Support NeoGAF

[fart town usa]

It's no different from streaming services. You can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these massive productions, not grow the subscription figures, and then be surprised that you haven't made any money. These streaming services just burn through cash. There are too many options to expect new people to sign up each month. I suspect most people just watch youtube or listen to podcasts.

With games, people will buy what they want to buy, putting it on gamepass isn't enticing anyone who isn't already there. I could access these games via my VCR Xbox One and I have no interest because I have hundreds of games in the backlog. I suspect the backlog of games, that gamers already own, is why more people aren't signing up for gamepass, it's just another way to add to the backlog.

 

[ResilientBanana]

Then why do they keep signing up?

 

[FalconPunch]

People who have never written a line of code or know nothing about software development give their opinion on developing software for the games industry.

Writing a line of code has nothing to do with the business side of game development. I know you thought you sounded real intelligent however it’s actually the opposite.

 

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

Windows isn't?

 

[A.Romero]

I don't get it. Is being on gamepass obligatory? If not and they believe Microsoft is short changing them why go to gamepass?

Go to the market in the traditional way and rack in the way you expect.

Still, developers keep releasing their games on the service. Are they stupid?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

PS+ is basically GP without day 1 games, so they did adopt the idea

PS+ actually started it as it came out years before GP.

The only real difference is day one first party games. Big third party games almost never come on sub plan day one. And indie games may come to both PS+ and GP.

I don't get it. Is being on gamepass obligatory? If not and they believe Microsoft is short changing them why go to gamepass?

Go to the market in the traditional way and rack in the way you expect.

Still, developers keep releasing their games on the service. Are they stupid?

It's not mandatory.

But what I bet happens is MS is aggressive with GP, so they go around offering a deal to get the game on GP and all these smaller devs making noname indie games cant help but accept it when MS dangles the carrot in their face.

 

[Rockondevil]

1. Devs don’t have to put a game on Game Pass.

2. I’ve purchased 1 game, 1 DLC and 1 Season Pass from games I’ve played on Game Pass.
All 3 were games I wouldn’t have played can played if they weren’t on Game Pass.
Is that not money those devs made they wouldn’t have otherwise?

3. Game Pass absolutely stops sales because why wouldn’t it. But it gives more players for many games than they would’ve had otherwise.

 

[SF Kosmo]

It's tough to really quantify lost sales like that. It's the same logic people use to say piracy is costing them this massive amount, when the reality is that most pirates were unlikely to pay for the game in the first place.

It's important to remember that most people aren't buying Game Pass for indie games, they're buying it for the big AAA and Day One stuff, and the rest is just filler. And people might consume and enjoy a lot of that filler but it doesn't mean that those people would have bought your game or even known that it existed if not for Game Pass.

Putting your indie game on Game Pass certainly CAN raise its profile and lead to more sales, as we saw with Pal World, but it's not a guarantee and just because your game doesn't go viral doesn't mean Game Pass is cannibalizing it either.

Now whether or not Game Pass makes business sense for the higher profile stuff is kind of another matter...

 

[Yoboman]

It should be at best an indie access service. Microsoft shouldn't be putting any day one games on there and any third party should tred very carefully

Remember how ridiculous their valuations for games were?

Imagine Larian had taken that deal. Instead they made likely a billion dollars in direct to consumer sales

Meanwhile they were valuing flops like Suicide Squad at a quarter billion dollars

 

[T4keD0wN]

• Revenue Uncertainty: Developers often rely on upfront sales for predictable revenue. Game Pass shifts this model to a subscription-based payout, which can be inconsistent and tied to engagement metrics rather than actual game purchases. This leads to financial uncertainty for studios, especially indie developers.
• Devaluation of Games: With so many titles available for a low monthly fee, the perceived value of individual games decreases. Consumers may become less willing to pay full price for games outside the subscription, creating a "race to the bottom" in pricing.
• Unsustainable Expectations: Game Pass fosters a culture where players expect to access a large library of high-quality games at minimal cost. This places pressure on developers to lower prices or join the subscription service, often at unfavorable terms.
• Lack of Long-Tail Sales: Titles on Game Pass may experience a surge in engagement initially but suffer from reduced long-term sales as players move to newer titles within the subscription. This affects studios that rely on steady income from evergreen titles.
• Indie Developers Struggle: While exposure on Game Pass can boost visibility, many indie developers report that the revenue from the platform doesn’t compensate for the loss of traditional sales. Additionally, it can be challenging for smaller games to stand out among a vast library.

Hard to disagree with most of this, these are all safe assumptions, but this is either a risk analysis (or at least part, possitive risk is missing) or a part of SWOT assessment (threats/weaknesses), if this was real then there would also have to be either positive risks or opportunities and strenghts included, care to post the rest so we get the whole picture?

Additionally, it can be challenging for smaller games to stand out among a vast library.

This last part is wrong, the same library will exist whether or not a product is on gamepass, if anything putting it there removes a barrier and levels the playing field, that can be either negative if the product is good, in which case theyre more likely to avoid gamepass altogethter or positive if they have no confidence in the product.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

PS+ actually started it as it came out years before GP.

The only real difference is day one first party games. Big third party games almost never come on sub plan day one. And indie games may come to both PS+ and GP.

Not as a subscription game catalog.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

But it is one of the best pieces of meme fodder for GAF

Gimme more of dat value baby

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Not as a subscription game catalog.

It was. In 2015, they changed it to a sub plan model instead of rental. GP launched summer 2017.

Sony Reveals 'PlayStation Now' Monthly Subscription Model At Last

PlayStation Now always seemed like a good idea, executed poorly. The concept of granting the PS4 backwards compatibility through new-age game streaming was cool (as was playing games without a console altogether, using some devices), but a clunky pay-per-view model with wildly varying prices...

www.forbes.com

 

[Three]

Not as a subscription game catalog.

PS+ was a subscription game catalogue from the very beginning. The only difference was that games could be removed from gamepass whereas you had access to any previous games you cliamed in the months on PS+. It was still a subscription catalogue though. What changed with gamepass was alterations to the model, a catalogue that's the same for everybody, that has games you lose access to and an attempt at first party day 1 games by charging much higher rates of $240 per year.

 

[Jaybe]

It should be at best an indie access service. Microsoft shouldn't be putting any day one games on there and any third party should tred very carefully

Remember how ridiculous their valuations for games were?

Imagine Larian had taken that deal. Instead they made likely a billion dollars in direct to consumer sales

Meanwhile they were valuing flops like Suicide Squad at a quarter billion dollars

lol, oh yeah, the Sarah Bond email leak on game pass partnership values

 

[MacReady13]

And just think- if the Xbone had actually been able to compete with PlayStation, Microsoft would never have gone down this route as a way to try end PlayStation.

Instead, gamers spoke with their wallets and decided that buying games was a better model than renting them.

So yeah, fuck Gamepass and fuck the rental model. Sad as it is (I was an Xbox gamer along with Nintendo) I left Xbox as I couldn’t support this bullshit way of delivering games and their constant advertising on my console.

 

[Sorcerer]

Can't believe I'm saying something positive about Gamepass, but at least someone might see your game and at least play it. I guess in this respect, games leaving the service makes sense, the field should never be overwhelmingly crowded. I don't know if MS pays for engagement time or one lump sum fee to get the game on the service for a while and if those rates are worth anything to the dev.

I'm pretty sure if you are an indie on Steam, unless you come out with a miraculous banger of a game, your game will be buried immediately and never be seen by anybody who has no clue about it.

Seems Indies lose either way. Just pick your poison.

 

[Stuart360]

I was going to contribute to the thread with my views on this, until i read the cringy 'copy and paste' OP post, and looking at the OP's post history (Jesus dude).
This thread wasnt made in good faith.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

PS+ was a subscription game catalogue from the very beginning. The only difference was that games could be removed from gamepass whereas you had access to any previous games you cliamed in the months on PS+. It was still a subscription catalogue though. What changed with gamepass was alterations to the model, a catalogue that's the same for everybody, that has games you lose access to and an attempt at first party day 1 games by charging much higher rates of $240 per year.

Very different model though. You had to claim the games each month to make them part of your catalogue, so if you subscribed, from month one you only had the games available that month. They turned it into game library available upon subscription following Gamepass.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

It was. In 2015, they changed it to a sub plan model instead of rental. GP launched summer 2017.

Sony Reveals 'PlayStation Now' Monthly Subscription Model At Last

PlayStation Now always seemed like a good idea, executed poorly. The concept of granting the PS4 backwards compatibility through new-age game streaming was cool (as was playing games without a console altogether, using some devices), but a clunky pay-per-view model with wildly varying prices...

www.forbes.com

I thought that was streaming only? It was never made available in AUS, so not too sure.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I thought that was streaming only? It was never made available in AUS, so not too sure.

Too lazy to dig into details again, but you might be right it was 100% streaming at the time.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

did people rent massive number of library of game at a time with minimal cost during 90s?

The industry was a hell of a lot smaller back then. Makes sense this has scaled along with the industry growth.

Games launching Day One on game pass aside from MS published games is a sure red flag they are terrible and would bomb without getting a game pass paycheck. Outriders, Back4Blood, Flintlock etc all seemed great at the time they were "free" and they all sucked so badly it was clear to see why those devs took the money.

There are lots of great games that launch day one. Also this mentality right here is worse for devs than any sub service, that a game that isn’t 9/10 quality is trash and not worth any money.

Then why do they keep signing up?

GAF knows better. One of these years the GamePass doomsday crew will probably maybe eventually be right.

 

[adamsapple]

Then why do they keep signing up?

\

Imagine Larian had taken that deal. Instead they made likely a billion dollars in direct to consumer sales

So .. developers can simply .. choose not to be a part of GP if they don't want to ..

What an easy way to circumvent the 'worst thing to happen to the industry'

 

[mrqs]

lol, oh yeah, the Sarah Bond email leak on game pass partnership values

Does anyone know what she means with "D&D + 90"?

Btw, this email, their position at the time, what they've been doing these days... This email gives me anxiety.

 

[Three]

Very different model though. You had to claim the games each month to make them part of your catalogue, so if you subscribed, from month one you only had the games available that month. They turned it into game library available upon subscription following Gamepass.

Yeah, but PS+ was both when it launched. There was a PS+ collection too of old first party games. Games that stayed in a catalogue as a library that you didn't need to claim in the month. So you had more than just the games available that month. They turned PS Now into PS+ tiers but even PS Now was launched before gamepass as a subscription catalogue. They all followed eachother in some way to where they are now. Including paid online that PS+ didn't have prior and gamepass adopted Live as a tier.

The main difference though which people are discussing here is that gamepass devalued games more severely than anything before it due to its model. They stopped doing releases outside of gamepass. Started buying up AA studios who then had lowered sales but gamepass releases, then they moved on to AAA publishers. They're killing the games market by becoming the controlling middleman who chooses where the consumer money goes. Those who don't have partnerships suffer on their platform. Luckily PS, Steam and Switch still exist to put up a fight but I'm not sure how long that would last with game sales declining.

 

[Stuart360]

\




So .. developers can simply .. choose not to be a part of GP if they don't want to ..

What an easy way to circumvent the 'worst thing to happen to the industry'

Everyone keeps saying how Xbox and Gamepass are massive failures anyway so which is it?. They have PC and Playstation to save them anyway.

Honestly this is a fake thread so i'm not adding to this cringe but devs dont have to put their games on Gamepass, and its as simple as that. For every 'dev' talking bad about Gamepass, their are devs singling its praise.

 

[Yoboman]

\




So .. developers can simply .. choose not to be a part of GP if they don't want to ..

What an easy way to circumvent the 'worst thing to happen to the industry'

Except the Microsoft ecosystem is now Gamepass. If you release on Xbox hardware it's either very low retail sales or a Gamepass deal, and the quality of Gamepass deals is determined by C suite Xbox execs who haven't a clue about making good games

That's why devs just delay Xbox games without much of a concern all the time these days, and Xbox themselves need to go multiplatform

 

[Yoboman]

Everyone keeps saying how Xbox and Gamepass are massive failures anyway so which is it?. They have PC and Playstation to save them anyway.

Honestly this is a fake thread so i'm not adding to this cringe but devs dont have to put their games on Gamepass, and its as simple as that. For every 'dev' talking bad about Gamepass, their are devs singling its praise.

It's better for the whole industry to have a competitive Xbox than a third party publisher Xbox, and they've made themselves third party because of their decisions. That is an abject failure

 

[Rawbutt Jellybean]

Yeah, but PS+ was both when it launched. There was a PS+ collection too of old first party games. Games that stayed in a catalogue as a library that you didn't need to claim in the month. They turned PS Now into PS+ tiers but even PS Now was launched before gamepass as a subscription catalogue. They all followed eachother in some way to where they are now. Including paid online that PS+ didn't have prior and gamepass adopted Live as a tier.

The main difference though which people are discussing here is that gamepass devalued games more severely than anything before it due to its model. They stopped doing releases outside of gamepass. Started buying up AA studios who then had lowered sales but gamepass releases, then they moved on to AAA publishers. They're killing the games market by becoming the controlling middleman who chooses where the consumer money goes. Those who don't have partnerships suffer on their platform. Luckily PS, Steam and Switch still exist to put up a fight but I'm not sure how long that would last with game sales declining.

You mean when the PS5 launched? Because I had PS+ when it launched back in 2010 and it didn't come with a backlog. It was actually the "endless trash" meme for a year or 2 until they started dropping games like Infamous and Borderlands plus a bunch of Vita games.

 

[adamsapple]

For every 'dev' talking bad about Gamepass, their are devs singling its praise.

One of the better recognized new IP's in the last few years, maybe this whole gen.

Lies of P director praises Xbox Game Pass and its marketing efforts for supporting a new IP

In an interview with Game Rant, the director of Lies of P, Ji Won Choi, praised Xbox Game Pass as a big contributing factor to the game's success.

www.yahoo.com

Lies of P director praises Xbox Game Pass and its marketing efforts for supporting a new IP​

-

That's why devs just delay Xbox games without much of a concern all the time these days, and Xbox themselves need to go multiplatform

I could swear Series S was supposed to be the reason those third party games have been delayed, but ah well.

Regardless, none of what you said paints game pass as the 'worst thing to happen to the industry', if other non-Xbox venues also exist.

Just seems like console war rhetoric.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yeah, but PS+ was both when it launched. There was a PS+ collection too of old first party games. Games that stayed in a catalogue as a library that you didn't need to claim in the month. They turned PS Now into PS+ tiers but even PS Now was launched before gamepass as a subscription catalogue. They all followed eachother in some way to where they are now. Including paid online that PS+ didn't have prior and gamepass adopted Live as a tier.

The main difference though which people are discussing here is that gamepass devalued games more severely than anything before it due to its model. They stopped doing releases outside of gamepass. Started buying up AA studios who then had lowered sales but gamepass releases, then they moved on to AAA publishers. They're killing the games market by becoming the controlling middleman who chooses where the consumer money goes. Those who don't have partnerships suffer on their platform. Luckily PS, Steam and Switch still exist to put up a fight but I'm not sure how long that would last with game sales declining.

Guess I remember things differently, as PS+ never had a catalog of games until after GP as long as I've subscribed since 2008 or so.

You can definitely argue that MS model has hurt their stand-alone games sales in an effort to grow subscriptions but I don't think they're 'killing the games market'. If they are 'devaluing' their games, so be it, it's their choice and the choice of any publisher that chooses to make a deal with them to go on GP. It shouldn't make any difference to Sony and Co if they are continuing to implement their own models.

 

[Stuart360]

One of the better recognized new IP's in the last few years, maybe this whole gen.

Lies of P director praises Xbox Game Pass and its marketing efforts for supporting a new IP

In an interview with Game Rant, the director of Lies of P, Ji Won Choi, praised Xbox Game Pass as a big contributing factor to the game's success.

www.yahoo.com

-



I could swear Series S was supposed to be the reason those third party games have been delayed, but ah well.

Regardless, none of what you said paints game pass as the 'worst thing to happen to the industry', if other non-Xbox venues also exist.

Just seems like console war rhetoric.

 

[Yoboman]

One of the better recognized new IP's in the last few years, maybe this whole gen.

Lies of P director praises Xbox Game Pass and its marketing efforts for supporting a new IP

In an interview with Game Rant, the director of Lies of P, Ji Won Choi, praised Xbox Game Pass as a big contributing factor to the game's success.

www.yahoo.com

-



I could swear Series S was supposed to be the reason those third party games have been delayed, but ah well.

Regardless, none of what you said paints game pass as the 'worst thing to happen to the industry', if other non-Xbox venues also exist.

Just seems like console war rhetoric.

That's the technical reason, but it is also a prioritisation issue. If Xbox were a guarantee for big software sales like it used to be then they wouldn't be missing Xbox at launch even with extra work to make it happen

 

[Three]

Except the Microsoft ecosystem is now Gamepass. If you release on Xbox hardware it's either very low retail sales or a Gamepass deal, and the quality of Gamepass deals is determined by C suite Xbox execs who haven't a clue about making good games

That's why devs just delay Xbox games without much of a concern all the time these days, and Xbox themselves need to go multiplatform

Exactly, people saying devs can choose to not be a part of gp are essentially saying devs can choose to not be a part of xbox because that makes sense in some instances. They'll be first in line to complain when they're not though.

Guess I remember things differently, as PS+ never had a catalog of games until after GP as long as I've subscribed since 2008 or so.

You can definitely argue that MS model has hurt their stand-alone games sales in an effort to grow subscriptions but I don't think they're 'killing the games market'. If they are 'devaluing' their games, so be it, it's their choice and the choice of any publisher that chooses to make a deal with them to go on GP. It shouldn't make any difference to Sony and Co if they are continuing to implement their own models.

PS+ launched in mid 2010 so you can't have subscribed in 2008.

You mean when the PS5 launched? Because I had PS+ when it launched back in 2010 and it didn't come with a backlog. It was actually the "endless trash" meme for a year or 2 until they started dropping games like Infamous and Borderlands plus a bunch of Vita games.

No I mean back in 2011-12 or so. They called it the Instant Game Collection or something like that.

 

[adamsapple]

That's the technical reason, but it is also a prioritisation issue. If Xbox were a guarantee for big software sales like it used to be then they wouldn't be missing Xbox at launch even with extra work to make it happen

So in cases where big software sales are maybe not guaranteed, a developer can either opt to try and get a game pass deal to get development or porting funding, or in an extreme case skip the xbox eco-system, going by what you're saying here.

Bringing it back, neither of those sound like the worst thing to happen to the industry. Seems like we're both coming to the same conclusions in different wordings.

 

[Rawbutt Jellybean]

No I mean back in 2011-12 or so. They called it the Instant Game Collection or something like that.

What's just what they called the 3+ games per month you got back then. There may have been a few games that didn't rotate out after a month. I believe Uncharted, Wipeout, and Gravity Rush (the vita versions) were redeemable for a few months. For the most part though that's what they did until the PS5 and the collection of PS4 games that were offered.

 

[IAmRei]

dev here

that's why my studio doesn't do gamepass, some of their person coming to me as well, but yea, we just welcome them, but never agree to anything.
one thing I know, i don't like their model, we cannot calculate how far it will go, or how low it will go.

in the end, we only do usual model. even visibility is lower, but again we trust ourselves to do on the publisher, or went ourself, rather than on the pass.
short money is good, agree. but I even heard some is not paid at all once they got some x times in the pass.

our decision still not go to the pass

 

[Three]

What's just what they called the 3+ games per month you got back then. There may have been a few games that didn't rotate out after a month. I believe Uncharted, Wipeout, and Gravity Rush (the vita versions) were redeemable for a few months. For the most part though that's what they did until the PS5 and the collection of PS4 games that were offered.

Yeah the first party games that didn't rotate out. I remember Ratchet and clank, LBP etc.

 

[Boss Mog]

It's bad for gamers too.

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

Of course gamepass is garbage and was never going to result in a ROI. It’s one of the reasons Microsoft is putting their games on PS5 now.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

PS+ launched in mid 2010 so you can't have subscribed in 2008.

2010 then, like I said 2008 or so.

Either way, it never had a games catalogue like you;re suggesting.

 

[Insanemaelstrom]

PS+ is basically GP without day 1 games, so they did adopt the idea

???

Ps plus extra and premium is basically consolidation of ps now into plus( PSnow has existed far before gamepass was a thing). So Sony didn't really adopt the idea of gamepass. Not to mention it lacks day 1 AAA games

Plucky Squire, Humanity, Sea of Stars etc. PS Plus has its share of Indie day 1 releases as well.

In general, since the PS+ revamp, that service is a lot more similar to Game Pass than not.

Games that go on GP are on PS+ a few months later in so many third party cases.

Ps plus has had indie day 1 games even before gamepass( Rocket league is a famous example of this). So, again, they didn't adopt the idea from MS.

 

[Juza]

As a consumer, Gamepass is the only reason I still use with Xbox platform.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

2010 then, like I said 2008 or so.

Either way, it never had a games catalogue like you;re suggesting.

I think youre an outlier in Aussie. Googling it, your country got gimped PS Now/PS sub plan content. The key regions got service faster.

From what I remember PS Now was rolled out to key markets in 2014/2015 as cloud streams. It was first a rental service game by game, then changed to a monthly sub plan where you picked what you wanted. I dont know when the service changed to downloadable games. But I think PS3 games were always stream only.

This is different than before the service where they had maybe 2 free monthly games to download if you subbed to the service at the beginning.

Here's one article about it.

channelnews : Sony Expand PS Now, Aussies Still Missing Out

Sony have announced that their games streaming service Playstation Now will now boast support for Playstation 4 games. Playstation Now was launched in 2014 and offers Netflix-style streaming access to popular Playstation games like Uncharted, God of War and Ratchet & Clank for a subscription fee...

www.channelnews.com.au

 

[adamsapple]

Ps plus extra and premium is basically consolidation of ps now into plus( PSnow has existed far before gamepass was a thing). So Sony didn't really adopt the idea of gamepass. Not to mention it lacks day 1 AAA games

Ps plus has had indie day 1 games even before gamepass( Rocket league is a famous example of this). So, again, they didn't adopt the idea from MS.

Now was a cloud only service until 2020 2018, when they finally started allowing downloading PS4 games to play. That happened after Game Pass started.

So, while yes, PS+/Now was there beforehand, hard to deny that their revamp of the service, tiers and presentation etc wasn't directly inspired by, if not a response to, GP.

 

[Boots_the_God]

I mean if devs thought they could do better numbers without game pass, why would they put their games on the service in the first place?

 

[Insanemaelstrom]

I thought that was streaming only? It was never made available in AUS, so not too sure.

Guess I remember things differently, as PS+ never had a catalog of games until after GP as long as I've subscribed since 2008 or so.

You can definitely argue that MS model has hurt their stand-alone games sales in an effort to grow subscriptions but I don't think they're 'killing the games market'. If they are 'devaluing' their games, so be it, it's their choice and the choice of any publisher that chooses to make a deal with them to go on GP. It shouldn't make any difference to Sony and Co if they are continuing to implement their own models.

Ps now was a catalogue of games though.

Now was a cloud only service until 2020 2018, when they finally started allowing downloading PS4 games to play. That happened after Game Pass started.

So, while yes, PS+/Now was there beforehand, hard to deny that their revamp of the service, tiers and presentation etc wasn't directly inspired by, if not a response to, GP.

Huh? The only difference that they did was make games downloadable. It's idiotic to think that ps extra is fully inspired by gamepass when they have had a similar service since ages ago. Not to mention how one of the biggest negatives of ps now ( and complaints from users) was that it is seperate from plus( which caused ps now and plus to have same games, so if someone was sub to both of them, they will get the same game twice). Rather than copy, what Sony did was merge services and make games downloadable( things users have been asking about and would have happened regardless of gamepass).

Rather, imo, gamepass is a copy of ps now

 

[adamsapple]

Ps now was a catalogue of games though.

Huh? The only difference that they did was make games downloadable. It's idiotic to think that ps extra is fully inspired by gamepass when they have had a similar service since ages ago. Not to mention how one of the biggest negatives of ps now ( and complaints from users) was that it is seperate from plus( which caused ps now and plus to have same games, so if someone was sub to both of them, they will get the same game twice). Rather than copy, what Sony did was merge services and make games downloadable( things users have been asking about and would have happened regardless of gamepass).

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ..... if you want to think that would have happened without their hand being forced to it .... sure.

This is the same Sony that didn't add things like VRR or native 1440p support until year(s) of people incessantly bitching about it in the first place.

 

[Rockman33]

The worst thing to happen to games is the insanely inflated budgets. Giving no room for experimentation. 80%+ of AAA games just feel “safe” these days.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Ps now was a catalogue of games though.

And it was a completely different service with streaming only. Not sure why there is debate on this, PS+ clearly introduced a GP style mosdel in response to GP. It’s not a criticism of PS+, it’s just a fact