PlayStation's Jim Ryan Continues To Dismiss Game Pass-Style Launches

He should first fix the ps1/2 games on the service, he should really be ashamed of them.
Just talk to the emulator scene and give them some money so they run properly on the ps5

To be fair they are basically one n done with no DLC so they would definitely not work as great for a subscription service as typical Xbox titles. Also massive budgets and long development times with their games. It seems like they resell the same game at least 2-3 times with the directors cuts and then remasters? This normal for them? So until they have more co-op/PVP titles it really doesn't make much sense for them.

"Do you think PlayStation should follow the Game Pass model? Let us know down below."

No. Let Xbox figure it out with its model. Nintendo and Sony already figured it out with their premium model.

We're 12 days to see if it's holding games back.

How many times does he have to say they are not interested in a GP model before people understand Playstation is not interested? Let them do their thing if it's working for them.

I am going to give him some credit here, as much as I detest the guy: (sorry for the wall of text)

Sony is currently in a position of power. Most their games sell ridiculous number of copies at launch. Also most of them nose dive in sales ridiculously fast, though, they are for sure no Nintendo, but those cinematic adventure games create a FOMO effect on the audience that just wants to play the games without being spoiled.

At this time, if they released those games day one, they will likely see a reduction on those week/month one sales that will indeed hit their bottom line.

The whole nonsense of this not being good for the gamer is just that, nonsense, the kind of nonsense that make me roll my eyes to the back of my skull every time this guy talks. What they are afraid is of leaving any money in the table, even if its a tiny amount of money from their premium subscriber customers.

Their subscription service will simply rely on 6-12 month old games so they cash in on every spoiler fearing and FOMO prone user. The problem with that, for Sony, is simply that their service will grow at a way slower pace than Game Pass. By the time they feel their subscription service earns enough to start putting games day one, it will be too late, Game Pass will be too far away to catch up with.

Microsoft does not have the same complication, in great part due to how bad last gen went for them. Other than Halo, xbox first party games have not been ridiculous charting games that first month, so the choice of going day one with their first party games was way easier for them. Its going to be interesting when Call of Duty, one of the biggest selling games out there, starts hitting xbox gampeass day one, but it wont mater to xbos because by this point, the subscription base is so large, they are past the risky window.

Yeah but a couple years ago he also said "Why would anybody want to play this?" when talking about PS1 and PS2 titles, and now locks them behind the most expensive subscription tier.

"We are in a virtuous cycle where success has allowed investment, which has generated more success, which is allowing us to invest more and will hopefully generate yet more success"

Oh look, expectations of endless growth, explains why they want to move in to Live Service games.

Just give him a couple more years.

Sony and Nintendo are already really successful at what they do and Sony are even 2nd in the gaming industry market for revenue so that tells you everything, they don't need day one releases on a subscription service.

But he does say not "day one" which does mean those new games will come maybe 3-6 months later.

Also further down the line with their live service games, films, tv series and anime streaming services, they could include all of those into their future subscription models which would also bring in new subscribers, without including new day one releases for their single player games.

Why would they of they know they are still going to make more money realising them normally? People are already starting to get very entitled to having every game on day one as part of a subscription service and not having to pay for it. As a result unless you have a big game every month people start complaining they aren't getting value for money despite the hundreds of other games on these services. Games take a very long time to make now and it these services shouldn't be your only way of playing games if you only want the latest games without having to pay.

" You can't really blame the platform holder, who now charges $70 for its big first party titles."

Nail on the head and the sole reason why Sony is in no hurry (any time soon) to follow what GP does.
It is also a fallacy to pretend/or believe what Rayan is saying with regards to the quality of their titles dropping (unless they purposely choose to do so) if they adopt a day one release strategy on the *revamped * PS+ subscription service.

Oh geeze, I thought I could get away from having to suppress the impulse to scream expletives and throw things at my screen upon hearing of Jim Ryan's giant middle finger to customers on this site....but, alas....

Does anyone else get the impression that the Virtuous Cycle is actually Sony's upcoming me-too answer to the Peloton? It'll include integration exclusively to Bravia TVs.

@Tharsman The trouble Sony faces is their entire model revolves around whale milk now. Whether it's "virtuous cycle" whales paying in at $70 a piece to fund resales and future discounts, or it's their new live service monetization focus that's inherently whale-drive, they're reliant on whales as much as any mobile company. I think they realize that and that's part of why they're shifting away from their one-and-done single player games more completely than some people realize and moving to ongoing service, but I'm not sure that frees them of whale dependency in the way they want. Much as some love their over-budget productions, it dug their hole. They started spending far too much per game to really justify the return from the market size it has. Some games are worth it, others not so much.

IDK if GP's model works that much better in a lot of ways but it seems a lot more sustainable with predictable revenues to budget from, without soaking particular parts of the market. But for both of them, it's not like most games on the platform are on the services.

I don't think it suits Sony's Business model and their particular style of games. Sony are very much a 'Sales' based business and promote all their products as 'premium' with a 'higher' price relative to their competitors. That is how they are trying to position their Games too so that people will spend £70 on their games.

Its important for Sony to keep that image, that business model etc at the moment. Those games sell and often sell well for the first few months when price is high. They don't want to impact that by putting them into a Subscription service - certainly not until they have maximised the 'sales' first. After that, those games can then be used to boost Services (like PS+) or bring in PC player revenue -but only after they have been used to sell consoles and the game itself.

It makes no sense to put a 'single player' game that can be completed over a weekend. A game that doesn't have much reason to 'replay' or spend more money on (MTX, DLC) so where are they going to get the 'same' money back as they would from Sales?

Xbox games tend to have some online component, often have DLC, Cosmetics etc so getting more players in benefits more in the long term (filled MP lobbies, lots of friends still playing months later, more inclined to buy extra content so end up more financially successful - I doubt Sea of Thieves would of 'survived' with just the 'sales' model.

We do know that Sony is investing in a LOT more GaaS. These may well be offered Day and Date in the first instance as these are often the games that benefit more from Player Count over the 'long' term. If you struggle to sell 5m copies, that's the most amount of DLC or cosmetic items you can 'hope' to sell but how many will buy after spending a lot on the game. But if you have 20m+ who haven't spent any money yet and enjoying the game, they'll buy extra content so long term, its much more lucrative to build up a LARGE Community.

Therefore, I can see Sony 'evolving' on this. Its not the 'right' time now, and not with their current 'known' games (GoW:R, SM2 & Wolverine) because they are likely to be single-player one and done type games that many wouldn't buy after finishing. However,just because its not right 'now', doesn't mean that they will 'never' offer Day and Date games. They may decide on a game by game basis (Sales or Player Count) - especially if PS+ Premium numbers really grow...

I very rarely agree with Ryan, most of his takes are terrible.

But I think he's right about this, Sony's pockets aren't that deep.

They can't afford to put their AAA output in a Subscription Service.

Not now anyway, unless they grow the service by a massive degree first.

MS was able to everything at once because money was no object (go big or go home).

The thing is that nobody is buying a PlayStation for PS+. Plenty of people are buying Xbox consoles for Game Pass.

I have PS Plus and Now and will be subscribed to the highest tier when the services coalesce in a fortnight. I have Game Pass Ultimate. On Game Pass, I'm very grateful to be able to engage with games I wouldn't normally buy. It's particularly proven a treasure trove when it comes to Indie titles, and the service seems to be good for Indie developers as well. I think Sony are being smart here. Microsoft is attempting to control the conversation around this, by consistently forcing the comparison to Game Pass. My prediction is that, in time, Game Pass will become like Netflix. Maybe with a giant share of content and market, but with dwindling actual engagement from consumers. My engagement with Game Pass titles is, with a couple notable exceptions, far more superficial than with first-party Nintendo and Playstation titles. Don't get me wrong, I love and I'm thankful for access to all three major gaming ecosystems, which is why the subs pay for themselves ten times over every month for me, personally. But Sony have been MASSIVELY successful with their current, traditional model. Their greatest asset is their reputation for making blockbuster single-player games that everyone HAS to play, and that sell millions and millions of copies. People subscribe and unsubscribe to stuff every damn day of their lives, but buying a spectacular first-party title that is virtually guaranteed to give way more value than its price tag would suggest, even when that price goes up, remains a unique and very lucrative experience this gamer would be sorry to see disappear.

@Tech-Bandit I'd say Sony overall does position it's electronics as premium. They've fallen out of favor in TVs but they're still priced premium. Disc players are out of fashion, but same for their BD players. But especially when you look at some of their pro equipment they find a niche and go super premium. Their cameras, their hi-fi and pro audio/video/studio equipment. Sony prices are utterly absurd. But they have a niche that "needs " what they're offering and are willing to pay. There's few markets they don't position themselves as premium, in the hardware space.

They make "good" pro equipment. It's rarely great pro equipment. And it usually has glaring flaws. But it usually has one niche feature that if you need it, you simply don't have a choice, even when they're charging double.

@Tech-Bandit Agreed. "luxury tax without the luxury" Yeah, that's definitely how most of the mass consumer market sees them. That's how I personally see them as well, overall.

And there's a reason they're relying so heavily on their media and PS divisions for revenue, for sure. (And finance. Everybody forgets their biggest industry is in insurance and lending.....shudder)

@Tech-Bandit You raise a good point worthy of discussion. It's a no-brainer that if you own both systems and a game you want to play is "free" on one of them, that's the system you'll play it on. And the other guys "lose" a sale. But if Sony keeps publishing the likes of God of War, Spiderman, The Last of Us, Returnal, Uncharted, etc., and those games can only be played on a Playstation, I don't see the equation being much changed. Maybe Microsoft grabs up some of Sony's market share, but it won't fundamentally alter the landscape if Sony keeps doing exactly what they've always done that has catapulted them into the position of power they now enjoy. Same with Nintendo. Can Sony be a much better company to their developers and fans? Absolutely, 100%. They seem to fumble just about every damn change that comes from on high and I would love to see them evolve into a corporation that actually respects its customers rather than one that simply pays lip service to them ("For the Players") and then repeatedly delivers up anti-consumer innovations in their products. But at the end of the day, it comes down to what kind of games you enjoy, because great value on games that are of only passing interest to you will not be enough to get you to switch platforms.

He's not wrong. Halo Infinite and Horizon 5 were both great titles but they have both been created as a grind to keep the subs rolling in. Come for the fresh meat, stay for the old favourites.

This is almost a non-story, because Sony's business model is so much different than Microsoft's. Sony has built a pretty traditional games business. Microsoft is obviously doing something very different.

@Murray how do you know how they run? The new PS+ isn’t out yet.

@GamerDad66 the hit would also be much bigger for Sony. Xbox exclusives sold on average 4.5 mill copies pre Game Pass, putting them on Game Pass day 1 means they could potentially lose 4.5 million sales. Obvs they’dmake some back from subs. PS exclusives sell on average 20 million copies, their biggest is Spiderman with over 26 million copies sold.

@sjbsixpack
Because its out in asia in some places and tested for example by digital foundry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHc9lzVvgCw

Sorry Jim "game pass model is not a significant risk for PS5 first-party games... But it is indeed for sony's wallet... We all know how facelessly stingy you are... So..."
I deliberatly did not buy PS5 and never will, as long as you keep your anti-consumer policy...

As GP subs are starting to run out, I feel like maybe these "anti-consumer" politics thrown at Sony are starting to lose ground.
My GP sub is soon up, and as I admitted elsewhere I have not purchased a single game. My Series S is about to become a very expensive paperweight, which is all fine. It's just that, for amount of money I invested, there is zero ownership I gained (such is the nature of renting, I know). And end of day, I have not actually enjoyed it that much (subject to change, this comment might age poorly, depends on offering over a time span).

PlayStation is famous with their quality cinematic exclusive games. If they lose that feature they will have nothing to offer against Xbox. Xbox has better services and more powerful, why would someone buy a PS then?

Oh yes, because all [of] their 1st/2nd-party games (yes, first and second) sold tens of millions each over their lifespans, netting them ~50-70% or more of MSRP (which was never more than 60 USD; 80 CAD, until now, but as they lower prices for a game then even a 70 USD title becoming 50 bucks averages out to a cool 60 over time).

But of those tens of millions, a few titles netted more than 10-15M NEW sales (the rest were used sales).

The preceding paragraphs are intended to be a bit sarcastic and quite hyperbolic (exaggerated).

Instead of banking the profits from their revenue, they upped their future expenditures, which lead to what, exactly? What does an increased expenditure of millions more do, to attain qualitative results beyond that of HFW/HZD and God of War? Was it for R&D on the fancy SSD IO throughput bandwidth in the PS5? Was it for allowing them to hire more junior writers like Alanah Pearce, in fall 2020 (no less for a game that understandably got delayed seeing as how they were still hiring writers A MERE YEAR out from original planned release)?

What exactly are they doing with their gross budgets, when they also have a hands-off policy on development, too - so who's even telling them that they need to spend more money when they're already doing it right with whatever they already have? (Any C-suite exec would tell you: "Why on earth would I approve of higher budgets when we got it right before with less?").

Instead of answering these questions, Mr. Jim Ryan, which would naturally arise upon analyzing your philosophy, maybe you should ask two questions instead:

1. How much profit is Microsoft and Xbox Game Studios actually making from the various Game Pass revenue streams - GP Ult in particular?

2. Is it actually funding (expenditure) that's the problem with their games, or is it really too many cooks in the kitchens with no clear direction? To wit: Halo Infinite stumbled for years, Everwild stumbled last year or so, and Perfect Dark supposedly stumbling right now as we speak.

{Additionally, my further speculation is that their other projects and contracts are simply delays for various reasons which may not necessarily be remarkable or related to quality control. Examples: Project Mara is still too early in the pipeline, probably bc its older sibling Hellblade II is understandably taking forever; Starfield is too ambitious and probably on the wrong engine, as per usual with Bethesda (and that title is holding up TES 6); Redfall is yet another multiplayer title that very likely wasn't yet offering something revolutionary, so Arkane probably panicked and delayed it; Forza Motorsport 8 is likely sitting in the oven so that they can avoid the promise Uncle Phil made about maintaining "two year" cross-gen support for development. Everything else is just a delay for reasons beyond control (Stalker 2), or just announced too early.}

@Wrathgor

It's not 2020. Xbox series X is not more powerful. You're almost 2 years late.

@RevGaming I had the FW with PS5 bundle and played it after 100 hours of Elden Ring it seemed the most boring game to me and directly sold it lol. I can agree that PS has most quality exclusives but that still doesnt change the power of the console. They are developing higher budget 70$ games and Xbox is behind on that but it also has best looking racing game for example. Xbox is more focused on the service side and this is my preference and it is your preference. Those still doesnt change the power of the console.

On the question in short:
I like to see how it plays out. Saying it’s in the best interest of the PS gamer? That’s a no, it’s in Sony’s interest. First party games make more money in their current system. I know several PS only player’s who would love to have a sort of GP sub for PS. The reality is they can’t afford that. MS had to do something bold but I’m not sure if this model will still work in 10 years when their studio’s are producing games on top tier level. Their war chest is not infinite. I’m not buying less games but play more games because of GP myself.