Jump to content

The gaming subscription service thread (Game Pass, PS+ etc)


Thread Owner
 Share

Recommended Posts

I can't see it happening. For a start, some of the games on the service are multiformat releases that could eat into sales on those platforms. That and it would be advertising a direct competitor's brand on their platforms.

 

I'd expect Xbox game streaming to show up on smart TVs before too long though, at which point it wouldn't really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JPL said:

I wonder what they want off Sony in return? Gamepass on PlayStation?

 

According to the Epic lawsuit they've been trying to get Game Pass on PlayStation (and Switch) for the last couple of years.  They certainly have more leverage now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doctor Shark said:

They'll probably make more money selling stuff like CoD on PS5 than making it exclusive due to the massive install base. 

 

And Nintendo could probably sell double the already crazy amount of Mario Kart 8 copies they've sold if they put in on PC, PS and Xbox due to the massive install base. They don't because the revenue from one copy sold elsewhere doesn't compare to the revenue from actually getting someone into your ecosystem, buying games, purchasing MTX and paying ongoing monthly subs which tend to be very 'sticky'.

 

MS are clearly now in this for the very long-haul. The revenue they get from PS Call of Duty sales is relative chump change to them. If they can get even a fraction of PS owners to buy into the Xbox brand, that's far more important and lucrative long-term. They can afford to swallow any potential loss of revenue on the PS side in the short-term without breaking sweat to play the long game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Majora said:

 

And Nintendo could probably sell double the already crazy amount of Mario Kart 8 copies they've sold if they put in on PC, PS and Xbox due to the massive install base. They don't because the revenue from one copy sold elsewhere doesn't compare to the revenue from actually getting someone into your ecosystem, buying games, purchasing MTX and paying ongoing monthly subs which tend to be very 'sticky'.

 

MS are clearly now in this for the very long-haul. The revenue they get from PS Call of Duty sales is relative chump change to them. If they can get even a fraction of PS owners to buy into the Xbox brand, that's far more important and lucrative long-term. They can afford to swallow any potential loss of revenue on the PS side in the short-term without breaking sweat to play the long game.

 

I think this is part of a much longer term plan for MS. They see a period where consoles aren't going to be necessary and it is who has the biggest content in order to get the most subscribers. 

 

The games industry is very much where TV was ten years ago and Netflix got a jump on everyone and suddenly it was realised that the eventual winner isn't going to be how many people watch your network at 8pm on a Thursday but who's got the best back library of exclusive content and high quality originals in the pipeline. 

 

In 20 years you're not going to be buying hardware to play games, you'll have a screen and an Internet connection and you'll subscribe to a gaming service. It's this future that MS is now planning for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, McCoy said:

In 20 years you're not going to be buying hardware to play games, you'll have a screen and an Internet connection and you'll subscribe to a gaming service. It's this future that MS is now planning for. 


it’s not as though they’re even slightly shy about talking about it, either. The position where they’re dependent on third parties (say EA) to provide content into their streaming service isn’t sustainable if they end up in a bidding content war with Tencent, Amazon, Google, Apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, McCoy said:

 

I think this is part of a much longer term plan for MS. They see a period where consoles aren't going to be necessary and it is who has the biggest content in order to get the most subscribers. 

 

The games industry is very much where TV was ten years ago and Netflix got a jump on everyone and suddenly it was realised that the eventual winner isn't going to be how many people watch your network at 8pm on a Thursday but who's got the best back library of exclusive content and high quality originals in the pipeline. 

 

In 20 years you're not going to be buying hardware to play games, you'll have a screen and an Internet connection and you'll subscribe to a gaming service. It's this future that MS is now planning for. 

But what about latency with streaming? I was optimistic a few years ago about a streaming future, but I was put in my place on here by people telling me it isn’t possible because of the laws of physics! Not sure if they’ve changed or anything, or if that was just hyperbole and advances in tech will solve that issue.

 

All I know is, I’d rather have the best service possible, so if that means having a console at home, then I’m all for it continuing. Especially if MS can keep designing consoles as good as the Series S/X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JPL said:

But what about latency with streaming? I was optimistic a few years ago about a streaming future, but I was put in my place on here by people telling me it isn’t possible because of the laws of physics! Not sure if they’ve changed or anything, or if that was just hyperbole and advances in tech will solve that issue.

 

there's a few things:

- You're never going to sell a console into 200m homes. Particularly one that goes out of date. You can upgrade datacentres more easily, and you can replace the hardware at your own cadence without people feeling like they're missing out.

- We're getting to the point where TVs can run apps, and people are used to using them to do so. Reducing barriers to entry will be more effective than who has the most powerful console, and people happy with that will eat the latency hit.

- And most importantly, the latest Geforce Now tier is competitive on latency with a local Series X console in carefully selected games...

 

Google could perhaps have done it, but didn't have the content library for Stadia and went with a more traditional approach. Microsoft are solving that problem by the application of large sacks of money.

 

Sony and Nintendo would either have to build out datacentres (not happening) or rent space from datacentre providers who are also potential competitors to do the same, which changes the economics somewhat. They are also already consumer focused brands, which is apparently one of the reasons Microsoft are going in hard here.

 

Worst case, it all falls in a heap, the IP goes on a firesale, and a whole load of new studios spring up around the States.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McCoy said:

In 20 years you're not going to be buying hardware to play games, you'll have a screen and an Internet connection and you'll subscribe to a gaming service.


Or what you do today, if you have Stadia.

 

Considering how good that is now, 20 years seems an awfully long time for the rest of the world to catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't make a bet on the whole idea of streaming replacing local play. For me it completely depends on whether people will adapt to the basic foibles of playing via stream - not just best-case latency, but variable latency, minor dropouts, etc. I am reasonably certain that there's a small group that will never adapt to it but I'm not so worried about them: what about the mass player base of today and the people who might potentially play games in the future? Especially if streaming services are built in to every TV - look at the new players that provides access to. How do they perceive differences of microsecond-level input?

 

I've got no bloody idea. A lot is riding on that mass market acceptable of a very slighty worse overall gaming experience (I don't even think infrastructure is going to remove those small differences) but I wouldn't bet either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jonny_rat said:

I still can't make a bet on the whole idea of streaming replacing local play. For me it completely depends on whether people will adapt to the basic foibles of playing via stream - not just best-case latency, but variable latency, minor dropouts, etc. I am reasonably certain that there's a small group that will never adapt to it but I'm not so worried about them: what about the mass player base of today and the people who might potentially play games in the future? Especially if streaming services are built in to every TV - look at the new players that provides access to. How do they perceive differences of microsecond-level input?

 

I've got no bloody idea. A lot is riding on that mass market acceptable of a very slighty worse overall gaming experience (I don't even think infrastructure is going to remove those small differences) but I wouldn't bet either way. 


I’ve no doubt there will be a very small number who will accept nothing less than connected immediacy, but I only use Stadia and Switch, and for me there is zero difference.

 

Obviously that’s not functionally true, there are occasional glitches with Stadia that the Switch won’t ever have, but as they are occasional, in my mind they effectively don’t exist. The Stadia has become my platform of choice because visually it’s light years ahead of the Switch on an OLED.

 

The driver for this is going to be internet speeds. Once 20MB download is the absolute minimum people can even get anywhere there is functionally no barrier to it for anyone. 
 

I still toy with the idea of picking up an XBox X for GamePass, but as I observed upthread I find I don’t even have time to make reasonable use of the pitiful (by comparison) selection on my Pro sub, so this stops me. If the GamePass offering was available via Stadia or a comparable service it would be a no brainer for me. Not needing hardware is just so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Streaming might be the way to go in some countries but in Australia it's a complete non-starter and probably will be for at least the next ten years.

 

And again for territories such as mine this makes it even more compelling for Playstation users to make the switch to X-Box. Because PSNow doesn't exist here and probably can't because of latency. Which means if Sony's next move is to fold PSNow into PSPlus it's going to piss people here off because either

 

-it's an extra service overseas locals can't access

 

or

 

-it's a new streaming service which will run like rubbish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SuperCapes said:

This is ludicrous. Donkey Kong 64 was not great. But Banjo backwards was absolute gold. Their takes on Super Mario 64 with Banjo, and Mario Kart with DKR were unbelievable, and let's not forget the legendary Donkey Kong Country series. But even some of their later content with Nintendo like Perfect Dark and Conkers Bad Fur Day are aces.

 

Why you making nostalgia arguments as if they're gonna convince me man? I hate that shit. The argument is should Rare be able to do interesting new stuff which they want to do or forced into being a nostalgia factory for sad dads (it's the first one).

 

Anyway, onto Sony's possible counter-move:

 

 

Netflix Datamine Could Suggest a Partnership With PlayStation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Why you making nostalgia arguments as if they're gonna convince me man? I hate that shit. The argument is should Rare be able to do interesting new stuff which they want to do or forced into being a nostalgia factory for sad dads (it's the first one).

 

Anyway, onto Sony's possible counter-move:

 

 

Netflix Datamine Could Suggest a Partnership With PlayStation

 

If Sony actually want to compete with Microsoft in the gaming subscription space then they can't do it alone anymore, they will need to make strategic partners (ironically, the first of whom was actually Microsoft (Azure) such is the ludicrous mega corp hell we're living in :lol:) and partnering with a big name in the streaming space along with a reasonable counter purchase would keep them in the game. Some interesting times ahead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robo_1 said:

 

If Sony actually want to compete with Microsoft in the gaming subscription space then they can't do it alone anymore, they will need to make strategic partners (ironically, the first of whom was actually Microsoft (Azure) such is the ludicrous mega corp hell we're living in :lol:) and partnering with a big name in the streaming space along with a reasonable counter purchase would keep them in the game. Some interesting times ahead!

 

A datamine from last summer, that didn't get shouted about all over here?

It'd be interesting, from the point of view of a PS Plus and Netflix subscriber...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Robo_1 said:

If Sony actually want to compete with Microsoft in the gaming subscription space then they can't do it alone anymore, they will need to make strategic partners (ironically, the first of whom was actually Microsoft (Azure) such is the ludicrous mega corp hell we're living in :lol:) and partnering with a big name in the streaming space along with a reasonable counter purchase would keep them in the game. Some interesting times ahead!

 

You've mentioned this a couple of times as though it's a misstep?

 

The folk running Sony made that decision based on what is best for their business and shareholders, not based on the rules of a console war that only exists in the minds of some consumers. Presumably Sony felt Azure offered the price/performance they wanted versus what Amazon or Google were offering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, footle said:

A datamine from last summer, that didn't get shouted about all over here?

It'd be interesting, from the point of view of a PS Plus and Netflix subscriber...

 

Oh I don't think the data mine is in any way proof or even particularly compelling evidence that this is actually a thing, but in terms of spitballing how Sony might respond, it's as good a talking point as any. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

You've mentioned this a couple of times as though it's a misstep?

 

The folk running Sony made that decision based on what is best for their business and shareholders, not based on the rules of a console war that only exists in the minds of some consumers. Presumably Sony felt Azure offered the price/performance they wanted versus what Amazon or Google were offering. 

 

No I don't think it's a misstep, as you say I think they've evaluated competing networks and decided that Azure is the best fit for them but it is a sign of how much power the companies who run these cloud networks wield, when even your competitors have to build competing services off the back of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Robo_1 said:

Some interesting times ahead!

As much fun as it is to read everyone's opinions of how this is all going to pan out, this is all I keep thinking. MS have shown they're serious about things and are in this for the long haul, so I'm really looking forward to seeing where it all goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ZOK said:


I’ve no doubt there will be a very small number who will accept nothing less than connected immediacy, but I only use Stadia and Switch, and for me there is zero difference.

 

Obviously that’s not functionally true, there are occasional glitches with Stadia that the Switch won’t ever have, but as they are occasional, in my mind they effectively don’t exist. The Stadia has become my platform of choice because visually it’s light years ahead of the Switch on an OLED.

 

The driver for this is going to be internet speeds. Once 20MB download is the absolute minimum people can even get anywhere there is functionally no barrier to it for anyone. 
 

I still toy with the idea of picking up an XBox X for GamePass, but as I observed upthread I find I don’t even have time to make reasonable use of the pitiful (by comparison) selection on my Pro sub, so this stops me. If the GamePass offering was available via Stadia or a comparable service it would be a no brainer for me. Not needing hardware is just so much better.

 

It's all interesting times isn't it? I love hearing from someone in your position who has crossed the tipping point with it, because I feel myself not quite there yet. Oddly enough, the reason I'm slightly unsure about the returns that better connection speeds and tech will bring are that I found streaming tech mostly acceptable, like, 10 years ago now maybe? Whenever Onlive was, anyway. I played through multiple games with it and found it broadly fine.

 

I wonder what else would push me over the edge right now: greater convenience, better performance on phones/tablets, devices like the steam deck? Or just anything else that makes the performance slightly more on par with local play.

 

I cannot wait to see how this pans out. Whatever it is I think it'll be different to the current setup, with streaming satisfying and sufficing for enough people to make it a very good option for a large percentage of potential players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JPL said:

As much fun as it is to read everyone's opinions of how this is all going to pan out, this is all I keep thinking. MS have shown they're serious about things and are in this for the long haul, so I'm really looking forward to seeing where it all goes.

 

Yeah, we shouldn't be short of things to chat about over our lunch breaks anyway, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Robo_1 said:

 

No I don't think it's a misstep, as you say I think they've evaluated competing networks and decided that Azure is the best fit for them but it is a sign of how much power the companies who run these cloud networks wield, when even your competitors have to build competing services off the back of them.

 

Most of all it's a sign of what the Kotick interview someone quoted earlier was implying: that pure gaming companies and publishers don't have the resources or expertise in non-gaming things that modern platforms, services and even games need. Data centres, AI, tooling, dev ops, big data analytics, etc. The idea that gaming publishers either need to grow these areas rapidly or import them through outsourcing, partnerships or flat out joining forces.

 

These are things that the big tech companies have in spades. Big players like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Meta. Others like Netflix offer much of it as well given their history as a big online services/media provider.

 

If you're Sony or a big publisher you either buy companies that might help you in the services space or take them from elsewhere. Meanwhile for MS that's an area they're already huge in because they're not a gaming company but a technology one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BongoInferno said:

In principle, would Microsoft be able to sell a monthly 'Gamepass Lite' subscription service on Playstation with multiplats from Bethesda and ActivisionBlizzard (not Xbox exclusives) if they wanted to?

 

Still cannabilises sales of other titles. Like I look at indie games and even Hitman I'd have previously bought and went "That'll be on Gamepass" and waited. Those purchases were mostly Switch.

 

They could potentially offer the game free or at huge discount to Gamepass subscribers via a code? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On cloud in the long term, I wonder if there is some sort of hybrid model where you offload a portion of the processing to the cloud but retain some locally to smooth things out. That would lower the grade of hardware you need to run things so maybe it can go in a TV.

 

Latency would still be tricky though, and you'd probably need to design it from ground up for it to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kensei said:

On cloud in the long term, I wonder if there is some sort of hybrid model where you offload a portion of the processing to the cloud but retain some locally to smooth things out. That would lower the grade of hardware you need to run things so maybe it can go in a TV.

 

Latency would still be tricky though, and you'd probably need to design it from ground up for it to make sense.


I suspect it’s an area bound up in patents. Didn’t Microsoft have some kind of predictive example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jonny_rat said:

 

It's all interesting times isn't it? I love hearing from someone in your position who has crossed the tipping point with it, because I feel myself not quite there yet. Oddly enough, the reason I'm slightly unsure about the returns that better connection speeds and tech will bring are that I found streaming tech mostly acceptable, like, 10 years ago now maybe? Whenever Onlive was, anyway. I played through multiple games with it and found it broadly fine.

 

I wonder what else would push me over the edge right now: greater convenience, better performance on phones/tablets, devices like the steam deck? Or just anything else that makes the performance slightly more on par with local play.

 

I cannot wait to see how this pans out. Whatever it is I think it'll be different to the current setup, with streaming satisfying and sufficing for enough people to make it a very good option for a large percentage of potential players.


Well it’s a pointless proposition for most people who play games - they already own hardware so what’s the point?

 

I was in a peculiar position - I only had a Switch, which was the only console I’d owned since a 360, had no interest in current gen and then Cyberpunk came out which I wanted to play. Bizarrely it was reportedly the only decent version at the time other than PC, and you could get the full Stadia kit plus the game for £40! So that was worth a try for me, I thought what have I got to lose?

 

And amazingly it completely converted me to streaming. I’ve played stacks of stuff I wouldn’t have looked at otherwise, Sniper Elite 4, Control, Savage Planet, Saints Row 4, Resi 7, Dirt, Wrecked, Force Awakens, the Steamworlds, Destiny and a bunch of other things…it’s just been great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think it'll go the other way, the model of gaming servers as just big gaming PCs is kind of outdated, every other form of media (like online video) exploded only after they were able to deliver content using regular web-servers which were a fraction of the cost. It is technically feasible for games to use a lot of the web tech developed in the last couple of decades to do the things game servers do now much more efficiently and at scale, S&dbox had an experimental proof of concept:

 

Quote

How about you start a game and instead of joining a dedicated server, or another player's game, it talks to a web based API. 

 

That API tells you where there are other players, where entities are, what the world looks like. Your client spawns those entities and keeps them in sync by constantly talking to the API. This stuff is interesting to me. It's relatively unexplored territory, it has potential for games with tens of thousands of players on the same server. I think if we pick at it enough we can make something cool - or at least trigger the community to make something cool.

 

Hardware is increasingly becoming a commodity and most games that aren't super AAA behemoths will be multiplatform with mobile as well this gen, so you don't need stuff like that.

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.