WTF happened to this thread while I was asleep?! I guess I'll get my two cents in then:
Think of it like this:
Sony makes great games, but mostly they are rightfully praised for their single player games. If they charged me £50 a year for SonyGamepass, then I'm not paying £50 for God of War, £50 for Days Gone, £50 for Spiderman etc. I'll literally just pay £50.
Microsoft on the otherhand have more GaaS games. They give the base game away for effectively nothing, but they'll make more money on DLC from the 'whales' than Sony will on boxed games/downloads.
If, and this is what Microsoft are banking on, the userbase next gen of the two consoles aren't so far apart, Microsoft's subscription service will be raking in a lot of cash. They'll make a ton of money from the 'whales', meanwhile the little fish (a potential net loss) are giving Microsoft lots of positive PR because it is of a huge value to them. That is why we are seeing EA be so successful with FIFA etc. The subscription is cheap but they are making money hand over fist with DLC.
_______________
A lot of you have missed the point. I'm not talking about Sony and Microsoft now, but 5-10 years down the line. Microsoft have very clearly been getting their ducks in a row and very publicly so. I'm not saying Sony aren't doing the same behind the scenes, but things are going more service based - that is undeniable. My point, throughout each of my posts, is that Microsoft are in a stronger position for that kind of model than Sony and their games lend themselves more to that sort of economy.
I don't like those kind of games - I like Sony's games and don't own an Xbox.
I don't know what you're even trying to argue. This whole single player vs GaaS on GamePass/PS Now argument has nothing to do with Sony's decision, use some common sense.
The reason why Sony won't add their tentpole releases to PS Now on day one is because they have no reason to. Right now they're the most successful they've ever been, why on earth would they dramatically change the business model that's brought them that success when God of War, Horizon, Spider-Man, etc. are some of the best selling games of their years? If Sony had a bunch of multiplayer only games that were selling just as well as those ones, they wouldn't put those on PS Now day one either.
Sony do have smaller games, however, like Knack 2, Everybody's Golf, Gravity Rush 2 and so on that I could definitely see releasing on PS Now day one if Sony really started pushing it. And adding VR games to it might be a decent way to help sell PSVR. However we'll have to wait and see what Sony does with PS Now, adding downloadable games was a big step but now they really need to add a more competitively priced tier, expand the service into a lot more countries and improve the lineup.
Microsoft, on the other hand, was in a position where they could experiment because almost all of their first party games had either been disappointments or bombed and as a result, Gamepass has turned out fairly well for them. But the idea they're not going to release any single player games on it isn't backed up by the fact that most of the GamePass library are single player games and Microsoft just bought a number of single player focused studios. GaaS is obviously a factor, as everyone wants that microtransaction money, but it isn't the only one and Microsoft are clearly willing to potentially lose money on some of their games in order to help expand GamePass to a much more diverse audience than just their typical Halo/Gears/Forza fanbase.
Finally, just because Sony and Microsoft have different business models, doesn't mean either of them are wrong or one company is doomed because it isn't copying the other. You can have two different business models that work really well and if one suddenly starts failing, it isn't THAT hard to adjust, especially when you've already got their foot in that other business model's door.
It's like three million subscribers according to them, which isn't awful, but it's not good.
It's more shocking how crap MS's subscriber numbers are given the marketing cash they've blown on it. You'd think it was their big thing based on the last few months. But it's tiny apparently.
Is it really that surprising given what we know about PS+ subscription figures? Even with huge games like RDR and Batman Arkham City, PS+ subscriber numbers were still relatively tiny on the PS3, they only exploded once Sony started requiring PS+ to play online on PS4.
Believe it or not, the next Uncharted is going to face its fair share of struggles simply because it isnt being made by Naughty Dog. Thats just from the core fanbase. The last thing they need is for the masses to see Uncharted 5 with a woman who sports a similar hair style, clothing, british accent, etc. for it to feel like ¨the other Tomb Raider.
What a lot of people dont realize is that Uncharted without Nathan Drake and Naughty Dog can´t just be continued with the next best protagonist in the franchise. Thats like a recipe for gamers to feel like they can move on from the series as its just leftover stories being squeezed out of the Uncharted cast.
lmao wat, am I the only one who read this post? You realise that a) Uncharted is a bigger franchise than Tomb Raider these days, b) Chloe's an Indian-Australian woman and finally c) She's fuckin' Australian?!
If the new San Diego studio really is working on an Uncharted then it's obviously going to deal with a lot more scrutiny as their first project taking over an established franchise but it'll still sell incredibly well because it's Uncharted (just like Halo 4 did despite its new developer and apparently not being very good) and no-one's going to care about Uncharted/Tomb Raider comparisons.
https://www./threads/insomniac-betrayalton-and-nobody-cares.585921/
lol damn. Everyone (including me, sorry jstevenson!) was so down on them after Fuse, R&C All 4 One and R&C Full Frontal Assault. On the plus side, R&C Into the Nexus came out a few months later and was a return to form.
BotW is a WiiU game, and it completely defined the first year of Switch.
And yes, they obviously could have ported GoW2 or SotC to PS3, which they did anyway, just later.
What's a WiiU?
