Sony CFO Hiroki Totoki has backed comments made by PlayStation boss Jim Ryan that the quality of PS5, PS4 first-party titles will worsen should they be released straight into the company's revamped PS Plus service on day one. As part of Sony's latest earnings call, Totoki said Sony may have to reduce its investments in exclusive games if they were available day one on a subscription service. This would then have a knock-on effect on the overall quality of each title.
The quote reads: "AAA titles on PS5, if we distribute that on subscription services we may need to shrink the investment needed for that and that will deteriorate the first-party title quality and that is our concern." Instead, Totoki says Sony wants to lend its projects the correct development budgets to ensure they reach the company's standards.
These comments support those of Jim Ryan, who explained the company's strategy in an interview when the new PS Plus Extra and PS Plus Premium tiers were revealed in March. "We feel if we were to do that with the games that we make at PlayStation Studios […] the level of investment that we need to make in our studios would not be possible, and we think the knock-on effect on the quality of the games that we make would not be something that gamers want," he said.
We're now just a few weeks away from the PS Plus glow up actually releasing to consumers — at least in select Asian territories — and we're still none the wiser as to what the vast majority of the catalogue looks like. We know PS Plus Extra will come packaged with up to 400 PS5, PS4 games but just six of them have been disclosed so far: Death Stranding, God of War, Marvel's Spider-Man, Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales, Mortal Kombat 11, and Returnal.
As for PS Plus Premium, the most expensive tier then bolts another 340 PS1, PS2, PS3, and PSP titles on top. None of them have been announced at the time of writing, but a load of Syphon Filter games could be part of the lineup. From Sony's point of view, however, the firm is adamant none of the games included in the service will be day and date PS5, PS4 exclusives.
[source irwebmeeting.com, via twitter.com]
I would hate to see the quality of these games reduced.
I get my indie and AA games from other sources. I come to Sony for AAA because they push that envelope hard.
If they can eventually get these games on PS Plus Day 1 without cutting any corners, great.
If it can't be done, I'm okay with that.
Fair call. 3 months after their release would be great for users though. Definitely any more or even 6 months would be a bit of a piss take though. New games (I prefer to wait a few months anyway for optimisation post launch) are king and what people spend the most money on so they need to work something out as the future is definitely digital and subscription based if they like it or not. I say whether they like it or not as you know that’s where Microsoft is headed and they got way deeper pockets that Sony
I completely agree - many people won't i'm sure - but i don't see how quality can be sustained if they drop games day 1 into the service - and i hope it doesnt happen. Otherwise it results in half finished games dropping like Halo Infinite.
Maybe Microsoft will prove me wrong over the next few years as their first party titles start to drop, but i currently don't see it as a sustainable model
@Shepherd_Tallon Don't hold your breath for that. I don't think its happening anytime soon unless Sony had money like MS.
I can definitely believe this, I have noticed that my favourite Xbox Game Studios games over the past decade are mostly from before Game Pass existed. Like I definitely think that Forza Horizon 3 is the best Forza game and that came out before Game Pass (FH3 launched in September 2016, Game Pass was announced in late February 2017 for release in June 2017).
Totally agree ,you only have to look at the crap on game pass ,imagine having to pay 60 for halo infinite nobody would pay full price for that snore fest,18 months would be the sweet spot I feel.
Sony is a poor company compared to Microsoft
He's correct and halo Infinite is a perfect example, and Sony don't have the billions that Microsoft have to cover any losses. Microsoft are spending billions on gamepass right now and losing money just so they can get that subscriber count up
IF I had to choose, I'd rather spend £140 on two amazing playstation exclusives a year than get a years worth of gamepass ultimate which is full of indies and has no big third party day one releases
I can see the reasoning behinds Sonys approach for this. Imo this is the reason why Xbox games have been poor, hence the way that halo infinite was half finished & rushed just so that it can be put on game pass & eventually worked on. Even now the multiplayer is still a shell of what was promised. As-long as Sony keep putting out their quality 1st party games-I’m cool with Sonys approach.
Of course we would want like big games at reduced prices but not if it has a negative effect on the overall quality and ambition.
I bought both HFW and GT 7 upon release and they're worth ever single penny spent and then some. I'm sure GoW Ragnarok will be the same.
Of course we live in turbulent times and the cost of living continues to increase, so it's understandable why some gamers will be looking at ways of cutting spending and looking at 'cheaper' options.
I wouldn't want to see a neutered God of War or Spider-Man but that's not the case for all. I hope Sony's strategy works for them but time will tell.
Some fans might disagree but he's right.
If you look at the big 1st party titles on Gamepass like Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon and Halo Infinite, they all might have a single player component (and are all great games) but they are clearly designed with service-level engagement at their core, if nothing else but to continue Gamepass subs.
Compare this to Sony and its massive single player titles and their design specs would change to suit the ongoing sub rather than the day one sale.
His statement seems to ignore the fact that Microsoft were the number 1 rated publisher last year according to metacritic
@Cyrus29 @UltimateOtaku91 "Halo Infinite"
Are you two of the opinion that Halo 5 rivaled PS 1st party games in quality and finished-ness?
I think that the PlayStation executives moved into a tricky situation: The ambitions for visual presentation are so extremely high, and the game worlds became so huge, that the budgets must be very high to meet this. On the other side, Jim Ryan complains that Spider Man doesn’t sell 30m or more units. These high budgets lead to games with low risk, no gameplay experiments. Ratchet and Clank, Horizon Forbidden West, GT7, probably God of War Ragnarök, all more or less the same as the games before, but nicer looking and bigger, but a bit samey.
Nintendo has much lower budgets for their games, with similar sales numbers. They can risk more, and they do, at least more often than Sony.
@BReal The future is absolutely not set to be subscription-based. Right now we are at a cross-road. The premium model is proven to work, the subscription model has never been proven to work as a sustainable business model. If anything, it is clear that subscription is becoming a more important sector.
Also another thing to consider is that playstation spend way more on making their games and marketing, I mean look at the Horizon zero dawn and forbidden West games, I've never played anything that looks that good at and that big of a game on xbox
It can go both ways of course - everyone trashing Halo but Forza Horizon 5, Gears 5, Gears Tactics and Flight Sim are quality products. They even added Hivebusters to Gears 5. Not bringing in Psychonauts as that was developed separately. But just because it works for Xbox doesn’t mean it would work for Playstation so his comments make sense (financially I assume).
@Grumblevolcano Game Pass has been around for a few years now and the day one games are not the selling point. People get it for a constant supply of mediocre to good games for a low price. It is good at what it does, but day one releases are not that appealing at present.
@Col_McCafferty What I would like to see rather than a huge God of War or Last of us would be two smaller God of War games spread out. Sony should do more of those interstitial games like Uncharted lost legacy. I'd be more than happy to reduce the number of 40+ hour games for more frequent 10+ hour games.
@Richnj Halo 5 stuck to the original halo linear formula, whilst halo infinite had to be delayed a year because they were going to release it looking like a 360 game, and the open world in infinite is just so bland and feels low budget and rushed.
And then there's the multiplayer component which isn't even complete and has had backlash from fans yet 5 didn't have that problem
Halo 5 is a better complete package than halo infinite and I'd definitely say its a better AAA game, not high budget like sonys games but definitely seems like it had more budget than infinite
@Apfelschteiner mate i’ve been wanting Sony and Microsoft to both do that with their IPs. At least test it out. Smaller concentrated experiences (and more of them!).
@Richnj no far from it. But I personally found halo 5 as a far better game then infinite.
@Apfelschteiner you're entitled to your opinion but I couldn't disagree more. Less isn't always more and for me the likes of Lost Legacy and Miles Morales are inferior to the mainline games which spawned them.
I want a proper gaming experience, a proper epic story which takes weeks it not months to complete. People are impatient nowadays and FOMO is a big thing, got to finish the next IN thing quickly in order to move onto the next one and so on.
@K1LLEGAL Apparently even Psychonauts 2 benefitted greatly from funding. Tim Schafer stated that without the Big M's money they would've had to cut out a lot of things, like all the boss fights.
@Col_McCafferty mile morales and lost legacy should of been dlc for their main games, akin to ghost of tsushima's iki Island and horizon zero dawns frozen wilds.
@UltimateOtaku91 well maybe although there was already Spidey DLC that should have been in the main game to start with. The bigger 'sin' is that Spidey wasn't upgraded to PS5 for free and they changed Peter's face!
I do think Sony should invest in 'smaller' games but that's in addition to their current practice not instead of.
Well said, completely agree. Sony's AAA games are their USP and as you said they seem to push the boundary here more often. Don't want to see that change, even if that means paying more than a subscription service. Though I would like to see more AA, unique and quirky games from them.
Personally i'm also happy that Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo are all doing slightly different approaches rather than all following the same ethos. Game Pass is great, i'm a long time subscriber, but it's not the only valid approach.
That’s fair and fine, but I’d like Sony to branch out into AA rated smaller games where they can take a few more risks (and perhaps put them day one one the service, although that bit doesn’t really bother me)
@Col_McCafferty I just feel like almost all games are longer than they should be and as I have limited time I find games that I would have been happy to have as a kid just direspect my time. Every so often I will play a 100+ hour game, but that is a once in a few years occurance for me.
@themightyant I agree. I like that they all offer something different now and I don't want them to mirror each other at all.
Game Pass is there. It exists already. We don't need another one.
Let Sony and Nintendo take a different approach and offer us something else.
@Cyrus29 @UltimateOtaku91 "I'd definitely say its a better AAA game"
Both critics and fans agree that Halo Infinite is better than both Halo 4 and 5. So while your opinion is valid for you guys, in general, you'd be wrong.
"And then there's the multiplayer component which isn't even complete and has had backlash from fans yet 5 didn't have that problem"
Yes it did. It released with massive amounts of content missing. No BTB, like 3 game types, and a small number of maps, and was missing Forge. When it launched, Halo 5 got plenty of backlash for its MP.
"Halo 5 stuck to the original halo linear formula"
I'm not sure what the connection between linear and open world designs and Gamer Pass is. Are Horizon and Spider-man not open world games?
My point, Halo Infinite is a product of its studio (and is apparently, their best work so far), it's quality can't be used as representative of Game Pass games, and how it reduced quality.
@Richnj Halo 5's biggest problem was that Microsoft forced 343 to change the story late in development. The original story which was lining up with the Hunt the Truth marketing probably would've turned out better. Multiplayer is definitely better than Infinite at the moment.
@Apfelschteiner The main draw of Game Pass is the price of entry being cheaper than the price you'd pay for the games you'd want. 12 months without using the loopholes Xbox have promoted is £132 (with the loopholes it's £51) so if you don't care about permanent ownership you only need a few games you want that are on Game Pass for Game Pass to be a more suitable option.
I don't subscribe because I prefer to own things and also if a game comes to Switch I'd much rather get the Switch version (e.g. not getting Tunic on Xbox as I'm waiting for a Switch version instead when the timed exclusivity period is over).
@UltimateOtaku91 Or Iki Island should have been a standalone game. Everything else aside, it's annoying to keep the save data for the main game on your hard drive to access the DLC.
@themightyant Sony don't want quirky AA anymore. That's why they got rid of Japan Studio.
Removed - inappropriate
@Shepherd_Tallon That's absolutely how I see it.
Gamepass has the finances to buy up some 3rd party titles, but its telling how few 1st party titles there are, and none of them push the bar like the 1st party ps5 titles we've had imo. Even the best of them, FH5 I have to play @30hz on series X as the pop in is too noticable for me otherwise (though I play @4K 60 on PC).
I'd prefer it if they kept their big investments into AAA games - they are the titles I'm most excited for each new gen. Like most, I had already concluded that they would not be able to release 1st party big titles directly to a sub service, so I'm happy they are recognising that.
Of course I'm only happy as I can afford to buy the games I want. I recognise that many others with tighter budgets might have wanted Sony to 'scale back' the vision for their 1st party titles so they can launch direct to the sub service and be available for those with tighter budgets. I'm sorry for them, but I still believe Sony's future is making big budget 'shoot for the stars' titles which will need the return on the investment required to produce them.
@Grumblevolcano I'd need a citation that a major rewrite took place. The Hunt the Truth marketing could very well have just been a marketing team doing a better job than the actual writers.
And honestly, I have long insisted that Halo Infinite was fully rebooted in 2018, hence why it was in such rough shape and ended up getting delayed. And I'd point to the, new naming, early tech reveal and teaser as evidence for that. MS were essentially announcing the new reboot and as a result, had zero gameplay to show for it.
In both cases, I'd still say that the games are a product of their studio, and not Game Pass.
I'm sure people on the Internet know better than a top-ranking financial executive at Sony, though.
@get2sammyb We always do sammy!
@Max_the_German Is it really true that Nintendo experiments more than Sony? Really?
@K1LLEGAL gears 5 single player is garbage a lot of people aren't interested in mp ,bland story ,empty boring world ,and those sled section driving over a red or brown barren landscape...just ugh
I’ve thought for a while that certain games made for XBox game pass would be limited, partially due to budget, and because they probably don’t want a 100 hour game dominating players time unless they’re spending money on micro transactions. Also logically you would think Microsoft will only want to drip feed so many games a year in the long run instead of throwing all the Bethesda, Activision and Xbox in-house productions at the wall at once. At the moment Xbox is just stuffing old and new games on it they have that are ready to get the numbers up, but you would think it’ll be more reserved eventually to really make money.
@get2sammyb didn’t you know, laymen with little to no relevant information always know more than people with all the pertinent information! It’s common sense really 😉
Yeah. Tell that to the 80€ microtransaction-riddled GT7 vs. almost microtransaction-free, in GP Day One, Forza Horizon 5.
Main thing is not "we would need to decrease spending." Main thing is "profit margins would be lower."
In reference to Nintendo experimenting more than Sony, I would say they both try to experiment, Sony with VR, Controller tech, and services- whereas Nintendo has experimented with Fitness add ons like the balance board and Ring Fit, Toys To Life, and Cardboard pianos that connect to the game. I think it’s fair to say Nintendo has a lot wackier ideas. Sony is more about taking an current idea and developing it, where Nintendo jump about all over the place.
@Max_the_German not to forget Nintendo release more exclusives every year than sony and Microsoft as well, and there price doesn't drop at all, and facts speak for themselves that Nintendo games sell more than playstation and xbox games do, look at Mario kart 8 deluxe and animal crossing with over 30 million sold each plus smash bros ultimate at over 20 million sold, pokemon sword and shield over 24 million sold, mario odyssey at 23 million sold, Breath of the wild over 24 million sold, even warrior spin off has sold over 4 million sales.
Sales figures sony and Microsoft could only dream of, yet those games aren't graphically the best and get frequent releases without much difference in gameplay and I'd wager have a way lower budget than sonys and Microsofts games do, so why do they sell so well?
@Richnj I understand your point as valid. But my own personal thoughts on halo infinite are also valid.
@Richnj not their best work according to metacritic, Halo infinite scored a 87
Halo 3 - 94
Halo 4 - 87
Halo 5 - 84
Halo combat evolved - 97
Halo Reach - 91
Halo 2 - 95
Spin offs scored lower, but out of the main games infinite scored the second lowest.
@tallythwack a lot of people aren’t interested in Flight Sim or even something like Death Stranding but they can still be quality products.
Concrete Genie, Astro bot and Sackboy disagree with you. They also help fund 3rd party titles like Erica, Medievil and Kena: Bridge of Spirits. But I would like to see more in this space and more Japanese zaniness.
Also they didn't entirely close Japan Studio, they restructured it under Team Asobi. By then Japan Studio was a shadow of it's former glory days with most top staff having moved on. Their releases had become less frequent and less meaningful. While I loved Gravity Rush, in their last decade they had mostly become a porting and support studio, frankly it needed a shake up. I hope with a different structure we will start to see better games again from those developers.
@UltimateOtaku91 Jeez you really hate Halo Infinite so much that you have to prove public opinion wrong?
Also since when were metacritic scores the definitive opinion of a game's quality? I've seen IGN and Gamespot give bad or mediocre ratings to great games.
And yet somehow MS can do it.
I guess Sony is pretty broke.
Sony is a business, not a charity. Why on earth would they sacrifice millions of dollars in profits by putting new AAA titles on a subscription service when they can sell them at $70 a pop at retail and on their digital store? Sony’s big hitters will no doubt come to their subscription service eventually but only after actual sales really start to dry up… anyone who thinks they are inclined (or in a position) to give up a fortune in revenue like Microsoft to garner good will and subscribers needs a reality check in my opinion…
The reality is their pockets aren't as deep as Xbox to dump everything day 1 on a sub. The other reality is Xbox, outside Forza and Gears, hasn't came close to the level of quality that Playstation Studios puts out consistently. I think it's funny that Nintendo gets zero heat regarding this 1st party subscription nonsense
@sword_9mm More like Xbox is broke but MS is rich. Xbox doesn't even post its profits from the division because they lose tons of money each year.
@HotGoomba the person I was replying to said apparently halo infinite is their best work, not their own opinion, and I used metacritic as it pulls many review scires to give an average which is more credible than using multiple single sites.
Halo infinite score is still above average but I was just pointing out that in terms of the main series its not viewed or scored as the as the best and infact has scored lower than previous entries but 1.
And I don't hate halo infinite, I've played the game for 8 hours and I just don't get the hype, the story is OK and the gameplay is tight but the graphics and the open world arent up to standard of current AAA games and the multiplayer is bare bones and has problems.
@UltimateOtaku91 pretty sure he was talking about 343 Studios.
@Grumblevolcano that’s your personal opinion about FH (and I also like FH3 the best). But gamepass so far is definitely not proof of Xbox first party quality dropping because we prefer FH3 over FH5. Last year all the games that hit gamepass day one were critically acclaimed - all in the GOTY conversations. Some winning awards. More so than any other year I can remember last gen…where MS first party support was minimal.
Syphon filter .cant wait to play my favorite ps1 games ever.and parasite eves needs to there also.word up son
Just look at the overall quality of Microsoft's exclusives released on GP and you'll see it's a fair argument.
The only one that's maintained its quality is Forza. Everything else? Gears? Halo? Shells of their former quality selves. Even third party exclusives like Outriders are failing to turn a profit.
I think Sony knows what they're doing.
I can see why this would be a concern for PlayStation only owners. And Sony can see it too…which is why they play up to it so much - they sold you the same ‘ensuring quality’ line when they raised the price of games to £70 whilst other platforms did not. They sold you the same line about quality when they charged for upgrades from ps4 to ps5 first party titles.
It’s a line that instantly gets early adopters of the ps5, of new subscription services, on board as it plays into fears.
Maybe there’s truth in it. Maybe it will risk quality releasing games day 1 on the subs. But then what the narrative be if/when they do release games day1?
Tbh I’m surprised we’ve not had a statement out announcing day1 pc releases to ensure the quality of first party games. When we do (which we will) I wonder if the same voices will defend the decision.
It’s also going to be interesting to see what this means for their live service games which they’ve repeatedly said they’re going to be investing in this gen. Those will not be f2p? If they are does that mean the quality of them will be terrible?
This gen is going to be an interesting one. Thankfully there’s decent options competing for my money.
We´re talking about Sony first party exclusive games, and Sony has a clear strategy about this, but I cant see why third party games, like Assassins Creed, or Resident Evil, cant be day one on plus.
@UltimateOtaku91 probably because those games are the reason why many people buy a Nintendo in the first place, it's certainly not for third party games is it?
Nintendo aren't really aiming at the same crowd as Sony/MS, at least not as the main console but in support of. Also, if you're not interested in Mario games and Animal Crossing and Zelda why own a Nintendo in the first place?
@Gbarsotini because the asking price for doing so would be prohibitive. It’s a cost/benefit argument really. Would spending 50-100 million to get it day one on the service benefit in the short term? Long term? How would that investment perform elsewhere?
Most companies don’t have 70 billion dollars to buy publishers or the investor leeway to have an endless subsidy to lose money on a constant basis either.
Gotta keep that first party polish that so many of Sony's exclusives have.
100% agree, no lies detected.
@MarcG420 Yeah, I don´t know really. Maybe you´re right. And Sony must know what they´re doing. But on the other hand, they already help financially and already hold some exclusivity in some games, for example, Final Fantasy XVI. I wouldn't mind if some of these were day one on the platform. I say this more to attract people to the new Plus, and mitigate a little of this day one subject. I particularly always buy my games in physical media, even after playing them on PSN in the monthly selection, when I like them, so Im not complaining, I'm satisfied with what sony is doing.
The GP model is ruining Xbox exclusives. Sony have a stronger library and one of the reasons is they're not releasing million dollar games onto Day One release platforms which you can get for a fiver a month.
Since game pass has been around the longest, I'll use that as metric. And it has yet to show on a consistent basis that day 1 rather 1st party or not leads to the same or more quality. Anything less than the standard is a let down. I really don't think these services releasing games day one are beneficial in the long run to gaming.
@MrGawain Nintendo is absolutely awesome, no doubt. Poster seemed to be implying that Nintendo's tentpole software is more experimental than Sony's, though, which I don't really agree with at all.
I love the Switch, but there's no doubt there's been a lot of re-releases and sequels on it.
This is great news and I’ll always support quality over quantity.
I think one thing that gets lost a lot in this discussion is the value of catalogues and libraries. A subscription service can still be successful without day one games, because the vast majority of people who subscribe will be doing so for the library that's available to them when they sign up.
Now obviously the day one first-party games is a huge competitive advantage and selling point for Microsoft, but if I were to join Game Pass today, then I'd be doing so for Flight Simulator and Forza Horizon, games that have already been available for some time.
If Sony can put together a really good library of relevant games for PS Plus, then that has inherent value — even if God of War Ragnarok's not going to be there day one.
We're in an enthusiast bubble on sites like this, but most people don't play games the second they release.
@Gbarsotini i mean, the only people who have all the information as to why they make the decisions they do it them at the end of the day so it’s all just guessing.
@K1LLEGAL quality products as a whole,one aspect of a game should never suffer because of another,half arsed tacked on single player is pointless and just stains the rest of the package with its mediocrity.
@Rural-Bandit yeah exactly and yet there games are so simplistic, maybe going all big budget on every game you make doesn't have to be the way. Sony need to make some more games like those on switch, bring back jak and daxter and little big planet, make some simulation games, bring back playstation all stars but do it better and support it more, give astrobot a real game, make a family oriented multiplayer game based around fun and not around shooting.
I agree. Don't do it. Exclusives are your advantage.
@get2sammyb well said and I think people forget that Xbox sales were flatlining so they had to do something different. Without Gamepass and day one releases they may well not be in the console space anymore. For Sony it makes little sense when they have such high sales and would a subscription be able to replace that money? I buy the games I really enjoy anyway so would much rather they continue to focus on quality.
It's great that we have so many options and ways to play games for all needs and budgets
@MarcG420 absolutelly, you´re right!
@get2sammyb good point!
@UltimateOtaku91 Nintendo already exist though, let them do their thing and Sony do their's.
It's not a failure if HZD 'only' sells around 20m copies for example, a brand new IP that hasn't been around for decades. That's a success.
Yes, Sony should look to expand upon the variety of their games but NOT at the expense of what brought millions to their platform in the first place: big budget AAA single player games.
@Rural-Bandit Motorstorm would be fantastic in the PS5!
@get2sammyb I would absolutely say that Nintendo experiment far more than any other current platform holder and was only really challenged by Sega in the experimentation stakes.
N64, DS, Wii, 3DS, Wii U and Switch are consoles that added something completely different to anyone else out there.
Donkey Konga, Wii Sports, Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Ring Fit, Wario Ware, Chibi Robo, Nintendogs, Brain Training, Mario 64, Mario Galaxy 1+2, Zelda, Amiibo, Virtual Console, Smash Bros.
Not all of these experiments worked but they continue to push new ideas out more than anyone else.
@get2sammyb Here we can only argue with examples. My pick is Ring Fit Adventure, which sold more than 14 (!) million units so far: https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2022/05/ring-fit-adventure-switch-sales-have-now-surpassed-14-million
@Col_McCafferty I totally agree, I'm not saying sony scrap big budget games for those, but to make those games as well as the big budget games we've come to love.
I'd be happy if they bring back little big planet and jak and daxter, to me they are some of playstations legacy games and iconic characters for the PlayStation brand
@Sakai I think you are somewhat dense MS has unending funds they could kill off the competition by buying up everything starving out the competition. All the other companies would die off MS has a unique place. Being loved does not pay the bills how can you not see that.
@Cutmastavictory There is not a lot of research needed with that if spend it like MSand you dont hav the same amount of money you cant spend it somewhere else.
@Godot25 Did you seriously say FH5 is almost microtransaction free? It literally launched with $60+ worth of add ons and DLC. All of which are not included in GP since the point is to rent the game and then buy useless DLC for a game you don't own. Compare that to GT7 where you earn plenty of money and everything in the game can be bought with said money so you don't have to spend a dime. It's hilarious how people crap on GT7 and have no idea how it actually is.
I think this makes sense. Just look at every big MS exclusive released on Gamepass, and tell me that it's a quality and FINISHED product.
I wish Sony would concentrate more on services in their games rather than services for PS Plus. I would bet ANYTHING that if you didn't need to pay to play online numbers would go down substantially. It is and will always be inherently inferior to the competition, and the shouldn't be competing in this space. It is not just MS competing here either, you have other third party discount retailers on PC, and of course Humble Bundle (and people grandfathered into the Classic plan have it even better).
Where they can compete is their high quality titles, and if those high quality single player experiences have a high quality multiplayer experience that is supported for a few years... They will blow their competition out of the water in terms of engagement, especially if these multiplayer experiences are on PC.
But PS Plus is a joke.
I have no problem with this, but gran turismo 7 make me worry that sony selling $70 doesn't means it will be free of single player mtx like mobile games in the future 1st party games.
@mucc GT 7 is a fantastic game, it may contain MTX but not once have I felt that in order to progress I need to spend more.
There are a myriad of ways to earn credits. From the Menu races, to Arcade, to the thrilling circuit experiences and more. The 'fuss' made about this game by the so-called gaming community was overblown and frankly embarrassing.
@get2sammyb Well said. Agreed on all points.
Being number 1 publisher at metacritic doesn't mean anything. It's the first time people use that as proof. You can release a 90 rated game, the other can release two 92 and 3 85 and the first one would be "publisher of the year". It's too vague.
Flight Sim came to PC before so it had potential sales. Psychonauts 2 is on PS so it had potential sales so it doesn't affect them (Gamepass). FH5 is great but it doesn't have that high budget since it's a sim based on a previous sim.
Look At Halo Infinite. Is it really a 87 game (even with the bonus points for being free)? Deathloop was a ps5 exclusive. The discussion is about Gamepass, not if MS did great in 2021.
@Max_the_German Yet, Nintendo makes the same games even with low budget games and high sales. Go figure. You're right tho.
Have you seen gears 5 mtx? Are simulators that high on budgets tho?
@Apfelschteiner I disagree. Uncharted 4 AND Spiderman 2018 are better than lost legacy and miles. I rather have the big games.
I think many of its problems go back to 343 and Microsoft spending too much time on the Slipspace engine.
They should have kept using the Bungie engine or just licensed UE4.
Putting the games on a service MIGHT deteriorate the quality of the game. Sure, who knows. The same could be said of a $69.99 price tag. I've heard and read from many that they would wait for a sale, etc. With sales numbers down, etc, couldnt that affect the amount invested and game quality, as well?
@BReal I don’t think they can commit to 3 or even 6 months. People would just wait, then it may as well be day 1. I think a more realistic commitment would be any older than 2 years should be on it.
I have a couple of Hundred ps4 games all digital i would buy a game or 2 most weeks day one €60 no problem but since i got the PS5 have to say the €70 price point is a bit much so iv been waiting for them to on sale just cant justify 70 for a game .
At first I thought it was BS, but if you look at the Xbox Game Pass situation they've actually not even had a decent day one launch. Halo Infinite, that game from Remedy that sucked.
Either Sony is overspending on exclusives or Game Pass will eventually become a quantity over quality situation. As rubbish as the PS Plus revamp looks to me, as long as the exclusive quality doesn't tank after these statements I won't really mind.
@Apfelschteiner yeh it has, music, movies and tv shows. All as spectacularly large as they were pre subscription. Actually they’re even more grandiose than they’ve ever been. Gaming is the same sport it just costs a lot more to get in. A subscription system will follow as how 90% plus of its sales happen. It’s a matter of time. Blind Freddy can see that
I agree with it. As much as I'd like to see the games on the service, I don't think it would make any sense for them and I certainly don't want them to deteriorate their games. They should stick to doing what they are best at and keep making those amazing games just as Nintendo should continue to do too. MS however, while some can be really good games, they aren't on that same level.
But MS have the pockets to take the hit. It's just penny in a jar for them. Look what they did with Halo, they tried to release it in a poor state and the backlash caused them to delay it. They launched the MP in an early access and then after that launched the campaign as it's own download (empty disc for physical), and it still lacks the coop. Compare that to the past games. And then there is Forza, locking the early access behind a paywall to sucker more money out of people from hype. 12 hours for early access should be enough, but they went 4 days and it caused players to lose out that weekend unless they pay up.
Sony shines best with the single player and if they added those to the service at launch, they will only end up hurting themselves. MS will keep paying up for now but give it time and they will start losing the quality even more. For now they will keep taking the hit on their own titles while they grow the service
These publishers are scared of loosing sales if people rent their games on the subscription service instead of buying outright, the same way Nintendo was scared of blockbuster video for renting out NES games back in the day, it's all about profit at the end of the day
@OrtadragoonX Yeah, I'd agree with that.
I feel like they butchered the engine for Halo 5, it had all sorts of out of place weirdness with its graphics, and that's why they tried to build the new engine, but Halo 4 (campaign at least) was stunning for a 360 game.
I think if they were competent enough to update the Blam engine, that would be the better way to go, but given its 343i, going with UE4 may better for them.
Common sense and logic.
That s not something dominating gaming talk on the internet though.
I just had a look on pxbox site and no surprise they again turn a Sony news completely unrelated to Xbox into a bad take to post a console war article 🙄
Don’t get played into console war malarkey for site traffic people 😃
Different company, different games, different approach, different strategy. It’s not comparable at all. Ms want all digital yesterday.
they’re not all that special to begin with . the ego y’all give these corporate heads about their cinematic copy/paste open world walking simulators is the reason they’re saying this dumb ***** .
@Richnj halo 4 was the least worst halo 343s ever made imo . they nailed the story and look of the game and tried something new with the prometheans despite them not being good enough & the ending was a nice finish to once legendary franchise
@PhhhCough too much logic . does not compute . hail sony .
@BReal if they released on the service 3 months after release I think the majority of people would just wait the 3 months lol
@nomither6 I just realized your profile pic is of sonic's face. I thought it was an alien ninja chasing a tiny tornado😅😂
@PhhhCough i can kinda see that ! the eyes are shaped like an alien a lil bit and his pupils look like the mask/eye sockets , and his mouth looks like a tiny tornado 😂😂 . Are we smoking the same drugs ?? jk 😂
@Richnj I'm a fan of halo & I don't like halo infinite but enjoyed halo 5's campaign 🤷♂️
@nomither6 Halo 4 campaign was fantastic. The multiplayer was straight garbage tho.
And that why people are saying Infinite is 343 best halo to date. Infinite campaign while a step back from 4 was better than 5 ( they wasted so much potential with how blue team was treated ). Infinite multiplayer while a step back from 5, at it core, is better than 4 multiplayer.
Halo is about the full package. You can't have a good campaign and terrible multiplayer; or good multiplayer and terrible campaign. They have to be balanced, and Infinite is the most balanced even if it mediocre.
Unfortunately infinite biggest issue with it campaign is that all the cool stuff happens off screen in a comic book. Lmao.
@Floki if you say so . imo , infinite sucks all around . i’m waiting for them to pull a SFV , and add so much more to the game as time goes on to the point that it doesn’t even feel like the first year or launch of the game and almost an entirely new game . i hope games as a service doesn’t always mean games shipping unfinished and shallow .
edit - and i gotta admit , i’m still not fond of sprint being base kit in halo instead of a power-up
Again people are using Halo infinite as a reason for Game Pass issues. Halo Infinite was gonna have major issues regardless of it launching on Game Pass or not. 343i is just generally incapable of releasing games without major issues.
Microsoft just needs to revitalized 343i as the licenser of all Halo-related properties only, and not have them develop anything.
Others said it above, but whatever the debates and criticisms of services or non services, Halo Infinite really should be left out of the conversation for the conversation to have any value. It has nothing to do with subscriptions or what happens to games with subscriptions. It was announced and started before the subscription even existed. The famously incompetent studio behind it squandered years in "development hell" the campaign was restarted in development at the 11th hour with one of the OG Bungie staff at the helm, and what came out is actually a good campaign that's too small, incomplete at release (despite years of delays), and doesn't feel like the main meat of a game, and more like a CoD or Titanfall 2 type short campaign to set the stage for a multiplayer game. A multiplayer game that's designed to be F2P and isn't even part of the subscription service, it's an entirely separate F2P game, not in any way related to subscriptions.
No matter if you're a PS fan, XB fan, or both, that game just doesn't belong in any conversation for or against subscription services and its effect on games. It was to be a total cluster no matter how it launched because of the studio that made it, and the most destructive part isn't even a subscription provided game.
@nomither6 Sprint has been apart of the base kit since 4, so that a very long time to not be fond of something. If you're not fond of that... Nothing is gonna please you. Lmao.
But you're the first I've heard say that Halo Infinite just sucks. Most people enjoy the core experience of Infinite. With many saying it the tightest feeling halo to-date. Which I agree with after spending 50+ hrs on multiplayer alone. The main issue is lack content and Playlist, but that doesn't make a game suck.
@Floki “ Sprint has been apart of the base kit since 4, so that a very long time to not be fond of something. ”
i mean , i did say that halo 4 is 343s LEAST WORST HALO …implying that halo 4 is still a trash halo game . sprint has been base-kit ever since the random hacks at 343 were handed a good franchise on a silver platter , are you getting it now ? make what you want of that .
@BReal Streaming doesn't really work as a business model for music especially (musicians are making way less on music streaming royalties than they did for CDs or even digital sales), can you point to a streaming service that has a sustainable business model? Maybe Disney, who do not put their big releases out on Disney+ day and date.
Sony has pitched it about right, maybe they could go the Disney+ route and put out some AA games day and date with the AAA stuff with a protected window.
The benifit to individual game sales is that you can sell to the backlog and sell games that will only be played for a few hours until the player moves on.
Multiplayer games are moving to the free-to-play model anyway. Rocket League would not be a big draw for game pass now that it is free to play.
@RevGaming I'd like a balance. If we are moving towards a streaming-first future. Shorter, cheaper games will be preferable. Clearly, the systems etc. are built for the one game and it is pretty cheap in comparison to make the follow-up game.
@SplooshDmg always fun to watch.
Nobody really knows how to make a runaway success. I've worked places whereas their first of second thing was huge and then they spent a decade trying to recapture the magic, spending the money they gained from their success and not wanting to take the risks they did first time around. (Spoiler alert: trying to recapture the magic usually ends with redundancies. You're much better taking risks and trying something new)
It's easy to spot that something's bad, but when when it's good, for online stuff you have no idea what the community will do with it, what it'll become.
@Apfelschteiner No thank you
@UltimateOtaku91 "not their best work according to metacritic, Halo infinite scored a 87
Halo 3 - 94
Halo 4 - 87
Halo 5 - 84
Halo combat evolved - 97
Halo Reach - 91
Halo 2 - 95
Spin offs scored lower, but out of the main games infinite scored the second lowest."
Bungie developed games;
Halo CE - 97
Halo 2 - 95
Halo 3 - 94
Halo Reach - 91
343i developed games;
Halo 4 - 87 (user score: 71)
Halo 5 - 84 (64)
Halo Infinite - 87 (80)
I'm confused. Were you expecting 343i to pump out Bungie quality?
Edit: I want to make clear that this isn't a Bungie vs 343i thing. The argument is "games made under GP are reduced quality and Halo Infinite is a good example of that", but here you can see that, removing variables like different devs, using the mentioned Halo, under the same dev, two games made outside of GP, and one made under GP, the games made outside of GP were either worse or equal in quality. 87 vs 87 isn't "the second lowest title", it's joint first (which is still first, it is still the best work they've ever managed to output, especially when factoring in user reviews) as far as 343i's ability to create a game is concerned.
At best, Halo Infinite is a bad example of the GP quality argument, at worst, you are providing evidence of a dev producing their best work under GP.
@Richnj not gonna lie I totally forgot it had different developers, but in terms of budget it would be Microsoft providing it, so 343i should of had equal if not more budget to play with.
Seems to me though Microsoft need to give someone else the halo franchise to do, maybe one of Bethesda teams
@UltimateOtaku91 Sorry, I was editing as you replied. Ignore it if not relevant.
Yeah, what seems like a sizable amount of the community has been asking for 343i to stop being the dev. When Bethy were bought, many wanted iD, before that it was Certain Affinity, who are actually doing a lot more Halo stuff now it seems.
@Col_McCafferty @UltimateOtaku91 @Rob_230 @Shepherd_Tallon 100% agreed, Sony's exclusives would lose quality big time if they were also available day 1 on PS+.
I will always happily pay full price for PS5 exclusives as long as they keep pushing the boundaries when it comes to storytelling, gameplay, and visuals/graphics.
Happy to pay for top quality AAA games.
@Would_you_kindly I definitely would
@mucc Forza Horizon 5 has
Car pass which is 29,99€ for truckload of cars
Treasure map which will reveal all collectibles on map for 2,99€
2 paid expansions which are...you know...actual new content
VIP Pass for 19,99€
And all of that is included in Ultimate Edition for 45€ if I remember correctly.
Compare that with GT7 where every damn car can cost more then 20€.
So yeah. Totally comparable . With FH5 i can get 42 cars for 19,99€ (through Car Pass). With GT7 I can get one car for 19,99€
But you also totally missed my point. My point was - If Sony expect from me to pay 80€ for a game and Microsoft is giving me FH5 through Game Pass, I would expect that FH5 would try to nickel & dime me, not GT7.
I wish sonys standard policy would be after standard length of time say 2 years their games then go on ps+ permium service and dont keep getting removed like they do on psnow.
im fine with that
He should of just said scroll through Gamepass & that will be your bleak future of games to play
@Godot25 You totally missed MY point. If you had even played GT7 you'd know that the game gives you plenty of money where you don't need to spend ANY extra real cash unlike Forza where you have to pay for DLC no matter what. Again with the ridiculous hyperbole saying every car costs $20 which is nonsense, also when you get licenses the cost of the expensive cars go down drastically. Once again you'd know this if you had any experience with the game but instead you just listen to the nonsense from other internet goons who've never even played it.
@UltimateOtaku91 well they made dreams which was similar to lbp and sackboy had his own game on PS5.
@Sakai have you tried forza or halo? Forza had a busted MP for a month and halo is incomplete. It’s a 100% MS bias, it’s way worse than the Nintendo bias. At least Zelda and Mario are complete games
@Quadalog There is no bias, don't be silly
I'm perfectly fine with this approach. Would hate to see a dip in quality from PS studios games, seeing how they're almost always top notch. As someone who has a PS5 and a Series X, I barely use gamepass - my niece uses it more for Minecraft and goat simulator
Tap here to load 135 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...