Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@Jaz007 Don't bother about this Rockford person.

• Says "PS fanboy meltdown" unironically on Pure Xbox
• Has only posted about Xbox on Push Square

Wow, great resume.

It's the start of a new generation and you just see these people come over here talk about console wars constantly. Like hooligans at a soccer match, they don't care about the games at all.

Insults?
If you see it that way, meh...

Great way to sum up a resume while I have been correcting misinformation and ignorance in the process.

In this case, Jaz007's opinion of XSS is of pure ignorance. The lack of understanding of how gamepass is sustainable is also an issue.

So yeah, if my viewpoint is one sided here, is simply to argue said ignorance and misinformation.

💩

I don’t have the money to care about if the products I buy are good for the industry. Game Pass is a good deal and opens games up to a wider audience, especially younger people who already subscribe to Netflix or newer gamers like my mum who just wants to experience a bit of everything. This is the PS5 thread so I’m not going to derail it but it’s a very privileged mindset to simp for corporations when they give quite a bit less than a single s**t about you. People said the same about digital games, about streaming. Look at how ubiquitous digital games are now, streaming will be the same and with EA Play, Game Pass, PS Now, Humble Choice etc, subscription based models will go the exact same way. You can still buy Just Dance on Wii, you’ll still be able to buy a physical game outright on your traditional expensive box under the TV.

@nessisonett Privileged? Wow, that's, false. If something isn't sustainable, lets go with that in theory for the moment, that means it collapses, it goes away. If a company wants to have some amazing consumer friendly option for the sake of it (not that anyone does that), but isn't gong to end up being profitable enough, basic economics says that won't help consumers for very long. Games being healthy is why we have so many choices. There's a lot of variety and choice in gaming. That's a good thing for consumers. You know what else is profitable for publishers? Excessive MTs, only digital purchases (no physical which is often cheaper), no used games, etc, all of which I'm not supportive of because they are anti-consumer. They don't transmit benefits to me in a positive way. Caring about myself is why I feel this way and calling that "a privileged minset" and "simping for corporations" is completely unsubstantiated and only thinking in the short term. It's also narrow-minded honestly and grouping others as how you imagine them to think instead of what's actually going on - which isn't productive.

Sony's statement about Game Pass being unsustainable can largely apply to them. Microsoft can perfectly sustain that model but Sony or Nintendo would probably have a way harder time since nowadays in the case of the former, the video game business is practically what's getting them the most profit and most of that comes from the sales of their dedicated hardware, and as for Nintendo that's practically all they know. Microsoft is completely safe in that regard because they're just that monolithic of a company that they can manage with how cheaply priced their subscription services are as long as it means turning Xbox into an ecosystem rather than just a platform for games while all their other products not only sell well, but are constantly being integrated into the Xbox brand in many different ways. It's why they even brought products like their Surface Book line into the fold and started marketing them as legit gaming laptops.

It's a perfect model for them honestly. It also opens up a lot of titles to more casual audiences who don't care about buying a new physical release each month and just want to sample some great titles. As long as it rakes in the money really. The Bethesda acquisition is probably making that platform very valuable for a lot of people considering DOOM Eternal's probably staying on there for good now.

I'd guarantee if Sony had the technical leverage and sheer amount of money MS had they probably would've done a similar thing. Hell they kind of tried with PS Now and are seemingly directly answering to it with PS Plus Collection. It's just that the latter will also push hardware sales since it's specifically for PS5, which is why that would be sustainable for them, because it sells the hardware.

Exactly!

Game subscription services are absolutely sustainable as it allows more people to a steady stream of content, which results in a steady stream of profits for both Sony and Microsoft from the subscriptions.

We have the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Google and so many others already well into the business of releasing content through a subscription. TV, movies, music, audiobooks, games, are products that customers can consume with the use of a subscription without resorting to the premium of buying the product outright.

If these companies weren't even looking at long-term profits, they would reassess their business plan to something that does!

In regards to others mistaking what I had mentioned with Microsoft specifically: in Microsoft's ability to easily absorb any such losses "if" it was the case.

If; being the operative word. Might've been have been the case on the infancy of Gamepass, you can be rest assured that it is now making profits.

Game streaming absolutely is sustainable when used correctly. Stadia actively tried to force itself into the market as a console killer and as a result is doing pretty miserably. Microsoft has the right attitude about it considering it's just a pillar that doesn't distract from their commitment towards making dedicated hardware for the core gaming audience. I don't see a future where streaming becomes the norm, but rather something that can just peacefully coexist. It's especially become more clear that's the way things will go thanks to the advent of cloud-exclusive games on Switch like RE7, AC Odyssey, Control and Hitman, with REmake 3 seemingly being on the way too.

Nailed it!
Google has made some major mistakes that has cost them dearly. They can either choose to absorb those costs until Stadia is more profitable, and/or reassess their strategy.

In comparison, Gamepass has been much more successful, and inclusive of a subscription service than the above.

@TheFrenchiestFry The problem with Stadia is exactly that it tried to insert itself into the player base. You just can’t do that with new tech. It’s much easier to wean the user on streamed gaming on their existing consoles like with PS Now and XCloud. We’re only just getting a digital only console this generation despite full game downloads being around for about 15 years. Yes, Moore’s Law applies so we’re likely to see a shorter turnaround with streaming and subscription services but the point remains that there needs to be time for the tech to settle in people’s minds and become ubiquitous before making huge moves like Google did.

@nessisonett Exactly. Google came in when the world clearly wasn't ready yet and it's probably going to take years for the entire world to actually be prepared for that kind of technological shift. The worst part is they were so confident in Stadia's ability to eliminate the need for dedicated gaming hardware and as a result its audience was extremely limited from the start.

@TheFrenchiestFry Well Amazon are trying to make moves too with Luna but I doubt that’ll work. I dunno why they bother other than some suits seeing a large market and thinking ‘we can do that’.

@nessisonett I will give Luna this. I haven't read anywhere so far about having to pay for games individually. They seem to be going the Game Pass route of paying a monthly fee and getting access to everything although Ubisoft is apparently setting up a seperate portal that will be paid within the service. It at least has that over Stadia, and has signficantly more games at launch

How much does it cost to run a studio a month? Wages of the staff team, utilities (electric, water etc), office space rent etc. I doubt that's $1m a month but for the sake of argument, lets put it at $1m a month. That means that Game Pass is sustaining ALL the studio's making games and bringing in a guaranteed income that is pretty sustainable as long as new games keep those subscribers.

That also means that they don't actually have to sell ANY copies at all therefore no pressure to a 'commercially' successful game. Its 'success' can be measured by player engagement, by increasing subscribers etc instead of actual sales. Devs themselves have spoken about being thrilled to have such high player engagement and game sales don't really matter because they will of been paid a salary anyway. There is more 'security' for them because Game Pass is bringing in more money per month than the cost to keep their studio open and not reliant on Game Sales to keep them going through the next game and the next game...

This is why Microsoft stated they don't need to sell games on PS5. Its a self sustaining model. Of course they will still sell games on top of Game Pass for those that prefer to buy their games but they are not reliant on 'profit' from sales to reinvest into the next game.

Whether its good for consumers, I guess that really depends on perspective. Personally, I think it is in the long run and good value too. MS isn't concerned whether they sell more Consoles than Sony and the console is just one 'Xbox' platform - Xbox being the entire MS gaming division. They are not making games specifically for a console to sell a console and reliant on that to keep their gaming division profitable like Sony or Nintendo. They also need to cater to all their PC and now Android gamers too and Xbox is much more than just the hardware.

It may not be sustainable if you only have one platform, 1 source of subscriptions coming in and the 'dent' in sales of games outweighs the money coming in from those subscriptions. If you have the PC's, Mobiles and Consoles, it can easily become sustainable with a much larger audience to purchase subscriptions - many of whom wouldn't of bought the games at all anyway - Mobile users for example. It also adds 'value' to those on other platforms, being able to play on Mobile too.

Not only is it Sustainable, its also beneficial to the Gamers and Developers in MS's ecosystem.

But as has been mentioned, this is PS5 thread - I was more interested in discussing whether or not people would buy IF MS Game Pass came to a Playstation - not discussing the Sustainability and benefits of it to both gamers and devs.

I don't think MS will go as far as adding Game Pass to non Xbox consoles to begin with

Considering they're pushing the Series consoles as the dedicated hardware centerpiece for their entire plan to turn Xbox into a connected ecosystem across a multitude of devices, putting stuff like Game Pass on PlayStation 4/5 or Switch would basically throw a wrench into that entire plan. I would buy into that if it did happen, but it's highly unlikely it will.

@TheFrenchiestFry I could maybe see it on Switch but not PS5. They wouldn’t undermine their hardware division in that way. Switch on the other hand isn’t really a direct competitor and they seem to be on good terms with Nintendo.

@nessisonett I feel like even though they're on good terms with Nintendo they're probably putting parameters in place anyway in regards to what they will put on there

Like keep in mind Cuphead is just a game they have publishing rights for but it was already on multiple platforms before it even came to Switch, and Ori is an IP that Microsoft owns but was developed by a third party to begin with

Banjo in Smash was kind of obvious considering it was basically them acknowledging Banjo's roots as essentially a second party Nintendo character and that he did deserve his place in that roster. I don't think any of these other collabs will automatically entail them doing something as big as "hey you can play all our first party Xbox titles like Halo and Gears on Xbox Game Pass for your Switch"

My library is 90% physical and I've started moving games from my internal HDD to the external one I'll connect to the PS5. I found this site quite useful: https://physicalgames.wordpress.com/ps4-update-sizes/
I'm referring to it to decide which PS4 games will necessarely go into the external HDD and which ones I can delete (and eventually quickly re-update) depending on the size of their latest patch.
Maybe this can help other gamers with a capped and crappy internet connection like mine.

Thought this chap made some good points.

I have PS Now and it’s alright but misses the wow factor. The app’s also a bit of a nightmare to navigate.

@JohnnyShoulder Great post. Now is definitely a comparable service though many don't give it any consideration at all. Even right now you can get a year of plus and a year of not for less than the cost of 6 months of GP ultimate!