Its always been this way - the terms haven't changed - the ONLY difference is that with Physical discs, that licence is embedded on that bit of plastic and you can sell, trade or let a friend borrow that Licence but with Digital, that licence is locked to your Digital account. Its a bit more tricky to block access to a Physical Licence but that hasn't stopped a number of games being 'unplayable' regardless of whether you bought a licence on disc or digitally - Destiny, Marvels Avengers, Anthem etc all now just coasters or 'landfill trash'.

What you purchase, as you always have, is a licence to access and use the Software belonging to a Publisher/developer on whatever platform you have. Just because you have a Licence to play BF6 on PS5, doesn't mean you can play on PC, Xbox or Steam as they'll sell you a licence to access that software on their Platform too.

Even back when games were supplied on Cartridges, you purchased a licence to play the Software loaded on to those cartridges. They obviously have to supply the software to you in some way so you can access it with your licence, but you don't 'own' the Software and if you tried to copy it and distribute it because you 'think' you own it, that's Piracy and always has been.

Not saying I agree with the way Digital is limiting customers ability to 'sell, trade or share' their Licence in the exact same way they can with Physical Not saying I am 'happy' that big Corporations are being more 'anti-consumer'. In theory, we 'should' own our Licences as we always have and should have the right to sell, trade etc but we've never owned the software and as games/hardware have become more integrated with the internet, its enabled the owners of that software/hardware to block or remove access. The Licence isn't as 'permanent' as it once was. You can still use your licence to play N64 games but many games or content aren't playable today even if you own the Disc because they've turned off the Servers - you can't play Killzone online anymore and like I said, can't play Destiny, Anthem or Marvels Avengers either whether you bought on disc or not.

The only thing likely to save this is if enough gamers choose to spend enough money on this AND it attracts a LOT of new players in to convince them they can make money long term to carry on - which I can't see happening in the current gaming climate and cost of living crisis. With GTA6 about to release too and Christmas round the corner, I can't see this DLC briniging enough players in, spending enough money to keep it going.

@belmont exactly - but its not just the rebuilding, the starting again on a different platform, its also the fact that unless you keep paying for your PS+ Subscription, you'll lose access to your PS+ games you've accumulated over the years as well as lose access to games/content that required PS+ to play.

Even if you want to keep your old Hardware and keep playing the games you bought, you may also have to keep paying Sony to play all the Games/Content you want to keep playing.

When all of that can be brought forward to their new Console and you'll keep paying their PS+ Subscription, its far easier than jumping to Xbox or PC and starting fresh, maybe paying more for an Xbox and having to pay for Game Pass too to unlock the entire Game Library/features etc.

I doubt many will quit Sony or would rather stick with PS5 and buying 'old' games just because they were released on Discs as every new game is digital only, miss out on PS6 exclusives in their favourite Sony IPs etc. Maybe a 'few' will switch from Sony but I think that the vast majority will upgrade when the games they want release and Sony know it too

Sony know (or at least think) that their gamers won't leave because they have their library of games, trophies, friends etc and would lose access to their PS+ games and access to their own games/content that require a PS+ Subscription too. They don't expect gamers would be willing to give up everything they've accumulated over generations. I doubt many would too when the alternative maybe more expensive and an all Digital platform too

Consoles used to be the affordable entry point into gaming designed for the mass market but it seems that they are becoming expensive premium products that will price many out of buying hardware.

I can't imagine Parents spending £1k + to buy their kids a PS6 for Christmas or a lot of people spending that much just to play games with the Cost of Living these days.

@Drago201 Jailbreaking a PS4 or PS5 isn't Hacking PSN!! If you Jailbreak your PS4/PS5, you can't risk going on PSN or you'll have your account Blocked by Sony, You can't play games like CoD or Helldivers 2 - but you can play SNES, PS3, PS2 Sega Megadrive etc games you can 'download' from a PC and install

As I said, take off your tinfoil hat and actually do some research. Jailbreaking isn't 'hacking' PSN, its unlocking YOUR Hardware so you can install the Software, Apps etc you want to run on that Hardware. I'll give you a tip, go to Google and type 'What is Jailbreaking a PS4?' and maybe then you'll gain a bit of knowledge...

@Drago201 Keep wearing your tinfoil hat and do some research. Its NOT hacking PSN and grabbing your Data. Keep believing whatever BS keeps you serving the corporate overlords who just want your loyalty and cash...

If you actually did ANY research, you'd know that they can't go Online and connect to PSN at all!!! Its basically allowing you to load your OWN OS, Apps, Emulators or whatever Software you want to run on YOUR Playstation - Software and functionality Sony doesn't want you to do - they want to have total control over what software and apps you can use on YOUR Hardware!!

@Drago201 And??

Its their Hardware, their choice and up to them if they wish to break the law and risk the consequences of that. PC gamers can download emulators and play thousands of 'Console' game files that were never released or uploaded by the devs/publishers.

After a certain time, I don't think it should matter either. Im some cases, the studio no longer exists, the people who made it are long gone so not getting money for their work anyway. Licensing can also make a game unsellable - Racing games are a good example because of the multiple car brands/models that are licensed so to 'preserve' them, why shouldn't you be able to play those games anymore?

Anyway, it should be their choice to use their Console how they want and Sony shouldn't lock it down preventing and/or controlling what people can and can't do with their Console. Its not as if they are renting something from Sony and expected to return it...

I think EVERYONE should have the Choice to use THEIR Hardware they way they want to use it. If they can get more 'use' from Hardware they've purchased by Jailbreaking it, by 'unlocking' it from the Corporate company that wants to control what you can use your Hardware for - especially years after release and/or they cease production.

You should have the freedom to choose what you do with the Hardware. That is NOT the same as Pirating at all as you purchased the Hardware so should have the freedom to use it how you want!

I bet there are quite a few PS4's in peoples homes that haven't been used or updated for months, even years as People have replaced them with PS5's as their Playstation console that also plays PS4 games.

I haven't switched on my PS4 Pro for years, not since I replaced it with a PS5 in the living room and haven't used my PS4 since I got a PS4 Pro so that's on an even older version.

Hardware needed a LOT more Support and Killer apps to sell more Headsets but without a big market place, Publishers/devs aren't spending money to support it - Catch 22 situation...

Still waiting for B4 to drop to a Price I'm willing to pay but have enjoyed the games. I haven't gone back and played any with a different Character/Build but still spent countless hours playing with my Son.

I still haven't finished Tiny Tina Wonderlands either so I have a LOT of potential playtime without needing to add B4 yet but they are fun shooters imo

@nomither6 Mention the version of the OS you are on and start a bidding war between those wanting a PS5 they can Jailbreak...

As I said, I don't know how much they are going for or how many people would be interested in Jailbreaking a PS5 but anyone that does, is only going to be interested in those Consoles that haven't been updated in recent months as they require an older OS from what I understand. That's going to limit their choice and availability so that usually increases the amount they will be willing to pay and likely to become harder for them to find over time...

@nomither6 I don't know what the going rate is but I bet there would be people willing to pay more than $400 for an older OS version PS5 that they can Jailbreak, one that hasn't been updated in recent months.

If they wanted to Jailbreak a PS5, then they'd be looking for an older version that hasn't been updated. They'd likely be willing to pay more to get their hands on it rather than it being sold to Sony for $400. I'd also expect fewer and fewer Consoles that are on a specific version OS or older to be available on the market for the Jailbreakers over time so become rarer and more 'valuable' to them.

@Balaam_ Was about to post something similar - I bet hackers, Jailbreakers etc would pay more for an older PS5 that hasn't been updated in a while, that's on a certain version of the OS or older...

I wonder how many PS5's are out there that haven't been used in a while and as such, haven't been updated to stop people from Jailbreaking their hardware.

Personally I don't think ANY real life footage - inc historical warfare footage, should EVER be used in a game, in something that is designed as Entertainment and 'fun' - even if the subject matter (like War) is the backdrop, the setting of their Game.

I have no issue with fictionalised version that's specifically created for the game based on real life video's and imagery, but I bet they never had permission to use the real footage from EVERYONE (and/or their families) in the footage, use their likeness, their faces etc in this way.

You go on about not letting AI or creating Actors likeness/voices without their permission, without compensating them etc but think its alright to use some real life footage in a video game, use distressing scenes to sell a entertainment product, belittling the sacrifices, the horrors/brutality of war, they never got to 'respawn' and start again from a Checkpoint...

I don't have an issue with Games using historical events as inspiration for their Historical based GAME with Fictionalised characters, stories etc but then to use real People who suffered in something sold as 'fun entertainment' is just wrong!!

Why would it sell Consoles?

Most people aren't going to buy a Console to play a Game when the cost of living is so high. PC gamers aren't buying an Xbox and Consoles are more expensive than they were at launch and as both require a Sub too, I doubt many will want both Consoles.

With GTA6, Black Friday and Christmas coming up, I doubt people are going to rush out and buy Gears of War and a Console to play it on. Its also available on PC and Steam too and if you have the right tier of Game Pass, you don't need to buy the game either.

Point is, that 1 game is never going to shift consoles - especially in a Cost of living Crisis. With Game Pass, you don't need to buy the game and can Sub for 1 month if you just want to play the Campaign cheaply which affects Sales. There is also Black Friday coming up and it will be cheap in a sale - especially when it gets added to lower tiers of Game Pass so why buy now? With GTA coming soon, I'm sure some will be waiting to buy that instead.

Its not all about Hardware Sales when they have revenue coming in from PC/Steam, not all about software sales when they have revenue coming in from Game Pass - but I do expect that the revenue won't be 'ideal' for MS because overall, they are likely to pull in 'new' gamers with their overall 'Xbox' ecosystem when they are reducing their studios and game output significantly with their decisions...

PS5 also plays ALL the PS4 Exclusives so also has the most exclusives and biggest library. Xbox too has increased its prices and of course reduced its Exclusives with more games releasing on Playstation than ever before - games like Halo, Forza and Gears - the big 3 that MS have relied on, have had releases on PS5 - even if they were OLD games.

PC gamers don't need an Xbox console at all, but have the Exclusives on Playstation as an incentive to buy a PS5 Console. Even if they only buy a PS5 for Exclusives, choosing to play EVERYTHING else on their preferred PC Hardware, the PS5 also plays all those PS4 exclusives too which makes it more worthwhile and a bigger library too.

Since the release of Xbox One, Microsoft has made the decision to release all their games on PC and a large chunk of games on PS too - some because they Purchased IP's but that does mean the Series hardware has NO Exclusives because everything release on PC day/date. PS5 has more exclusives than Series hardware too so its not surprising that PS5 may well be attracting more 'new' gamers (inc some from Xbox), being the PC gamers Console of choice and still appealing to their long term fans to keep them from moving to alternatives. All of which should translate to more sales...

@HOWARDSROCK Why not? Because the read and write speeds of discs are NOT fast enough and haven't been for a decade. Gamers don't want to wait 2 mins or more for games to load from Disc, Fast travel taking over a Minute, textures taking a while to stream in from disc and load in - the Physical Hardware is NOT adequate to run games and why Games need to be installed on SSD's.

Its NOT just about the storage capacity - although that is 'limited' and barely adequate - although still OK for some games, its also about the fact they have to manufacture and distribute the Physical media, all of which adds to the 'costs' - especially the distribution with rising fuel costs, but that also means they have to send the Code months before the game is due to release to manufacture in time for release - all the while still working on the game, still 'fixing/optimising' knowing full well they can use the internet to 'fix' issues. If they print 1m discs and only sell 700k, they have 300k unsold but paid for discs, money they've spent but not recuperated - that's money that could determine a studios future...

Then of course they send the game out to reviewers who also report back on bugs, glitches etc - some of which they may have known about and prepared a Day 1 patch, but then its released and the gamers provide so much more data and they get more feedback so prepare more patches, more fixes, more optimisation and also get to add the things that weren't ready, make Quality of Life improvements, add features and modes that they never had the time to.

After a year, that version of the game with all the updates, content, patches etc are quite a bit different from the version you purchased and still have on that disc that's missing all those updates and additional post launch support.

The disc is NOT adequate to run games regardless of whether or not we 'accept' they release games 'too soon' knowing they can patch. 20 yrs (or more) ago, when you bought a game on Cartridge for your N64 or a disc for your PS1, those games ran from the Physical media and couldn't be patched/fixed. If they were buggy broken messes, ran at 15fps, had game breaking bugs etc, you just didn't play them and/or accepted they were 'bad' games. But the point is that those games ALSO ran from the Physical media because they didn't have much 'data' to transfer, didn't have the number of textures, assets and objects filling the world and also games didn't take 5yrs or more to make costing Millions per year to have big staff teams working on them every day so rush them out to start recuperating costs.

Gamers maybe to blame for letting them get away with it, but gamers are to blame for demanding 60fps, instant loading times, instant fast travel, no texture pop-in etc all whilst being bigger, better and more graphically impressive than before or they'll moan and complain, won't buy and constantly berate the devs for daring to release a game at a stable 30fps because a locked 60fps isn't possible without dropping the resolution below 1080p...

The industry isn't the same as it was - things evolve and move forward but Discs and Disc drives haven't 'evolved' They 'could' put games on USB sticks with USB data transfers fast enough to run games from, but cost to produce and distribute games on USB sticks is prohibitive - you wouldn't pay even more than the current price because a USB would cost a LOT more to produce than a disc.

Physical media with Music and Movies is VERY different as the content on those is Complete, is the 'final' version and runs directly from the Physical media - you never have to download it to the hardware before you can play, never have to wait for updates and patches , never tried to listen or watch and the speed of playback, the frame rate is inconsistent, the content crashes or is glitchy and the version on those is complete, no 'post release' modes, features, content is added via the internet so that the content on disc is 'different' to the version installed on your Hardware.

Games don't run from Physical media because the Physical media is too slow, is completely inadequate and is only a Delivery method to get the 'pre-release' version to the Customers Hardware. Its not the 'same' version you'd buy 6 months later Digitally, not the same version or as polished/optimised/complete as the version you'd buy digitally once the devs finished 'supporting' the game, the version you'd want to preserve, the version you'd want on Physical Media, the 'equivalent' version to what you get when you buy Music/Movies.

Its not that I'm anti-Physical or 'Pro-digital', its more that you aren't buying or preserving the most up to date, polished and complete version possible on Disc and the game doesn't run from Physical - which is why its NOT the same as buying CDs or Movies. As I said, I've never had to install a Movie to a Bluray player to be able to watch it, wait for patches because the frame rate isn't consistent, that the content is glitchy/buggy and/or missing features that will be added post launch via internet delivery et etc like Games are today!

@Fake-news That's your choice of course but I expect that other options will be all digital and I bet Sony will release their games 'exclusively' on PS6 to tempt gamers to buy, even if their games could run on PS5 hardware too. Its what they did with PS5 and they want to incentivise purchasing their new Hardware with software you can't play elsewhere.

I would rather play the games I want to play regardless of format. I bought an N64 because it had the games I want on 'expensive' Cartridges that would only work on that hardware with no chance they'd carry forward onto a Gamecube. I've owned multiple consoles inc both Sony and Xbox hardware when they both share 95% of the same games - its just a few exclusives that differ and I'm likely to buy hardware that will play the games I want in the future because the games are more important to me that how they are delivered...

And an ALL-Digital device which will likely enable you to play your Digital Purchases and maybe even your Digital PS4/PS5 libraries which could be Backwards Compatible with the ALL-Digital PS6 console they are likely to release whilst the Physical Libraries can't be carried forward but will of course remain playable on the PS5 as they were sold and advertised for

Physical has some advantages over Digital, but Digital has advantages too - and as you sign into a Digital account, use the internet as your Delivery system instead of big plastic disc that requires a big disc drive to deliver the software and all your digital licences are stored on your Account, it means you can access your library and download the games you own to any compatible device - inc handheld devices too small and lightweight to include a heavy disc drive.

Buying Physical for the PS6 would stop them from working on a Handheld PS6 or an All-digital PS6 limiting them - if they decided to keep delivering games in this outdated and barely adequate way. Its too slow to run games and your internet could have a higher data transfer speed so it delivers and installs faster than disc too.

Anyway, I'd be interested if the price is right - it might be great handheld option and sync well with the PS6 - maybe even be a 'Controller' with a Screen when playing on a PS6 - maybe have inventory and/or Map, information instead of a HuD on the main screen but maybe that's wishful thinking...

@ShadowRJ And imagine how Zenimax or Activision (especially under Kotick) would be handling these Studios under the current gaming Climate. EVERY Publisher has shed Staff and Studio's and I don't believe games like Deathloop sold 'well' and I bet Redfall and Starfield would have released in far worse a state, would not have delayed to give more time to the devs.

With MS announcing massive net Profits and Nadella earning nearly $100m last year, and I bet Sharma is on a multi million dollar salary, neither of whom are 'Gamers' and looking at these as just 'Product', looking at replacing staff with AI to increase profits and likely award themselves a pay rise because they made more money, its not great. Games are what brings gamers into their Ecosystem and whilst 'sales' maybe aren't great, they are chose to replace sales with a subscription service which brings in revenue to cover the costs of keeping those Studios open. If a Studio costs $5m a month ($60m a year) in wages, overheads etc and they have 20 Studios - that's $100m a month - but 30m paying just $10 a month on Game Pass every month is $300m - so they don't 'need' to sell to recuperate the cost of those Studios developing games - sales are pure profit.

No-one wants to see Jobs going but I don't think they'd have been around under their former owners and there was a reason that MS stepped in to buy both as both were struggling - Zenimax was forcing Arkane to make Redfall as a Live Service game and Fallout 76 had a bad launch. Machine Games had a poor release with Wolfenstein youngblood and we all know how Activision shares were crashing under allegations of Abuse etc.

With the world as it is right now, the cost of living etc, gamers aren't buying 'new' releases at their most expensive unless its their favourite IP. They have 1000's of games they can play extremely cheap or 'free' with even the most basic sub service so why spend $70 on something that will be $20 or less in a few months or so, maybe in their tier of sub service and with Christmas, Black Friday and even the release of GTA6, all those can impact game sales as gamers would rather use what cash they have on those...

Ever since I can remember, there has been a battle between Publishers and Pirates with different methods to prevent gamers from playing Pirated software. From codes you had to type in from a sheet that couldn't be Photocopied to supplying games on a Cartridge that only they supplied and would only fit in their hardware.

With modern Hardware and online connectivity, its a lot easier to verify you have valid Licences, OS and whatever other security checks they do.

No doubt there will be a continuous battle between Companies trying to protect their intellectual properties and hackers, pirates etc trying to break into it, to hack and/or modify/pirate for their own gains and argue and both sides will argue they have the 'right' as either the owner/creator or the Consumer

@Nei Will I be able to play my existing disc-based games on the PS6?

Technically they don't have to, they are advertised as PS5 games and sold to you as PS5 games to play on PS5 hardware and both the box and disc will say PS5 on it.

Not saying they won't offer someway to play, but they have no obligation to because they were never sold as or ever stated would play on a PS6 and they technically aren't stopping you from playing on the hardware you bought them for.

Will I still be able to share my games with friends and family?
They again don't need to make that possible - just because you can with Physical, they don't need to make that possible with digital in the future.

Will there be a refund or compensation policy, given that digital purchases can’t be resold?
Compensation for what? you buy a licence to play the game, you can play the game. you don't get Compensation for buying music or film digitally and not able to share with friends either. Just because you can't 'sell' doesn't mean they have to provide compensation. I'm sure they'd have to provide some form of refund policy but only if you've not 'used' the product.

I am NOT saying I agree or stand with Sony on this, but you don't have to buy a PS6 and don't have to agree to their terms and conditions. If the PS6 doesn't play your Physical PS5 discs, you still have your PS5. If games don't release on Physical formats, you don't have to buy, don't need to play day 1 so they don't need to compensate or refund you because 'you' chose to buy Digitally knowing you can't sell and whatever T&C's were offered.

Sony don't 'owe' you anything, don't have to bring old games forward, don't have to change their Digital policies (if they already conform to Consumer law) and you don't have to buy if you don't like the situation. Vote with your wallet and maybe don't buy a PS6 if Sony doesn't provide the package you want. You've not purchased ANY game for PS6, no game was advertised as PS6 compatible so they don't have to make them run and would argue that's why you have a PS5.

Personally, I'd like Digital Licences to come with the exact same benefits and function as Physical licences - inc the option to lend to a friend or sell, I also think that if you buy a licence for a game, you should be able to play that game on ANY hardware - not just a specific hardware version. If you own a licence to play Battlefield 6, you should be able to play it wherever BF6 runs but platform holders want their cut of the sale, money for using their Hardware you purchased to play games etc...

Consumers do choose and dictate to Manufacturers what is 'worth' continually producing and what products aren't selling and won't sell enough to justify making only to be left with unsold stock that they've lost money on.

They don't make Walkman cassette players anymore either because Consumers chose to move to Digital MP3 players and nowadays, their phone is their portable music player.

I don't think anyone makes VHS Video players these days either as DVD's and then Blurays replaced them, now of course Digital streaming services allow people to watch Movies anywhere, not just in front of the TV so 'choose' not to buy Physical players.

Of course there are still some consumers that buy Physical hardware and media to use with it, but not enough people are buying hardware to keep spending money on manufacturing and distributing. The Physical media consumers won't keep buying Hardware and would only buy if their current hardware breaks.

@Jbinchrist they basically have - they sold their 'Bravia' TV name to TCL or at least the 51% to TCL to handle Production, development etc whilst Sony provide the name and the Picture & Audio processing tech. Sony weren't producing the Screens anyway - using LG for their OLED panels for example.

@NessunDorma Again WHY? Why make up some BS situation that won't happen and the reason it won't hapopen is extremely simple - Money!

It doesn't make sense and would go against their entire business model and promises/commitments. That would be a PR Disaster, Commercial suicide and lose than Revenue, cause Xbox to go Bankrupt and likely have to sell their IPs and Brand cheaply just to recuperate their losses.

Its so 'Anti-Consumer' that it would push all their consumers away - no consumers, no revenue and MS in particular can't afford to lose Customers. They NEED to attract Customers, NEED to be more Competitive and they won't do that by going back on EVERYTHING they've committed to and Promised.

I'd be a LOT more concerned about Sony/MS making the 'Essential' tier to unlock the Online Content/games more expensive despite that being 'FREE' on PC and whether or not PS+/?Game Pass tiers above that are more expensive or have any limitations on games or streaming time, these are NOT required to play games you OWN and certainly not 'needed'. They are just a 'borrowing' service.

Point is, they will NOT stop or limit you from playing the games you 'own', the games you bought to play on their hardware and with Disc to Digital, are making those games playable on PC too. The ONLY thing that has been 'limited' is the amount of Streaming time you get with your Subscription to 'borrow' games, the amount of Streaming time you can play games you are only borrowing from that library 'away' from their Hardware instead of downloading and playing Natively on your Xbox Hardware!

@NessunDorma And again I point you to the fact that you are making up BS situations that don't exist for what purpose? The fact is that they have actively worked on bringing those games to the XB1 and now actively working on bringing them to PC so that IF you own those games and with 'Disc to Digital' you can play them on whatever hardware NATIVELY.

The ONLY reason you Stream the PS3 games is because they don't run Natively and even if you 'own' the disc, that doesn't let you play NATIVELY on the Hardware - you MUST subscribe to PS+ to play 'OLD' games where as on Xbox you don't.

There is a reason that those old PS3 era Black Ops (1&2) released ONLY on PS5 because Xbox and PC can still play the Originals without needing to buy ports of those games.

Again, I'll point to the fact that MS lets you play games you OWN on their Hardware and you'll be able to play those games you OWN on next gen too because they'll run NATIVELY.

PS+ is a Sub Service as is Game Pass and whilst you may need PS+ to play OLD games on New Hardware via streaming because OLD games don't run NATIVELY, you do NOT need Game Pass to play 360/OG games. Those Subscriptions allow Gamers to play games they don't own so if you don't own those 360 era games and don't want to buy those games, Game Pass, like PS+ will let you download and play games you don't own.

MS will NOT stop you or Limit you playing games you OWN and may limit your Streaming time, but never your Hardware time and that means you'll be able to play your OLD games on newer hardware because that's how Backwards Compatibility works.

I am more surprised that someone makes up some stupid, idiotic, completely insane and pathetic and totally illogical concept as if they would somehow destroy their entire gaming business by flicking some switch that would stop gamers from playing some games they OWN or limit the amount of time they could play their OWN games and still 'compete' in the very competitive and tough gaming market.

It has nothing to do with Game Pass - that's a library service letting gamers 'borrow' games that run on their hardware and 'stream' to hardware that won't play those games natively so you get 'more' ways to play games you never paid for. Game Pass may 'fail' because they are letting gamers play games they never bought, they don't own and never received ANY sales revenue for - a very different thing to playing games you bought and own regardless of age/generation. If Sony suddenly said you can't play your PS4 games on PS5, it would be a disaster but them taking PS4 games out of PS+ so you can't play them anymore is expected because you 'borrow' games and that's the same with Xbox and its 'old' games too

Its not just the Hardware cost to consider but the Sub fees too. To play all the Content and have access to all the features they'll advertise, you'll need to keep paying Sony/MS a Sub Fee every month. Even the cheapest 'Essential' tier will add $100's on top of the Hardware cost and if you refuse or cancel, games/content you bought will be locked behind that paywall.

I'd expect that many games will be cross generation releases - although I wouldn't be surprised if Sony won't release their games on PS5 even if they could and would run well enough, would want them as PS6 'exclusives' to entice you to buy their Hardware - but most, if not all the multi-platform publishers will release their games on PS5 so you won't 'need' a PS6 for a good few years at least.

Personally, I'm not excited by the plans of Sony/MS moving forward and I think my primary gaming platform will be the PC as it has 1000's of 'Exclusives' and will never need a Sub to play games online. It also has multiple store fronts and as Sony doesn't release many 'exclusives' that appeal to me anymore - partly because it takes so long for studios to make a game and partly because they've closed down studios and not as diverse or as creative as they once were - that's industry wide, not just Sony - so I'd rather play on PC, buy the games from any of the store fronts, from any of the countless Studios/Publishers and never need a Sub to play online. They'll be games that offer similar game-play, offer great stories and cinematic experiences, offer fun etc and can play on 'cheap' handheld hardware and with DLSS, 1080p can look 4k, 60fps can look like 120fps...

@NessunDorma It makes NO sense, it would be Commercially stupid and a massive PR disaster pushing consumers away and killing their business.

You would NEVER buy into that ecosystem if they limited you from playing games. If Sony said you can only play for 5hrs on your Playstation or pay more for up to 15hrs, you'd never buy a Playstation. If they said you can buy a Subscription to play all these games for FREE on the your Console, but depending on the tier, they'll give you 'FREE' streaming to ANY device for limited time as a 'bonus' on top of playing all those games, you'd maybe consider Subscribing. With Sony, you pay to play PS1-PS3 games for 'Free' but have to stream with their highest tier with MS, you NEVER have to pay a Sub to play 360 or older games because they run 'natively'

This seems to be far too difficult for you to comprehend, that you seem to think that a 'what if' scenario could happen despite how illogical and completely insane ANY company would have to be. Its like me saying What IF Sony decided to limit the time you can play on their Console, that you only get 5hrs with PS+ Essential or up to 15hrs with their Highest tier - even if you buy games, you are 'limited' unless you pay Sony for 'extra' time - that's how 'ridiculous' your 'What if' scenario sounds and Sony would NEVER limit your game time and expect you to pay a fee to play more. It just doesn't make sense and would cause their Gaming business to go bankrupt because NO customer would want to be in that ecosystem.

Microsoft certainly wouldn't consider doing something so ridiculous, so insane when they 'need' customers to compete. Its not about what I think, its about the reality of the situation, the way business works and that they just wouldn't destroy their own business. I'm not making up BS and pathetic what if scenarios that are so 'anti-consumer' that they'd lose their entire Consumer base when they have the smallest consumer base as it is and want to attract more consumers in. That's the reality of the situation, not about what I 'think' and I'm not stupid to think they'd destroy their own business by being so anti-consumer as you 'think' they will

Whose got money to spend $70 on every new game releasing right now when they can wait 6months or so and buy the game for a fraction of the cost, play it on a Subscription etc and whilst waiting, play games on sale, in your backlog or 'free' on a compulsory Sub service - even Essential tiers give 'free' games.

Point is that only hardcore dedicated fans of a particular IP will be spending money on their favourite IP day 1 when the price is at its highest - unless you have a Sub service like Game Pass to play it 'free'. With GTA6 around the corner and Christmas coming up, the high cost of living and fuel costs will be hurting gamers pockets so they can't 'consume' games like they once did.

With so many cheap games in the Sales from at least the past decade or more - thanks to Backward Compatibility, why spend $70 to play a game when you can buy a AAA game that's a year or more old and now under $20 in a sale, able to buy 3 or more games for the same price as just 1.

Somehow , that means that Devs are too blame and therefore must lose jobs - even if those games were critically well received or sales were impacted by Sub Services. The 'Leisure' industry is often the hardest hit during financially tough times and gaming is an expensive hobby - although you can make use of Sales but the Studios/Devs have gone by then due to 'poor' Sales. They aren't competing with just the weeks new releases, but the 1000's of games available on your hardware including all those from last gen too you can play until the 'new' release is cheap on sale...

I'd rather see Bungie work on a Sony owned IP - maybe bring Resistance or Killzone back. It seems that Insomniac and Guerrilla are no longer making their FPS games so why not have another Studio known for FPS games make an exclusive FPS game for Sony - both better Options than bringing Haze back LOL

@NessunDorma And yet you still going on as if they will somehow limit the time you can play the OLD games behind a Subscription paywall via streaming when you don't even NEED to stream at all because those games are playable for an unlimited amount of time via Hardware.

You started by claiming that MS had restricted Streaming time on a Subscription service that actually isn't necessary at all, let alone to play those OLD games and then tried to compare Streaming PS3 games which is the ONLY way to play those games. If Sony decided to 'limit' the Streaming time, then you'd also be limited to how many hours you can play PS3 games - but the difference here is that PS3 games are on the highest tier Sub service and the ONLY way to play PS3 games on a PS5.

With 360 or older games, you don't need Game Pass, you don't need a Subscription, you don't NEED to stream at all so therefore you NEVER need to worry about your ability to play those games, never need to worry that you'll only have a limited time to play every month.

They will NEVER limit the Game-time for those games you bought anyway, never say you can only play a game for 5hrs a month that you 'own' and can play on Hardware. If you choose to give up 'hardware', they will have a Streaming only option specifically tailored for you to play 'unlimited' time every month because NO-ONE would subscribe otherwise.

Whilst these companies are not 'perfect' and quite anti-consumer in numerous ways, they wouldn't commit commercial suicide that would push gamers away completely, push them to their rivals and lose Revenue, lose their customer base which you seem adamant they would do which is absolutely absurd and just makes absolutely NO sense from a business perspective - they'll want you in their Ecosystem for as much of your free time as possible, not kick you out after 5hrs.

Streaming with game pass is like getting Free trials every month to play on your phone - you don't subscribe on your Console to 'stream' games and its not stopping you from playing EVERY game unlimited on the Console which is the entire reason you subbed to Game Pass anyway.

All you are doing is making ridiculous claims that make absolutely NO SENSE for ANY company to do. Sony are far more Anti-Consumer and what you are proposing would be similar to Sony saying you can only play games on their Console for 5-15hrs a month regardless of whether you bought games or not... That's how ridiculous you're idea you are creating in your own head is and you still keeping trying to push that as a possibility in the near future.

@RoomWithaMoose I know - that's why I said IF. I constantly hear discussions about delaying the release because of the high cost, that maybe they should wait until the prices drop, but as you and I know, the prices may never drop and as we have seen from this generation, actually increase over time due to unpredicted circumstances like wars or other industries causing shortages and/or higher demand.

I think its better to release when it is planned to release and that dictates the price point they can release it for. If its 'expensive', then its likely to be comparable to other similar products - inc their current gen Hardware for its 'relative' spec and component parts. If/when things change - either up or down, they'll adjust the prices of the Hardware. In the current gen, that meant prices went up but generations before saw decreases - although they could make significant reductions in chip size and therefore cooling and hardware size too.

Well if they do release it when the prices are high and then the prices 'drop' over time, then the hardware too will drop in price over time as you'd expect rather than go up as it did this generation.

If a brand new higher spec hardware costs 'too' much' for some gamers to buy at launch, they can wait for prices to drop, wait for used or save up to buy if they really want it - otherwise stick with their current Hardware as it will likely play the latest releases for the next few years at least. It may not be 'graphically' the same or use 'AI' to upscale, to boost frame rates etc but you can still play the games you want - at least the vast majority that a PS6 would play.

@NessunDorma Why because you keep bringing up PS3 and mixing up the fact they 'have' to stream to a Sub service and Xbox which doesn't and where Streaming is NOT necessary at all because ALL 360/OG games available will play NATIVELY on the Hardware - in fact they are also trying to bring those games to 'PC' too and with Disc to Digital, you can essentially play Games NATIVELY on Hardware without NEEDING to Stream.

Whilst 360 games weren't bought or meant for Series Consoles or PC for that matter, Microsoft have brought a chunk of them to modern consoles to play NATIVELY - No Streaming required so NO limitations on how many hours you can play every month

Your ignorance was mixing up Sony's need to stream with Microsoft actively working to bring their games to more Hardware, to be playable WITHOUT streaming. Just because they have recently limited Streaming time, that does not mean that gamers can't play those 360 or OG games more than 5hrs (or 15hrs if they subbed to Ultimate) every month.

If a game runs on Series X today, it will run on any system that plays Xbox Series X games in the future - that's how compatibility works. Everything that 'worked' on Xbox One carried over to Xbox Series X which included all the OG/360 Xbox games MS brought to XB1 via its BC programme because they bring 'everything' that runs natively on the previous hardware forward.

Its the same with PS4 and PS5 - the PS4 had 'no' compatibility and the PS5 plays everything that runs on the PS4 natively too and if the PS6 has BC with PS5, as you'd expect, then it should run all the PS4 games too because they run on the PS5.

MS will likely have a Streaming only Game Pass tier, just like they have a PC Only tier. You'll still be able to play ALL the Series X as well as all the XB1 and the Backwards Compatible 360 and OG Xbox titles natively on the hardware for as long as you want and, unlike Sony, you don't even need to subscribe to Game Pass to even play those 360/OG games because you can buy them and play natively on Hardware - just put your disc into the Series X and use that to play your old games.

Even if they decided not to bring Series X (and therefore all the 360 etc games forward) you can still keep playing on your Series X - just like you can keep playing PS3 games on your PS3, the hardware you bought them for!!

CoD doesn't really change enough despite the separate studios that work on the main game. When you don't really innovate, surprise or evolve significantly between iterations, its hardly surprising that reviews are 'ok' for a game that generally releases in a reasonable and working state every year.

Some of the biggest movies aren't critically well received or going to win an Oscar but they had the highest box office figures - although the Studio puts out film after film after film and the sales drop off - ask Marvel or Transformers about that.

Call of Duty hasn't really changed the Formula since they added Warzone and stopped selling DLC Map Packs that split the Community - not only with deals that meant some got them sooner, but also between those that bought and those that didn't. But the game-play hasn't really changed, for better or worse, but it doesn't surprise, it doesn't exceed expectations, it doesn't even have memorable Campaign moments that will still be talked about 20yrs later like MW and MW2 had. No Russian, All Ghilled Up, Death from Above etc. Campaigns are Generic at best these days...

I can't see them making Fallout, Doom, Elder Scrolls, Minecraft etc exclusive or at least 'Console' Exclusive as I doubt they'd sell enough Hardware to make enough money to continue making games.

Games aren't taking a couple of years to make and whilst they may need some 'exclusives', I can't see them having enough diversity and variety to attract enough people into their ecosystem. They'd need a lot more IP's and a lot more Exclusives arriving every year to entice gamers to buy into their Hardware. The 360 had a LOT of Exclusive Games and a Head start - with 3rd Party games like Mass Effect and Bioshock as Exclusives too. But they also released numerous games in their IPs - Gears Trilogy and Judgement, Halo 3, ODST, Reach and Wars for example - now you'd be lucky to get a Single Gears game or a Single Halo game because they take so long to make.

Sony too had had a LOT more variety and Diversity as well as much higher number of releases per studio - Naughty Dog released Uncharted 1-3 and LoU, we also had numerous Motorstorm, Resistance, Killzone, Infamous etc games too

Point is, even if MS decided to stop releasing on PS5, thatt won't sell more Xbox Consoles as PC gamers still won't need to buy their Hardware and they wouldn't release enough Diversity and Quantity of Exclusives to encourage PS gamers to buy Xbox instead of PS6 to make enough money on Software sales - and that's without considering the Game Pass impact...

I'd be surprised if they did and they won't be Exclusive to the Console Only as MS will still sell and support the PC anyway

Doesn't surprise me in slightest.

I know that Some will be passionate about buying Physical but I doubt that enough would be that passionate they'd stop buying Games/hardware completely, just play old games on old hardware and miss out on all the 'new' releases of IP's they so say loved, stop buying games that were made by the Devs and Studios and just play games they had 'no/little' interest in when they released and playing them now because they can buy them on disc.

Personally, I would buy the games and hardware to play them on regardless of how they choose to deliver them. I've bought Consoles because I want to play games that are ONLY on that Hardware and would rather buy than miss out on playing. Even if I'd prefer that games were released on my preferred hardware and preferred Format, I've still spent my money to play the Games I want rather than miss out because of Corporate decisions that mean I don't get to play where I want or buy in a format I preferred...

@NessunDorma At the end of the day - you bought games for your PS5 to play on your PS5 and they'll run on your PS5. My N64 games don't run on any Nintendo Hardware other than an N64 - the Hardware they were bought for.

Your PS3 games don't run on a PS5 and the ONLY way to play PS3 games on a PS5 is to subscribe to a service that adds to your Library and also allows you to play modern PS4/PS5 games you NEVER purchased - its a 'Library' service to ADD games you never purchased. With Xbox - ALL the games on Game Pass play on the Hardware so there is NO need to Stream at all.

There is a MASSIVE difference between 'buying' games (digitally or physically) and playing them on the Hardware they are designed to run on (or can run on with Backwards Compatibility) and paying for a service to 'borrow' games whilst you remain a subscriber - a service that can remove games, swap them out for others and therefore you can no longer play them anyway - unless you bought your own Licence.

You still can't seem to grasp the DIFFERENCE between playing Games you've actually bought and own a Licence to play - regardless of whether you purchased Digitally or Physically - and borrowing games from a Library that you Subscribe to and without paying a Subscription, would instantly lose access to.

If you run out of Streaming time with Game Pass on your Console, you can still keep playing ALL the games in that Library Service you Subscribe to on the Console - your time is NOT limited just because Streaming is - that just limits the amount of 'Streaming' time you get FREE (essentially) to play on other Hardware - like your TV, mobile or tablet of games you don't need to own.

If you aren't buying games and not buying Hardware, relying solely on Streaming from that Library service of titles - there will be a 'tier/version' of Game Pass/PS+ specifically for you - I'd be more concerned about the lower cost tiers adding Advertising than limiting the amount of time you can stream.

Gamers will go where the Games and way they want to play them are and wouldn't subscribe to services if they limited the amount of time they could play games. Game Pass isn't limiting the amount of time gamers can play games on their Console at all — but maybe you can't play those games you don't own on your Phone as long. If Sony force gamers into a Streaming only situation by not making Hardware, gamers will more likely go elsewhere to play games and if sub services don't 'work' for gamers, they won't sub.

BIG Difference between paying for a Game to play on Hardware and paying for a SUB to borrow games you never own from a Library to save the cost of buying them. Gamers will buy if the games they borrow are limited, gamers will not Subscribe if they can't play games the way they want, when they want etc...

@NessunDorma Wrong I assume that something will change - that some gamers would move to an ALL streaming solution for their gaming and when that happens, the likes of Sony and Microsoft will create a New Streaming only service for those - neither of which currently happens, neither of which exist so that would mean that things have 'changed'

There is a big difference between switching to an ALL-Digital distribution method instead of relying on Physical Discs that are far too slow to actually play games and barely adequate to deliver games due to limited capacity - let alone only delivering the 'pre-release' build that will require the internet for patches, additional content etc and switching to a Streaming ONLY service.

Both Sony and Microsoft already distribute the vast majority of games via Digital stores. Those games are downloaded and play directly on the Hardware and services like PS+ and Game Pass ALSO distribute games you don't own, but subscribe to play this way. As a 'bonus' with MS you can also play those games on ANY device that has the ability to play via streaming - but the purpose is to add a library of games you don't own to your Xbox or PS - you are NOT paying for a Streaming only service but that Library of games that you can download.

Both Microsoft and Sony also have all-digital hardware and have done so since the launch of the current Gen - with Xbox, Only Series X gamers have the option to buy Physical but PC and Series S are both Digital Only. Sony released an All-digital PS5 alongside the disc version and their PS5 Pro released without a Disc drive too - even if you could add one separately. Point is, Digital game purchases are by far the most popular way for gamers to get their games and play on their Hardware. Streaming is NOT the same thing as that is playing games from servers in the cloud and doesn't run on the Hardware locally like ALL digital games do.

Sony and MS's Sub service is to bring Libraries of games to their Hardware that can be downloaded and played. The only reason you have to stream PS3 is because that was the ONLY way Sony could offer them. These services are specific to the HW they are designed for hence the console versions come with Online Gaming access where as MS's PC version does not and is cheaper too. They would offer a Service for Streaming ONLY if and when gamers move away from playing on Hardware and if you play on Hardware, chances are you won't be streaming games for hours and hours, that you'll downloads those games to your hardware and play anyway!

Also, Next gen Hardware could have the power to run an emulator so that Sony doesn't have to rely on streaming PS3 games. As for Xbox, they've committed to bringing your games forward countless times - that's also why you have Disc to Digital so your Physical games will come forward onto ALL Digital hardware and if your OLD OG/360 games run on a Series X, they'll run on the next gen too because it will run whatever runs on a Series X.

Catch 22 - not enough sales to support with its own bespoke software and not enough great games to drive sales.

I must admit, I was never interested in strapping a headset over my eyes to play games and it would have taken a LOT to convince me to buy a Headset - not just Games but numerous other unique experiences.

@NessunDorma So yes there is a BIG difference between a sub service designed to bring games you don't own, to expand your 'library' of games to play on your Hardware and a service that would be designed for those that don't own Hardware and won't own the games they will be able to play. If you can buy the game and play locally, you never need to stream.

If you aren't buying Games or Hardware and only streaming, then you'll need a Sub Service for that option and MS/Sony would likely create a Service specifically for you - but it won't be the SAME as their Console service - just like Game Pass PC is NOT the same as Game Pass for Console because you never NEED to pay for Xbox Online services - PS+ includes PSN services, Game Pass Console includes Xbox Live Services as well as both offer 'free' games you can play that you don't 'need' to buy or own to play...

That is why you are mixing a service designed specifically for Hardware owners and adding a Library of Games to those Hardware owners and the possibility of a time when Hardware itself is not needed or bought - when gamers would rather pay a Sub fee than buy Hardware and Games to play.

So you'll either buy Hardware to play and maybe add a Sub service for an big Library of games you don't own or not buy Hardware and rely on streaming games you don't need to own and Sony/MS would have different 'tiers' for different groups - like they do now for Console because not everyone wants to play 'old' games or pay to rent games from the Library service - they only pay for the 'essential' tier to play their games with their friends and NEVER use the 5hrs of Streaming time they may get or play the 50 or so games they get with Game Pass, NEVER play the games they get every month with PS+ Essential and of course don't get any streaming time with that service despite costing around the same. Point is, these are designed for the Console gamer and they'd have a plan/service etc for those who prefer NOT to own hardware and/or prefer to stream the majority of their playtime.

@NessunDorma Why would you separate players with some kind of new service for sub players needing only streaming, wouldnt it be easier for MS or Sony or whoever to keep everything under same service?
Because Gamers won't buy a Service designed for Console Gamers if they aren't playing on Console. The whole reason you buy a Sub Service on PS or Xbox is because you game on PS or Xbox and/or require the Sub service to play Online, require the Sub Service to play games you DON'T own (or Cannot play on your Hardware with the OLD PS3 games).

With Xbox, you do NOT need Game Pass at all to play OG Xbox or 360 games, do NOT need to sub to their service (unless those games have an Online mode - but you'd be subscribe to Essential to play 'modern' games with your friends).

The Streaming option - as it exists currently, is really for games you don't own or cannot play on your Hardware. With Sony, you cannot play those PS3 games even if you own the disc on PS5 so the ONLY way they can bring OLD games to their hardware was via Streaming. With Xbox, ALL the games are playable on the Hardware so you NEVER need to stream at all - its a 'bonus' so you can play games away from the Console that otherwise would NOT be available.

You are making illogical assumptions and and totally unrealistic. Streaming services are far more likely to allow Gamers to play games they do not OWN - the Netflix or Amazon Prime type model where you don't 'need' or even own the Hardware either to play locally. Console gamers will not be 'subbing' for Streaming as they'll be playing their games on their Hardware and would more likely ditch a Sub service (or a certain tier) if it got to expensive or didn't suit the way they play. That's why they would make a Sub service to appeal to gamers who don't want or won't buy their hardware and/or Software - would rather pay a monthly fee and stream games they don't own - which is really what Game Pass and PS+ are - library services for games you don't own.

The vast majority will prefer to buy Games and play on Hardware designed to run those games - and if Sony decides NOT to make Hardware to play games and switch to a more 'Netflix' like model, I don't think Sony would succeed - they certainly wouldn't 'sell' games as their Sub Service would have the titles you can play via streaming and funded by your Sub Fee.

Microsoft already has an alterative 'hardware' option if they too decided to stop making Consoles, its called a PC! All their Games would be sold on that and, if you prefer' to play on your mobile/tablet/TV via Streaming, they'll have a Game Pass plan specifically for you too. These Library services are more about games you don't own - so you are paying a Subscription to play those games without buying them. Streaming PS3 games is their way of adding to that Library of games they can offer in that service that you don't own - yes you may own some from the PS3 days, but can't play on a PS5 - but its more about expanding a Library of games you play on your Console.

Streaming on Game Pass is more about giving the Gamers options to play 'away' from the Console but you still get all those Games to play natively despite not owning them and if you do own, you don't need a Sub Service to provide them...

@NessunDorma Again - if you ONLY stream, then MS and no doubt Sony will offer a Sub service specifically tailored to them - one that doesn't have limits on.

The point is that MS are limiting the Streaming option to primarily Console gamers who Subscribe to Game Pass. Streaming is a 'bonus' to those Console gamers who only Subscribe to Game Pass on Console because they Play on Console and EVERY game is downloadable and playable on that hardware via Backwards Compatibility. Streaming is a 'bonus' option to play games away from the Console - although can also stream to the Console IF you don't want to download.

They won't suddenly put OLD games behind a Streaming Paywall because those games are playable on the Hardware without needing a Sub Service - you can buy and play those games OR, if you already own them, play them on the Hardware without needing a Subscription (unless they require a Sub for Online gaming like ALL games on PS and Xbox).

Limited Streaming is a 'Bonus' for those who only sub to Game Pass for the 'online' access, the 'lowest'' tier of Siub - you cannot Stream PS3 games with PS+ Essential but you can stream any of the Game Pass Games you have access too from ANY generation and even Stream your OWN games to a phone/TV/Tablet etc for up to 5hrs a month with Game Pass Core.

What if Sony decides to put PS+ prices up to £15-£35 every month depending on tier and you'd have to pay £15 to keep access to all the Online Games/Content you paid for if you want to keep playing - games like CoD, Battlefield, Arc Raiders, HellDivers etc all require a sub to work and if you want to keep playing PS3, that will now be £35 a month, what if they put their prices up to £50...

What if - an absolutely pathetic way to look at this - It really doesn't consider the FACTS and certainly does nothing for gamers at all, certainly doesn't make any sense to doom and gloom when that situation is extremely unlikely. As I said, their is a BIG difference between Sony having to stream PS3 games because gamers cannot put their disc in a PS5 and Play and MS offering streaming as a way to expand the Hardware you can play your games on, not limit you to 'just' the Console. Ultimate also lets you play Game Pass 'Natively' on PC as a bonus to Console Gamers too

MS WON'T lock games behind Streaming - unlike Sony who had no choice because their PS3 games are incompatible with PS4/5 hardware so the ONLY option is to stream them. If I want to play my PS3 discs, I have to play on my PS3 but I can put my 360 discs into my Series X and play via BC without needing to stream or a sub to play them which is a VERY DIFFERENT Situation.

As I said, if and when the time comes that gamers are playing without Hardware, streaming only to their TV/Phone./Tablet - both Sony and Microsoft will have a Service tailored specifically for those Gamers - just like MS has a Game Pass service tailored specifically for PC as well as Console. There is your 'what if' answer - as I stated before. - they will have a Sub service geared specifically to those who play via streaming ONLY (or Primarily)!!

@NessunDorma You are mixing up two very different companies and their services - which is Ridiculous! Sony isn't limiting the amount of time you can Stream and in general, its streaming games which otherwise would not be available to play on your PS5 hardware - you are paying for the extra catalogue of really old games (PS1-PS3) and the ONLY way you can play those is to 'stream' unless you still own and play games on your PS3 hardware.

Xbox on the other hand is letting you Stream games from Game Pass - all of which can be downloaded and played WITHOUT needing to Stream on Series Consoles and PC. The fact is you do NOT need to stream or worry about streaming limits because you can actually download the game to your Console and play it 24/7 for the ENTIRE month (if that was humanly possible). You are NOT limited to only playing the game for '5hrs' because of limited Streaming time, just limited to the amount of time you can Stream.

As you can't download and play PS3 games on your PS5, you'd only be able to play PS3 games for 5hrs with PS+ Essential (for example) if they followed MS's model but its more like you have 5hrs to stream those games before you decide whether or not you want to download and play, 5hrs to 'try' games on your PS5 before you decide whether they are worth waiting an hour or so to download and play, maybe decide whether to delete games to clear space to download that game or maybe you can't access your Hardware so can play those games on your Phone for a few hours...

Point is, its a 'bonus' feature to add 'options' of where and how you want to play with Microsoft - a bonus to the 'Console' users who pay for Game Pass and maybe want to stream their Game to a Phone, want to try games before they decide to download - a way to trial them without the wait or hassle of moving/deleting games to create space to download, a way to try before you decide to download - its NOT the main or ONLY way to play like PS3 games are on PS5.

If you don't have a Console or PC, chances are you aren't buying Game Pass and if you have to rely on Streaming because the ONLY way you can play games is via Streaming, MS will likely have a Streaming ONLY version of Game Pass without limits. Don't forget that Game Pass is a Subscription tier to bring a Library of games to Gaming Hardware (PC or Xbox Console) - Hardware that plays those games without the need to stream so streaming is a 'bonus' unlike Sony's which relies on Streaming to bring those old games that don't run natively to their Console

@NessunDorma Thats somewhat ridiculous and whilst I do know they are limiting Streaming via Game Pass, that's more of an 'emergency' option as most gamers would choose to play the games they own via Hardware that plays the game - whether that is a Console or a PC. Streaming only happens if you can't play on the Hardware (for example you play on your Phone or on some other internet enabled device) or you want to try something before you commit to downloading to play on your hardware - for example you don't know whether a Game will appeal enough to make space for or wait for the download to play locally.

If Streaming IS the method by which you play Xbox games because you don't own a PC or a Console with the necessary spec to play the game, then MS will likely have a Streaming Only version of Game Pass - like they have a PC and a Console version. The Game Pass to which you are referring is the Console version with the basic version (like PS+ Essential) offering the least amount of Streaming time - but you buy it because you want to play games that are online and as a 'bonus', you get 50 or so games and 5hrs of Streaming time every month - Premium increases the number of games and streaming time with Ultimate giving Day 1, more games and 15hrs. A few years ago, Streaming was ONLY available to those who subbed to Ultimate...

None of this stops gamers from 'buying' Digital and playing those games on the Hardware they purchased for WITHOUT Streaming. Streaming is to play on Hardware that's NOT built to play those games - mobiles, Samsung/LG TV's etc. You don't NEED to stream games today on a Series X because the games are built to run on it so you can play EVERY game without Streaming so never need to worry about Streaming time limitations

@Discol76 Sorry missed your reply - What Microsoft are offerng with their Disc to Digital is that you convert your Disc licence o a Digital licence and get whatever benefits that Digital version offered - so if it offered Play Anywhere or Project Helix releases without a Disc Drive, your Physical disc games are playable on PC and would be playable on Helix via BC.

However, if you sell your disc and another person puts it in their Console, that Digital Licence would transfer to their account as you no longer own the Disc so no longer own a Valid Licence.

Its not quite the same as transferring a Digital only licence although its very similar. That Digital licence is on the Disc essentially and no doubt has its own unique licence key code and if you sell that disc and someone else puts it in their Console, that code would transfer to them as only one account can have that code.

I'm sure they could expand that to ALL Digital licences but they have NO incentive to do so. The disc physically changes hands so that licence has to go with the disc and if Disc Drives become 'obsolete' next gen, they won't lose sales to the used market of 'new' releases because new games will only be sold Digitally. Disc to Digital becomes something for Legacy/old releases and for those to be 'preserved' and 'playable' on newer hardware like Legacy Digital purchases - a way for gamers with Physical games to bring them forward like the gamers who buy Digital would be able to do.

With Series X being the ONLY hardware Microsoft offered with aa Disc Drive, it would be bad that their Premium customers who chose to buy Physical had to rebuy or miss out if Helix is all-digital whilst Series S owners could bring their digital library forward.

Does anyone know what Sony wanted and why they maybe were quoted a higher figure?

Maybe Sony wanted much more control over the IP - even if they didn't own it - long term Exclusivity (over a year) and/or final say on which platforms/storefronts it can be sold through like only on Epic on PC and NEVER on through a Microsoft Store (Console or PC).

Maybe Sony wanted the IP and Kojima quoted a price he maybe willing to sell it for but MS are happy just to publish and not as restrictive on which Platforms and where Kojima can sell his game - even if it does mean a limited Exclusivity window on Console in return for funding and Publishing his game.

We don't know what the conditions of each deal is but II doubt that Microsoft are paying less for the exact same deal that Sony wanted with Kojima. I expect that Sony wanted a lot more than Microsoft and Kojima quoted them a Price and Sony wasn't willing to compromise to reduce that cost...

@Discol76 Yeah Xbox does do Digital better but they still have games that rely on Game Pass Core to play on their Console but you can play their own games on PC (thanks to Play Anywhere) without needing a Game Pass Core Subscription and your licence lets you play on various different Hardware SKU's - you download the version for the hardware you want to play on which could be XB1, XB1X, Series S, Series X or PC (including a Handheld optimised option too). Its still limited to 'Microsoft' though - you can't play on Steam and therefore not Steamdeck despite Steam using the exact same PC version. If you own a licence for a Game, you should be able to play that licence on ANY hardware without having to buy yet another licence for the exact same game - but platform holders would not allow that. Imagine buying BF6 from EA and being able to play on PS, Xbox or PC with that licence - not have to buy it multiple times to play on those 3 platforms...