Ghost of Tsushima Supports 60 Frames-Per-Second on PS5, Better Load Times

YES! Can't wait to replay it with new game+ on ps5

I need to finish it first though, I'm glad ps4 and ps5 saves is compatible. 60 fps for this game is a game changer, I have no problem with 30 fps since it's so smooth in this game, but 60 fps will make this game looks like native ps5 games I think.

Glad I was too busy to play at launch, worked out quite nice! Cant wait to try it out this winter

Ace! Would be good to see some more first party support like this for games..... TLOU 2, perhaps? God of War? Dare I say Bloodborne?

I hope HZD gets a boost as well. Loading times going across the map can take up to a minute.

Double ➡ arrow

It already loads pretty quick compared to most so even quicker is great

More news like this, and more devs like SP, please.

We need more information on this Game Boost, do games have a patch that Game Boost activates to get these extras? Whilst others just run as they do on base PS4 and PRO?

Hmmmm think I might wait a month to do my new game+ playthrough now i'm sooooooooo excited ^__^

Thank goodness those loading times were atrocious

@STLamy GoW is almost 99% sure it will get auto 60fps. It's capped at 60fps on Pro, but the Pro lacks the power to maintain that frame rate.
Bloodborne on the other side...

FINALLY! Now I can buy the flipping game! And it's still on sale, so that's great!

If Sony had deigned to convey this kind of information, say, a month ago, they'd have already had my money on this.

More of this please! HzD and GoW before the sequels come out would be nice!

Will wait to play this on a PS5 then 🤠

@captainsandman I agree largely, but also don't fool yourself. Spiderman "remaster" appears to give us a choice between 60fps or raytraced graphics and mirrors at 30fps. So even if there's a remaster for the graphics with raytracing, odds are the "performance mode" 60fps would look.....basically identical to this. Which is why the whole "remaster from 6 months old games" idea is ridiculous to begin with. Unless they replace all the face models with Brazilian actors just for giggles.

@DualshockInfinit tell me about it, I want those 3 minutes back that I wasted looking at loading screens whilst getting the platinum trophy

@get2sammyb that was my first thought but this sentence suggests it may be in conjunction with something else "PS5 owners playing with Game Boost will see an extra option to allow frame rates up to 60FPS" as it sounds like the Pro can't access that for example

I didnt know GoT had loading screens?

@I_Like_It
Me too, but will wait for it to hit PS Now.

@captainsandman
I can confirm that, if you buy a game on PS4, and they then release a completely new remaster a couple of years later (like with Spider-Man) you don’t need to buy it. Your original game will still work in boost mode. If you want to buy the remaster you can of course.

Excellent! Have Platinum, was hoping for NG+ on PS5. Also, have been holding off starting LoU2 for PS5 in hopes of 60 FPS. Make it happen, Sony/ND!

@get2sammyb fingers crossed Cyberpunk takes advantage of this until its true next gen version comes

@thefourfoldroot The refrain that "you don't have to buy the remasters you can play the old games" is unhelpful and defiantly missing people's point. The point is people are choosing to not buy a game now based on the clear model that the company wants to encourage double-dipping by reselling the "better" version again at a later date. It's a valid concern for someone who has not yet bought this game if they want to wait for the "inevitable remaster" to buy the best version for their money instead of buying it twice. Suggesting that that shouldn't be part of their consideration is just rude.

Now, especially with Sucker Punch patching in enhancements for PS5, I think the odds of a "remaster" in the works are considerably lower (as it should be), and this game now does benefit from owning a PS5 already.

This is the inverse of what Insomniac did by not patching enhancements for PS5 and instead selling a "remaster" of their game very shortly after initially selling the game. Insomniac could have done this, or could have done this for existing owners in addition to selling their remaster and mitigated the controversy. But that's not what they did, and as-is that ignited legitimate doubt for some people as to whether buying any of the "PS4 games" now is a smart investment. That debate of value doesn't deserve to be belittled.

I, too was waiting for something official before buying this game regarding either a remaster or free enhancement for PS5. We're getting the latter, that's good enough. I'd honestly recommend everyone hold off on the big games if they don't own them already, to find out if they're getting a patch or a "remaster" - especially HzD and GoW, as that news would be coming before the sequels this coming year.

This game already has the best loading times of any AAA game in the last few years but 60fps is an excellent addition too.

Might be my favorite piece of news today.

@NEStalgia
There has been one remake of a game that is years old. Nobody could honestly say they thought GoT would get a remaster.

So, the possibilities were boost mode, free patch, or paid patch, which would impact people’s buying decisions not one jot.

Better load times? There were barely any to begin with.

Great! Give me boosted Death Stranding Sony, and I’ll replay it from the start 😍

@thefourfoldroot A remake of one game that was still a "new" game at only 2 y ears old - at the start of the generation which does have clear implications of signaling a plan to bring the older games forwards as "remasters" rather than patches. When the company signals that may be their continued policy with existing games, customers may wait to see if the games they want get that same sales model.

There is simply no reason to belittle or be snarky about someone choosing to wait before buying games they don't already own to find out if that Spiderman sales model will be applied to other games as well. The reason that debate exists is precisely because one of the very first games on the platform is following that model. It's not an unreasonable assessment that it will be used for other titles.

@wiiware 30fps is not smooth, the word you're looking for is consistent.

Glad I waited on this one.

@carlos82 It sounds like they're giving this a PS5 BC patch of sorts. Basically a PS4 patch that is "unlocked" for the PS5 power to push it forward.

this is the same thing on ps4 pro with boost mode don't understand why people think this is new. For example, Tomb raider definitive edition runs at variable 40-50 fps on vanilla ps4 while on the pro is locked at 60 fps. Just games with an unlocked framerate or dynamic resolution will benefit.

Wow, really good news. Loved it, but the fps did dip on my launch PS4 to the point I could notice.

Can someone please confirm the details of these unlocked frame rate settings? Is there already a setting for this in the current version, or will this be part of a future patch.

Is it like infamous first light where performance mode and frame rate are two independent settings? Or is it like Rise of the Tomb Raider where it's either 4k/30 or 1080p/unlocked? I would like to know for GOW as well.

I ask because PS5 should be able to run PS4 titles at full 4K/60fps, so it would be disappointing if the only way to play at 60fps would be at 1080p.

I'm happy with insomniac's decision to do a full remaster for PS5 and feel it's worth paying for. But for the many other titles from other devs, I hope they at least offer patches to enhance the visuals for PS5. Even if it's just res/fps boosts.

Can’t imagine the load times since ghost of Tsushima barely has any now on PS4.

Noice, will leave the game+ for the PS5 then.

Well, since PS5 will most likely be impossible to get ahold of for the majority of next year, I’m not waiting to start it. Would’ve been nice, but I’m starting it this weekend.

@NEStalgia
I’m not belittling or being snarky. You are deliberately misunderstanding.

Spider-man remastered is clearly a side project as a result of MM targeting PS5. They would have been foolish not to put in the minimal work to remaster the base game with the same tech and textures, especially when people who never had a PS4 but got a ps5 would have an increased interest.

This is why they are only charging $20 for it, it’s a side project they didn’t even mention as anything other than an afterthought throughout the entire build up to MM.

If you thought that this is a sign they’d remaster GoT and similar much newer games, with no sequels or ps5 spin off games about to release...well, I don’t know what to say. I don’t believe you. You are clearly intelligent enough to see the obvious.

@thefourfoldroot Why would no one think that? Spiderman is 2 years old and getting a remaster. Is it because it released so close to the next generation?

Ghosts Of Tsushima launched in July with the PS5 coming in November.

The Last Of Us launched in June with the PS4 coming in November and that got a remaster the following year.

While I'd say there are indicators of both, given the differences of everything involved, I'd put my money on them eventually offering a PS5 remaster (paid with no free upgrade) as well as this PS4 enhanced BC patch. So far we have 1 example for PS4->PS5, and Spiderman's precedent isn't looking like a good thing.

@thefourfoldroot I am with @NEStalgia on this but a slightly different bent. I am new to Playstation and interested in many PS4 titles, and I want the best version and I will happily pay for it. But I don’t want to buy a Ps4 title (with or without boost mode) and later find that they are “remastering” it and my save files won’t transfer.

I don’t have that issue with Spiderman because I am new, but I would be pretty disappointed to be pay $70 and be forced to redo the game. I imagine that is not an issue for many people, but i think it’s crappy. I have limited time to game.

Definitely saving my New Game + playthrough for PS5 then, I like how generous developers are being with their games this generation

Do we know if the games will include PS4 Pro graphical upgrades (for those that have them) or just be base PS4 versions with better frame rate?

I dropped the title after introduction mission. I might come back to it, since I still have the game in disk. It just didn't appeal to me, mostly because aesthetics looked really plastic like

Good to hear! I skipped it on PS4 because I assumed it'd perform better on PS5, so I'm glad I held out. That's one more launch game that's new to me!

@koffing
“ don’t want to buy a Ps4 title (with or without boost mode) and later find that they are “remastering” it ”

I understand of course, but this has been the case forever. Games are remastered. Only difference now is that you also have the option of playing a last gen game in boost mode to still get some benefit from new gen without having to buy the remaster.

@thefourfoldroot I appreciate the compliment, and i do see what you're saying. The problem is a lot of that is based on assumptions. It's possible they did that because they were already doing the work for mm and wanted to offer new value to new customers as you say. But if it were that simple they're were fairer ways of delivering it with or without monetization. And withholding a boost mode 60fps patch outside that release wouldn't have been part of it. It's also possible they were demonstrating a forward policy of leaving no money on the table and monetizing everything they can get away with. They may have been testing to see both public reception and profitability of the approach. We don't know the thinking behind it and if it is, or was, a harbinger of future plans. We don't know if HzD and gow will get that treatment up to launch of the sequel. We don't know if they'll announce got2 next June and a remaster of this to go with it.

It's possible its all as innocent as you suggest, but rarely is this sort of thing that innocent. And doubly so in the gaming industry. That's a trial balloon for that business model. And it would be naieve to assume the same thing won't be attempted with other games until confirmed otherwise. With this patch we got, as i said, that'less likely that will happen with this game. Could announcing this patch not have happened without backlash to the attempt with Spiderman? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Lots of assumptions.

So, no, i don't think it's at all wrong to assume any ps4 game could the the Spiderman treatment at this point. In fact the fact it exists for one game tells us the possibility absolutely exists for all other games, and caution in buying is wise. Got, with a confirmed boost patch is now a step closer to not worrying about that, and already gives ps5 owners the biggest selling point of the Spiderman remaster: 60fps in a ps4 looking game without ray tracing. So even if they did remaster got, there wouldn't be much point to it.

But again, we also don't know if this is the result of the backlash to the other model or if it was happening anyway. Just assumptions.

With all these promises of no load times I am going to miss those little creative animated load logos.

@Kopite I’m pretty sure I saw an article a while back that the devs intentionally increased the load times because people were not able to read the tooltips.

Great loading times as is

Even better if it speeds up

@YETi I’m going to miss having a min to go to the bathroom

This is cool. But, I hope SP makes a remastered version similar to Marvel’s Spider-Man. Ray-tracing, 3D audio...etc. To take full advantage of the PS5. Because I’ve yet to play it.

Great news. For me the biggest step to play this on my PS5 is to play it without jetengine sounds in the backround. I only have one working ear so this will be just great for me. 60FPS on top and I am in love!

Nice to see it done right. Your save just let's you carry on when you move to PS5 😎

@NEStalgia
I’m a little confused. Of course we are going to see sequels to successful games like GoT, and we know Horizon and GoW. This is inevitable.
Does this mean they’ll provide cheap £20 remasters of the older games? One can only hope! But with back compat it seems less needed than in the past.
Charging £20 for a remaster is perfectly fair in this case given it’s set in the same city as MM so much of the work was already done, but I’d have no problem with general remasters charging more. I don’t see that as “unfair monetisation”.

@themightyant
“ Spider-Man remastered [...]They’re only bundling it in an ultimate edition that costs $20 more. It’s not for sale on it’s own”

Exactly, strengthening my point that this was intended as a side project to MM in order to get non owners interested (mainly those coming from other consoles). It’s an anomaly. They never even advertised it as a standalone game, or at all really.

You have a point about TLOU, but it’s a tenuous one. Sony hoovered up a lot of previous 360 owners due to their great launch and the dominance of 360 through most of the previous generation. Plus PS4 had no backwards compatibility with PS3. It’s completely different for ps5.

Amazing. I dont really know how this game can load faster than it already does but intrigued to see it! One of the games of the generation for me .

Literally the only complaint i had was that most of the building interiors are identical to each other. I get that may be historically accurate but some variety would have been nice

Otherwise this game is just wonderful

@themightyant
I’m sorry, but I see the very opposite. MM is a next generation game. To make it they had to make changes to the engine, the lighting, the textures etc, so why not use them to also remaster the base game at a rock bottom price?

The idea they are using a remaster of a 2 year old game to force people to buy a new game is completely arse about face thinking as far as I’m concerned.

And I don’t see an explanation as to why they remastered TLoU on PS4, and how that differs from the current situation as a distraction, it is completely on point.

I guess we will see. Maybe you are right snd they’ll release full price remasters of GoT snd TLoU2 shortly after launch, but I very very much doubt it.

Great news have waited to play it on PS5

@thefourfoldroot . Got to agree with your logic in the posts you have been making here. From what I interpret your main argument boils down to the fact that Sonys communication has been awful and when you read the speculation on message boards like this I dont know how anyone can disagree, let alone argue the opposite! I'm getting a distinct sense from Sony this time around that the "for the gamers" message is getting very much lost. I have and have always owned multiple consoles so I dont have a dog in the race , I just want clarity around the console & business model so I can make informed decisions around how to spend my money. There can be no denying that Microsoft are treating their customer base with more respect right now.

Indeed, opinions are worthless if not challenged,
My view on your questions:

1) indeed, it’s cross gen, but designed with a view to being a PS5 focused release. That’s where all the marketing has been at least, I can’t see anything to imply the opposite anyway.

2) My assumption, because all any of us have are informed assumptions, is that they are offering it as a PS5 exclusive initially because they took the view that lots of people who never had a PS4 might get a ps5 and so it made sense to pack it in. I know I wouldn’t buy a spin-off without having the base game. I’m sure they’ll sell it separately at some point in the future, but their marketing is focused on MM currently. And they aren’t giving an upgrade path from the old version of Spider-Man because then nobody will buy the ps5 version, even at £20, as it makes much more sense to borrow a mates copy who isn’t upgrading immediately, or at worst pick it up secondhand for peanuts.

3) I guess I just don’t feel entitled to a remaster copy of any game just because I bought a copy on an older system. I got what I paid for fair snd square, no complaints, and if a company chooses to do extra work in future I’m happy to pay a fair amount. Not full price, but certainly £20, or even £40 if not used to “push” a new game as your say, depending on the amount of work put in perhaps more.

@deathaxe
Indeed, I’m quite new to this site too and like the community so far. The occasional fanboy of course, but that’s the same anywhere.
I agree about Eurogamer, it’s a cesspit, moderators allow their ideological circle to be incredibly abusive, and their “moderation” amounts to cancelling from the site anyone who won’t bow down to their views, even if very civil. A horrible site I only go back to on account of Digital Foundry, even though their impartiality has taken a knock since MS have been courting them so strongly.

@themightyant
Cool, I just have a different view. If I pay for something and get it I’m happy. If a new remake comes out I’ll buy it or not depending on how much has been improved.
If we get to a point where remakes have to be lower in price if an older version (presumably digital) is a found at time of purchase then we either won’t get remasters, get incredibly bare bones ones, or the price of base games will have to rise just in case a remaster is made...I just don’t see that as sensible.

I haven't picked this up yet, how does it run on the Pro? I'm curious how much greater these enhancements are on PS5.

@SwitchVogel Platinumed it on my Pro. I'll probably NG+ it on the PS5. It runs great on the Pro. No noticeable pop ins or frame drops. Loading is also already quick on the PS4 (didn't Sucker Punch say that they had to increase the times of the loading screens so that people could read the tips?).

I suppose the 60fps would make a difference. Just excited to be able to jump back in regardless.

@thefourfoldroot It seems that your take is based on the view that Spiderman is truly a unique case due to mm. I can't say you're wrong and i can't say you're right because its just speculation of Sony business strategy we don't know.

My view is that it's not unique, or may not have had the intention of uniqueness depending on results. I think it sets up a clear argument they plan to remaster and resell popular ps4 games. Is consistent with past strategy (I'm aware bc renders that strategy unnecessary, but board rooms don't think that easy, they look at past success and try to replicate that strategy. Ignoring technology to shoehorn business strategies it outdates is the cornerstone of complaint about Sony's model right now), it's consistent with Spiderman, it's consistent with them adding the old games "free" with plus, which is a near guarantee they plan to resell them as remasters, to me.

I do question if remastering 8th gen games to 9th gen makes any practical sense to charge for. The advantage to the player is miniscule. Spiderman demonstrates that. The main feature we've seen is 60fps mode that looks very little different, and in some areas worse, than the ps4 game. There's also the 30fps raytracing mode with reflections we haven't seen much of. Great for screenshots but not as gameplay relevant as the 60fps mode that visually offers very little if anything versus just offering a free 60fps patch as sucker punch is doing. Which you basically did say above. But what we have so far is an early indicator coupled with other indicators that Sony intends a business strategy of selling monetized "remasters" of their games.

Which goes back to the original point:. I would consider a customer that does not currently own the existing games wise for waiting before buying them to find out about remasters and patches. Unless they love buying the same thing twice.

As a personal aside,i find the business model of upgrading games, for a fee, every few years like it's a cell phone as, or more, gotesque as the business models the cloud services are pushing. I think sales model wise, Sony's on the very wrong side of the industry in terms of consumer value, and even if it does not bite them immediately, it will bite them eventually. They're not the paragon of defending customer value they were in 2013. They haven't been for years.

@SwitchVogel The enhancements seem to be 60fps mostly or exclusively. Not that that's a bad thing.

@NEStalgia
I just don’t agree. Sony have made the PS5 backwards compatible, thus remasters are not needed. Some companies might want to put more effort in to improve textures, loading etc, and if they do then people have the choice of buying it if it’s significantly better, or not buying it if it isn’t.
You obviously have decided The Spider-Man remaster is not worth it for you, for others it will be.

I find nothing objectionable in offering people the option of buying a remaster or playing the game they have already paid for. I also have no problem with the streaming or subscription model, although I do fear what what it means for physical discs and ownership (specifically the ability to resell and lend).

I genuinely do not understand why people have such an aversion to a business model that hasn’t changed in the slightest except in offering more options.

@thefourfoldroot that's fair to a point, and primarily i agree with "PS5 backwards compatible, thus remasters are not needed" above all else, and that's kind of the point. "Remastering"any ps4 game to ps5 is of minimal value by nature. Ps4 games look excellent and ps5 mostly just adds refinement and/better performance on that. Diminishing returns is in full force from now on.

Which is why the cash grab of Spiderman is as cynical an approach as they could have taken. And that cynicism bleeds into other games. But your argument here is for our against the point of view for those that already own the games in question. The original point was concern from people that have not yet bought them waiting to find out if that remaster will exist, since they'd rather buy that instead if it will.

All that said one thing that stands out to be is the idea that the business model hasn't changed. That I think is the quiet point. The business model at large has changed, and Sony is attempting to turn back the clock in their own walled garden. The PC platform largely turned from that model a decade or more ago. Xbox has been moving away from that model equally. The streaming platforms internally don't embrace that model. This is Sony and Nintendo clinging to old models alone. And even Nintendo has modernized a bit more than Sony. But one key thing you said, about physical, makes the mindset a bit clearer. Yeah, i suppose from an all physical point of view this all makes sense that it's "two separate games" The problem is the industry largely has left physical as a legacy format. Pc left it entirely long ago. Xbox is actively moving away from it and trying to migrate everything digital. The streaming services (stadia, Luna) have no physical analog. The features and benefits of things like upgrades are native to the digital model. And very unexpectedly, Sony seems to have retreated almost fully to a physical focus this gen, despite going hard the other way early last gen. Maybe they really are trying to go back in time, it maybe they see the threat of the digital services and are trying to anchor a niche with the physical consumer.

Ironically they really set the expectations of the new model though. Ps4pro launched before x1x. They started the model of mandatory upgrades for games on the new hardware. X1x continued it. That's industry standard now. Players now expect games to scale with their hardware just as pc games do. Trying to back out of that with ps5 just looks bad, especially while the competition is continuing it.

That doesn't mean "remaster", but again we've already established that a "remaster" if ps4 games doesn't even make much sense. Which brings is back to the idea that Spiderman is a bad look all around, but that it does create genuine impressions that will happen with other games. Less likely now with this one with a confirmed enhancement patch.

@NEStalgia
I just disagree.
Offering someone the choice of getting MM with the Spider-Man remaster is not cynical because they needed to charge for it. If they had ONLY offered the more expensive complete package, despite knowing many MM buyers already had SM, then I would call THAT cynical.

And I do not feel that, just because MS have decided they can afford to massively subsidise an unsustainable subscription business model in order to buy market share, that Nintendo snd Sony have an obligation to try to match this spend (hint, they know they cannot hope to).

As to the mid gen refreshes instigating an expectation that games scale with their hardware...this is exactly what PS5 snd SX do, the games automatically scale with hardware, that did not stop remasters from being a thing though, did it? Proper remasters and simple automatic scaling of games that have unlocked frame rates and dynamic resolution are two different things snd both have their place.

@thefourfoldroot @thefourfoldroot I wasn't taking about game pass at all though. Though the idea that "loses money" is an absurd and short sighted view of the same nature Sony and Nintendo make. As a line item in sure it does. But direct sub fees is not the entire revenue contribution from it's presence. It's a holistic model. Spend a little here to make a lot over there. But that's outside this conversation. This is about, ms overall, but (stadia, Luna, and the half dozen other companies that will be joining that fray. Wait for apple. ). Gp is a good value but it's a different value proposition than people on the internet, especially Sony centric people, make it out to be.

The mid gen consoles effectively necessitated unlocked frames, higher resolution, most times a new higher quality texture pack, etc. A.k.a a remaster where the pc assets were brought into the console game. People are expecting that kind of upgrade when getting the new hardware now. Sucker punch is delivering on that. So far, they are the only Sony studio confirmed to be doing so. Insomniac confirmed they are not. That's what were working with.

@NEStalgia
The only way MS can make money on Gamepass is by getting lots of casuals to buy it who previously might only buy a couple of games a year otherwise, or have no console and dump a load of money into candy crush and other such rubbish (when talking about streaming to phones).

I don’t like what that means for ownership or the type snd quality of games to be offered, but you are right, that is outside of this conversation.

If you are talking about the pointless mid gen refreshes, I have no opinion, I didn’t even consider getting one as well as the base unit. As far as I’m concerned you can come into the gen near the start with a base unit OR come in mid gen and get the refresh or a cheaper base unit, getting them both is a pointless waste of money. I have no idea what people that did that might have come to “expect”, but their numbers are too insignificant, out of the 110 million, to have such a generalised conversation about them. What I do know is that we’ll get an added bonus this gen of being able to play old games with better performance if we have catching up to do on old games. That’s fine, especially for the first couple of months while waiting for a backlog of games I want to play to build up.

@thefourfoldroot with gp, again you're looking at that product as a line item. Sony/Nintendo thinking. You're not taking into account it's halo effect on sales of both dlc, season passes, and whole game purchases. People that don't subscribe tend to think of it as a "netflix" service when it's not, it's a rental service. The model is that it increases engagement time and generates additional sales outside the subscription. It's not a true subscription gaming service, it's a value added service. A loss leader "loses" money, but it does so to generate increased sales overall. It works. I alone have made numerous purchases i otherwise wouldn't have as a result. And at discounts for being a member. The result is increased spend on their store, while feeling like I'm obtaining more value generating a positive feeling towards additional purchases. That's good business and holistically, i suspect it's quite a profitable venture, simply not directly as a line item.

You are correct in your concern for what it means for monetization and game design though. I can easily see more studios building a shell to put on gp that then needs extremely purchased content to be complete. That's a valid concern, definitely as it gains momentum. But the one key is it's not designed to replace ownership, even digitally. It's designed to encourage it, actually, where every game has a "buy to own forever" button on it.

Forever is the interesting word though, isn't it? They're directly signaling their store model is that a digital purchase is forever. Sony signals much muddier messaging in their digital ecosystem. And what were seeing with ps3 and vita kind of confirms that. Well see what happens with those in the next few years.

Ahh, so that explains part of the different opinion. If you're not coming from the perspective of the mid gen consoles, you're missing a big part of the picture! I had launch day ps4 and launch day pro. I had x1x scorpio edition but didn't have og x1 because it was a disaster and a half.

That's The thing. We've already upgraded our games years ago! For you the ps5 will emulate the pro and feel like an upgrade (and i assure you it'll feel like an upgrade!). But for everyone that had the mid gen the ps5 promises..... To give us exactly what we've had since 2017....... Meanwhile ms is promising to keep enhancing those games further for the new hardware in terms of first party, working with outside studios, and automated enhancements. And that's where it splits in value perception. For me, coming from both mid gen consoles, I've already seen my games get enhancements to follow my hardware. With the new consoles Microsoft says that will continue happening, and Sony says "sorry, were freezing you in time, the past is the past". Having been a pc only gamer for well over a decade, the ms approach is the "normal" natural approach that one just expects. The Sony approach is a reminder of why pc gaming used to seem so much better than console. Even if you say "well, those are a minority that owned them.". Maybe. But if one vendor embraces them and continues offering value to them and the other says "oh well your business doesn't matter much get in line".... Welp....

If it were just ms vs Sony they could fight over that model. But it's Sony vs ms + pc + stadia, luna, whatever Apple does, etc etc. Sony and Nintendo become the outliers. And Nintendo arguably is competing in a different space currently.

Still what we have is one studio at Sony offering enhanced performance. One explicitly not and locking and enhancement at all behind a pay wall. And no world from any other Sony studio so far. Again. To a user wanting one of those games, why should they look at that evidence and assume enhancement will be added and not instead sold behind a remaster pay wall. I'm not talking about emulating ps4 pro mode if you didn't have a pro. I'm taking about ps5 specific enhancement you can't get on a pro.

@NEStalgia
That seems like an incredibly duplicitous proposition from MS as you describe it. “Buy this sub, we’ll rotate games enough that you might just want to buy them, and get extra money from micro transactions”...no, pass. I barely have time for games I want to play, let alone buying a sub service and paying extra for more games I’ll never have time to play, and then worry about them leaving without notice too. Different strokes and all that.

And, sorry, are you under the impression that PS5 doesn’t offer a boost mode so you can enhance the performance of your old games should you ever wish to play them again? The Sony snd MS policy is exactly the same here. Devs can add and charge for more if they want to, up to snd including full remaster treatment, but games are enhanced regardless. MS have some neat tricks like adding HDR imitation on non supported games, but there is no real difference.

@thefourfoldroot Not duplicitous a long as they're clear what they're selling. They've been specific that they're not going for a "netflix of gaming" situation, that game pass increases game sales, etc. Though long term, i do share concern of duplicity, not from.ms itself though. First party is a permanent "netflix" - that's the loss leader though at 180 a year I'm still not convinced it's a loss, but regardless, first party is permanently available. It's the 3rd party publishers that set when their games enter and exit the program... That's where duplicity can set in if ms doesn't enforce some kind if guideline. But regardless, there's always a clear list in advance of when games are entering and exiting. It's always clear it's a rental program but with permanent access to 1st party. In that, it's a great value as a rental program. I remember when game rentals were 3.99 overnight and you had to have them back by 3pm the next day. But it's always misunderstood outside existing customers, especially in the sonyverse as some sort of heavily subsidized giveaway program that threatens purchased games, when it's really a rental program (for third party) that encourages buying games, allows trying tons of games, and "gives away" first party as the incentive. 2k had rdr2 on there recently, and pulled it in, what, 2 or 3 weeks? That was weirdly short... That's getting towards the abuse you were thinking about. 2ks fault mostly, ms's for not having minimums.

Even as a subscriber, i play games more like you, so it's of questionable value to me. But all the first party games I'd have bought anyway being on it will inventive me to stay. I'll break even and end up trying more games that i might be curious about end probably end up buying some. But yeah the idea of the games coming and going makes it a cool service to have to try some stuff you wouldn't otherwise, but i also couldn't really rely on it.

Ps now is a similar idea, but Sony has refused to commit to it wholely. It started as streaming only, mostly for Japan that buys less and less consoles. Then it was shoehorned as the ps3 bc solution for an absurd price. Only after game pass arrived did they drop the price and allow downloads. But they still don't commit the same way. They have more games than gp but it's largely older games. They don't want to compete with their consoles. Though they're putting their console games on pc....

Re boost mode, i think again, without perspective of the pro you're missing the point a bit. Boost mode exists on by ps4 pro, too. It only helps with games that there hardware was limiting it from reaching it's target fps. It doesn't enable unlocked fps, increase resolution, allow max fps in "resolution mode"with full effects. And doesn't add higher quality textures. Pro patches (and enhanced for 1x patches) do. All games arriving after pro were required to have a ps4 pro specific support, 4k (checkerboard) target, etc. Most games from before pro were also given the same by their publishers and for Sony games. Pro had a year ahead of 1x so there was a weird time gap where some games had a pro patch and not a 1x patch. One example is deus ex md that to this day still uses old textures and 900p on x1x and has a full 4k mode for pro. Otoh another example was Mass effect Andromeda, but EA silently patched that game on 1x, without even announcing it, quietly a year later. Most companies were committed to making their software look and run its best on the new hardware to foster more sales.

Largely, i expect that will happen again with |x|s. Which makes Sony's non-committal stance on it particularly out of step. What makes Spiderman different is that the "remaster" isn't the stand out feature. The 60fps mode is. If they released an fps unlock like sucker punch and their remaster it would be one thing. But they are withholding the bog standard performance update behind the paywall of a remaster of a still new game.

All that combined leads to the doubt if how other titles are being handled, including this one, until now. Hzd1 no boost unless you buy hzd2 ultimate? Meanwhile every ps4 assassin's creed gets a boost?

It's not about comparing sony to Microsoft. It's about comparing Sony to Sony. Microsoft's consistency just highlights Sony's inconsistency.

@NEStalgia
GP is 180 a year! See, I thought it was the £50 that Now is, or at least close. And at least Now has a 3 month minimum timescale guaranteed. Now I can see how they can put their first party games on and not lose with them! I spend no more than £20 on a game when accounting for trade back, usually much less, so I never get close to the £180 a year. Getting me to buy this service then is basically saying, give us more money snd you can try a load of other games, but you might not have time to finish them because devs can take them off after a few weeks. Don’t worry though, we’ll give you a discount if you want to rebuy.
This is sounding worse and worse for average joe, but I can see how it’s a great deal if you currently buy lots and lots of games at ridiculous digital pricing.

@thefourfoldroot Technically it's $120/yr for just console game pass or just PC game pass, I was thinking Ultimate which is $180/yr console + PC + GP Cloud (the smart device streaming library service rather than the game download service - more like what Now was originally, only with current games.) + Live Gold (like PS Plus) - So the $180 more directly compares to buying Now + Plus, though still more.

Though Now only dropped to $60 last year after Stadia arrived. And it only dropped to $100/yr (or somewhere around there?) a year or two before that when Game Pass dropped early 2018. Before that, I forget what the price was but it was absolutely ridiculous for what was, at the time, an all-streaming service of mostly all old games you could get for $15 or less on PSN sales every other week. And back then they didn't allow downloading of the games, it was all streaming-only.

So everything good about PS Now currently, happened due to strong competition from MS and Google, which is why hopefully that competition never lets up!

There are scenarios those services work. I think a lot of gamers benefit from them, and having all your exclusives covered in the sub definitely sets up MS's value proposition there. (we'll leave the "MS has no good exclusives" obligatory Push Square argument for another day ) I get it, and it's a great value for the right people, which is a lot of people. I on the other hand watch E3 and build lists of all the games I'm interested in. I'm not the target. (Though Sony doesn't bother with E3 anymore...)

The digital split versus physical split is an important one though. GP is focused all around digital, and digital pricing, yes. But one thing I've realized with more conversation here is a big difference between game pricing in the US vs UK & EU. New games are (essentially) never below RRP here at launch. And they don't really have sales on them, in part because we have basically 6 total retailers including Amazon (I miss the Amazon and Best Buy promo days of 20% of all preorders!) So there's no price divide between physical and digital on new games here. Games drop in price at retail as they age and then retail sales appear on them....but the frequent digital sales really counter that. The current sale on Ghost of Tsushima on PSN is 25% off only 3 months in. Not too bad, but I've heard some saying they can get it on retail sale or used, cheaper. Not sure if that's the US though. $60 retail/digital. $45 PSN sale digital (not bad.) GameStop used price? $55......... Amazon used: $52.79. EBay has auctions starting at $35 shipped for bids. Or $50 buy prices. PSN digital sale remains, today, the cheapest realistic price on GoT in the US, even over most used options. Now, in 6 months that might change.

If Now cost $120+ a year Game Pass style, and you got all these games included? It might change the value proposition a bit. But they understandably don't want to upset the stability of their console business whereas MS had minimal risk experimenting with other models and trying to combine them as one. It works. I'll have to count beans and figure out if continuing GP is a value or a waste for me. But I see where the value is.

@NEStalgia
Not sure about US prices. PS Now is £50 a year, Plus is £50 a year also. So the two combined are £100 for a streaming snd download service with 800+ games total. Cheaper and with many many more games than GP I guess, albeit older games, yet my issue is still the same though, I barely pay more than that a year for all the games I actually want, and don’t have much time to play the rest... I can see the value proposition for people with more time or who buy digital.

Physical in the U.K. is very cheap, I usually spend £10 on a game max net to have as long as I need. If I wanted something newer like GoT, well, that’s still £45, with £28 trade back, so £17, probably less if I shopped around. But that will fall. Yes it’s basically rental, but so are these sub services, just with less control.

@NEStalgia
😶-I've been reading your comments back and forth with @fourfoldroot and looking at both perspectives and trying to Glean "Some logic in both arguments", but you completely lost me with the "Illogical statement" here's a copy & paste of it, ("Sony seems to have retreated almost fully to a physical focus this gen, despite going hard the other way early last gen.")
😕What are you talking about?

Sony's whole position in presenting the PS4 (Early this generation)was (All About) being able to use Physical Media Discs and poking at MS, because of Microsoft's insistence of an (Always on Connection for Games) and the Hyperbole of the "Power of the X-Cloud! So MS had to reverse course.
Now this New Generation of PS5(Not thePS4) has a " First Time Digital Ony Model" as well as the physical model and yet they've reversed course to embracing "Almost Fully the Physical Model"?
Yet (both) Sony and Microsoft (Have Physical Media Consoles) and Can't afford to ignore the Profit Margins with the Vast Majority of People(Regardless of opinion) who Still Prefer Physical Media, over Digital Downloads(Even though the Industry Makes More Money off of DD.)
As far as comparing PC to Consoles with DD on Steam, and Stadia streaming...ect, I consider that a moot point(For the Moment anyway) for comparisons sake.
Sony scorched-earth with MS over the course of this current gen, over going with that directional model, and MS reversed course because of the Overall Gaming Community demanded it, yet people Don't Recognize that Microsoft is doing it again, (but with a reach around tatic) by bypassing and limiting the gaming communities choices(via buying up a chunk of developers and Industry resources) and trying to shape the Industry as a whole to make their original plan happen faster, instead of letting it happen more organically through the choices of ALL the individual Gamers (Regardless of their split Preferences on media type).
People in General are Lemmings when they Don't see that, "We Aren't Shaping Our Future", they are, and it's right in front of our faces(just with this shadier Reach Around Tactic)...lol

😶-End result of that specific comment is that was a wildly inaccurate focal point( no offense just say'n😕). ✌Editing: spelling and Punctuation...lol.

@thefourfoldroot Yeah, it does seem like the physical prices are more dynamic at retail in the UK & EU. And I think the used market sounds more robust there. GameStop pretty much created a monopoly on "used" here a decade or more ago in a way that all the value goes to them and not the consumer. Running around them involves EBay, Cragslist, maaaaaybe Amazon at a stretch. Some random spots may have a local independent store in major cities and the such, but it's rare. GameStop bought up all major competitors long ago. All of them short of the larger big-box chains outside the gaming space.

That's not to say you can't game as a used gamer here, you certainly can, but it's more of a dodgy online auction type experience, particularly for selling your games (GameStop gives you basically nothing for the trade, and flips it for double or triple what they paid you. Newer games sell used for more than RRP because they factor in rewards points and credits making it "cheaper" with other trade-ins. This is the store that when Nintendo released Xenoblade 1 in the US exclusively through them, and they got their re-supply as a sellout, they opened the shrink wrap on their entire re-supply and sold them used.....for 20% more than RRP...... Yeah... I want to love them. They're our last dedicated gaming store. But they actively reject all ability to love them. )

I was a dedicated physical "pry my disc from my cold dead hands" gamer for a long time. Since this is America, our internet is a product of 1998 most places. If it wasn't on a disc, I basically considered it unavailable, and railed against the digital push, digital patches, etc. I picked PS4 very strongly due to them emphasizing support of that. Then watched the 40GB plus patches start rolling in which locked me out of my own disc content more or less. I eventually got proper internet, and bought an X1X to be my "digital" console. Ended up re-buying my physical PS4 library digitally on PSN sales over time (whatever I didn't move over the XB as their ecosystem for digital really was better than PS4's.) With our retail pricing and near-monopoly used market outside individual sellers online, I've found I'm getting away cheaper overall all digital in general. Not true for every title, of course, and sometimes there's that great retail sale that makes me think "if only I hadn't already bought that!" But those retail sales are less reliable for a given title than the digital storefronts.

I still have my old discs taking up room. I should get rid of them....but I can't get myself to do it. NNK2 steelbook was the last non-Nintendo physical game I bought. Generally, for most gamers, physical gaming here doesn't really come in as cheap as what it sounds like you can get it there. Unfortunately for us, I think a lot of the new pricing strategy has to do with that robust used market over there, as well as the currency manipulation resellers like CD Keys. We end up paying more in general in the US and as digital gamers - less at launch retail, but overtime, our prices hold up higher than what it sounds like you guys can average if you're not day-1 buyers. So the impatient early adopters get away "cheaper" in the States, but the patient folks end up paying more than on your side of the pond unless you wait until things are truly out of date.

@RicksReflection PS4 launch was supposed to have the exact same solution as Microsoft. It wasn't just Microsoft doing it, it was an industry-wide push to bring console in line with PC while still having a retail footprint, and to end used game sales without a monetization angle. The industry loathes used game sales, and while we haven't heard them gripe about it for a while, back then that was all they ever talked about. But the rise of mtx, season passes, loot boxes, etc. etc. is all to make up for not being able to get rid of or monetize used sales. Or started out that way, anyway.

Sony rapidly revised their plans after watching Microsoft totally melt down with that policy and turned around to the "this is how you share" video and a return to the norm. That was good, and sold me on PS4 (I preordered 2 of them before Sony's show was even done, and I went into that conference as a PS3 & 360 owner willing to be swayed either way.) But I wasn't under any illusion they didn't do that as a last minute reactionary shift to seize the market MS lost while it was up for grabs. At the same time they were pushing Gaikai/Now VERY hard as part of PS4's launch, and started really ramping up digital sales, subscription mandatory, etc. etc. And then this generation we saw a rise of "digital code in a box", "patches" that were larger than the game itself. And with the mid-gen, most of the game being a download on top of the disc. I really expected both companies might ditch the disc drives this new gen up until a year or so ago when they confirmed it would have discs.

Now this time, yeah, they have the "all digital" edition which they've basically made an irrelevant joke. $100 price difference makes little sense, especially giving the lack of storage, and it's obvious they have produced relatively few of them given the preorder data. I say this as a currently all digital customer who actually preordered one of those digital playstations for someone else - it's kind of a joke.

With their pricing model, overall strategy, the lack of a selling point on the digital model for a meager price difference, it's clear they've gone from the all digital future they were both gunning for with PS4/X1 and retreated, hard, to focus on physical as their central model.

My assumption here is they see MS focusing almost entirely on the digital side (they have a physical side, but the Series S will be their biggest seller and is all digital, and most of their features, services, and promotional tools revolve around digital) and they see Stadia, Luna, and the other big data/big tech companies getting into streaming and probably decided a physical sales model is a differentiator for them. Fair play. And reassuring, even as a digital buyer. The moment they get rid of physical competition, the moment the great PSN sale prices end and control by the consumer is lost for good. But surprising given the turnaround from the mood 7 years ago.

I do see MS somewhat shaping that future, I don't disagree entirely there. Though I think GoogAzonBook will be shaping that future much more. MS's approach bridges the new and traditional in a balanced way and keeps a lot of choice open, currently. GoogAzonBook wants to force their clouds down our throats, as that's all they know, and scale is all they do. MS at least is firmly established in the console space.

@NEStalgia
Wow, gaming is expensive in the US it seems. The monopoly of the used game market sounds terrible.
Out of interest, do you have a link to an online store so I can check US used prices?This is generally where I go:

https://uk.webuy.com

These are final prices with no additional counter tax by the way.

As to your other conversation about Sony wanting to go all digital too and changing their mind last minute when MS announced their policy to deserved condemnation...I reject that baseless idea. Sony were never that forward thinking and their online platform was still pretty bad at the launch of the PS4. The idea they planned to, or could, do what MS were proposing is a stretch too far for me.

@thefourfoldroot Yeah. I've been hearing about how expensive gaming is in UK & EU a lot given the currency conversions from our, now, $70 to some of the terrible conversions of the real price over there, but it sounds like the market is a little different in terms of used, and how people buy, there, etc so that the prices come down more readily than here. Here, the savings seem to lean heavily toward digital (which is ironic considering how much of the US doesn't have the bandwidth to do digital at all, and the monopoly internet provider in much of the country has 1TB/mo caps.)

We sure do love our monopolies here! </sarc>

http://www.gamestop.com is our semi-monopoly on used games here. And when there's no preorders going on, the website even works! The store format is almost identical to the UK's GAME from what I understand. They actually spun out of Barnes & Noble books Another big-box pseudo-monopoly.

Beyond them, Amazon.com, of course, has used game vendors. And beyond that, ebay, and maybe some smaller online sellers that are less commonly known (that I'm not aware of) or some brick and mortar stores that are just mom & pop shops here and there. There's none near me that I'm aware of, though there was a local upstart chain that survived maybe 3 years, a decade ago. I'm sure it's not as bleak as I'm painting if you happen to be located near such a place, or happen to know of a hole in the wall online (but then you still have to pay shipping to send your games in, etc.) And yeah, all the prices I'm listing are pre-tax. Taxes vary by state and municipality. They're generally nowhere near as high as VAT and such, usually under 10% - but that's because VAT includes taxes that we're charged separately via other taxes not related to consumption.

I don't want to say "not many people trade used games" in the US. They do. It's so popular Gamestop build a semi monopoly simply on doing so. It's just that people trading used games here do it primarily through Gamestop which is to say they're mostly just getting ripped off, and getting tied up in a store credit system that keeps you in the system once in to get the value of your games

Hah, you're point about Sony not having been that forward thinking is on-point, but I don't think the invention of the idea was of their own making, the industry publishers were plying how they wanted it to work. It may not have been quite as sophisticated as MS's system as they were going to implement it, as we never got to see their implementation. I imagine they did their usual watch & react concept of going into the show with the backup plan in place of basically rolling back to the norm depending on how the world took it when MS went first. That's what they always do. If the world embraced what MS did, we'd have been stuck with it across the board.

It's not the full text but here's a Polygon link to the article discussing the interview, but the admission the policy changed in response was straight from Shu Yoshida in a Famitsu interview (full text not available in English:)
https://www.polygon.com/2013/6/26/4465674/sce-japan-heads-discuss-the-ps4-e3-and-the-near-future

We really were supposed to be stuck without used games as of 2013 which makes the physical focus of PS5 absolutely shocking.

@NEStalgia
Oh, sure, I’m sure Sony were getting it in the ear from publishers who wanted to bypass the used games market, but in this case Sony’s stubbornness and caution seem to have worked in the consumers favour. It wasn’t after MSs E3 reveal that they changed their mind. Even in your article it says:

“ "There were lots of people who gave their opinions on that issue to my Twitter account before E3””

And so they came to the decision the consumer wasn’t ready for all digital and so had no plan on implementing it.

MS on the other hand feel they can steer a market wherever they wish, and they are being proved right, if belatedly.

It does seem the used game market is nowhere near as impactful in the US as the U.K. Plus your stated prices have even more taxes at the counter in most states I believe. I guess consumers in America do t have as much to use through digital streaming subscriptions as we do.

@NEStalgia (😳PART 1 of 3)
I totally agree that Sony was considering going with the same model as Microsoft at the beginning of this current gen, I could bet on it, especially after they tried it earlier in the PSP's life cycle with pushing its vision of the PSP GO with no physical games, but while I agree that they thought about it, it means (Nothing to me or Should to anyone else because they Actually Didn't Act on it), end result.
And it's all because of what the market(Gaming Community) Called For to happen.
We(The Gaming Community) all complain about stupid stuff that companies tend to do, but ultimately their vision is mostly based strictly on profit, both Short term and Long term Profitability and how they can make it as quickly as possible. So I have No disillusions about how ALL Companies can be, Sony included(Like $70 Games)..lol.
But what gets to me with this upcoming generation, is MS is taking it to a Whole new level!
And I don't see anything truly positive coming from it in the Long Term for the gaming community as a whole.
In fact I see it as a negative downgraded future because of their(MS) overly Quick to Reach Actions, to push(For Them) the Streaming future of games as a service.
MS, Unlike Google have been in the Gaming industry, and are already established whereas Google and other streaming services haven't yet taken a foothold, so their actions(MS) are Far More Immediate and Profound(Like grooming us "From Consoles") when they take to enacting on those actions, especially when it comes to shaping our gaming habits! Which in this case is pushing for a complete (Future Streaming) service that we're not as ready for as people(or Marketing Analyst) would have us believe.
I want to make this perfectly clear, "It Is Our Future and People Can't Run From It", but this is why WE Shouldn't let them( MS,Google,Marketing Analysts..ect) push for it to be enacted (to quickly.) (See Part 2 Below)

@NEStalgia (😯PART 2 of 3)
I want you to think about the logic in this online discussion between 2 Analysts being asked the same question and glean what you can as far as what's more likely true and not true, but actually (Groomed Marketing).
I was reading an online article and they asked both analysts if they thought this New Generation was going to be the last gen for Physical Hardware? (Paraphrasing)- the first Analyst Response: Yes it'll be the last gen for physical hardware, because the future is going to be All about easy access, go anywhere and play on Anything gaming, through those services, and it'll be faster more accessible and cheaper for people to do so.
The 2nd Analyst Responded: While moving to soon to that model would definitely be a boon in profitability for the providers of the streaming services, without having any physical Next Gen console of any sort to deliver it. No I think there will be at least 2 MORE generations beyond this one before that should happen, for the simple fact that gamers expect improvements each and every generation and with full 4k gaming this gen and with the possibility of full 8k gaming with the following gen coupled with all the bandwidth and server load that those future demanding specs would require of internet & servers it wouldn't be possible. Because gaming strictly on servers wouldn't be capable of handling the bandwidth load without sacrificing something along the way, and even with factoring in costly NEAR foreseeable server technologies, it wouldn't be possible to deliver that experience that gamers typically require with each and every New Generation without a physical console. He goes on to say: When looking at having a Streaming only future we have to take into account that massively increased bandwidth coupled with current restrictive internet Data caps, and the current internet instability issues that people have locally and around the world, as well as all those other underdeveloped markets without internet that would be untapped without Physical Next Gen hardware.

@NEStalgia (😅THE CONCLUSION PART 3)
The 2nd Analyst doesn't see how it could happen any sooner without it severely downgrading the gaming quality, along with the gaming communities experience that they expect with (FUTURE)Next Gen games.
(That is our future, but WE keep buying into "That Future is Close" mantra, when that's ALL of the gaming companies holy grail for Profitability, that also includes Sony as well, but MS are in the best position inside the market to push that downgraded but high profitability streaming future on (the gaming community) way faster than it should, and unfortunately that's what MS is doing right now, and people are repeating that mantra and other people are gobbling it up as fact and in doing so, helping (MS) Groom us and allow themselves(MS) to quickly enact that future too quickly, like they tried to do with Xbox one! We( the Gaming Community) should be the Ones who steer the ship, because if we don't, Well?... We ALL think people are whining now, I can't even Imagine it, especially if this is enacted to Fast.
Because it'll be All the people supporting full game downloads (the precursor to full streaming) and streaming services that are going to be the ones who condemn us all to that premature future. I would like to thank you for reading what now has become a book of an answer😥...lol Look forward to what you think.
EDITED: Future

@RicksReflection @RicksReflection For part 1, I agree on a lot of points there in general, but I think people are really misreading MS. If you're not already an XBox customer, and are looking in "from the outside", I think it's easy to misunderstand what they're really doing. There's this idea they're pushing "streaming", which is really not true. From my perspective inside both ecosystems, Sony was pushing actual streaming far, far, far more early PS4 when they tried shoving Gaikai/Now down our throats as the PS3 BC solution than what MS is doing. xCloud/GP Cloud is a separate thing from Game Pass - it's included as part of Ultimate or sold separately. I see that as them "covering their bases" and trying to entrench the XBox brand into the burgeoning/future streaming centric landscape rather than let the all-cloud companies cement that foothold. If you're someone that wants a game streaming service you can pick from Google and Amazon, or look into a "real" gaming brand with X/GP Cloud or PS Now. Game Pass, the thing they're pushing primarily, is not a streaming service at all - it doesn't even have a streaming component. It's just a digital game rental/access service and nothing more. Like a digital Red Box buffet. In that regard, Now is much more a streaming service as all non-PS4 content must be streamed, and at launch it had no download component at all. Game Pass (without Ultimate + Game Pass Cloud) has no streaming component. It's just the ability to download and play games from the digital store you haven't purchased to own while they're on the service.

MS's strategy is less cloud based (for now) and more hardware focused. Their main strategy seems to be unifying Windows/PC and console gaming into a shared, or semi-shared ecosystem. Game Pass is a value added service as an alternate business model for obtaining games to play on either PCs or consoles. But it's still a hardware-coupled software solution, 100%. And while there's no physical software component involved, it is a symbiotic model with the traditional purchase model. Even Stadia is sticking with a purchase model (with a lot less value than Game Pass or Now...)

MS is definitely promoting a digital versus physical transition, absolutely. But they're doing it in an organic way by mirroring that transition that already happened on PC. I definitely don't seem them promoting streaming over locally running games, though. The streaming service is not the main attraction of what they're promoting. That focus may change as the industry/competition changes. Or it may not, though. They're staying.....nimble.

But they're also trying to plant roots in the streaming world because the industry is poising to go all streaming (Remember Yves Guillemot of Ubisoft said a year or two ago that he sees the future of gaming 100% streaming in the future. 2k/Rockstar's CEO moderated the view somewhat but mostly reinforced that. If "the industry" is looking down the streaming road, that's going to be an important component for both Sony and MS in the future. Right now both have a solution, but MS is positioning theirs better. But they're also using it to reinforce hardware-software coupling.

@RicksReflection Part 2: I do generally agree with the practicality involved in that second analyst's statements. More specifically, though, I don't think the true "streamed only" future is possible for many reasons for quite a long time. I do think it will gain a lot of market share though. Mobile has trained a generation that games are something you get on your phone and are instantly available for next to nothing. There's a lot of negatives I see with that, and currently, even in Japan a lot of rural areas don't have internet to sustain streaming well. If Japan can't do it 100% in 2020, good luck in the US by 2040.....

But I do think streaming will matter and even gain significant share of the market due to low barrier to entry. What I unfortunately think may happen is that it will drive hardware prices up in the future as there will be reduced demand - streaming will be the mainstream gamers, and hardware will be more of a niche, but a big one. But where I disagree is that MS is pushing "streaming", where in reality I see them weighing anchor there, and mostly trying to funnel people into their platform ecosystems. Much like Sony is with Now and PS, but also including PC, and promoting their digital model more than their physical model by adding value to it. I don't think that "streaming future" is close in terms of being the only option. I don't think it's even a theoretical possibility in the foreseeable future for technological and logistical reasons. I do see digital distribution being the most common distribution versus physical at some point.

Ultimately though, the market always chooses value and convenience over quality. ALWAYS. Whatever solution is the cheapest to get into, the cheapest to continue using, and the most conveneint to use is the one the market overall will pick. IF that means giving up quality, the market will gladly choose it. We saw it with music, then with movies, and probably next with gaming. Remember the early MP3 era when the sound quality was absolutely pure garbage with a metallic crackle in it? But the market chose it over Redbook audio.....it was cheap and convenient! (Now of course quality has caught up and options that even surpass Redbook exist.) And physical never vanished entirely. There may be a niche that prefer local gaming. But we won't be "most of the market" at that point.

OTOH, look at PC gaming for that world. PC has been digital-only for over a decade. Due to the existence of competing storefronts, prices have gone down, generally. People without great internet simply can't participate at all (thus consoles.) But that's at least one place we see that "future' existing without imploding. And PC gamers aren't exactly leaning into streaming. Quite the opposite, Intel, AMD, nVidia, Asus, etc, big financially influential entities, are very set on continuing escallating local PC (and console) gaming. It's a majorly profitable line for them. At some point though diminishing returns will be too extreme and the losses to going streaming won't be very visible.

@NEStalgia 😄-I'LL touch on a FEW things you said, but (Only a few...lol) so We can do this without you and I writing (literally) a books worth of responses back and forth, I would like to say this has been a pleasure to chat with you, on our like viewpoints as well as are differing viewpoints. I'll try to bullet point my comments.
(1.)- I have a PS4 Pro and an Xbox 1X, just sold the X with games to help pay for PS5 Pre-order. So I'm familiar with Xbox.
(2.)-Sony used streaming more because of lack of backwards compatibility(while profiting), instead of emulating like Xbox did
(3.)-Xbox is Focusing Now (Not Later) and in the Future on streaming games with X-Game-Pass like Android App with the (X)Cloud, (Unless Android phone's are as powerful as an Xbox), it's Streaming the games to it.👈(tiny touch of sarcasm)
(4.)-Sony is the one hedging bets by teaming up with and following Microsoft's led to use their massive (AZURE) Server Farm for Streaming.
(5.)-Your right, people in general are stupid and lazy, and will (unfortunately) most likely go for the easiest and cheapest (in this case)-gaming fix and quality be dammed, but with every system that I've owned, I personally buy physical gaming media only(barring dlc add ons) and I refuse to support(unlike this Gen) Xbox in any way with this New Generation, because I refuse to support the (overreaching) greed of ANY company that has the sole purpose of expedient profitability, while not caring if it's at the expense of "sacrificing quality" now or in the (Future) to Games and the Gaming Community that supports it.
Do what feels right to you, (it feels a little ungrateful and like I'm being suckered) it's just not for me. Again it's been fun,Take it easy brother✌!

@captainsandman completey agree. Just grab the ones taht get a free update. I'm not paying double for a standard game. I can see naughty dog doing this.

So when does the actual ps5 version come out as I ain't playing one old ass ps4 game on my ps5