Support NeoGAF

[EDMIX]

The biggest surprise here really is the PSP games tbh lol


My stance remains the same on this, its not bad for those who like to play those old games, but I don't see enough to really suggest the majority really care THAT much about old titles. So I think most will just get that mid tier to get those PS4 and PS5 games.

If those PS1,PS2, PSP games are downloadable, does that mean they'll have an option to just buy them on PSN?

 

[DavJay]

Big miss. I think day one release on GP alone worth $10 a month. That’s the selling point of gamepass

 

[Lognor]

Paid demos and cloud saves still locked behind a monthly subscription. What a joke!

 

[kyliethicc]

PS+ and PS Now currently pull in around $ 3.2 billion per year.

If 10% of current PS+ subs upgrade to PS+ Extra,
and 10% of current PS+ subs upgrade to PS+ Premium,
they could grow annual subscription revenue by over 30%.

Could increase sub revenue by over $ 1 billion per year (without any new subscribers.)

And now they have 1 simple sub service with double the sub count of the competition.

Pretty clever move by Sony if it works.

 

[envyzeal]

Ok so I'm having a look at PSNow today:

- 16 PS2 Titles
- Over 500 PS3 titles
- Around 400 PS4 titles

They're promoting saying:

700+ games -> (it already has more)
Adds a catalog of up to 400* of the most enjoyable PS4 and PS5 games -> Ok because there isn't any PS5 game I guess (correct me if I'm wrong)

Then:
Adds up to 340* additional games, including:
PS3 games available via cloud streaming
A catalog of beloved classic games available in both streaming and download options from the original PlayStation, PS2 and PSP generations

-> considering we ALREADY have over 500 PS3 titles on PSNOW.

Whats the catch?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So is this ballpark estimate correct? So really the only key difference is the new middle tier?

PS Essential = PS+ at the same annual price

PS Extra = PS+ and only the PS4/PS5 games from PS Now at a price somewhere in the middle

PS Premium = PS+ and PS Now combined at the same annual prices

 

[Little Chicken]

I see the new Playstation Plus is so disappointing it inspired 24 pages of Game Pass discussion.

 

[Esppiral]

Gamecube runs great, even on higher res. PS2 runs mostly like garbage on SX, sry. Not a valiable option for emulation as it is right now.

That's actually not true .... PS2 games run great for the most part....

 

[ethomaz]

Isn't normally three games a month?

It is 2 for each platform.
But you have PS4 and PS5... so they give one more game.

 

[Max_Po]

Big miss. I think day one release on GP alone worth $10 a month. That’s the selling point of gamepass

GamePass is 10? I think it is 16.99 CDN per month.

 

[kyliethicc]

So is this ballpark estimate correct? So really the only key difference is the new middle tier?

PS Essential = PS+ at the same annual price

Yup. No change.

PS Extra = PS+ and only the PS4/PS5 games from PS Now at a price somewhere in the middle

Yeah, no streaming or old games, but lower annual price than Plus and Now cost.

And new 1st party games like Miles Morales and Returnal. That Now currently lacks.

PS Premium = PS+ and PS Now combined at the same annual prices

With new PS1 games, new PSP games, and the ability to download the PS1 PS2 and PSP games.

And some PS5 game trials too.

 

[Naked Lunch]

I dont want streaming.
I want to purchase and download classic Playstation console games individually.
I want access to the digital PS1 and PS2 games I already bought on PS3.
Anything less is garbage.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

For those of you who are willing to pay for middle or top tier, looks like big hit games are coming soon. Looks like EA Play kind of thing. Just wait a year if you can.

If you're already an existing PS+ gamer, just bump up to the mid tier for an extra $40 per year. Wait it out, and you'll get AAA games later on.

If I was a PS gamer, I'd do the mid tier. I wouldnt bother with the premium tier even though it's only $20 more/yr. Dont care about really old games on legacy systems or handhelds.

The new Extra and Premium tiers represent a major evolution for PlayStation Plus. With these tiers, our key focus is to ensure that the hundreds of games we offer will include the best quality content that sets us apart. At launch, we plan to include titles such as Death Stranding, God of War, Marvel's Spider-Man, Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales, Mortal Kombat 11, and Returnal.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Seems like you would reach that point naturally. You need enough content to keep existing subscribers and draw in new users, but at the same time you don't want to go overboard and create an over abundance of content (erasing potential profits). You'd expect that at a certain point first-party investment would just even out (other than inflation of wages, etc.). I'd guess you might see another big addition or two from MS, but probably nothing of the magnitude of Activision.

And that's where I'm partly worried tbh. I can't pretend that MS has shown exemplary management skills of a lot of their studios so far. 343i is a mess. The Initiative seems like they've been through some big commotion. Playground may or may not be struggling in adapting for a project like Halo. Rare is basically just SoT (which is going well fwiw) and multiple reboots for Everwild. We're still waiting to see how Hellblade II truly turns out, waiting to see how Avowed shapes up, etc.

MS has been of some net benefit, they got Psychonauts 2 more funding and they are probably helping a lot funding-wise with Starfield, etc. But I can't say MS has been involved with those games fully from the ground-up in helping shape them, they were already pretty far along creatively and MS just provided some dev resources and funding. And with ABK, they've got to do a shitton to turn around their workplace culture.

Ideally I'd like to see them show results with what they have right now before going for more acquisitions. Show me how Avowed turns out, how Hellblade 2 shows off, show me that Perfect Dark is a banger to shut up the doubters (even just some hands-on gameplay, since the game might be pretty far out), etc. If those are top-quality, I think they get a lot more goodwill from tons of people who'd be okay with another large or semi-large acquisition from them, but not before. So I can't see them doing more acquisitions until 2024 at the earliest.

Sony's a different thing in this; they already have a ton of goodwill due to consistent strong 1P releases over the years, and they haven't really made any truly industry-shaking moves like buying a Zenimax or especially an ABK. They're probably working on other acquisitions but no one really knows what those are. Like, some people say FromSoft but that doesn't make any sense, why would Kadokawa sell off FromSoft? If Sony really wanted FromSoft they'd just buy Kadokawa or do a merger with them (I think they could merge; Kadokawa's a lot smaller than Sony and I think mergers don't work when one company's much smaller than the other, but could be wrong).

PS1 classic was a bit of an aberration (And it seemed like a cost-cutting measure more than anything to go off the shelf). But who knows, it's a brave new world, and presumably a question of performance/compatibility I guess - since presumably they want PS3 emulation for running in the cloud sooner or later, they'll want optimal solution for that.

I thought they already offered PS3 BC via cloud? It's in the Premium tier, or are you talking of something different? I'd be more interested in native PS3 BC through emulation, but that's the part which might take a while.

Big miss. I think day one release on GP alone worth $10 a month. That’s the selling point of gamepass

Where have the consistent 1P Day 1 releases (let alone 3P Day 1 releases) been though outside of some smaller indie games? The hook was really for all 1P games (at least all XGS games) Day 1 in the service, and one AAA game per quarter.

They haven't really been hitting that in terms of a consistent schedule. Maybe they start with RedFall this Summer (if it hasn't been delayed internally), Starfield in Q4, something else Q1 2023, so on and so forth.

 

[MacReady13]

So I can't purchase the old games, but I have to be subscribed to be able to download them (like Nintendo does with SNES/N64/NES/Mega Drive games)?

 

[TheGreatMusashi]

Will update for the classic games. Hopefully the list is good

 

[Fafalada]

I thought they already offered PS3 BC via cloud? It's in the Premium tier, or are you talking of something different? I'd be more interested in native PS3 BC through emulation, but that's the part which might take a while.

It uses PS3 hardware blades for now - based on a chipset that's on an outdated process and will only get more expensive to manufacture. As they scale the service (especially if the adoption reaches 10s of millions) this could quickly become unsustainable, so they'd want to move to a virtualized (emulated) solution that runs on the same blades as the rest of library.

 

[Killer8]

But RPCS3 is an open-source emulator project with no access to source code or hardware resources the way Sony has access to both. There are some PS3 games that run at 60 in it at native resolution, and 100% accuracy is never going to be possible with software emulation anyway. Hardcore types are just going to settle for an actual PS3 to play the games anyway, if they want full-on accuracy and compatibility.

I think a lot of people also forget that Microsoft had Xbox 360 backwards compat since the Xbox One. Even the basic launch Xbox One can run 360 games, albeit without the FPS or resolution enhancements that later came on the One X and Series X. So i'd say BC for PS360 era games shouldn't really be alien or too hard.

People can read about how Microsoft did it here, but the tl;dr is that a company can use a lot of tricks and 'special sauce' behind the scenes to get games running in efficient ways, that brute force emulators written by hobby programmers cannot.

The Cell is probably (definitely?) more complex than the Xenon to emulate, but I absolutely believe Sony could do it on PS5. They have pretty good Ryzen CPUs this generation which likely already exceed the RPCS3 emulator requirements.

 

[ZehDon]

As disappointing as expected - but the names are, somehow, worse.

Holding backwards compatible titles behind a monthly subscription fee is pretty terrible, given their competitor is handing it out for free. If this was supposed to be a Game Pass competitor, it only serves to highlight how much more Microsoft is offering with Game Pass.

 

[M1chl]

It uses PS3 hardware blades for now - based on a chipset that's on an outdated process and will only get more expensive to manufacture. As they scale the service (especially if the adoption reaches 10s of millions) this could quickly become unsustainable, so they'd want to move to a virtualized (emulated) solution that runs on the same blades as the rest of library.

Yeah that's the thought which I get reading that PS3 BC will be only streaming. I wonder how much it cost to maintain this service. They will be better off to just talk to RPCS3 guys for some licencing.

 

[MonarchJT]

as i said hundreds of times this plus update is simply a sneaky Sony method to somehow incentivize people to pay for that failure that was psnow. just this. what a joke.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

as i said hundreds of times this plus update is simply a sneaky Sony method to somehow incentivize people to pay for that failure that was psnow. just this. what a joke.

Yup.

All they really did was make a mid tier option in hopes people reluctant to go all the way PS+ and PS Now, instead buy that mid tier sub plan. And currently, most gamers shun PS Now like the plague.

As crazy as it seems, people rag on MS for sub plans, yet Sony now has 3 of them. It's like they are trying to be a cell phone plan operator with a tons of plans hoping one sticks with a customer. You never now a few years from now they might have 5 tiers.

 

[Hitchyhero]

Just to confirm... Gamepass type services are good now?

GAF convinced me that gamepass was bad for the industry and that PS gamers consume their games differently. And they don't like to "rent" their games. But now the comments look positive for this by type of service. Confused.

 

[NEbeast]

But the quality of Microsoft's games IS changing.

That's the point you fecundarian.

So? Sony are market leader for a reason, MS scooping up big publishers isn't going to change the quality of Sonys games. Your end of the world nonesense is just garbage. Wasn't there an article stating MS would gain a little market share in 4 years but still be way behind in 3rd. Are you even going to be alive when they are market leader, you might be waiting a while.

 

[Fox Mulder]

This was the hype? It’s nothing special but charging more than Gamepass is a choice.

 

[MacReady13]

I dont want streaming.
I want to purchase and download classic Playstation console games individually.
I want access to the digital PS1 and PS2 games I already bought on PS3.
Anything less is garbage.

Spot fucking on.

 

[Captain Toad]

Big miss. I think day one release on GP alone worth $10 a month. That’s the selling point of gamepass

GamePass probably IS worth $10 per month.

Too bad GamePass isn't $10 per month.

 

[Hunnybun]

So? Sony are market leader for a reason, MS scooping up big publishers isn't going to change the quality of Sonys games. Your end of the world nonesense is just garbage. Wasn't there an article stating MS would gain a little market share in 4 years but still be way behind in 3rd. Are you even going to be alive when they are market leader, you might be waiting a while.

End of the world nonsense?

What the fuck are you talking about you dumb prick?

 

[Captain Toad]

End of the world nonsense?

What the fuck are you talking about you dumb prick?

Dude. This isn't GameFAQs. Calm down. Act like you're old enough to be here.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

PS sales is due to userbase numbers.

Xbox has half of Ps userbase. Yet, Halo 5 sold 9.5m.
That is almost 19m copies, if they had Sony userbase.

Its not because their games don't sell well.

I see. I think numbers that high is a rarity though especially with Microsoft’s more recent releases. Halo is also arguably their most popular franchise at the time. The Nintendo Switch also had a considerably smaller user base than PlayStation 4 at the time and it still had several million sellers though. I feel that if Microsoft games were selling good, they wouldn’t put these games on a subscription service and Microsoft would let everyone know they are selling well.

Microsoft generally talks about how many active players there are playing a game over how many units it sold to my knowledge. Yes, it’s a subscription service where people don’t have to buy the games, but I find it interesting they mention active users much more than units sold.

 

[Hunnybun]

Dude. This isn't GameFAQs. Calm down. Act like you're old enough to be here.

Dude - I was just responding in kind.

I'm often told that I don't suffer fools gladly, and the same goes for fuckwits.

 

[Ozzie666]

The cell processor keeps on giving and stuffing up generations to come. Either make an in house emulator or find a hardware solution going forward.

 

[Captain Toad]

Dude - I was just responding in kind.

I'm often told that I don't suffer fools gladly, and the same goes for fuckwits.

Sounds more like you were just losing an argument and throwing a hissy fit and making yourself look like a tool. But, I'm sure it sounds different in your own head.

 

[kyliethicc]

GamePass probably IS worth $10 per month.

Too bad GamePass isn't $10 per month.

Xbox Game Pass is $10 per month.

Ultimate is $15.

 

[Hunnybun]

Sounds more like you were just losing an argument and throwing a hissy fit and making yourself look like a tool. But, I'm sure it sounds different in your own head.

"Jesus, what a load of nonsense" isn't an argument.

And it's not civil, either. Therefore I feel no need to maintain a civil tone, or any modicum of respect.

 

[kingfey]

I see. I think numbers that high is a rarity though especially with Microsoft’s more recent releases. Halo is also arguably their most popular franchise at the time. The Nintendo Switch also had a considerably smaller user base than PlayStation 4 at the time and it still had several million sellers though. I feel that if Microsoft games were selling good, they wouldn’t put these games on a subscription service and Microsoft would let everyone know they are selling well.

Microsoft generally talks about how many active players there are playing a game over how many units it sold to my knowledge. Yes, it’s a subscription service where people don’t have to buy the games, but I find it interesting they mention active users much more than units sold.

Its a leadership change.
MS leader wants Subscription service on all MS products, unlike Sony leader.

 

[NEbeast]

End of the world nonsense?

What the fuck are you talking about you dumb prick?

 

[EDMIX]

So I can't purchase the old games, but I have to be subscribed to be able to download them (like Nintendo does with SNES/N64/NES/Mega Drive games)?

tbh, I'm not really sure on this.

Because they are still coming out with information, its likely being able to stream em and download all of them like you can with PS4 and PS5 titles, but no PS4 or PS5 title is ONLY on Plus or something, as in doesn't exist to be bought outside of it, so its likely thats just going to be like how we already got PS4 and PS5 stream and download stuff.

You also need to consider Sony doesn't own all 3rd parties, how could you tell Square, Capcom, Rockstar etc, oh they CAN'T put the game on PSN? That just sounds unlikely as nothing is really stopping any of em from making some port or remaster of those very same games on PSN later or something as clearly they exist and work.

So we'll have to see more on it to tell.

Holding backwards compatible titles behind a monthly subscript

? From what I read, you can't put in games on disk in the PS4 or PS5 and they play using this service, so......I don't know what you mean.

This isn't backward compatibility.

competitor is handing it out for free

??? You don't pay any money to use PS5's BC, as in...to play a PS4 game, as it doesn't cost money, so......I don't know what you are talking about and it sounds like you are trying to force some idea that this service to download games, is the same as backwards compatibility. I'm not sure how that can be as you can't put in a PS1, PS2 or PS3 disk and it plays on the PS4 or PS5 using this service, to say such an odd thing.

It would be as dumb as saying FFVII port is Sony charging for BC. Old games being ported, is not BC..... As far as I can tell, all this is a series of old games being ported to be streamed, downloaded etc, its not an ability to play old games using the exact disk.

Using such shit logic, MS isn't doing that for free as they've ported several old games and very much charged for them.

Buy Rare Replay | Xbox

Celebrate Rare’s 30th Anniversary with a jaw-dropping collection of 30 iconic games, lovingly presented for Xbox One. Tackle snapshot challenges and enjoy exclusive bonus features.

www.xbox.com

Halo: The Master Chief Collection | Xbox

Halo: The Master Chief Collection. Six games, one epic saga.

www.xbox.com

So...fuck are you talking about? Thats free? lol

If you can understand that all that exist and clearly would not be considered BC, I'm 99% sure you can understand those PS1, PS2 and PSP games are not BC.... they are just old games being ported...

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Popular console is what people buy. And ps4 was the talk of the town.

If you want to brag about their 1st party games, you should know, that out of 120m consoles, only 20m bought gow of war on ps4.

Aside of Nintendo, no console sells their system based on 1st party.

Completely disagree with the nonsense you said.

People definitely buy Playstation for its collection of exclusives. Since 20 million is nothing to scoff at. Nintendo almost exclusively sells 1st party. Sony just happens to have a robust 3rd party support.

 

[kyliethicc]

edit

 

[EDMIX]

The cell processor keeps on giving and stuffing up generations to come. Either make an in house emulator or find a hardware solution going forward.

tbh, they'd be better off just porting all the best titles and moving on.

I think it would be cool in the future to have some BC thing for that, but by PS6, I just don't see how much would really care.

Completely disagree with the nonsense you said.

People definitely buy Playstation for its collection of exclusives. Since 20 million is nothing to scoff at. Nintendo almost exclusively sells 1st party. Sony just happens to have a robust 3rd party support.

Agreed.

I was just about to say, selling 20 million of a exclusive very much proves its being bought for those titles by many. The dumb argument of "derrrrr out of 120 million, only 20" sound just ignorant. 120 million of that base is also a very diverse set of gamers.

Some like Uncharted, The Last Of Us, GT, God Of War, Horizon series, Ghost Of Tsushima (likely to join that 20 mill club), Spiderman etc, they also love lots of horror and JRPG that literally move more units on Playstation systems, as Sony themselves have competition with 3rd party, Square on some of their titles was moving something crazy like 80% units sold on PS...... so the install base has a huge amount of interest in lots of games, thus they don't have some weird shit where they can ONLY buy first party games due to lack of much competition. It means that PlayStation gamers bought both Elden Ring and GT7 and Horizon 2, which means of course Horizon 2 isn't fucking moving 50 million units, the PS install base has many games they buy, thus you don't see such a weird thing happen.

So PS4 and PS5 are popular because of those games that can only be found on the system and everything is else is a bonus.

So of course Nintendo will move lots of units of their first party titles ,they don't have the likes of Elden Ring, Assassins Creed, Far Cry, Resident Evil 2 remake, 3 remake, 7, 8 etc to compete against their first party offerings, at most its a streaming pile of shit that gets avoided by Nintendo fans anyway, so because of that history of nonsupport, most of that core install base that values Resident Evil, Assassins Creed etc also know to not fucking buy a Nintendo system to expect such support, so they made that install base their own based on those hardware changes and fluctuations, I don't see how the fuck that would be desired by Playstation gamers as if we don't want Elden Ring or Resident Evil or some shit.

So I buy a PlayStation so I can get those exclusives......AND solid 3rd party support, I'm not looking to fucking play SOME Resident Evil titles, I want to play all that they put out, not some fucking infrequent, mix match, out of order shit lol So that is indeed the value of PS to consumers as to why they move record units. They can get their 3rd party support, JRPGs from the east and first party titles.

I'd rather they move 20 million a title and I have variety vs them moving 40 million a title cause there isn't shit to play on that platform but them.....

 

[kingfey]

Completely disagree with the nonsense you said.

People definitely buy Playstation for its collection of exclusives. Since 20 million is nothing to scoff at. Nintendo almost exclusively sells 1st party. Sony just happens to have a robust 3rd party support.

1/6 of the system users buy PS exclusive. That should tell you alot.
Compared to Nintendo, which has 1/2 attachment rate.

3rd party games is what those users want. You take those games away, and the console become thin. Same for Xbox.

 

[bitbydeath]

Just to confirm... Gamepass type services are good now?

GAF convinced me that gamepass was bad for the industry and that PS gamers consume their games differently. And they don't like to "rent" their games. But now the comments look positive for this by type of service. Confused.

The fear has always been around how day one titles will change the landscape, driving devs to further push anti-consumer measures such as GaaS into SP only titles. Sony hasn’t gone that route from what I can see. The mid-tier is essentially just PS+ with the PS+ games collection expanded by a few hundred titles.

 

[MasterCornholio]

1/6 of the system users buy PS exclusive. That should tell you alot.
Compared to Nintendo, which has 1/2 attachment rate.

3rd party games is what those users want. You take those games away, and the console become thin. Same for Xbox.

I think your trying to say that’s a testament to PlayStations install base. And I agree you that it helps make Sony 1st party games very successful.

 

[kingfey]

I think your trying to say that’s a testament to PlayStations install base. And I agree you that it helps make Sony 1st party games very successful.

Correct. Once your console is big hit with casuals, you can actually get big sales, because higher user base means higher chance of sale, and less competitive sales.
Not to mention, making your games easier to get in, will attract alot of users.
Look at elden ring, compared to dark souls games.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Correct. Once your console is big hit with casuals, you can actually get big sales, because higher user base means higher chance of sale, and less competitive sales.
Not to mention, making your games easier to get in, will attract alot of users.
Look at elden ring, compared to dark souls games.

Why yes doesn’t detract from how successful Sony 1st games are and will be in the future. If Sony manages to sell a ton of consoles then that can only be seen as a positive thing.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

1/6 of the system users buy PS exclusive. That should tell you alot.
Compared to Nintendo, which has 1/2 attachment rate.

3rd party games is what those users want. You take those games away, and the console become thin. Same for Xbox.

again nonsense. A system needs to sell exclusives almost exclusively to have system sellers?

People buy a Playstation because of the exclusives. Its the rapport the Playstation brand reestablished for itself since the tail-end of the PS3. Then after the early adopters, the normies buy whatever their friends bought.

Nintendo way works for them. But thats why they also take L’s with products like the Wii U, or the Gamecube, etc.

 

[kingfey]

again nonsense. A system needs to sell exclusives almost exclusively to have system sellers?

People buy a Playstation because of the exclusives. Its the rapport the Playstation brand reestablished for itself since the tail-end of the PS3. Then after the early adopters, the normies buy whatever their friends bought.

Nintendo way works for them. But thats why they also take L’s with products like the Wii U, or the Gamecube, etc.

Majority of gamers arent interested in console exclusives. Unless you are counting hardcore gamers as majority of gamers.
While consoles need exclusives to sell, but that is only for hardcore gamers.
If that was the case, Xbox one, which had shit exclusives wouldnt have sold 50m.

Nintendo is exception, because the switch is weak, and cant handle 3rd party games like call of duty. Or else, that console would have surpassed 150m by now.

 

[kingfey]

Why yes doesn’t detract from how successful Sony 1st games are and will be in the future. If Sony manages to sell a ton of consoles then that can only be seen as a positive thing.

That is the part of business. Appealing your console to the masses, will bring huge success.

 

[MasterCornholio]

That is the part of business. Appealing your console to the masses, will bring huge success.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with making a popular system.