• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,711
I don't agree with this article. "Netflix for gaming" isn't the key to the future of gaming. Neither was 3D, or motion controls. It's a fantastic delivery system and a service I adore but calling it the key to the future is absurd. I'm not sure what the key to the future of gaming is but I'm pretty sure it's not this. This kind of thing has been done before, albeit not as successful, but it's been done. I still firmly believe the future of gaming is in the VR/AR space.

What we have today with VR/AR is the direct evolution of 3D and motion controls. On regards to how the future will look like, if Microsoft continues to offer the value it has so far with GP and it continues to grow as it has, it will be difficult for me to not see Sony doing the same and eventually even Nintendo. They have to stay competitive and it will be interesting to see how the Series X with a GP subscription with all Microsoft launch games included will look like and how will Sony compete against that.
 

Tomeru

Member
May 7, 2018
673
Because of the newly released titles and indie games that launch into the system. I mean...I don't even know why you would even try to take out the first party and then compare them...it's comparing hypotheticals that won't exist when we can just compare the real thing. lol. Just trying to change the reality to suit your own point...lol.

So you assumed I wanted to paint gp in a bad light because?

Thankfully others answered with reason.
 

Xx 720

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,920
I'd imagine if gamepass blows up huge Sony will make their own version.
Ideally - Sony, MS and Nintendo would make it where u can buy or sub to their games on any console or pc, this would lead to more competition as 3D parties could also make consoles on their own.
 

Bradbatross

Member
Mar 17, 2018
14,195
I don't agree with this article. "Netflix for gaming" isn't the key to the future of gaming. Neither was 3D, or motion controls. It's a fantastic delivery system and a service I adore but calling it the key to the future is absurd. I'm not sure what the key to the future of gaming is but I'm pretty sure it's not this. This kind of thing has been done before, albeit not as successful, but it's been done. I still firmly believe the future of gaming is in the VR/AR space.
VR/AR games can be added to a service like Game Pass.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,204
The true advantage, and something I don't see Sony matching for years, if EVER.

MS putting XGS games on their sub service isnt really an "advantage", and if MS could choose between selling 7-10 million copies of their first party games and putting all their games on a $10 a month service day 1, it's pretty obvious which one they would choose.

You don't see Disney sending their tentpole Marvel and Star Wars movies to Disney+ on day one, and that's because they can still clear a billion+ each in theaters first.
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
Game Pass can't possibly be the future of gaming when the biggest games of the year aren't releasing on the service. Not a single one of the NPD's top ten this year is on Game Pass. The service simply lacks mass market appeal.

Game pass has 3 of the top selling games of all time on the service. Minecraft (1st of 2nd best selling game ever depending on which list you read), GTA5 and PUBG.
 

tutomos

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,612
Yeah but that's only you in the end. No service in this world is for everyone when it comes to acceptance.
Nothing wrong with a nice additive service like gamepass or ea access. Just haven't seen any evidence that we can use it to project the future success for these platform holders.
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
You're too late.

And PS Now isn't comparable until I can play all Sony 1st party games on it Day 1. It's as simple as that.

Sony has a great library of games on PS Now, but the vast majority I've had access to for a long time.

Until they can offer new games from the beginning on the service it's not matching GP.
They already match gp, if they offered first party games at launch on ps now they would be so far ahead.
 

ty_hot

Banned
Dec 14, 2017
7,176
Interesting article but it misses some points which kind of invalidate the whole argument.

After saying Sony is positioning PS Now as a Game Pass competitor, at a lower price point, it then goes to say that people will be inclined to get a Series X because they can have Game Pass and not have to worry about what games to get... all of that while backward compatibility is going to be a thing on the PS5 as well, PS Now is already a decent competitor at a cheaper price and will likely get a lot of spotlight once PS5 is revealed. I dont see where the advantage is for the next gen, it just happens that Microsoft started the thing mid gen because they were yet again losing the gen and they are already subsidizing Game Pass for ultra cheap prices in order to secure thousands/millions of players to go Xbox next gen, so right now it does look like Game Pass is the real deal, but there is no reason to believe Sony wont improve or just start to actually advertise PS Now properly in under a year.

Then it goes on to talk about Streaming and how Game Pass puts Microsoft ahead... we don't know if they will let you stream games for free from their own servers, they only confirmed that you can stream from your own console for free. And guess what, PS Now can already do that, and stream from either your console or their servers to your PC, PS4, phone or tablet. And they've been doing it for years! Right now more than 100 million people have a PS4 and that library will carry over to the PS5, talking about having all the Xbox One Game Pass titles being available on the next console for streaming doesnt look that much better as it initially sounds.

The BC talk, the 2013-2003 vs 2020-2010 difference makes no sense to me. Anyway, they were the first to take BC seriously but the competition is catching up and I doubt that once Series X and PS5 launch more than a few thousand people in the world will decide what to get based on the possibility of playing 10 year old games through BC. Cross-save is great and I'd guess with Sony talking about releasing stuff on PC that it will also be a thing on those select titles, while cross play is another feature Xbox supported and well, as far as I know Sony already catch up on that, only depends on the devs to make it work.

The cherry on the cake is the last paragraph: 'we are not gonna see Game Pass on PS4. On Phones? Probably!". As I said above, PS Now is ALREADY a thing on phones, pcs, tablets and the PS4. They talk about stuff Microsoft is going to do while ignoring that Sony already does some of those things and is probably going to do anyway. As I mentioned above, Microsoft started the next gen race early because they threw the towel this gen and are trying to secure the player base with subsidized subscription (plenty of Game Pass deals all year long).
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,215
They already match gp, if they offered first party games at launch on ps now they would be so far ahead.
They would still need to add more indie games launching on the service and more "recently" released games to it at a higher pace. PSNow doesn't add many games regularly. When they do all of that and their first party, it would be a comparable service for console only. My opinion though.
 

Deleted member 18951

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,531
I subscribed to the PC version for a month(maybe it was 2)?. It was 100% worth that 2 dollars, I just didn't find it worth the regular price

Ahh, gotcha. PC only? Yeah I hope they can get that service up to par with the console version. I suppose it is still in beta and half the price but the games could be a lot better.
 

DigSCCP

Banned
Nov 16, 2017
4,201
The article is not wrong about some points but it does picture a scenario that is not real in many others :

But Microsoft has some important tools on its side: it has the developer relationships and game industry experience of a company like Sony combined with the heft and financial flexibility of a company like Google. That's a powerful combination.

- Developer relationships : MS doesn´t have the same developer relationships as Sony does.
- Game industry experience : MS doesn´t have the experience Sony has.
- Heft and Financial flexibility : this one is on point and it´s MS biggest advantage.

Game Pass is fully operational, and any other company hoping to emulate it is going to play catch-up. And catch-up in a world of subscriptions is a tough game.

Are they ? I mean in a world of subscriptions content is king and the one playing catch up at this moment, when it comes to content, it´s MS.
It´s easier to catch up with a business model than to catch up as a content creator.
For Sony to "emulate" GP is just a matter of a click and they have their killer first party line up on their services if they want too.
For MS to "emulate" SIE´s offerings it´s a matter of long time and investment. They are already doing it but they got a long long way before they reach it if they ever do.


Everyone and their dog is interested in streaming right now, but only Microsoft can bring Game Pass to the table and make it work.

Also true but we still don´t know yet when this is going to really take off in the gaming market, so yeah if it was in a scenario that tomorrow this takes off MS is probably the one with the cake in their hands...but if it´s not tomorrow then we don´t know what others competitors plans are which makes this testament at least very earlier than it should be.

The article excludes a lot of aspects like : branding, regional policies and support, content quality, content reach and many others.
All of those are really important for a reasonable discussion, and ironically all of those are ignored in the article.
 

Meg Cherry

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,260
Seattle, WA
They already match gp, if they offered first party games at launch on ps now they would be so far ahead.
They don't really match it. As somebody who likes to keep up with recent releases, 2019 had numerous major hit games I could play on Game Pass. Some on day one (Outer Wilds, Outer Worlds, Gears 5, Void Bastards, etc) and others just a few months after release (DMC V, Bloodstained, Untitled Goose Game, Life Is Strange 2). Sony's not matching that value right now.

They could, but they aren't.
 

get2sammyb

Editor at Push Square
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
3,006
UK
The thing with Game Pass is that it's easily replicatable. I'd wager that Sony and Nintendo could offer a comparative service overnight on their respective platforms, but the economics don't make sense for either of them.

As soon as the economics make sense, the model will be copied by everyone. It's my view that Microsoft is in heavy loss-leader mode, and it's only really adopted this strategy because its games don't sell particularly well.
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
The thing with Game Pass is that it's easily replicatable. I'd wager that Sony and Nintendo could offer a comparative service overnight on their respective platforms, but the economics don't make sense for either of them.

As soon as the economics make sense, the model will be copied by everyone. It's my view that Microsoft is in heavy loss-leader mode, and it's only really adopted this strategy because its games don't sell particularly well.

Why do you think Office moved to a subscription service? It was one of Microsoft's most successful products.
 

Dokkaebi G0SU

Member
Nov 2, 2017
5,922
You don't see Disney sending their tentpole Marvel and Star Wars movies to Disney+ on day one, and that's because they can still clear a billion+ each in theaters first.
Well ... Disney+ just released. There are milestones, goals and multiple plans for this ever evolving market. One and done isn't the game here for any subscription service. I dont think you can really use that example and compare it to Gamepass and what MS/Xbox is doing. I can't see the relation.
 

tutomos

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,612
Why do you think Office moved to a subscription service? It was one of Microsoft's most successful products.

So they can have more control with piracy. MS Office deals more with enterprise customers so it's really different situation. It was really hard for companies to upgrade from older Windows and applications but with the cloud, you don't have this problem.

Well ... Disney+ just released. There are milestones, goals and multiple plans for this ever evolving market. One and done isn't the game here for any subscription service. I dont think you can really use that example and compare it to Gamepass and what MS/Xbox is doing. I can't see the relation.

If that subscription service is just another option but not the end game then it's a valid comparison, which is the case for MS and Sony.
 
Last edited:

Bradbatross

Member
Mar 17, 2018
14,195
The thing with Game Pass is that it's easily replicatable. I'd wager that Sony and Nintendo could offer a comparative service overnight on their respective platforms, but the economics don't make sense for either of them.

As soon as the economics make sense, the model will be copied by everyone. It's my view that Microsoft is in heavy loss-leader mode, and it's only really adopted this strategy because its games don't sell particularly well.
When are the economics going to make sense for Sony and Nintendo?
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
They clearly do not match Game Pass.
They do, you can believe what you want but sony doesn't need day one first party to be as good as game pass.

They don't really match it. As somebody who likes to keep up with recent releases, 2019 had numerous major hit games I could play on Game Pass. Some on day one (Outer Wilds, Outer Worlds, Gears 5, Void Bastards, etc) and others just a few months after release (DMC V, Bloodstained, Untitled Goose Game, Life Is Strange 2). Sony's not matching that value right now.



They could, but they aren't.
Microsoft first party has to be on game pass because other than a few games, it's underwhelming. Sony is doing what they need to with ps now.
 
Last edited:

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,836
So they can have more control with piracy. MS Office deals more with enterprise customers so it's really different situation. It was really hard for companies to upgrade from older Windows and applications but with the cloud, you don't have this problem.

Enterprise customers are pirating?
 

Polyh3dron

Prophet of Regret
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,860
Game Pass is a Very Good Thing, but the Xbox brand has been damaged gravely since they started slashing their first party stable in the Mattrick era in favor of Kinect. They still haven't recovered from that, but have done all of the right things they can possibly do. Their first party lineup next gen should be nothing short of mindblowing. The question is; will gamers who jumped ship give the platform another shot next gen? The answer will depend on their messaging between now and E3 and what they will have ready to show. I'm just glad I will be able to benefit from Game Pass and their colossal first party investments without being confined to the console wife, thanks to their renewed PC initiative, which also could impact the sales of the console in the next gen. In the long run though, it seems like Microsoft doesn't care whether we play their games on the PC or the Xbox console, since it will all be inside the same "ecosystem", so to speak. The main attraction here seems to be Game Pass.
 

Iwao

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,779
VR/AR games can be added to a service like Game Pass.
- Game design innovation from VR/AR.
- Game design innovation from Game Pass.

Which do you think is going to happen first?

The thing with Game Pass is that it's easily replicatable. I'd wager that Sony and Nintendo could offer a comparative service overnight on their respective platforms, but the economics don't make sense for either of them.

As soon as the economics make sense, the model will be copied by everyone. It's my view that Microsoft is in heavy loss-leader mode, and it's only really adopted this strategy because its games don't sell particularly well.
Well said.
 
Feb 1, 2018
5,083
You cannot change the laws of physics. There will always be an inherent problem and even if everyone had the same massive connection speeds, no data caps and there was a data centre dedicated to it in most major cities there would be problems.

I honestly don't get why people are so adamant this is the future.

This exact argument was floating around in 2012 by people skeptical of Netflix streaming
 

Belthazar90

Banned
Jun 3, 2019
4,316
I sure hope Sony doesn't try to follow Microsoft in putting 1st party titles on PSNow day one, I don't want the quality of their output to deteriorate like it surely will if they do that.
 

Vilam

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,053
"Netflix of gaming" is the exact opposite of how I want to consume games, regardless of which company that service comes from.
 

Meg Cherry

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,260
Seattle, WA
They do, you can believe what you want but sony doesn't need day one first party to be as good as game pass.

Microsoft first party has to be on game pass because other than a few games, it's underwhelming. Sony is doing what they need to with ps now.
This doesn't really explain how they're "matching" it, though. Game Pass has multiple major recent releases (both first and third party) with critical acclaim. PS Now has a few first party games regularly available for $20, and a bunch of old PS3 games playable through a video stream. There's virtually no XBox owner I wouldn't recommend Game Pass to. There's virtually no PlayStation owner I'd recommend Now to.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,151
United Kingdom
Lol.

Ask every major publisher how they would feel if the majority of consumer interaction with videogames was distributed through a subs-based Netflix-like service like GP. They'd abandon the console industry wholesale. The entirety of the past couple of console gens, major publishers have been consolidating their development efforts into fewer and fewer, infinitely more expensive, event-scale service-type games. It's exactly the kind of content that doesn't work well with a GP like service.

GP is a great supplementary service, but it will live or die off the back of content, and the biggest most important content (in terms of consumer regard and commercial success) is simply far too costly to produce to distribute exclusively on a GP like service.

So GP cannot and will not ever be "teh future" of videogame consumption. As all the major AAA publishers will do their damnedest to ensure it isn't ever the case.

The article author has been on the koolaid again.
 

OldDirtyGamer

Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,469
Lol.

Ask every major publisher how they would feel if the majority of consumer interaction with videogames was distributed through a subs-based Netflix-like service like GP. They'd abandon the console industry wholesale. The entirety of the past couple of console gens, major publishers have been consolidating their development efforts into fewer and fewer, infinitely more expensive, event-scale service-type games. It's exactly the kind of content that doesn't work well with a GP like service.

GP is a great supplementary service, but it will live or die off the back of content, and the biggest most important content (in terms of consumer regard and commercial success) is simply far too costly to produce to distribute exclusively on a GP like service.

So GP cannot and will not ever be "teh future" of videogame consumption. As all the major AAA publishers will do their damnedest to ensure it isn't ever the case.

The article author has been on the koolaid again.

MS, Ubi and EA all seem pretty happy with it.
I expect other pubs to follow if they have a big enough game library.
 

12Danny123

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,722
The thing with Game Pass is that it's easily replicatable. I'd wager that Sony and Nintendo could offer a comparative service overnight on their respective platforms, but the economics don't make sense for either of them.

As soon as the economics make sense, the model will be copied by everyone. It's my view that Microsoft is in heavy loss-leader mode, and it's only really adopted this strategy because its games don't sell particularly well.

The economics will never make sense for Sony and Nintendo, Gaming is their core business. So putting their games on a service will damage the companies.

Subscriptions will never be profitable day 1. Disney+ showed that. Disney will be loosing $4.5 Billion per year and $2.5 Billion is for Disney+.

To have a viable business model in subscriptions you need.

  1. Sustain the $Billions+ losses long enough to reach profitability. Likely years or at least a decade.
  2. Increase output of First Party and Third Party
  3. Have a low price of entry while maintaining quality.

Do you think Nintendo and Sony will be able to maintain this? I don't think so and it showed when Sony lowered the price of PSNow. There used to be a dozen of games announced for PSNow when it was $20 and since they cut the price they reduce the amount of games released on PS Now. Game Pass has only increased their output of games released since cutting prices.

This business model only works if Gaming is not a core business.
 
Last edited:

Mubrik_

Member
Dec 7, 2017
2,723
'like Netflix'
I hope people now how response time affects gaming and how even a few missing packets can result in a jarring experience.
Why would xcloud still be in beta after all this while if it was that easy as just streaming a video?

That asides sticking to the OT, the streaming argument is irrelevant as even the competition offered that years before this so it's no golden key (maybe after it's bundled with GP?) but let's wait for it's launch to decide that.

Also as evident by people in this thread, Sony really doesn't have any worries when it comes to GP or gaining subscribers it seems, as all they have to do is add their 1st party games and a few multiplat at launch and the subs will come in.

The articles 'golden key' can be made irrelevant by Sony simply announcing that ^ before the PS5 launch and all of a sudden price becomes the only thing MS holds in advantage

I do hope they eventually do and even compete with MS on price cause that means more to me for less but problem is Sony is the market leader here in both ips and playerbase (save for mindhare for now) and they can well watch MS (EA e.t.c) explore this business model as both a publisher and console

MS, Ubi and EA all seem pretty happy with it.
I expect other pubs to follow if they have a big enough game library.

Regular Pubs don't have to worry about console sales tho
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,151
United Kingdom
MS, Ubi and EA all seem pretty happy with it.
I expect other pubs to follow if they have a big enough game library.

That's not really a counter point.

I'm sure they are happy with it as a supplementary service. But if MS turned around and said that all games on the Xbox platform will now have to be distributed exclusively through GP, they'd all give MS the middle finger and for obvious reasons.

Hence, why I said, GP will continue to be successful as a supplementary distribution service. It will never be the primary means for gamers to interact with the games they play... there's far too much money at stake for that to ever be the case.
 

OldDirtyGamer

Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,469
That's not really a counter point.

I'm sure they are happy with it as a supplementary service. But if MS turned around and said that all games on the Xbox platform will now have to be distributed exclusively through GP, they'd all give MS the middle finger and for obvious reasons.

Hence, why I said, GP will continue to be successful as a supplementary distribution service. It will never be the primary means for gamers to interact with the games they play... there's far too much money at stake for that to ever be the case.
I don't think anyone was expecting GP to be the only way to get games.
 

cakely

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,149
Chicago
This exact argument was floating around in 2012 by people skeptical of Netflix streaming

No, it wasn't. No one ever argued that latency was going to make Netflix streaming unsuccessful. That's just not how it works.

Latency isn't ever a factor in video streaming: It's impossible to notice a one-second delay from when Netflix sends packet of streaming video data from its datacenter to your player.

On the other hand, latency is a huge factor in game streaming: when two-way communication is required, a delay of a couple hundred milliseconds between user input and a reaction on the screen can make a game unplayable.
 

12Danny123

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,722
For those who think Sony and Nintendo or any gaming company can simply put their games onto a Subscription service while charging a very low price and be done with it will be sorely disappointed.

They can't sustain that service and that business model and they probably never will. The economics are simply too much against them, especially since Gaming is both their core businesses.

Releasing games onto a subscription service day 1 will bury the companies into the ground.

This business model works for Microsoft because Gaming is not their core business so they can charge as low as they want while increase quality and output, they also are large enough to absorb the losses made. Sony and Nintendo, EA, Activision etc cannot, , especially AAA SP games.

In this case improving Quality of First Party titles is much easier than sustaining a service with this business model at the level of Sony and Nintendo.
 
Last edited:

Tomacco

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,008
The thing with Game Pass is that it's easily replicatable. I'd wager that Sony and Nintendo could offer a comparative service overnight on their respective platforms, but the economics don't make sense for either of them.

As soon as the economics make sense, the model will be copied by everyone. It's my view that Microsoft is in heavy loss-leader mode, and it's only really adopted this strategy because its games don't sell particularly well.

Not sure I agree with that.

On the technical side you have the ability to download and play previous generations games at increased resolution.

On the business side, they seem to be killing it in terms of getting newer releases to the service while fostering indies to the point of getting many of them releasing games day and date on the service.

On the marketing side, there seems to be nothing but good things said about GP(PS specific outlets not withstanding), while Sony is still promoting games that aren't even on the service anymore on the official site (maybe just us Canadians get this pleasure) https://www.playstation.com/en-ca/explore/playstation-now/games/

To be clear, not saying it's impossible that Sony or Nintendo could beat GP as a service, just that saying they could do it over night is a bit disingenuous.