Jump to content

PlayStation Plus Premium - Out Now


Sarlaccfood
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've said this before but I buy more than I ever have since Gamepass as I'm spending more time in the Xbox ecosystem (because of Gamepass). I will say that I almost exclusively only buy stuff in sales, never full price, and very rarely buy disc based games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, PaB said:

Can we change the thread title to “Xbox gamepass user base spending habits“ please? 


It’s all on-topic though, discussing the market this new service is going to be competing in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't bought an Xbox game since the first Series S I purchased at launch.

 

I'm finding the breadth of games on GP as well as the pull of getting them MS Reward points more than enough at the moment.

 

All that GP goodness, coupled with the first party Sony and Nintendo bangers is fine with me.

 

My GP sub finishes at the end of May so I've asked for Xbox Live Gold subs for my birthday which I'll then convert for, if I'm right, £10.99. Is that the case now as I've had GP before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sarlaccfood said:


It’s all on-topic though, discussing the market this new service is going to be competing in?

In the same way that talking about Netflix in the Disney plus thread is , yes .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PaB said:

In the same way that talking about Netflix in the Disney plus thread is , yes .


When Disney + was announced I’m sure there was talk about Netflix yeah.
 

Until it’s launched there‘s not much else we can talk about other than some industry speculation is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to ignore most of the last few pages and post some low quality speculation based on what has been announced so far. 

 

-PS5 games are being added to PSNow Playstation Plus Premium in June

 

I think there might already be one or two PS5 games on PSNow but hopefully this relaunch will mean we start seeing more PS5 native games on there. We know Returnal is coming at least and almost certainly PS5 Miles Morales as well. Death Stranding I'm not sure about just because they didn't use the Directors Cut part of that games name. It probably will be the PS5 game thats gets added to Premium in the end and I'm overthinking that. 

 

-No streaming of PS5 games

 

A bit disappointing as its a sign that streaming isn't going to improve much over what they already offer. I like the option of being able to stream stuff and I still think that streaming games can be a big part of gamings future. Its possibly a bit strange that despite being the first to launch with PSNow that Sonys service has fallen into last place quality wise. Stadia, Geforce and Xcloud are all better experiences than PSNow. This could all be down to supply chain issues and Sony choosing to pull the PS5s they can into consumers hands instead of data centres or it might be a sign that they aren't as interested in cloud gaming right now. 

 

-PS3 games still rely on streaming

 

The biggest disappointment really. We know that the PS5 should be able to emulate the PS3 well enough to run some PS3 games locally so its a shame Sony don't seem willing to put in the work to make that happen. Some countries simply won't have the option to play PS3 games and that sucks for them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Game Pass came out I’ve bought fewer games than ever. But I have played and completed more.

 

I don’t have Game Pass. Or an Xbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Uzi said:

I'm sure the Securities and Exchanges Commission would be very interested in accusations from strangers online that some very generic graphs and meaningless vague data about a videogame subscription service published on a games industry blog could be skewed to present a positive narrative from said company

 

What a shit dodge of the question.

 

Would a company presenting data like they do around gamepass not open themselves up to being sued by shareholders for misleading them or open themselves to the possiblity of breaking various rules around disclosures of performance they have to declare to the financial markets?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

 

What a shit dodge of the question.

 

Would a company presenting data like they do around gamepass not open themselves up to being sued by shareholders for misleading them or open themselves to the possiblity of breaking various rules around disclosures of performance they have to declare to the financial markets?

 

 

 

No. This wasn't a financial report. It wasn't financial advice. It was not part of an annual report. It was a presentation to publishers/developers (and I guess the press/hobbiests).

 

They've done what everyone does with statistics. Chosen to present them in a way that allows people to misinterpret them. And it's worked. They've been used here to argue that people increase spending when they have a GP sub. When all they show is that if one person has a GP sub then on average they spend more on gaming than someone (a completely different person) who doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thesnwmn said:

 

No. This wasn't a financial report. It wasn't financial advice. It was not part of an annual report. It was a presentation to publishers/developers (and I guess the press/hobbiests).

 

They've done what everyone does with statistics. Chosen to present them in a way that allows people to misinterpret them. And it's worked. They've been used here to argue that people increase spending when they have a GP sub. When all they show is that if one person has a GP sub then on average they spend more on gaming than someone (a completely different person) who doesn't.

 

Fair enough.  Makes sense. I can cry into my pillow tonight having been corrected.  ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a PlayStation 5 to test this, but aside from the PlayStation 4, it has no further native backwards compatibility built in? Is that right? And the only way I can play some PlayStation, PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 games is to subscribe to the top tier? And then the only games I can play are those Sony has chosen and not those I might have a disk for? Is that right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

They've done what everyone does with statistics. Chosen to present them in a way that allows people to misinterpret them. And it's worked. They've been used here to argue that people increase spending when they have a GP sub. When all they show is that if one person has a GP sub then on average they spend more on gaming than someone (a completely different person) who doesn't.

 

You keep going on about the way the data was presented - totally ignoring that some of that data was not from MS, but from a third-party - who we're supposed to believe are just going along with the grand MS mis-direction for the fun of it as well right? They are both twisting the truth in public presentations at an industry event, most likely in a room full of people that might just have an idea of what's actually going on?

 

What they show is, that a customer who subs to GP is worth more on average to MS than one who doesn't - so getting somesbody to sub (even for £1 through some careless 'mistake' on the website) is likely to lead to more revenue for MS than they would have had otherwise.  I'm not certain MS care how much that person was spending on other platforms before that point - what they care about is "is that person spending more with us now than they were before" - and getting them on GP seems to result in just that. The MS data says that, the third-party analyst data says that.

 

The idea that MS care if person X was really spending £100 with Sony before but only £75 with them now is pointless - MS had £0, and now has £75 - that's what they care about, not that the person is actually spending £15 less (they can work on that longer-term).

 

Sony obviously see the same - they've not looked at what MS are doing, thought "hang on, this is costing them an arm and a leg with no returns - we need to get us some of that". They've seen it's working and they've responded as best as they can at this point without totally gutting their previously primary model in the early stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rgraves said:

You keep going on about the way the data was presented - totally ignoring that some of that data was not from MS, but from a third-party - who we're supposed to believe are just going along with the grand MS mis-direction for the fun of it as well right? They are both twisting the truth in public presentations at an industry event, most likely in a room full of people that might just have an idea of what's actually going on?

 

They both show something interesting and useful. That GP subs spend more than non-subs. They just don't show that people who aren't subbed to GP are likely to spend more if they start a sub. Anyone assuming that is over-reading it. That's advantageous to MS.

 

The third party is presenting data they can. They have no way to track a user's spending before and after GP. MS could and I'm sure do but they don't present that. It would be trivial for them to shoe that but they don't.

 

 

15 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

What they show is, that a customer who subs to GP is worth more on average to MS than one who doesn't - so getting somesbody to sub (even for £1 through some careless 'mistake' on the website) is likely to lead to more revenue for MS than they would have had otherwise.  I'm not certain MS care how much that person was spending on other platforms before that point - what they care about is "is that person spending more with us now than they were before" - and getting them on GP seems to result in just that. The MS data says that, the third-party analyst data says that.

 

Careful. A use who IS subbed to GP is worth more to MS than those who are not. It says nothing about how that individuals spending changed. If someone not subbed now subs will they spend more? There is NO data to show that being presented.

 

15 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

The idea that MS care if person X was really spending £100 with Sony before but only £75 with them now is pointless - MS had £0, and now has £75 - that's what they care about, not that the person is actually spending £15 less (they can work on that longer-term).

 

Agreed. Cross platform spending is of no interest to them*  But they (and maybe more pertinently Sony) do care if the user spends less with them after they sub to GP. Again, no data for this is presented. We do not know how a user's spending changes. We only know that those who have chosen to sub (maybe the most hardcore) remain bigger spenders than those who don't (includes those who do nothing but but FIFA every year).

 

* It might be of interest to publishers MS want to put games on GP but that's a very different matter 

 

15 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is just a daft double-down, there's loads of evidence against your point, no evidence you can provide for it, but you're still doing this "well you can't prove that it doesn't, therefore..." reaching.

 

No one is going to judge you if you just go, "oh OK I didn't know those figures existed, guess I was wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

Careful. A use who IS subbed to GP is worth more to MS than those who are not. It says nothing about how that individuals spending changed. If someone not subbed now subs will they spend more? There is NO data to show that being presented.

 

There IS data on that though - I keep referring back to this same (non-MS) chart:

 

3d1fbee5-7421-49b7-8a1a-6659d99ef82d_800

 

That shows that, on average, xboxs users who sub (blue) spend more than xbox users who do not (orange) - so, on average, somebody moving from non-subbed to subbed within the xbox ecosystem will spend more. Obviously individuals will differ, but the trend is for increased spend from subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rgraves said:

That shows that, on average, xboxs users who sub (blue) spend more than xbox users who do not (orange) - so, on average, somebody moving from non-subbed to subbed within the xbox ecosystem will spend more. Obviously individuals will differ, but the trend is for increased spend from subscribers.

This is the bit that it doesn't show. It only shows that Gamepass subscribers spend more than non-subscribers. It does not indicate that subscribing to Gamepass makes people spend more money. Which is what @thesnwmn has been patiently trying to articulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the original (stupid) argument was around if game pass is currently making profit or not, and then it divulged into "well game pass subs spend 2 dollars more per averages than non game pass xbox gamers!" which basically shed no further light on the original fucking thing as it no bearing on shedding light on the original issue. 

 

This turned from the sony ps plus plus plus thread to arguing if game pass people spend their MS Reward points more from being on Bing all fucking day. LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm missing something here then - because if people are not, on average, spending more money after subscribing to GP how does the average spend for that group go up when compared against people that are not subscribed? Taking into account they will have been in the first group (non-subbed) before moving over to the second group (subbed). Unless you think it's basically a result of people going directly in as subbed without ever being part of the ecosystem prior - which is of course possible, but I think that's not really fair as really their spending has also gone up as far as MS are concerned (they are spending 100% more in fact).

 

Also, as I previously said, I'm not arguing they are spending more *overall* - I'm saying they are spending more *with MS* - which is all they care about.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Uzi said:

I think the original (stupid) argument was around if game pass is currently making profit or not, and then it divulged into "well game pass subs spend 2 dollars more per averages than non game pass xbox gamers!" which basically shed no further light on the original fucking thing as it no bearing on shedding light on the original issue. 

 

This turned from the sony ps plus plus plus thread to arguing if game pass people spend their MS Reward points more from being on Bing all fucking day. LOL. 

 

I think it's a debate around if subscription services work and can be sustainable in the gaming space using available data from the main service we currently see - no need to turn it into a format war....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really depressing. A discussion about spending money on games. GP subscribers spend *more* money in microtransactions! Great, that’s just what we needed. The future looks bleak.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Darwock said:

This is really depressing. A discussion about spending money on games. GP subscribers spend *more* money in microtransactions! Great, that’s just what we needed. The future looks bleak.

 

Take the positive - they also spend more money on physical games (more than digital which surprised me to be honest)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.