_Star]

You have to remember, that this money is from 25m users at $10 price, not 50m at $10. MS also have the money from 3rd party cut, which they get from other games. So essentially, MS isnt paying any money for devs, from gamepass.
MS could assign those gamepass for their 1st party development only. And put the cost of gamepass, on their profits from xbox business (3rd party cut).

Sony can make more money than gamepass, due to their userbase. Instead of $3b, Sony can generate $6b at 50m users paying $10 a month. That is 20 AAA game development at the price of $300m production cost per year.

Sony managed to sustain PSnow for years with 3m users.

That’s not how this works

 

[Swift_Star]

At this point it's becoming quite clear it's not worth my time arguing here, have fun in your echo chambers, don't forget to do your official Playstation prayers each night and buy your $70 games so that Playstation can continue milking it's fanbase who wouldn't stop supporting Playstation even if Sony openly said they were on Russia's side in this conflict and donated all their money to their cause

Stay salty.

 

[Shmunter]

Edit: dupe

 

[kingfey]

So I understand everyone likes cheap games, but they want good games with quality... BUT then we have people who preorder broken games, buy the same copy paste game every year and so on... Does not compute!

There is no quality games. There is different genre games. Quality is subjective. And we seen how gamepass like Flight Sim, forza horizon 5, psyochonauts 2, age of empire 4, halo infinite won gamers heart and the media, despite being day1 on gamepass.

Anyway, history tells us that a group defended Microsoft's online behind a paywall because it would lead to better MP games, Sony and Nintendo followed it. Yet Microsoft who had been lacking in exclusives and relied more in 3rd party, compared to Nintendo and Sony, comes up with this amazing idea called Gamepass and Sony and Nintendo will not follow.

MS main problem have been limited studios, compared to the competition. This is why, they have this reputation.

Can we say, Sony and Nintendo value their studios and IPs, because bottom line is MS has nothing to lose by putting their exclusives day one on gamepass... they never relied on exclusives like Nintendo and Sony.

Sony and Nintendo have die hard fans, who will pay whatever price these companies ask.
You can ask nintendo, with their poor remastered games, which cost $60 in this age. Yet their fans bought them.

If you are talking about exclusive Ips, Sony new IPs dominates their list now, while old beloved IPs are still in the lock. Nintendo still uses the same 3 big house IPs.

To finish off, All big 3 are into gaming to make money too. Gamepass is just and incentive to gain buzz and market share over Nintendo and Sony... it is all great now, until they decided to up the prices or do whatever they want, nothing this good lasts too long on the gaming industry.

Gamepass is fail safe. Its not buzz market.

There are more gamers in the world. Not every gamer will spend $60 for your games, no matter what. Having lower barrier subscription will allow these users to flock to your system. Something MS is keen on.

I doubt you will understand it. You have been able to afford those games throughout your life. So you have no idea how hard is it, for other gamers to enjoy these games. But cant afford, because the barrier entry is expensive. Gamepass is for those people. And to allow your games to reach alot of audience.

Why do you think MS is putting their games day1 on steam? Because they want to reach those audience. Same reason why Sony is doing now.

 

[ethomaz]

At this point it's becoming quite clear it's not worth my time arguing here, have fun in your echo chambers, don't forget to do your official Playstation prayers each night and buy your $70 games so that Playstation can continue milking it's fanbase who wouldn't stop supporting Playstation even if Sony openly said they were on Russia's side in this conflict and donated all their money to their cause

Why PlayStation fans buying PlayStation games make you salty? What is the issue excatly?

 

[kingfey]

That’s not how this works

Explain why Psnow is alive then? 3m users shouldnt be able to fund those games on the service.

 

[Nautilus]

I mean, he is not wrong. How many games made by MS(or that will release in the near future) does NOT have microtransactions and/or is a live service?

 

[Nautilus]

Explain why Psnow is alive then? 3m users shouldnt be able to fund those games on the service.

Did you see the quality(and the quantity of quality) of games there?Half of them are either old games or shovelware, and alot of the other half are indies(which I admit thats not necessarily a bad thing).

Sony is not pouring money like MS is with 2 or 3 games a month that costs them 5-10 million dollars each to put into the service for a few months.

I don't think Now is garbage, but there is no denying the chasm in the quality of the games between both services.

 

[Shmunter]

Cats out of the bag now. If first party ever comes day one we will know dev budgets have been cut.

Suffice it to say, if you create a product worthy, people will gladly pay. But get them accustomed to all you can eat, their perspectives will change over time. The classic mobile devaluation mentality.

 

[kingfey]

Did you see the quality(and the quantity of quality) of games there?Half of them are either old games or shovelware, and alot of the other half are indies(which I admit thats not necessarily a bad thing).

Sony is not pouring money like MS is with 2 or 3 games a month that costs them 5-10 million dollars each to put into the service for a few months.

I don't think Now is garbage, but there is no denying the chasm in the quality of the games between both services.

I didnt know red dead redemption 2, god of war, spiderman, the last of us 2 were shovel wares.

 

[Craig of War]

Jim Ryan says a lot of things and have done a 180 on all of them lol

 

[adamsapple]

Jim Ryan says a lot of things and have done a 180 on all of them lol

I foresee this also being one of those things in the near future.

Not that there is any correlation between a games budget and it being available on day 1 on a subscription service anyway.

Anyone who says that has yet to provide any notable proof or evidence to support it.

 

[Hobbygaming]

I got busy with work and had to just post LOL

But it does seem that they have been slowly creating teams within teams, maybe to focus on AA games and could fill the gaps... if they ever do decide to go full GP. As everyone still expects them to release AAA titles and expect a certain "quality" from a lot of their studios.

I think they're developing their studios so that they can have one team on the main project and another team to start the concepts, groundwork for the next game

Or they can just have everyone on the current project to speed up development

 

[JLB]

So he never said that. Still, I don't know why this matters to you.
You have no intention on getting into the PS ecosystem... This is all meaningless to you.
Why are you bitching over stuff you have no intention of buying?
and lol at getting triggered over an emoji ffs.

im pointing out the obvious: this thing is orders of magnitude worst than gamepass.
I dont need to buy or have some kind of allegiance to a product or brand to give my opinion about it btw.

 

[Zeroing]

1 There is no quality games. There is different genre games. Quality is subjective. And we seen how gamepass like Flight Sim, forza horizon 5, psyochonauts 2, age of empire 4, halo infinite won gamers heart and the media, despite being day1 on gamepass.


2 MS main problem have been limited studios, compared to the competition. This is why, they have this reputation.


3 Sony and Nintendo have die hard fans, who will pay whatever price these companies ask.
You can ask nintendo, with their poor remastered games, which cost $60 in this age. Yet their fans bought them.

If you are talking about exclusive Ips, Sony new IPs dominates their list now, while old beloved IPs are still in the lock. Nintendo still uses the same 3 big house IPs.


4 Gamepass is fail safe. Its not buzz market.

5 There are more gamers in the world. Not every gamer will spend $60 for your games, no matter what. Having lower barrier subscription will allow these users to flock to your system. Something MS is keen on.

I doubt you will understand it. You have been able to afford those games throughout your life. So you have no idea how hard is it, for other gamers to enjoy these games. But cant afford, because the barrier entry is expensive. Gamepass is for those people. And to allow your games to reach alot of audience.

Why do you think MS is putting their games day1 on steam? Because they want to reach those audience. Same reason why Sony is doing now.

1. It ties up to what I am saying, they want to get people into the service of course they will put their good games. Sony does not need it. We need more time to really see if the quality and price keeps as it is. You think MS will keep things as it is once their service gets tons of subs?

2. No they had plenty of chances to build, maintain studios and new IPs they choose not. Their reputation is all their fault.

3. MS even have more diehard fans, can you imagine Sony or Nintendo surviving this long not doing anything but promises to their fans?

4. I dunno if you remember but 2 years ago gamepass was already 2 years old when the marketing gone full in with inflated buzz.

5. And that is ok. Some people like to own games, some wait for discounts etc. It is the narrative and perception that the game is not worth it if is 16 dollars or "free" on gamepass that will backfire on us! All is good now, like some years ago Neflix was super amazing and now it is meh.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Then it’s a not a game pass competitor. Simple as that.

" when you can't beat them, avoid them and pretend you do not care" lol.

 

[ethomaz]

Explain why Psnow is alive then? 3m users shouldnt be able to fund those games on the service.

The fact they are merging it with PS+ tells you PSNow was a failed project.

BTW PSNow barely get games there.

If you really are into PlayStation games or even 3rd-parties releases you won’t don’t it on PS Now.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Why is it all or nothing? Smaller games can and should be Day one

I disagree, putting games on a service day one devalues games imo

 

[Craig of War]

I foresee this also being one of those things in the near future.

Not that there is any correlation between a games budget and it being available on day 1 on a subscription service anyway.

Anyone who says that has yet to provide any notable proof or evidence to support it.

Yeah i think so to
A game being on a subscription service does not mean you cannot buy it outright if you wanted to
Maybe it hurts sales but surly they make that up by the people paying for the subscription every month to play the games so i don't get this that it hurts the game by being on a subscription lol

 

[JLB]

Just PR speak for we want your $70 still

/thread.

 

[adamsapple]

Yeah i think so to
A game being on a subscription service does not mean you cannot buy it outright if you wanted to
Maybe it hurts sales but surly they make that up by the people paying for the subscription every month to play the games so i don't get this that it hurts the game by being on a subscription lol

If it's a first party game then sales won't be that big of a factor, they're supplanting the revenue via the recurring subscription costs anyway, in place of a big launch day chunk.

Third parties cut a pretty hefty check to have their games go on a service day 1, and still have retail sales on multiple platforms ongoing.

TL;DR there is absolutely no rational reason to believe a game launching on a subscription service day 1 devalues it in any way. It's also selling at retail at the same time. It's a strawman argument.

 

[93xfan]

I disagree, putting games on a service day one devalues games imo

Sony has put some in Ps+ day one. What’s the difference?