Jump to content
IGNORED

PlayStation Plus Premium - Out Now


Sarlaccfood
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Sarlaccfood said:

The “tiers” thing is a big mistake off the bat it has to be said.


Three tiers for PS+ as opposed to the four tiers for Gold/Game Pass or three tiers for Humble Choice or two tiers for Nintendo Online?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, deKay said:


I can’t see any of the tier options on Shopto - where are they?

£50 PSN credit for £44.85 via shopto and then paying £50 for the year via the PS5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Is there any evidence at all to suggest this though - I mean it feels like something that people keep saying, but never actually have anything to back it up.

 

If anything, I think Sony are making more noise about moving in that direction to be honest...

I think the whole industry is moving in that direction to be honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Uzi said:

£50 PSN credit for £44.85 via shopto and then paying £50 for the year via the PS5


I don’t see the tiers on the PS5 either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments about MS moving to a GAAS or micro transaction model alongside GP might be true in time but it's Sony who seem the deepest in that direction at the moment with their approach to GT7 and next gen upgrades.

 

And this is where a rich service with a wide range.of games from a wide range of studios wins out. Even if the next Gears of War is full of micro transactions we all say "well that's shit", laugh at their inept choices and go back to playing Tunic 2 or whatever. It doesn't stick as bad stuff, they'd leave it that way, make some money in the long term from GAAS-GoW and never take the same face hit as Sony have over GT because they didn't charge anyone £70 for the privilege of being screwed.

 

 

Anyway, interesting to see Sony moving their offering. I think the tier system is a bit complicated. Should have just out it all in the middle tier I think and had one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

Arguments about MS moving to a GAAS or micro transaction model alongside GP might be true in time

Can someone please help me understand GaaS. You don't necessarily need micro transactions, right? I assume the Forzas count as GaaS, and now Flight Sim as it's back on people's radars, because it they're continually adding content and making you want to keep chipping away at it. Because the conversation is veering into GaaS = bad and GasS = Microsoft doing micro transactions and, honestly, I see no evidence of it after they've stung themselves previously.

 

So, games you want to keep playing for a long time GaaS? Sure. Reasons to keep throwing a couple of bucks here and there at your game of choice, to make a grind less awful (etc)? Not seeing that GaaS, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TehStu said:

Can someone please help me understand GaaS. You don't necessarily need micro transactions, right? I assume the Forzas count as GaaS, and now Flight Sim as it's back on people's radars, because it they're continually adding content and making you want to keep chipping away at it. Because the conversation is veering into GaaS = bad and GasS = Microsoft doing micro transactions and, honestly, I see no evidence of it after they've stung themselves previously.

 

So, games you want to keep playing for a long time GaaS? Sure. Reasons to keep throwing a couple of bucks here and there at your game of choice, to make a grind less awful (etc)? Not seeing that GaaS, sorry.

 

I could probably drop GaaS from my post entirely in the context for Game Pass.

 

I don't mind GaaS as a concept but obviously it can have a funding issue long term which leads to the question of what you sell to keep adding content.

 

Personally I've little to no interest in playing them because I get bored of almost anything within about 10 hours. I'd rather crafted experience from start to end. Forza Horizon 5 in the end felt fun for a while but the constant "this is the activity of the day/week/month" turned me off quite quickly. But no harm. I had fun for a week.

 

But with Game Pass that's probably less of a concern. The income comes from Game Pass itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TehStu said:

Can someone please help me understand GaaS. You don't necessarily need micro transactions, right? I assume the Forzas count as GaaS, and now Flight Sim as it's back on people's radars, because it they're continually adding content and making you want to keep chipping away at it. Because the conversation is veering into GaaS = bad and GasS = Microsoft doing micro transactions and, honestly, I see no evidence of it after they've stung themselves previously.

 

So, games you want to keep playing for a long time GaaS? Sure. Reasons to keep throwing a couple of bucks here and there at your game of choice, to make a grind less awful (etc)? Not seeing that GaaS, sorry.


New horse armour, every 90 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the branding. I get why they did it - Plus is very successful (and Now is not), it allows for upselling, and it's vague enough to give them flexibility - but "Plus Extra" and "Plus Premium" are not great names to sell a service and its benefits.

 

Not saying "Xbox Live Gold", "Xbox Game Pass", "Xbox PC Game Pass" and "Game Pass Ultimate" are ideal either, but it does at least sell Game Pass as a distinct entity and it's a little less vague than "Extra" and "Premium".

 

You can also tell the difference between Microsoft, who have commited to this is the future, and Sony, who clearly don't and are being a bit non-committal about what the service will contain.

 

It also feels like no-one is really committing to making streaming a success - it feels more and more like a dead end. Maybe I'm wrong and this will be quoted as being embarassingly wrong in 10 years but right now, no-one is making the effort and investsment needed to convince end-users to make the leap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boozy The Clown said:

A game that continues to be supported with new content free or paid for after launch. 

I get that, I don't know why it implies being fleeced on micro transactions but maybe I'm misreading posts. It can surely be a good thing, they're always trying to keep FH fresh and it doesn't cost you a dime outside of the purchase/game pass.

 

I assume we're talking about Destiny 2 type situations, like keep paying for expansions outside of the "usual two DLC" we get with a lot of big titles these days, right? Or perhaps Halo Infinite and the battle pass thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

Arguments about MS moving to a GAAS or micro transaction model alongside GP might be true in time but it's Sony who seem the deepest in that direction at the moment with their approach to GT7 and next gen upgrades.

 

And this is where a rich service with a wide range.of games from a wide range of studios wins out. Even if the next Gears of War is full of micro transactions we all say "well that's shit", laugh at their inept choices and go back to playing Tunic 2 or whatever. It doesn't stick as bad stuff, they'd leave it that way, make some money in the long term from GAAS-GoW and never take the same face hit as Sony have over GT because they didn't charge anyone £70 for the privilege of being screwed.

 

 

Anyway, interesting to see Sony moving their offering. I think the tier system is a bit complicated. Should have just out it all in the middle tier I think and had one.

That'd be a $40 per year increase for most of their existing customers, I'd imagine there would be a serious backlash to a move like that.

 

Based on what has been said so far the top tier hardly seems worth it for the majority of people. I'd probably download a few PS2 games and put half an hour into them but a lot of games from that era really need someone like Nightdive to give them a once over and take the roughest edges off them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It implies being fleeced because that was the narrative when Xbox started doing it. The Fortnite and COD Warzone took off and everyone was alright with the idea. It's a youth thing that those gamers of a certain generation struggle with accepting so go full gammon about the changes they see ruining gaming. EA sports games are probably the most egregious examples but they seem to get a pass because FIFA/ Madden are just accepted by the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

I don't understand why you're looking for it now. It doesn't launch until June?

 

Because Uzi said it was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TehStu said:

I get that, I don't know why it implies being fleeced on micro transactions but maybe I'm misreading posts. It can surely be a good thing, they're always trying to keep FH fresh and it doesn't cost you a dime outside of the purchase/game pass.

 

I assume we're talking about Destiny 2 type situations, like keep paying for expansions outside of the "usual two DLC" we get with a lot of big titles these days, right? Or perhaps Halo Infinite and the battle pass thing.

 

As above MS properties are a bit unique in that Game Pass funds their continued development. I guess any first party console title can support the same even without GP if the platform holder sees keeping it fresh as valuable for keeping or gaining customers.

 

But for someone like EA or Activision they need to be charging for those updates. If it's required, priced sensibly and offers real content then great. If it's optional like cosmetics and priced reasonably then fuck it. Let the whales pay for others.

 

 But the risk of GaaS in general, in those latter cases, is that now the need to entice people into spending money outweighs design considerations about whether the game is fun

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jg15 said:

I truly suspect the vast majority of future MS titles going forward to be GAAS.

 

People keep saying this but it doesn't make any sense, no one would subscribe to a service with Destiny 2, GTA Online, Genshin Impact, Fortnite and Valorant because it'd be completely unnecessary, you can download all of those for free - getting people in with a wide audience is the whole reason these GAAS are F2P, there's no point putting themselves behind a paywall. And if you want a service that y'know gives you some benefits in those games then that's like Twitch Prime or Discord Nitro do as ancilliaries, it's not a gamechanger.

 

I've yet to see any logic behind it other than "I don't like GAAS, and I'm kind of a fanboy and don't like Game Pass either, so let's tar these two snarl words together."
 

Game Pass is literally a bet that the future isn't GAAS, because a world where it is would completely erode its value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bear said:

That'd be a $40 per year increase for most of their existing customers, I'd imagine there would be a serious backlash to a move like that.

 

Based on what has been said so far the top tier hardly seems worth it for the majority of people. I'd probably download a few PS2 games and put half an hour into them but a lot of games from that era really need someone like Nightdive to give them a once over and take the roughest edges off them. 

 

Fair point. I guess I'd like to see the most basic functionality go free again. These consoles basically don't work without online services (or are at least much worse without one). So I think cloud saves, online play (at least by choice of the publisher), and other such stuff should just be part of the package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are conflating live service games, which have continuous updates; and GAAS, games obtained as a service (for a recurring charge of zero upwards) rather than as a sold product. The two usually overlap, but I am not sure that they need to, and with business models like this you need that nuance. For example, Game Pass is GAAS but obviously not all the content consists of live service games. It’s a way of GAAS-ing existing content. Animal Crossing New Horizons is de facto a live service game but you don’t subscribe to play it, you buy the cart once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything Game Pass and Sony's equivalent if they put the effort in should push developers away from microtransactions and gaas crap. You can release a complete 'offline' single player game and get constant income from people playing it, long after the initial sales would be done.

 

You notice stuff like football manager and paradox games on there on launch day? Those are very popular games which people play for sometimes thousands of hours, which are extremely single player-centric and previously had no real way to get money from players beyond the initial purchase, and in paradox's case, loads of dlc. Different story with gp. Paradox are even going to the bother of porting really complex pc games like CK3 to console because of this.

 

Meanwhile if you're putting another gaas on there you're competing with every other similar game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Game Pass isn't a GAAS, it's just 'a service', I'd say it's closer to actually buying retail games than GAAS's, I mean it's just a generous trial period and then a discount on buying the game.

Yeah. this. With an indefinite trial for 1st party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, deerokus said:

If anything Game Pass should push developers away from microtransactions and gaas crap. You can release a complete offline single player game and get constant income from people playing it.

 

You notice stuff like football manager and paradox games on there? Games people play for sometimes thousands of hours which previously had no real way to get money from players beyond the initial purchase and dlc. Different with gp.


Well, that is what “software as a service” does for software. Developers have a continuous revenue stream that avoids unhealthy business models associated with buy-once apps, like abandoning older versions or MTX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't mean to drag us off topic but appreciate the replies. If someone had said "MS is going F2P mobile style bollocks" then I'd know exactly what that was. But they aren't, so no one did :) MS' guff as a service is spot on, thus far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Fair point. I guess I'd like to see the most basic functionality go free again. These consoles basically don't work without online services (or are at least much worse without one). So I think cloud saves, online play (at least by choice of the publisher), and other such stuff should just be part of the package.

Yeah, locking multiplayer behind a paywall just gets more and more ridiculous as time goes on. I'm surprised that we don't hear from smaller developers complaining about it at this point. It's hard to justify putting online multiplayer in a small game nowadays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the GAAS chat - I found it interesting from one of the Jim Ryan interviews today that he clearly doesn’t think subscription = live service.


In fact, he sees them as directly competing models, which appears to be another reason why Sony aren’t completely sold on going all-in on subscriptions yet - it came across like they think that the very existence of service games will cap the potential for a subscription model to grow. 
 

Which isn’t a completely mad concept - surely it’s the people who only play FIFA or Destiny or Genshin free to play etc who have the least requirement for a 400 game subscription service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current stacked PS+ sub actually expires at the end of May, so I guess I'm super interested in at least one of these tiers.

 

Interested in the details now. With 8 years of PS+ free games I suspect that makes quite the dent in the 400 games that will be available, and lump in all my digital purchases across that time too and there may be no value without understanding what gets added in the future.

 

I'm immediately less inclined to but first party games though, at least until I understand how slowly they'll drop feed them through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

I think people are conflating live service games, which have continuous updates; and GAAS, games obtained as a service (for a recurring charge of zero upwards) rather than as a sold product. The two usually overlap, but I am not sure that they need to, and with business models like this you need that nuance. For example, Game Pass is GAAS but obviously not all the content consists of live service games. It’s a way of GAAS-ing existing content. Animal Crossing New Horizons is de facto a live service game but you don’t subscribe to play it, you buy the cart once.

Yep, my bad. I saw FH5 and Halo Infinite as GAAS games when they are more Live Service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sarlaccfood changed the title to PlayStation Plus Premium - Out Now

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.