PS5's Destruction AllStars Free with PS Plus, Delayed to February 2021

"where it’ll be available free for PlayStation Plus subscribers for two full months."....to confirm, does this mean it's only free to play for 2 months or you have 2 months to add it to your library to keep it forever?

Seems like a great idea! This game was gonna get destroyed in November. Will gladly give it a go in February!

will this have a physical version?

This is a very good call. Game looks fun, but was DoA in its original launch. Now way more people are going to play it. Might even have a Rocket League type success now.

@pushps5news Yes, there will be a physical edition.

@pushps5news It does but @ 70 bucks you may as well get it on plus imo. You can get 2 years for the price of the physical edition!!

I was hoping for this game to be my twisted metal fix

The best thing they could have done with this game, the way things were going it was dead on arrival as a £70 online multiplayer game with no fan base. At least this gives it a fighting chance when it does launch and will make it more secure for the future

I will definitely play this now!

@get2sammyb Thanks. This is definitely good news for the game I think.

Not going to lie, definitely wasn’t going to get this at launch. I’ll definitely play it as a ps+ game though!

Great decision and can't wait to try it!!!

@get2sammyb shows how badly they got it wrong I suppose

Nice!! This just went from ‘forgettable launch title’ to instant “download and try” just like Fall Guys (& most of Gamepass library)... Also guessing the micro transactions will be prevalent! Hope I’m wrong there.

Great news! I can't believe they're changing the launch plan of this game less than a month beforehand. And on PS Plus too, which is fantastic news. This has instantly made me much more excited for the game.

But, my follow-up question is: are they still going to charge the outrageous $70 for it after those two months are up?

Is there a PS4 version? Asking for a friend..

Yeah I was 100% not getting this game. Now I will 100% be getting it and I will most likely put time in as I am skipping CoD this year. Very good choice on Sony.

I thought looks flashy, maybe fun but not for $70. I will give it a whirl on plus though, if I can get a PS5 by February

What a pleasant surprise. It looks intriguing, but it was gonna get destroyed by the other launch titles.

As a PS Plus release it gets a guaranteed audience (hopefully it will be good enough to keep players)

I wonder what will happen with the system bundles that came with it?

Common sense prevails. This would have bombed at 70 pounds on launch. But as a plus release it will find a decent audience. Well done Sony. You have attracted plenty of heat recently, but this is smart

Hi there fellow gamers. This is indeed good news, for both the game and gamers alike.
This way it is another game to add in PS plus collection, it is a brand new PS5 title and more people will actualy give the game a fair chance.
Even I´m excited now to try the game in February.
Really smart decision by Sony and Lucid Games.
Starting to counting the days for November 19th.
It´s getting real folks.
Cheers, stay safe and happy gaming to us all

Nothing but a good thing.

I first saw this title (force) bundled with the PS5 at GameStop; I wonder what their play is here? It's not a launch title so it won't be able to be part of the bundle at launch. It's also free when it does launch, and being an online multiplayer title doesn't really benefit from a physical copy (and you need PS+ to play it); so I am curious as to what GameStop does with those bundles, or if they stick to their guns and force early buyers to get a copy of a game anyway?

Definitely a great change. I will definitely play this now 😁

Hopefully I’ll actually have a PS5 by then 😉

@thedevilsjester nobody is too concerned with the people who purchased bundles of $800+ And might lose out on 70 bucks, that’s the GameStop tax

Someone totally called it on here 😂😂

@thedevilsjester Sackboy would be my guess for a replacement title. Which wpuld be pretty incredible as that game looks ace.

Good plan. Didn't have much interest in this, and zero chance I would have ever bought it in all likelihood. Will give a whirl on plus though.

@RaZieLDaNtE its advantageous for Sony too because its another first party title they can launch within the first 6 months or so of the console to try and stop people shouting that there are no games. A steady drop of releases in the first few months is going to be really important for momentum. I am hoping Ratchet will be a December or January title too, given Sony said it would be released within the launch window. And then Horizon Forbidden West as we get to May-July, with God of War as the big holiday release in Sept- Nov 2021. Sony will want something like that to combat Halo Infinite (xbox) and Breath of the Wild 2 (switch)

Do you think we have something to do with this change? Can remember how everybody here – including me – was like "This is 70 bucks? Thats gonna be a flop…"

Seems like it will be a game as a service type of deal.

Hopefully sony does it well

Suddenly my interest in this game went from 0 to about 2

@2cents I would be concerned if I had bought one. The bundles were "fine", many people are going to get most of the accessories anyway; but I stayed away because I didn't want to waste $70 on what looks to be a throw-away title. Buying a bundle with things you are already going to get anyway, doesn't mean that you should be charged an extra $70.

This is great news

Am I the only one that sees the irony of "games will be $70, and subscription models can't work for us" changing to "launch game, free for subscribers starting February!"?

And PS fans going from "Game Pass is evil and wants to take away games and make them subscription only!" to cheering on a PS5 launch game launching free for subscribers?

See, that, customer-friendliness is a good thing after all!

This game went from IDGAF, what on earth are they smoking to think they can get $70 for this thing, to "hey, I'll give it a try!" Maybe they're slowly learning that the carrot can be more profitable than the stick, after all......maybe.

I still dont know what this game even is ... O_O

Remember driveclub was meant to be the first ps plus for PS4. Then it was delayed and only half the game.

This game needs to be thrown in for free Digitally with every console/Playstation Plus subscription.

Perfect! I called it. I mentioned them seeing it as a bad idea as a regular launch game and making it a Plus game. Sony’s starting ti get their head out of the cloud a bit with some things. This will also provide a new game a few months into the PS5 being out.
This will neat to try with Plus.

@NEStalgia Its not a fair comparison.

First, this isn't a big title from a major developer that is worth jumping into for $70 out of the gate. This move makes sense for an unknown, online multiplayer title, from a developer that doesn't have a history of block buster titles. Its only going to thrive if it has a huge player base, its not going to get that at $70.

Second, subscription models will lose a lot of money on big block buster titles; the games that Sony first party are known for. So it absolutely doesn't make sense for Sony.

I think everyone knew this was the best for the game, mainly because it doesn’t look like a full game but more like a surprise mechanics game

That's how you deal with a delayed launch game not like Halo Infinite.

Good news always thought it should have been a plus title

another perfect PS+ game. now, i can't wait for this one.

The strategy worked for Fall Guys.

This should have been a free to play game. It will be popular with early adapters and hopefully pick up a decent player base. For $70 nobody would touch it unless it's really good or proven popular with streamers

This is the right decision. I'm guessing some stinking pre-order sales have forced their hand. It's now gone from a game that would have died a quick death to a game that could do really well if it's actually any good.

This has Driveclub vibes to me. Hope it turns out better for this developer.

@Rob_230 Hi there friend.
Yeah, the launch window for PS5 it´s already looking quite promising.
With games like Returnal, Gran Turismo 7, Rachet and Clank: Rift Appart, Deathloop, Horizon Forbidden West and with the possibility of both God of War Ragnarok and
Final Fantasy 16, it´s gonna be insane.
Here´s hoping Halo Infinite to be as good as it should be and as for Breath of the Wild 2..... GIVE IT TO ME NOW. Pretty please.
Cheers, stay safe and all the best

@thedevilsjester As of yesterday this was a game that as far as anyone knew was $70 to get into. You could have even placed your preorder by now. I certainly agree that it shouldn't be and it seems thankfully they've agreed with that finally.....but that's what they told us it was to be.

As for the returns on subscription models, that's a more open debate as to how much revenue it pulls in in subs, how well the loss leaders work in generating subs, and how much money Sony Actually makes from those games. They sell ok in numbers, but Sony heavily discounts those games already to achieve those numbers which still aren't industry leading numbers. In a sense, Sony already uses their own games as a loss leader the same way a subscription does. HzD was like half price within 3 months of launch. They're not making as much bank on their first party as it seems. The big money in the console business is, and has always been, on licensing 3rd party games. Has been since the Atari 2600. Everything else is just different monetization mechanisms for getting those licensed sales to a large install base.

But my point was really the irony of the reactions, and the fact that they're turning on a dime. Not the individual justification for the business reasons for it.

An online game like this lives or dies by its community. Now we know that if it’s good it will succeed. Where as before the was always a concern not enough other people would be willing to pay full price and it would therefore be dead on arrival. Even if it was theoretically a good game. I’ll certainly try it out when it arrives on PlayStation plus.

I'll be honest, I wasn't intending to get this at all but thanks to this I will give it a try

Doesnt surprise me given how little footage had been shown for a launch game. The decision to make it a PS+ game is great news!

I think this was always the plan, not sure even being on ps plus will save it though

Will there still be a physical release as originally planned?

Completely fine with this. This has changed this game from never gonna play to will definitely give it a go.

@NEStalgia You’d have to only buy one game a year for gamepass it work. At two new full priced game a year you’ve equaled gamepass subscription. It requires you to get most poeple to spend more money than otherwise. You’re already bugging those couple of game a most likely if you bought a expensive gaming console. It’s not like Apple Music or Netflix where you can already stream it.
It really isn’t sustainable for gaming. It doesn’t take a lot lot to realize every big game that made money (many first games sell millions within a few days) will be loss leaders for games that made some money or broke even. It will mess up gaming the variety we have with games that aren’t on it but need to be full price.
For this case, it was a MP game that looked to be dead on arrival. A game that would fail. It’s being turned into what it always looked like. This will be a be beneficial to Sony since there won’t be as many games at launch. If it works it’ll also be a game everyone has and can talk about, uncontested for the most part.
Put God of War on Plus at launch, then we have a potential issue.

Well, that's officially the first Plus game on PS5 that I won't be bothering with.

The whole 3 people who pre ordered this will be miffed.

Looked rough in the UI demo (the feet are clipping through the floor for a start) and with all the bad press and lack of any details to even try to justify that price point, this sounds like the best option and try and turn that negativity around...

Certainly wouldn't have bought but may add to my PS+ queue - whether I actually play it or not though, time will tell but so far, I have seen nothing to entice me - even Free on PS+ with ALL the other games I could spend time on instead...

Cool, I like free games, the game looks like twisted metal but for all ages 😃

Not really my kind of game, but wouldn't it have been better to add it to PS Collection instead? 🤷🏻‍♂️

So glad with this decision, it would've been DOA for a $70 and it's a smart move for Sony. Recently I noticed we're getting more and more free multiplayer games from Ghost of Tsushima Legends, The Last of Us Part II Multiplayer and Destruction All Stars.

Wasn't considering this as a full game purchase, but I will definitely get this as a free game.

It seems likely that the game will have micro transactions, and to support the devs and Sony, I will probably make a small purchase of 10-20 dollars. Well played Sony.

YES!!!
This is awesome news.
Very happy about it

I question if Sony had any intention of this being a launch game. And if they did, at what point did they figure out it wouldn’t be ready, announcing this 3 weeks from launch?

Crap, I won this game in a doritos sweepstake.
As I am psplus day one that win means nothing anymore.
I'll slide into a depression and silently look out the window with one hand on the glass now.

@Waa-Laa No? That's old PS4 games. And I'm not sure if you have them permanently or not. I'm kinda lost on the idea if you don't. I'd much rather it be on the service in a permanent way once you claim it.

@NEStalgia Sony isn't turning on a dime here, Sony's comment was about their games and what is best for them (their first parties), and this is not a first party title, its third party, but published by Sony. What is not good for one party, might be the perfect choice for another, that doesn't make either choice the best one for everyone.

@Jaz007 What sales models work, and how they do or don't is too broad a topic to cover as an aside in this comments section. I don't mean to come across as a subscription advocate - personally I find it questionable whether or not it works for me, and lead toward "no", but I can also see a broad swath of gamers it would work out for very well (the average gamer buys 2 or less games a year, and for the same money they get to play tons of games with a subscription model. It doesn't work so well for me who buys dozens of games a year and has a backlog in the hundreds. Technically if I never bought a new game until PS6 Slim I'd still probably have a backlog to work through... )

But I also think people that write the model off as unsustainable aren't looking at the whole picture of how that system works from a monetization point of view, tend to conflate GP specifically as a "Netflix" and streaming service rather than a rental service, and that fact that it can be a mutually beneficial arrangement both to a certain faction of players, and to the subscription provider, and doesn't work to the exclusion of traditional purchases.

What I find hypocritical is largely the player stance waffling on the idea of being hardline against it unless Sony does it, and then it's amazing. Which is a common thread in the PS fanbase. I can understand the company's own business case.

Whether it would work or not for Sony if they put GoW on it....I don't think it's as impossible to work for them as they say. I don't mean to say it would be the right model for them, I just mean I don't think it would inherently be the wrong model. They had Now before MS had streaming, or GP, and they've modified Now to be more like GP, but they've, so far, refused to go all the way with it. They dip their toes in, I think out of fear of upsetting the apple cart, which is understandable, rather than because it truly can't work to their benefit as well as customer's. If they were Nintendo and never ever ran sales on their own games, I would see their point. But they're not. They cut prices deeply, moreso than most publishers, in fact, and thus have a model that's not actually so different in how it's employed. Both GP's subscription inclusion and Sony's deep discounts on 1st party work the same way from a loss-leading perspective, so I'm unconvinced of the absolute "that wouldn't work for us" stance.

Again, to be clear, I'm not advocating for or against that model. I just question the hardline positions from the company in light of their own model, and I chuckle at the flat hypocrisy of the fans.

Could be good if it's to polish the game more.

However, I still don't think pricing the game $70 was a good idea. Atleast make it $50 or something. Or just make it free to play. I'm just worried that it might suffer the same fate as Drawn to Death.

That's great news, now what I want to know is if we are able to add it to our collection from our PS4, phone, browser? Maybe Sony says " oh btw you need a PS5 to add PS5 games to your collection, so sorry 😜"

Well Gamestop better get on this, I have one of their PS5 bundles, which includes this game and a PS+ membership card included in it. It better not still charge me for the friggin game on launch day and say "It will arrive in February!" when the PS+ membership will get me it for free.

A few people mentioned this game would been best as a ps plus game and they were right funny things is someone or some people decided the same at sony.

Driveclub all over again?

@NEStalgia Sony's games have already make back their budget normally by the first month and have turned a nice profit. Sales aren't loss leaders, it's getting more income from people who weren't gonna buy the game at full price. A loss leader takes just that, a loss. a game's value depreciates with time. Sony's sales don't incur any sort of loss on the game, it just increases sales and profits for that game, which is the opposite of a loss leader. Having a little bit of extra sales maybe could be viewed as the same idea slightly, but the cost is at most a small opportunity cost while it still makes money with no actual loss.
You also mentioned that's a good deal for the regular gamer. Yes, it's a good deal. That's the problem. It involves so many loss-leaders to be worthwhile that eventually, you'll be lucky to pay for the loss leaders with the revenue. It's not sustainable to have these big AAA games coming more and more on a service like that for $10 a month. Something has to give after the losses for so long. They're hard-pressed to get more money out of people than they would otherwise. And when they do it's a loss to people who would have spent more money and bought the title at full price or half price or something.
Nintendo also puts me off with their lack of sales. If I didn't pay $60 at first, I won't a lot later. If you ask me, they ignore depreciation and the equilibrium a bit, but hey, they have results so maybe I'm wrong there. There's long term that can go wrong, if I'm right then they just makes less profit than they could otherwise, but not something unsustainable by any stretch of the imagination because the games don't take long to turn a profit.
I'm also against Sony doing it and the revolving library of games. I haven't seen that hypocrisy because Sony hasn't done it. This case is hardly showing that hypocrisy.

... this is great news for it... as a new IP (and an MP one at that) - it's always difficult (OnRush for example)... and it was always going to struggle against the likes of Demon's Souls, Miles and Sackboy... this way it allows more people to buy a PS5 and for us to get the rush of new titles out of the way... and hopefully a fantastic MP game to dip in / out of (it looks like the new Rocket League vs Twisted Metal to me!) so it's all good... and you can't beat free! No complaints here and it almost feels a little like a reward for sticking with them...

@NEStalgia

Razor and blades. Tom Kalinske said it best when he was running Sega of America.

Too bad he wasn’t put in charge of Sega of Japan. Maybe they’d still be around today.

@Jaz007 I'm not sure the subscription/"loss" model is any different in terms of how rapidly a large enough subscriber base can offset those losses and turn it to profit though. Again that's a larger, off topic conversation, but it's always frustrating seeing so many people write off the model while trying to box it into the same scale for revenues. At some point the amount of revenues off the subscriber base meets or exceeds that "initial whale sales followed by sales at deep promotional discounts" threshold. And more importantly a stable, predictable revenue stream is much more easily invested to compound those earnings than unreliable periodic sales spikes. There's a lot that goes into that model (which isn't outside Sony's own wheelhouse....they're a finanical firm first and foremost.)

In MS's case, they've stated that it boosts actual sales of the games themselves in addition to the subscription money, which, I'm sure is down to the rotating catalogue. $180/yr (GP + Live) is a a significant chunk of annual spend for the average gamer that buys 1-2 games. But it's also a better value to said gamer for the same amount of money. And along the way, the gamer provides steady revenue, and may also choose to purchase other games in the process they wouldn't have (sales data confirms they do.)

Your concers aren't entirely invalid, but I think it's an oversimplification to write that model off entirely either. It's not as inherently unsusstainable as people knee-jerk to believe. It's a rental service at its fore, the first party games are loss leaders, yes, but only until subscription volume reaches critical mass. MS has an easier time of that with console, PC, and now streaming customer bases. For Sony they have a smaller market to monetize in that regard, though that's somewhat strange since they were there first with a streaming service. An underutilized streaming service they intentionally gimp.

Agreed about Nintendo and the lack of depreciation though. Nintendos' view is that games do not depreciate in value, and other companies have failed to uphold the value of their games. Their idea is specifically that a game that's worht $60 today is worth $60 10 years from now, it's still the same game. In that sense, Sony is a bit more economical respecting depreciation, even more rapidly than other major publishers. For them it works. For Sony it would probably work too these days. If people will pay $60 for Pikmin & Knuckles almost a decade later, why wouldn't they pay $50 for GoW?

But when you really really look at it all. The Sony model vs the MS model - the budget gamer either pays their $10-15/mo and gets access to those first party games and gets to try tons of others at a rental value, and possibly buys some, with MS's model. Or the value gamer sits back and waits for those 1st party games at $30 or less and probably tries less other games and buys less other games. The total revenue into the store, then.....isn't that different across the board. The perception of value to the consumer may (or may not) be better to a given customer under either model. And the steady revenue is more beneficial to the company than unpredictable revenue.

The short of it is: I think neither model inherently has an advantage in terms of profitability, and I'd argue MS's model, long-term has a larger profit advantage (just indirectly through finance.) As for which is a better deal for the consumer, I think it depends on the consumer.

@AJDarkstar Agreed. It was certainly radical thinking. But I also believe it does have more long term profit potential overall once it hits scale. Never underestimate the investor value of a stable revenue stream. Investors would actually rather make less total gross but have it predictable than operate in stops and starts. Compounding stable earnings is "simple." Compounding the traditional spikes of consumer entertainment is almost impossible. Why do you think Plus and Live exist?

I had zero interest in this game, but for free I’ll definitely check it out.

It's good news. I couldn't justify $125 for this game anyway. Although it kind of does interest me, except for the price structure it was.

Hopefully i will be able to get my hands on a PS5 by then. I was a bit slow on pre ordering, mainly because of Sony's silence. But i am a ps plus subscriber, so hopefully i will be able to add it to my library even if i don't have a ps5 yet. In the same way ive added vita games in the past even though i never owned a vita.

Can you add free PS5 Ps+ games to your accoun5 from your PS4? If not, PS Plus just get even more useless. I mean, Sony keep offering free ps4 games I already have with PS Now and then they will offer free PS 5 games I can't add because I don't own the console. What a sweet deal!

Translation: "Absolutely no one had pre-ordered this game, so in the hope that people might actually eventually play it, we have decided to give it away on Plus instead."

Sweet. Looks an interesting game. We shall see in February how fun this is.

That's good. There's no way I was going to pay full rrp for it.

Definitly a good call. No one was going to buy this game at launch. NO ONE. With Spidey and Dark Souls, it was gonna bomb big time. (for the same reason the UBI games, Assassin's and Watch Dogs are gonna sell more, in my opinion, on Xbox).

This is a PS+ game in its core, we all can see it. And on PS+, it's gonna be a success.

Very clever move.