Besides the lack of gameplay demos and Banjo-Kazooie, perhaps the biggest story of E3 2019 has been Microsoft’s excellent Game Pass subscription. The platform holder pushed the package hard – as it has done for a couple of years now – with the vast majority of games on its stage scheduled to debut as part of the service. This means that anyone with an active membership will be able to play a large part of the Xbox One’s slate at no extra cost – including blockbusters like Gears 5 and Bleeding Edge.
It’s an extremely compelling pitch, and with subs frequently on sale, it means you can effectively get hundreds of new (and older) games for a few bucks. Now obviously there are some minor caveats: titles do occasionally rotate and you will “lose” the software should your subscription lapse. But when you’re paying less than £50 for annual access to almost the entirety of Microsoft Game Studios’ library and dozens of third-party titles on top, it’s hard to complain. This is an extremely compelling proposition, whichever way you slice it.
The thing is, it’s also one that would be fairly straightforward to copy, should Sony want to do it. As it stands, Game Pass is simply a secondary subscription on the Xbox One which runs concurrently with Xbox Live Gold. Obviously at E3 2019 it’s expanded to the PC as well, but if we just focus on the Xbox One edition, there’s nothing particularly complicated about what Microsoft’s put together: it’s a service that grants game licenses to users who’ve paid to subscribe. In pure technological terms, it’s something that PlayStation could probably have up and running overnight.
The discussion comes down to business model differences, then. The Japanese giant is selling more games than it ever has before, with its first-party titles breaking records with regularity this generation. Titles like God of War and Marvel’s Spider-Man were huge hits last year, and the publisher’s even had outstanding success with unestablished IP like Horizon: Zero Dawn and Days Gone. Perhaps more importantly, these are all single player-focused games, without the kind of recurring hooks that titles like Sea of Thieves and Forza Horizon 4 have.
This has to be taken into consideration, because Microsoft seems to be making games that will keep players engaged over a long period of time – and thus their subscriptions renewed. Titles like Detroit: Become Human can be beaten in a weekend, and if you could feasibly pay a few pounds for a monthly subscription, where’s the incentive to renew? Sony’s said that it wants to do better in the multiplayer space, and there are titles under its umbrella like Dreams which fit the service game model, but it’s always going to be focused on single player experiences.
To be fair, the team in green’s claimed that releasing games day-and-date on Game Pass increases their retail sales, but we’re not convinced by this. Obviously we don’t have access to the same kind of data as Redmond, but there’s no way Marvel’s Spider-Man sells 3.3 million copies in three days at full-price if it’s available day-and-date as part of a subscription service. As we alluded to above, the model changes, and it becomes more about recurring revenue – but does that also have an impact on the design of the game? These are all things that need to be considered.
And it’s something that we sincerely hope Sony is considering, because Game Pass does represent unprecedented value as it stands right now. We reckon that Microsoft is probably in loss-leader mode with this service – it almost reminds us of how PlayStation Plus was treated in the PlayStation 3 era. But with Xbox pouring more and more resources into the subscription, there’s a very real chance that its Japanese rival could get left behind. PlayStation Now, with its recently added downloads option, could become a natural competitor in time – but if that’s the case, then the company has a lot of catching up to do.
Would you subscribe to a hypothetical PlayStation Game Pass? Would it need to include all exclusives day-and-date for you to even consider paying for something like this? Do you prefer owning your games physically regardless? Shell out on another subscription in the comments section below.
Please note that some external links on this page are affiliate links, which means if you click them and make a purchase we may receive a small percentage of the sale. Please read our FTC Disclosure for more information.
Comments 54
Would be pretty cool!
I already think that PSNOW is pretty cool (in particular downloading ps4 games) but having PS3 games there that should indeed be the PS4 versions like battlefield 3 and hardline is pretty annoying.
Anyway maybe they can switch the PSNOW initiative and do a PSNOW Pass or something, where you can stream and also have new ps4 games? God knows the price demands more
I definitely think they're going to overhaul and reinvent PS Now this year. Jim Ryan's been suggesting they're going to do that in various interviews.
It would be cool and would get their smaller titles more showtime.
Buuuuuut
We already have EA Access. Game Pass. Game Pass Ultimate if you want XBL in it too. UPlay +, Origin Premium, Stadia, Orion....and some of THESE are subscriptions you have WITHIN other subscriptions like UPlay on Stadia.
So if Sony did it...well then we would be a little hung up. That'd be PS+, PSNow, and this service, all for one system. Then add on wanting Ubisoft games on PC, Xbox, EA, so on so forth....it becomes the TV market.
In that case, we have so many subscription services now, with content being spread so much between them, that it's honestly probably cheaper to go BACK to cable.
But that's what happened. TV started as a handful of channels. It then ballooned and shot up in price. Then streaming came with one or two services. TV was declared dead, but now THAT has ballooned and it's no different now. It's a cycle.
Games subscriptions started as just one. Then its two, then five, and now this. And when the next way to get our games comes, it'll be just a few, then loads, and so on so forth.
There will come a point where it's easier to just buy what you want instead of renting it via subs, because yeah, you'd be paying $300 a year for Ubisoft's service, but that's just one. You're not gonna play all those games, but to play all the games you DO want, you'll be hitting every sub just to do it, and then at what point is it cheaper to just buy em permanently?
It would definitely be good, even if first party AAA games were not included...
There is so much good value in something like GamePass I just don't see how gamers would not benefit from such a service on PlayStation.. just subscribe to the PS one and ignore all that U-Play and the other ones, there's no need to subscribe to every single service.
Tbh the xbox game pass is great, I bought an xbox one s a few months ago to play forza and thanks to the game pass I haven't actually bought a single xbox game. If ps now had more up to date ps4 games then it would be worth having it especially now you can download the titles as the streaming didn't work well for me due to my Internet service.
Let's face it Microsoft only do it because they don't have a massive amount of first party games coming out and those that do aren't wildly successful. For it to be worthwhile for Sony I'd imagine it'd have to be more expensive with the amount of games and their relative sales they'd lose, which in turn decreases the value for us.
I mean I've had enough of subscription TV through Netflix, Now TV and Amazon as it can get expensive and rarely are the movies I want to watch on the one I'm currently subscribing or even any of them sometimes. I've gone back to buying Blu Ray's as it's cheaper to get what I want.
Therein lies the problem, you may end up subscribing to multiple services and still have to buy the game you wanted to play and if you ever have to cut back on bills for whatever reason you may have nothing to play. I used Gamepass for a while but it got to the point where I simply wasn't playing anything on it as I was just playing the games I'd bought
I would pay for a subscription service. They could always price newly released games at a discount(maybe $20 off) instead of being free. This way first party studios would still make a decent amount of money off the sales and they could still make great single player games.
Having the option would be good, but I'd be fairly unlikely to pay for it. I prefer just owning the game.
Where this would be good for me is with kids' games. They'd have lots of titles to go at and I wouldn't have to clog up my hard drive with the likes of Lego Dimensions.
For me, I've always liked to actually own the game on disc, so I don't know how much I'd use it personally.
The problem for me is I live in Surry Virginia which is a rural community that does not have good Internet. I am sure you would need a very robust Internet service to use this service! If I had fast internet I would probably be for it.
No!
Why spend millions and time on games like GOW, DAYS GONE etc why would they bother ?
That would push for less quality just to justify a service with lots of meh games.
Dont like multi subs anyway
i don't know when but eventually they will do it too. subscriptions are key to picking up new and/or casual video game players.
and microsoft also expanded it to PC and the line-up on there is amazing, even including wolfenstein ii and metro exodus.
a) what you pay is what you'll get, therefore the overall quality of the 1st party games of MS is sub-par to PS and Nintendo;
b) sooner or later, MS is going to leave the hardware business behind; please, note all the trailers end with MS logo and a Game Pass tag line and in addition, they design more and more controllers as these can be sold as PC accessories
c) MS isn't investing in single player games - see for example Bleeding Edges - as they do not force you to play online and thereby make you pay for another subscription or a bigger fee; single player games such as Ori are small and not expensive to produce
d) such kind of service would make sense only for VR games as they are less expensive and in order to push the hardware sales and build up the user base would make sense - from a marketing point of view
e) in everything MS does there is a caveat; as stated the quality of their 1st party games is inferior and even the "infamous" Backward compatibility of Xbox one wasn't a real one but a sort of re-coding of the old games which required to allocate a budget. Indeed, as they are going to focus on the next gen no more games will be available via backward compatibility
I would be cool with it if it was smaller titles and 3rd party games. But I don’t want to see a decline in quality of games or pushing the studios to release smaller games at a faster rate due to the money of a sub lower than selling 10 million copies of a game in a year. No way Spider-Man would have brought in nearly the same revenue with a game pass than it did with people buying it outright.
Guess if the focus is on smaller titles or older games that have largely exhausted their market potential then yes. It's worth pointing out that most of what is on Game Pass is quite old and it includes a lot of Xbox 360 games. Is the value therefore a little hollow?
The big question is what's the benefit for Sony? Their big first party games have been massive successes and presumably made them a lot of money. They would stand to lose a lot if people didn't buy them normally. It works for service based titles that aim to keep players hooked for years, but this thankfully hasn't been Sony's focus.
Game Pass always seemed a way for Microsoft to deal with their massive loss of market share this generation. Moreover they haven't focused on single player story driven titles in some years. Big titles like Sunset Overdrive and Quantum Break bombed, and they closed Lionhead and cancelled Scalebound. Since then they've pushed more service driven titles which feed into the subscription.
@Knuckles-Fajita Yeah it's getting a bit much. In the console-less future (cringe) we'll all be paying multiple subscriptions even if we only want to play one game from the publisher - and it's going to be ridiculous.
If the price is right and the games are good, then I'm in
Please No!! This model eventually effects the quality of games.
Between +, Now and Vue (which has a lot of it contracts expiring soon) Sony has a bunch going on which I think will be merged and changed with PS5. PS+ is required for online but it comes across as really lame now that it's downto 2 games. Probably not a coincidence the sale price is all the way down to $40 from $60 to get people to sign backup or renew. So that's a year covered for most people regardless of how bad the game selections get. They could drop games entirely and claim its just for online.
But I think next year they'll be pushinv PS5 and some new service.
Too much sub, but I'm okay with subs to play indie games on day one like apple arcade subs. I usually bought the big AAA games (god of war, horizon, spidey) and wait for discount or free psplus for indie games.
this is a service that won't last or games will be of crackdown 3 quality this is not how the industry will get better but worse this is a bad sign for MS gamers imo Subs are getting out of control now & it is another sly way of trying to take away ownership in the long run
People forget that Sony already has Xbox Game Pass in the form of Playstation Now. The argument should be if Sony should lower its price and included all first party titles at launch. I think AAA games should hit PS Now after a year and Sony should lower the cost to match Games Pass.
The problem Sony is running into is that they were first out of the gate with streaming. This means that they are supporting a library of games that can be streamed and PS4 games that can be downloaded. This is a more costly service to run on the back end compared to Xbox Game Pass. I would assume that once Microsoft launches its streaming service that it will be a separate service from Game Pass.
In summary: PS Now is a hybrid service that either needs to be split up into a PS Game Pass and a Streaming service or lower the price to match the Xbox Game Pass and increase Now's library of content. I say Sony should just lower the price and increase content and then Microsoft will need to fire back.
I don't have interest on PS Now, but certainly PS Plus needs to be improved... I don't know, maybe giving access to more games/all games for 48 hours each, so you can play/test them before buying or just not buy them if you beat them.
Steady on lads, I still haven't fully embraced digital distribution yet!
Because I'm a stubborn, crotchety 30-something year old man that still owns his PS1 discs.
@David187 Let's watch the language please.
As an Xbox user, I have the opportunity to subscribe and, I am also aware of how many games MS release from their own studios. Its not just 'new' games of course as those are the ones that seem to get the 'headlines' in this but also their old library - inc 360 titles. A game like Forza Horizon that released 6-8months ago also came to Game Pass on Day 1 and its still regularly showing up in the top 10 UK sales.
What you also have to remember is that MS has committed to offering all 'exclusives' from Day 1 and have built up a list of Studio's as big as Sony's 1st party Rostra - we have yet to see the fruition of acquiring all these but for a small monthly fee, you can experience what they create from Day 1. Apart from Forza (Motorsport and Horizon), games like Cuphead, Sea of Thieves, State of Decay, Crackdown 3 etc as well as Gears 5, Ori etc all have and will be available from Day1. Granted some may not appeal as full price purchases but as something you can download and play at NO additional expense, then maybe people will not be so critically hard. Not something you have wasted £45+ on Crackdown 3, but for something to download and have some fun playing for a few hours or more, maybe its not too bad.
Days Gone may not have been the critical darling that the most recent AAA games Sony had offered but for those maybe sat on the fence, it could have been great to try, to spend hours on, take a chance to download and make up their own mind for NO extra cost.
Despite EA also having its service, EA games are also available on Game Pass to. Again not just newer current gen titles but older ones too. Its not 'just' Microsoft only games with no EA (or Ubisoft with uPlay+ - at least not yet anyway) games coming at all because they have their own subscription based services.
Personally, I would prefer to own my own games and, as someone who also buys 'physical' copies, I like seeing the games I have build up on my shelf as something to actually see and hold for my money. See 10 games for example that you can actually see and hold where your money went. For those that prefer Digital, it may be better to spend a lot less on things you may 'own' but can't sell or do anything with, just have a monthly subscription for your games like having a monthly subscription for Netflix and not having to spend £10+ (No idea how much digital films cost nowadays) on each film you own. It doesn't matter that you can't sell or hold like you can a Bluray disc because you prefer the convenience instead of having to get up and put a disc into the player - but why pay full price for something that's essentially dead money when you can subscribe to a service to watch/game on and, if they ever do take it away, you can buy it cheaper - you get a Discount on the games in the MS store if you want to own permanently or buy the physical game on sale somewhere.
I voted No but only because I am a collector as well as a gamer, I like to have something Physical for my money but that doesn't mean that I can't see the benefits and I will whole heartedly agree that MS's Game Pass is very consumer friendly - perhaps even more so when the ability to stream your games (that should include Game Pass titles you are entitled to under your subscription) can be streamed to any compatible device with xCloud...
no, i prefer to own games. i also can't see how sony makes more revenue (and therefore profitability) from its games with this model. conceivably if people waited they could pay a small fee for a month, and complete 2 or 3 games (eg. days gone and death stranding) in that time. when development cycles take 4+ years, and the cost of developing games like horizon: zero dawn, days gone, etc. is pushing up towards $100m.. i just can't see how there'd be enough active subscribers to make it work. unless it's a service that goes on PC.. and then what's the point of a playstation console?
If Sony’s first party games came to PlayStation now day one. I would subscribe instead of buying them. That would mean me giving less money to Sony to play the same games.
@zeppray fellow Virginian! Never heard of Surry though.
I think it has to happen, it's just about how they continue to finance that single player content. GaaS doesn't appeal to me.
It’s a good idea but if it start affecting the quality of first party games then no
I worry that with games no longer selling at launch for £40 etc then less money will be made so less invested in developers
That depends on ps5 how many ps4 games you can play on it. If they should make game pass then they have to consider not putting only indie games that we have got on ps plus 85% off time and remove what games you get on ps plus make it cheaper. Because the games you get on ps plus is cheaper what you use to buy ps plus.
@Tasuki sorry mate is the S & F words a big no on here then? I guess I got my answer 🙂
@ellsworth004 A fairy ride from Williamsburg!
As already hinted at, Sony just need to expand what PS Plus covers, to copy what MS is doing.
No thanks. I have enough subscriptions as it is. PS Plus, Netflix, Amazon prime, NOW TV, WWE Network, Spotify/Google Play Music.
I'm good with buying games that I want. And if I can't afford them, I'll wait for a discount.
It's definitely a thing... I mean, at least for the foreseeable future it's better than stream of games.
I'm sure it's already been said, but combine ps+ and a new ps games pass for like £69 a year or whatever, deal. Throw in access to psnow on ps5 for the complete backwards compatibility for £100 a year, sell like hotcakes.
@nookie_egg - playstation generated $12.5 bn in revenue last year from just its digital division (sales/subs etc). if everyone opted for a £100/yr sub instead to get all the latest games, ps+ and ps now, they'd need 104m subscribers to generate that!. and that doesn't even include the billions it made from physical games - both their own and the licence fees from 3rd party publishers.
@leucocyte Wasn't going for exact prices, but somewhere in that region sounded fair to me. Considering that the psn is at what, 94 million according to a quick google, BEFORE the ps5 hits, I'd say that's doable to be honest. Doesn't sound as crazy as it initially may have.
No!! Dropping New games for 30 day at such a low price hurts Devs and kills the ability to recoup development cost for big AAA games and profit to make future games. It would turn PlayStation into a producer of TRASH games. Its a double edged sword very good on one side very bad on the other!
I signed up for Game Pass for PC and have to admit I'm pretty impressed. It's not going to replace PlayStation as my main gaming but it's a great value.
@zeppray i live in WV now, but lived most my life about 30 mins from Blacksburg
PS Now is Sony's Game pass for me, if it had PS3 games available to download as well as stream it would be more appealing for me.
Sony really need to use there library of games better, why not add first party PS1, PS2, PSP & Vita games to Now?
"The thing is, it’s also one that would be fairly straightforward to copy, should Sony want to do it."
Not necessarily. Wouldn't put it past MS to effectively block it by making third parties sign a contract saying that games they put on Game Pass can't appear on Sony's equivalent. Sorry if that sounds like a fanboy comment, but it's the kind of thing we know they've done in the past, and I wouldn't put it past them doing it again. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already something like that in place preventing better titles from coming to PS Plus.
Absolutely not, it devalues the 1st party games which in turn will make Sony produce lower quality games for that service.
Just look at xbox and what they are doing, its just AA crappy games for game pass, its all they ever talk about now.
There is only one reason why xbox went that way, its because their fans didn't buy their games, the fans are cheap, so Microsoft brought in game pass for them.
Australia is still waiting on PS Now to arrive. So I cannot see them introducing a subscription service like MS here.
I mean, this is what PS Now is/should be but the pricing and marketing has been way off and the library isn't close to what Xbox, EA, or soon Ubisoft, are offering.
I wouldn't really expect them to put their biggest first party titles on a subscription service as soon as they release, but really is there any excuse to not have many of them on there at all?
Like, you can play the first 3 Uncharted games on it. Great, but they're the PS3 versions. Would it really hurt to have the Nathan Drake collection there instead? Same with The Last of Us and several others like it. It's just a bit odd.
Nope. I have no problem with streaming. (I have Netflix, and Amazon prime) . Games? I BUY the games I want. Sony needs to keep doin what they've been doing. They didn't control the console market through services....
Honestly.. no. I think MS are doing it as a loss leading service to get people to buy xbone's given how far behind they've been this gen.
Theres no way MS are making money releasing first party titles and going straight up on their service for 50 quid a year.
If Sony do that you are likely to see a drop in quality. Keep in mind how many MS first party games have actually been that good this gen.
Certainly nowhere near Sony's output.
Everybody is saying how Microsoft didn't capitalize on Sony not being at E3, but what I saw was MS set itself up like Sony did at the end of the 360/PS3 cycle.
And not just in terms of IP or studio power. Microsoft as stepped up and shown itself as a pro consumer company with this E3. The Game Pass offer is incredible, pretty much unbeatable in any current subscription services. On the other hand, Playstation Plus is demanding more and more of you and delivering less as time goes on. Hopefully they will be pressed by the great value offer from MS and do somehting about it, or I'll just go ahead and get a PC for Stadia and Game Pass.
@Its_badW0lf Very much agree - Microsoft's value is soaring with the Games Pass. Games with Gold is reliably strong as well while PS Plus is feeling a bit average. The trouble is that PlayStation's library is still much better overall, for me at least. Otherwise I'd be very tempted to switch.
It seems to me that Sony need to offer a lot more with PS Now, or combine it with PS Plus. But I'd be surprised if the latter happened.
No, thanks you!
I think it would have to not include recent releases like Microsoft does (like including crackdown 3 when it released). Similar to how a movie releases then goes to dvd or streaming. Release the game as normal and when sales start to slow put it on the pass
Should just attach it to PS Now, increase the price a little bit to accommodate, call it a day.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...