Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

Sony is after gaas and microtransactions, everyone is going after microtransactions, its not exclusively Microsoft. So we will have to see how it goes.

It is a much different play, but good Sony-Too card . Not as hilarious as the butbut Psygnosis was totally like Activision-Blizzard and Zenimax…

It is up to Sony if they want to change their market and thus their approach to one where they cannot compete in to follow the scorched earth approach MS is willing to go for (winning even if they wreck the market in the process, that is the no-taste bit Jobs meant in his quote)… so .

 

[Tams]

I don’t care about the business, I’m a customer.

You should though. Not because business are people (lol, 'Merica), but because at the end of the day if a business goes under you no longer can buy their products, or they at least change, often a lot (and frequently for the worse).

We don't want gaming to end up in the sad and sorry state the film industry is in, and all-in subscription services have been one of the main drivers of that.

All-in subscription services remove the main and most objective way to assess a products actual success and popularity - sales. They also allow absolute shite to hide amongst the good stuff and get money to be made.

 

[DenchDeckard]

It is a much different play, but good Sony-Too card . Not as hilarious as the butbut Psygnosis was totally like Activision-Blizzard and Zenimax…

It is up to Sony if they want to change their market and thus their approach to one where they cannot compete in… so .

It's where the industry seems to want to put their effort in. I don't understand it for many games but each their own.

Microsoft so far has released hi fi rush and starfield this year. Very much single player and none microtransaction driven games. So there we go.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

You should though. Not because business are people (lol, 'Merica), but because at the end of the day if a business goes under you no longer can buy their products, or they ar least change, often a lot (and frequently for the worse).

We don't want gaming to end up in the sad and sorry state the film industry is in, and all-in subscription services have been one of the main drivers of that.

All-in subscription services remove the main and most objective way to assess a products actual success and popularity - sales. They also allow absolute shite to hide amongst the good stuff and get money to be made.

Being selfish is also a mirror of the sub-$950 theft allowance in parts of the US then crying about major shops, groceries, supermarkets like Walmart are closing and no where to get your needs from. It'll only backfire.

But there are simple-minded people among us who just refuse to use their brains and take drugs and other harmful substances while being 100% aware that they're killing themselves. It's just part of humanity.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's where the industry seems to want to put their effort in. I don't understand it for many games but each their own.

Ah yes, suddenly the wish of MS (gobbling the industry) is the wish of the corporation, nice try (this card gets overplayed “it is the will of the <group>”).

Microsoft so far has released hi fi rush and starfield this year. Very much single player and none microtransaction driven games. So there we go.

Hi-Fi rush, good game bite sized and feeding quantity side of the service (and well first hit is free kind of deals, they are not in the bulk of the monetisation phase, they will want to make back the money they are investing now)…Starfield yes… game totally started last month and finished in weeks . You are smarter than that, we both know you will be defending whatever they do somehow, but give it more effort .

 

[DenchDeckard]

Ah yes, suddenly the wish of MS (gobbling the industry) is the wish of the corporation, nice try (this card gets overplayed “it is the will of the <group>”).


Hi-Fi rush, good game bite sized and feeding quantity side of the service (and well first hit is free kind of deals, they are not in the bulk of the monetisation phase, they will want to make back the money they are investing now)…Starfield yes… game totally started last month and finished in weeks . You are smarter than that, we both know you will be defending whatever they do somehow, but give it more effort .

Your points are opinions and we know you want to attack MS and ignore anything else so let's leave it there

 

[Panajev2001a]

Your points are opinions and we know you want to attack MS and ignore anything else so let's leave it there

Actually again, there is plenty of good stuff I have to say about some of their products and even some of their direction especially in the past, but since I disagree about the saviour of gaming GamePass and all that should be burnt at the altar of making them succeed I have just my hateful opinion vs your joyous facts eh ?

Come on, you make yourself look like part of a cult, you are better than that. Edit: still with that “we know”, we… as if you were a collective and maybe you are eh ?

 

[Tams]

Being selfish is also a mirror of the sub-$950 theft allowance in parts of the US then crying about major shops, groceries, supermarkets like Walmart are closing and no where to get your needs from. It'll only backfire.

But there are simple-minded people among us who just refuse to use their brains and take drugs and other harmful substances while being 100% aware that they're killing themselves. It's just part of humanity.

Yeah.

I should probably just go and make a thread in Off-Topic about how fed up I am with the gross and excessive selfishness in society.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Yeah.

I should probably just go and make a thread in Off-Topic about how fed up I am with the gross and excessive selfishness in society.

Tag me in, please!

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Not yet, but the point is not gamers trying to get things as cheap as possible… plenty of people spend a thousand dollars on a phone and then refuse to buy apps or games because… they have been conditioned to think that it is how those things should cost while Apple has convinced them that their HW is worth its asking price (they keep increasing it and people keep buying it).
So, you are missing the point.

No mate, I'm not missing the point. You're dragging in extra stuff about apple hardware now but the point that's attempting to be made is that games will all get worse so that games can be made cheaply to deliver on a budget set by Gamepass. The proposition is that with Gamepass games are devalued because the audience will refuse to abandon paying X per month in order to get better games.

This is obviously false.

Most Xbox players don't subscribe to Gamepass. Even if it did become the dominant way for people to play games on Xbox, if the games weren't any good, people would quit the service and start buying games, they'd even quit the platform and play games elsewhere if they couldn't find things they wanted to play.

People like Gamepass because it is good value and gives them good games to play. Change either part of that and the service fails.

If you're paying for something you're not enjoying, or you think is too expensive, you'll stop.

Presenting gamers as powerless to make that judgement when all evidence is that they are obsessed with value and review scores seems hard to bring together.

 

[Banjo64]

I think the only valid services are smaller ones like Apple Arcade and NSO which so far haven’t shown any ambition to ‘add value’ in order to increase the price. One is an opportunity to put smaller good games on a pedestal, the other a walk through history. Low prices, acceptably good content. Wouldn’t surprise me if Nintendo try to hit that £49.99 price point at some point but it would be a huge error in my opinion.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

PS+ is the greatest deal in gaming and only filthy low value whores sub to gamepass

Change my mind

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I think the only valid services are smaller ones like Apple Arcade and NSO which so far haven’t shown any ambition to ‘add value’ in order to increase the price. One is an opportunity to put smaller good games on a pedestal, the other a walk through history. Low prices, acceptably good content. Wouldn’t surprise me if Nintendo try to hit that £49.99 price point at some point but it would be a huge error in my opinion.

Problem is they are fighting their own war. Sony and Xbox are fighting over the same generation. Nintendo are not even last gen, they're not even 2 gens behind. I would argue that Steam Deck is on the same gen as PS/Xbox than those two.

 

[GHG]

It absolutely is. Plenty of incredible games for Day 1 with subscription including all first party and even some solid 3rd party titles like Lies of P.

Of course you can. It's called Elder Scrolls VI, Fable 2, Gears of War 6, State of Decay 3, IO Interactive Fantasy New IP, Fallout 5, indiana Jones, DOOM Year Zero, and more.

Now if those games are not your cup of tea then that's a different story.

Are you a member of the press?

How many socks are they sending you, or is this all in the hope that they will one day notice you and start sending you some socks?

EGS

Funny how you don't see "value" obsessed gamers ever talking about that (or even humble choice/monthly).

Maybe Tim needs some lessons from Phil on evangelism.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

You realize that just because it's on Game Pass doesn't mean you cannot buy it though right ? Do people forget thst Game Pass games can be purchased? I purchased Starfield and Sea of Thieves. People are either forgetful, trolling or just plain dumb.

Any product that is part of Game Pass is purchasable separately... why are you all acting like these games are just locked to a subscription service when they are not and you simply have the will of free choice? Lol.

That's why GamePass will never succeed.

Buying a game might seem more expensive at first glance, but you can potentially play it forever.
With GamePass, it seems cheaper at first, but you're stuck with a library where you don't care about 90% of the offering.
GamePass is much more expensive in the long run and the 'best value in gaming' is highly subjective (most casuals only care about a handful of major titles).

There's a reason why Playstation and Nintendo have major successes, while MS is struggling and losing marketshare.

 

[Daniel_Mallorca1985]

Jimbo is spitting fire atm

"It would be naive for us to assume that all 10 will be massive successes so that is not a necessary condition for us to double first party revenues. That is certainly not what we're assuming. Clearly, the distinction between a hit and not a hit is not a binary one. And don't forget that as we do this, we will continue to publish the games that have served us so well over the years. These 3rd person, graphically beautiful narrative rich games will continue to be the bedrock of our first party publishing business.""We will continue to make 3rd person games like we always have, and we expect those to have slightly greater sales and profitability, reflecting our confidence in the long-term installed base of PS5, as well as the fact that those games will make their way to PC. So, we think that the pie from those games will grow, but that growth will be incremental in nature. We think the live service games will build on that foundation and take us to another level."



"We know Activision extremely well. They are probably one of our principal partners. In terms of deployment of Sony's capital, when you look at $69 Billion dollars for Activision compared to $3.6 Billion dollars for Bungie, we believe that Bungie can give us way more than a $69 Billion acquisition of Activision. And that's before considering the relative value of that particular transaction."



"We're approaching metaverse conversations through 2 lenses. First is as a platform holder. We had something called PlayStation Home for the PS3 and that was a very early manifestation of a platform metaverse. It was probably 10-15 years ahead of its time.""The second is from the studio perspective. We have a couple of projects underway that are very exciting for us, in terms of creating some sort of game-type metaverse which can possibly have collaboration with other parts of Sony. Sony's entertainment assets have huge potential in the metaverse area. As for VR2, we see it as having a role down the road, more in the mid-term."

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Hence $80B vs $3.6B. Also Destiny is one of the biggest GaaS in the industry right now, not as big as CoD, but in the same league. Also it's a game they lack in their offering, and kept it on all platforms while at it so no one really lost anything.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

As far as consoles go, out of that list, only COD might have some effect in regards to making Xbox competitive to Playstation.
And only potentially after 10 years.

That's why Sony only tried to negotiate for COD. The average consumer probably doesn't even know the rest of that list exists.

 

[dotnotbot]

Lol at including old Sierra IPs, they have close to 0 value nowadays.

Also fucking DJ Hero, Guitar Hero and TimeShift. List wars from Xbox fans are always so damn amusing.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Lol at including old Sierra IPs, they have close to 0 value nowadays.

Also fucking DJ Hero, Guitar Hero and TimeShift. List wars from Xbox fans are always so damn amusing.

Also IP's are useless without investment. Are they willing to spend $10B to revive "some" of these?

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Also IP's are useless without investment. Are they willing to spend $10B to revive "some" of these?

Not only that, all the other games are either niche, or casual games that people might play for a bit and then wonder why they even paid for GamePass.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Not only that, all the other games are either niche, or casual games that people might play for a bit and then wonder why they even paid for GamePass.

Just look at MS current IP grave. Also most of Activision devs are working on CoD.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You

No mate, I'm not missing the point. You're dragging in extra stuff about apple hardware now but the point that's attempting to be made is that games will all get worse so that games can be made cheaply to deliver on a budget set by Gamepass. The proposition is that with Gamepass games are devalued because the audience will refuse to abandon paying X per month in order to get better games.

This is obviously false.

Most Xbox players don't subscribe to Gamepass. Even if it did become the dominant way for people to play games on Xbox, if the games weren't any good, people would quit the service and start buying games, they'd even quit the platform and play games elsewhere if they couldn't find things they wanted to play.

People like Gamepass because it is good value and gives them good games to play. Change either part of that and the service fails.

If you're paying for something you're not enjoying, or you think is too expensive, you'll stop.

Presenting gamers as powerless to make that judgement when all evidence is that they are obsessed with value and review scores seems hard to bring together.

You handwaved away the race to the bottom on mobile phones (people still spend a lot on all sorts of mobile phones and yet do not want to pay for games, $7.99 for Super Mario Run, $4.99 for Her Story… “oh my God sooo expensive!”) for software and yet it still happened. You are discovering people being stingy about everything but what they truly value where they splurge…

The “oh but it could not happen on consoles no matter how” seems wishful thinking.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

That's why GamePass will never succeed.

Buying a game might seem more expensive at first glance, but you can potentially play it forever.
With GamePass, it seems cheaper at first, but you're stuck with a library where you don't care about 90% of the offering.
GamePass is much more expensive in the long run and the 'best value in gaming' is highly subjective (most casuals only care about a handful of major titles).

There's a reason why Playstation and Nintendo have major successes, while MS is struggling and losing marketshare.

Eh, the thing is that owning one game forever for whatever price you choose to cite is going to be cheaper than paying every month to play that game.

Undisputed.

But by the time you've bought a new game every couple of months for a year, the numbers get a bit fuzzier.

Now, if you're the kind of person to buy a games console and one game and play it for a year and then buy another and play it for a year, nobody would ever, ever, ever recommend Gamepass. You'd lose money!

But if you like games and maybe you'd like to try a lot of different games? Or perhaps you would buy a couple of first party games every year at launch? I would hazard a guess that would be basically the majority of Neogaf. Then in those circumstances, Gamepass is indeed great value.

If you plan to buy a couple of first party games this year at launch and then play them and nothing else for 2 years, then Gamepass is not the right choice.

There is no need to go over this ever again.

 

[foamdino]

For my taste in games, PS+ Extra is better. The last 2 years I've played so many games that fit my tastes that the value is there for *me*. If that drops off and we get western AAA garbage, then I may stop paying for it. This month Star Ocean: The Divine Force was worth it alone (and there's cloudpunk, Nier, moving out, etc etc so many good AA/Indie and JRPGs that I want to play)

 

[Mr Reasonable]

You

You handwaved away the race to the bottom on mobile phones (people still spend a lot on all sorts of mobile phones and yet do not want to pay for games, $7.99 for Super Mario Run, $4.99 for Her Story… “oh my God sooo expensive!”) for software and yet it still happened. You are discovering people being stingy about everything but what they truly value where they splurge…

The “oh but it could not happen on consoles no matter how” seems wishful thinking.

I did handwave it away because it's utter nonsense and a child could see it.

Games on mobile are not racing to the bottom, they started at the bottom, they're trying to get to the top. Mobile's problem is that games were all 69c or free initially. That set the precedent. Since then games have been trying to re-educate audiences that phone games can be more expensive. I bought one for £7 recently and nearly broke out in a cold sweat and I'm someone who has been buying pc and console games for generations.

I don't know if Resident Evil on iPhone's pricing is going to be $4.99 but I'm guessing that it'll be significantly more. And that's on a game that aside from making it run on Apples processor is already done and is a couple of years old now.

Games on Gamepass won't end up being of equivalent value to those $2 games on mobile, no matter how much people desperate to smear Gamepass say that they will. It is a bullshit argument. Sorry.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[bender]

Funny how you don't see "value" obsessed gamers ever talking about that (or even humble choice/monthly).

Maybe Tim needs some lessons from Phil on evangelism.

I understand why people dislike EGS (exclusive deals) but boycotting it all together seems silly as you get at least one free game a week. My library is almost at 400 games now and I think I've made two purchases in total. The quality of Humble has taken a nose dive for a while now but at least when you do invest into that service, you own the games. The best deal in gaming makes you sound incredibly naïve or like a shill. That not to say Game Pass has no value but everyone should try not to parrot Microsoft's marketing bullet points.

 

[GHG]

I understand why people dislike EGS (exclusive deals) but boycotting it all together seems silly as you get at least one free game a week. My library is almost at 400 games now and I think I've made two purchases in total. The quality of Humble has taken a nose dive in quality for a while now but at least when you do invest into that service, you own the games. The best deal in gaming makes you sound incredibly naïve or like a shill. That not to say Game Pass has no value but everyone should try not to parrot Microsoft's marketing bullet points.

Humble monthly was sensational prior to the IGN takeover. In recent months it's been better but over the last couple of years it's been wildly inconsistent. If I total up the games I've got from humble bundle over the years it's well over 500 and those are mine to keep forever without having to worry about an ongoing subscription in order to keep access to those games.

I don't use EGS but I still grab the free game every week so I still have a legitimate library of games on PC just in case something were to happen to steam (or my account there).

The whole premise of "value" falls flat on it's face with the rental subscription services due to the fact that you have nothing to show for it (and your library is sent back to 0) should you decide to cease subscribing. As far as I'm concerned the concept is a sham.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Eh, the thing is that owning one game forever for whatever price you choose to cite is going to be cheaper than paying every month to play that game.

Undisputed.

But by the time you've bought a new game every couple of months for a year, the numbers get a bit fuzzier.

Now, if you're the kind of person to buy a games console and one game and play it for a year and then buy another and play it for a year, nobody would ever, ever, ever recommend Gamepass. You'd lose money!

But if you like games and maybe you'd like to try a lot of different games? Or perhaps you would buy a couple of first party games every year at launch? I would hazard a guess that would be basically the majority of Neogaf. Then in those circumstances, Gamepass is indeed great value.

If you plan to buy a couple of first party games this year at launch and then play them and nothing else for 2 years, then Gamepass is not the right choice.

There is no need to go over this ever agagain.

Yeah, I get your point.
But first we have to agree that Neogaf is in no way representative of the average consumer.
In fact, people on gaming forums are a minority within the core gaming demographic, which are already a minority in gaming.

Having said that, the average consumer plays COD, Fortnite, GTAV, maybe Apex Legends and then probably 1 racing game and 1 or 2 sports games.

To be anecdotal, typically, I play 1 or 2 multiplayer games which are my go-to games and then whatever major titles or games I'm interested in release a year (let's say 2 - 4 games on average outside any multiplayer game).

The cost of a game is negligible, because it's not like I buy games on a weekly or monthly basis.

Then there is the perception of something like GamePass. The perception is that it offers great value for it's price, but when you then look at what you'll most likely be playing, that perception already changes, because why am I paying for all those games I don't have interest in?
It's the same as Netflix, it seems like great value, until you realize you either don't like the majority of content or you're just not interested. So what's the point of paying for Netflix really?
This goes even more so for gaming, which btw is kinda niche compared to Netflix.

This anecdote falls more in line with the average consumer, with the biggest difference being that the average consumer doesn't nearly put in the same amount of time into gaming.

GamePass and any other streaming service will stagnate rather quickly this way, something we already see right now with GamePass.
That's why Jim Ryan mention GamePass being only 25M subs instead of 50M.

 

[KungFucius]

PS+ Extra has basically no value at the price they are asking. It might be good for someone who skips a PlayStation generation then wants to catch up years later when they pick up a used system or something, but as a choice for someone with a Gamepass platform and a PS5, it fucking sucks.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Yeah, I get your point.
But first we have to agree that Neogaf is in no way representative of the average consumer.
In fact, people on gaming forums are a minority within the core gaming demographic, which are already a minority in gaming.

Having said that, the average consumer plays COD, Fortnite, maybe Apex Legends and then probably 1 racing game and 1 or 2 sports games.

To be anecdotal, typically, I play 1 or 2 multiplayer games which are my go-to games and then whatever major titles or games I'm interested in release a year (let's say 2 - 4 games on average outside any multiplayer game).

The cost of a game is negligible, because it's not like I buy games on a weekly or monthly basis.

Then there is the perception of something like GamePass. The perception is that it offers great value for it's price, but when you then look at what you'll most likely be playing, that perception already changes, because why am I paying for all those games I don't have interest in?
It's the same as Netflix, it seems like great value, until you realize you either don't like the majority of content or you're just not interested. So what's the point of paying for Netflix really?
This goes even more so for gaming, which btw is kinda niche compared to Netflix.

This anecdote falls more in line with the average consumer, with the biggest difference being that the average consumer doesn't nearly put in the same amount of time into gaming.

GamePass and any other streaming service will stagnate rather quickly this way, something we already see right now with GamePass.
That's why Jim Ryan mention GamePass being only 25M subs instead of 50M.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to want to say they are. They won't hear someone say "best deal in gaming" and say "sold!" And start their subscription. "What do you get?" "No idea, but it's good value!"

What a ridiculous argument.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

People aren't as stupid as you seem to want to say they are. They won't hear someone say "best deal in gaming" and say "sold!" And start their subscription. "What do you get?" "No idea, but it's good value!"

What a ridiculous argument.

That's exactly my point though, hence why GamePass is stagnating and Jim Ryan saying what he said.

 

[Thirty7ven]

People still act like there's no other option but game pass. Wanna buy a game....buy the game.

I'm actually shocked that he says Sony will continue to make these third person graphically impressive narrative games. It's like he's admitting that they've found a formula that works and is guiding studios to make those.

No thinking out of the box?

Just make games that any one can play through that have good graphics and shit loads of acted cutscenes to make people feel like they are witnessing greatness.

What did he mention? A POV and a focus on narrative/characters.

You think this is a formula? Is that how you see movies? Every movie the same because they are third person and focus on characters and narrative!

Some of you make the dumbest takes. Your little snipe at the end was pathetic too, really have the nerve to try and call people idiots for enjoying great games. Meanwhile you’re over there eating junk and telling the world it’s not dog dirt.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

What did he mention? A POV and a focus on narrative/characters.

You think this is a formula? Is that how you see movies? Every movie the same because they are third person and focus on characters and narrative!

Some of you make the dumbest takes. Your little snipe at the end was pathetic too, really have the nerve to try and call people idiots for enjoying great games. Meanwhile you’re over there eating junk and telling the world it’s not dog dirt.

Funny thing is, the very thing he's complaining about is the very thing why Sony is dominating.

No wonder Xbox fans scratch their head and wonder why MS isn't doing better.
MS and their fanbase are completely lost.

 

[Kvally]

Good ol Lyin Jim Ryan He’s is such a maroon.

 

[Big Baller]

 

[cripterion]

Don't get high on your own supply.

 

[The artful mincer]

Man its sad looking at all those ips and then looking at Activision release schedule.

They really are just a call of duty and blizzard factory these days.

 

[Thirty7ven]

 

[Varteras]

What did he mention? A POV and a focus on narrative/characters.

You think this is a formula? Is that how you see movies? Every movie the same because they are third person and focus on characters and narrative!

Some of you make the dumbest takes. Your little snipe at the end was pathetic too, really have the nerve to try and call people idiots for enjoying great games. Meanwhile you’re over there eating junk and telling the world it’s not dog dirt.

Funny thing is, the very thing he's complaining about is the very thing why Sony is dominating.

No wonder Xbox fans scratch their head and wonder why MS isn't doing better.
MS and their fanbase are completely lost.

You guys have no clue what you're talking about. Days Gone plays exactly like Ghost of Tsushima. Which was clearly no different from Demon's Souls because they both had swords. Which obviously used God of War as a template because it had colors too. But this wasn't nearly as bad as how much I can't tell the difference between the enemies of Horizon and The Last of Us. Which, by the way, was just a reskinned Spider-Man. And all of them, and I do fucking mean ALL OF THEM, had a story of some sort behind them! Like, fucking hello! That was always Returnal's thing! Pfft.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Nvm, completely misinterpreted the post.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

That's exactly my point though, hence why GamePass is stagnating and Jim Ryan saying what he said.

I must confess to not having read your post properly, my apologies.

I suspect that Jim Ryan sees more value for Sony in not copying Xbox's model, and that his statement isn't necessarily more than PR to quell people calling for him to implement something similar. The truth is that Sony likely could not go on the kind of acquisition spree Microsoft have (but could make a significant number of targeted acquisitions, of course) which is probably part of the reason informing the decision.

I'm sure Microsoft would rather see Gamepass do better, but as is, I don't see why they'd pull the plug, which regularly seems to be the conclusion many on GAF come up with. It's a profitable service, and if they are pulling in $230m per month, it would seem like a great way to profitably license titles and fund AAA development of games which brings in money through sales as well as Gamepass subs. Even if skeptical, based on the numbers we saw recently, one would assume that Microsoft aren't spending anything near their income on licensing titles.

For Jim Ryan to point out the failure of gamepass saying that their service has double the subscribers is, if anything, proof that subscription services will resonate with a subset of gamers. If playstation can hit double the subscribers while having more than double the install base, but without the incentive of day one games. I think we've got a reasonable idea of how many people are down for a subscription.

Somehow, I've joined this conversation to talk about how Gamepass won't end up in Microsoft's games ending up playing like mobile games priced at sub $4.99 prices and ended up talking about how Jim Ryan's statement should be interpreted.

Too much Neogaf for a Sunday, I think.

 

[Madserb2023]

Watching two people argue over the best way to extract money out of people is quite amusing. What I will say is Sony doesn't care about publishes or the industry as a whole they just think that this way gets more money out of you. It's funny watching people defend their preferred method to rip you off. ''I think paying for games you don't own is better, no I think forcing you to pay $70 for exclusives is better.'' Funny as hell. I just want to play games.

 

[Keihart]

You need to stop saying you pay for multiplayer, free to play games don't require it. What you're paying for is the service, updates to the system, free monthly games, tournaments, online store, servers etc.

That's why they're, generally, ad free (or they're VERY light in ads). Would you be okay if it was free but every time you played COD online every 15 min they interrupted the game and made you watch 4-5 :30s ads? Even Amazon Prime is adding commercials....every website is riddled with ads plus you pay for internet, nothings free.

on the other hand, steam is free with better everything...

 

[Panajev2001a]

I did handwave it away because it's utter nonsense and a child could see it.

Games on mobile are not racing to the bottom, they started at the bottom, they're trying to get to the top. Mobile's problem is that games were all 69c or free initially. That set the precedent. Since then games have been trying to re-educate audiences that phone games can be more expensive. I bought one for £7 recently and nearly broke out in a cold sweat and I'm someone who has been buying pc and console games for generations.

I don't know if Resident Evil on iPhone's pricing is going to be $4.99 but I'm guessing that it'll be significantly more. And that's on a game that aside from making it run on Apples processor is already done and is a couple of years old now.

Games on Gamepass won't end up being of equivalent value to those $2 games on mobile, no matter how much people desperate to smear Gamepass say that they will. It is a bullshit argument. Sorry.

We will see and you will break in a cold sweat later lol. The point is all the same game value perception. Game Pass hurts that… or are you going to say that game sales have improved on Xbox or stayed the same because MStestified of the opposite… … come on…

 

[Ic3man]

Game Pass = S-Tier

PS Plus = D-Tier

It is insane that there are people that really believe that Playstation service is superior to Gamepass

They are delusional

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I must confess to not having read your post properly, my apologies.

I suspect that Jim Ryan sees more value for Sony in not copying Xbox's model, and that his statement isn't necessarily more than PR to quell people calling for him to implement something similar. The truth is that Sony likely could not go on the kind of acquisition spree Microsoft have (but could make a significant number of targeted acquisitions, of course) which is probably part of the reason informing the decision.

True, it also makes sense. But since Sony has done particularly well since PS4 and they keep breaking records with every game release, I think Jim Ryan isn't anywhere near the idiot some people claim he is.
What he says is what we are seeing play out in practice.

I'm sure Microsoft would rather see Gamepass do better, but as is, I don't see why they'd pull the plug, which regularly seems to be the conclusion many on GAF come up with. It's a profitable service, and if they are pulling in $230m per month, it would seem like a great way to profitably license titles and fund AAA development of games which brings in money through sales as well as Gamepass subs. Even if skeptical, based on the numbers we saw recently, one would assume that Microsoft aren't spending anything near their income on licensing titles.

I don't think anyone believes MS will the plug entirely, but MS going 3rd party seems very likely.
Profitability itself doesn't say much if Xbox doesn't meet targets. That's something we don't know, but most of what Spencer has been saying lately seems to point to this being the case. It's probably also what Jim Ryan is hinting at when addressing the 25M subs instead of 50M.

For Jim Ryan to point out the failure of gamepass saying that their service has double the subscribers is, if anything, proof that subscription services will resonate with a subset of gamers. If playstation can hit double the subscribers while having more than double the install base, but without the incentive of day one games. I think we've got a reasonable idea of how many people are down for a subscription.

I think both will plateau at the level they're at now.
I believe GamePass includes PC as well, right? If so, that proves the point even more.

Somehow, I've joined this conversation to talk about how Gamepass won't end up in Microsoft's games ending up playing like mobile games priced at sub $4.99 prices and ended up talking about how Jim Ryan's statement should be interpreted.

Too much Neogaf for a Sunday, I think.

Fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree with that.

But all is good, I get sidetracked easily, so I know the feel. Lol

Watching two people argue over the best way to extract money out of people is quite amusing. What I will say is Sony doesn't care about publishes or the industry as a whole they just think that this way gets more money out of you. It's funny watching people defend their preferred method to rip you off. ''I think paying for games you don't own is better, no I think forcing you to pay $70 for exclusives is better.'' Funny as hell. I just want to play games.

Everyone just wants to play games. The question is which direction is most healthy for the industry, thus for the gaming experience for us as well.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Big games take four to five years to make, hundreds of devs of various expertise, will give you between 20 to 60 hours of play time on your first play through. Games also drop in price, and you have the physical option where they drop faster and you can trade/sell.

But some people are here to eat content like it’s a hot dog eating contest.

Same people think MS bought ABK just so they could add an army of mediocre devs that will now be used to help make another mediocre Halo and bring back mega hits like Singularity and Prototype. Your brain on canned sausage.

The gulf in quality will only grow in the next decade.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I don’t have Game Pass, but it definitely holds more value for the player than PlayStation Plus Extra, which I’ve used maybe a couple of times in the year that I’ve had it.

Edit: went off on one about Sony having a shitty year which I stand by, was well off topic though lol.

On topic: I agree with Jim in that it likely is value destructive. It’s not a future that gaming needs and will inevitably lead to MUCH smaller budgets for games and more GaaS as well as MTX. It’ll be the only way to make money.