There had been rumblings over the past weeks and months that Sony was going to unveil a revamp to its subscription service to compete with Microsoft's Game Pass; it had a codename of 'Spartacus' for added effect. It did just that in the end, unveiling three new tiers of PS Plus — the lowest tier broadly represents the current standard PlayStation Plus, a middle tier also includes much of the soon-to-be-defunct PlayStation Now content (adding hundreds of games), and a premium option adds access to a substantial range of retro titles across PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4 (streaming) and PSP. It'll go live in June, and it'll be fascinating to see what PlayStation owners choose.
Of course, it's yet another evolution in the subscription wars. It used to be the console wars, and we have wistful memories of terms like BLAST processing and Mode 7 in the '90s, while in the more recent generations the battle was over exclusive games. Exclusives are still key for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, but we're also sliding into that battle of subscriptions, largely because Game Pass took the established model of selling major first-party games and chucked it in the bin. It's a conflict of ideologies and wealth, with a collision between the prioritisation of profits from game sales and user acquisition.
First of all, if you want a variety of nice tables and breakdowns of each service, our chums at Push Square have done a marvellous guide with just that, below.
- PS Plus vs Xbox Game Pass vs Nintendo Switch Online: What Are the Differences and Which One Is Better?
As we're Nintendo Life, let's talk over where Switch Online and its Expansion Pack currently sit. In terms of the base service it remains quite a bit less expensive than equivalents from Sony and Microsoft; that's if you're looking for the cheapest option to enable online play and cloud saves. Microsoft likes to claim brownie points for making cloud saves free, but you need to subscribe to at least Xbox Gold to play online (apart from free-to-play games). Whatever system you're using you'll mostly have to pay to play online. Nintendo's base membership is comfortably the cheapest of these options, typically about half the price of alternatives (at full price).
|Package||1 month subscription||3 month subscription||Annual (12 month) subscription||Annual Family membership (up to 8 users)|
|Nintendo Switch Online||$3.99
|Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack||N/A||N/A||$49.99
Time is perhaps gradually getting kinder for this default subscription, as it includes offers and bonuses (like the eShop 'vouchers'), some exclusive online games and a bunch of SNES and NES titles. Unlike the base PlayStation Plus, though, at present you're not going to get any notable modern games included beyond the '99' range.
The Expansion Pack more than doubles the annual price unless you get a Family membership, meanwhile, and that's where Nintendo's approach is more interesting (and controversial to some). Debates around the value of it are still raging; at present it adds Nintendo 64 and SEGA Mega Drive / Genesis retro games, which plenty feel does not suffice. Yet Nintendo is also testing the waters by including desirable add-ons in the deal; so far that's been Animal Crossing: New Horizons - Happy Home Paradise and the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Booster Course Pass. Suddenly, for those of us eager to play that DLC without necessarily worrying about 'owning' it, the Expansion Pack is offering meaty savings.
By Nintendo's standards, and considering its history of baby steps in changes to any aspect of its business model, it's rather bold to be 'giving away' premium DLC in a subscription.
By Nintendo's standards, and considering its history of baby steps in changes to any aspect of its business model, it's rather bold to be 'giving away' premium DLC in a subscription. It's small fry compared to what Sony and Microsoft are doing, but it's still significant and shows us that Nintendo Switch Online is not going anywhere; Nintendo online subscriptions are here to stay.
What's fascinating about Sony's latest move is how awkward it seems. Sony runs its gaming business similarly to Nintendo in some key ways. As far as both companies are concerned the approach is simple; make a small or non-existent profit from the hardware, but generate significant revenues through game sales. Sony has a far bigger slice of its business from digital sales than Nintendo, not just games but huge revenues from microtransactions, season passes and so on (the likes of Call of Duty and FIFA are vital for this). In fact those revenues point to the big difference between the companies — Sony is seemingly now all-in on live-service gaming and its potential revenues. It recently acquired Bungie with that market in mind, and PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan has reemphasized (in this interview with GamesIndustry.biz) that it's an important focus for the company.
What the two do have in common, though, is applying value to major game releases; Nintendo first-party games rarely have discounts beyond 33% even years after release. From a Sony perspective, its new PS Plus offerings are adding some older PS5 games — with Returnal being a headline — but have stated that new first-party games will not be available to subscribers on day one. Sony is seeking that magical balance of attracting subscriptions while still encouraging day one purchases of major releases.
That's the key area where the new PS Plus will still not draw direct comparison, in terms of value, to Game Pass. While Switch owners will be buying The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2 on day one, and PS5 owners will be doing the same with God of War Ragnarok, Game Pass subscribers will be able to simply download Starfield as part of their subscription without spending $60. That remains the key differentiator, even though Sony and Nintendo (particularly the former) is happy to throw a whole lot of older games to subscribers. For Game Pass converts, part of the attraction is the saved money on major new games, giving up owning the game for the cheaper option and ease of access.
|Premium Gaming Subscription Services||Content Included||Price - single user 12 months (Xbox Game Pass is renewed monthly)|
|Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack||Online play and cloud saves, 100+ games (NES, SNES, N64, SEGA Genesis/Mega Drive), select DLC expansions, promotions and in-game items||$49.99
|PlayStation Plus Premium||Online Play and Cloud Saves, 700+ games (PS1 / PSP through to PS5), monthly game downloads, promotions and game streaming||$119.99
|Microsoft Game Pass Ultimate||Online Play (cloud saves are free on Xbox), 100+ games (PC, Xbox through to Xbox Series), day one exclusives, monthly game downloads, promotions and game streaming||$179.88
As has been written a million times before, Microsoft's approach is made possible by deep pockets. The company highlights trends and data showing Game Pass players trying more games and actually spending more on the Microsoft store, though naturally a number of players will skip a $60 purchase if they can play the game as part of their subscription. Like services such as Netflix, Disney+ and so on in the TV streaming space, financial losses in the short term may be swallowed in the pursuit of the biggest userbase. It was the model also followed by social media networks in earlier years - get the users, and the profits will follow down the line.
Sony, evidently, isn't ready to go all-in that way, in terms of overhauling the value of major new releases and abandoning the 'buy on day one' model. Nintendo, meanwhile, still seems to have a sizeable audience that expects to pay $60 for a new game, and it is in no position as a business to jeopardise that market.
In the current Subscription Wars, then, Microsoft and Sony are in a rather new and strange battle, pitching not only subscription libraries but the intrinsic 'value' of their exclusives against each other. Nintendo, in a very Nintendo way, continues to move in its own bubble.
What Nintendo Switch Online and the Expansion Pack show, though, is that the company knows the shape of gaming and subscriptions is changing; it'll have to find its own space amidst all the upheaval.
The best is probably Xbox live and Gamepass then PS Plus, and NSO sitting last miles behind
Nintendo offers the least for the lowest asking price. The two games you get for "free" every month through standard PS+ are sometimes good, but most of the time are not. Game Pass is the best value in gaming, if Xbox is the only platform you own, which I don't. So for me, none of the above. I don't need limited access to digital games while my physical collection is...staggering.
How do they compare?
Short answer: they don't. NSO is lifetimes, lightyears, behind what Microsoft and Sony are doing.
Where's the option for "none" in the poll? I boycott these by default.
NSO is 15 quid a year and doesn't pressure you into binge playing so you feel like you are getting value for money. I hate subscriptions and that's as close to one as I like.
This article's tagline reminded me of Steel Diver: Sub Wars. It could be a pretty nifty Switch Online exclusive if Nintendo were to port it over.
The PS and XBox subscriptions offer games via the cloud.
Although this is a different proposition to the Switch's cloud games, broadband connection will still be an issue in some places, won't it?
Lol nintendo is not even close to what microsoft and Sony offers.
@Rambler You can download all games from the PS and Xbox subscriptions.
@CharlieGirl Please elaborate. Nintendo is pretty far behind the other two BUT it is priced accordingly.
In this order
Switch online expansion pack
We would still need to see PS Platinum's lineup. It sounds like the best deal. Tbf, Expansion Pack is cheap but the games it offers are simply not worth it for the price. If it has more games then yes
@moodycat Why would I buy a car when I can just steal one? Because its illegal and the world just wouldn't work that way.
Switch Online still the better deal rather classic games then the tacky online only games microsoft and sony provide 🥱
@CharlieGirl NSO is way behind everyone
Re-reading the blurb for the new PS + stuff it appears to be a mix, but you can also download them all as you say (...I think??)
@Rambler You can download all games except PS3 games
Sony really need to show me a convincing library of games to get me on board with £99 a year.
NSO is a no-brainer for me as Switch is my primary console, the only one I play online, and I enjoy having legacy Nintendo content on the go.
Xbox Game Pass offers tremendous value with a wide selection of indies and third party titles, as well as day-one releases of first party titles.
With these two services, why would I go PlayStation?
I prefer the Nintendo online, as I like the retro games and free DLC for Mario Kart and Animal crossing, I have a series X but never play online or subscribe to their online service.
You guys are crazy if you see spending over a hundred quid a year on one service (never mind two or more!) the future. It's a commercial trap and you are foolish for falling for it.
@moodycat Not everyone has the time/resources to emulate. A lot of people would just rather pay and save themselves the effort. Plus, if we can play them through legal means that also support the developers, then it's a win for everyone
I didn't bite on spending an extra $25 a year for NSO, I sure as hell won't bite on spending an extra $60 a year for PS+. I'll just keep what I have. I'm not missing much.
@johnvboy More power to you, It they had a better library of classic titles then I would not think twice about joining. However, as it stands, I am not on board
@Kiz3000 it's more like they have a garage full of cars that you previously bought but you cannot access them anymore because Nintendo changed the locks
I just subscribed to NSO+Expansion when the Mario Kart tracks released and they added more N64 titles I wanted to play. GamePass I usually have but always just pay $1 for each month. If you wait a week or two after your subscription ends then you’ll usually get a “join back for $1” deal lol.
I have NSO which I don’t have a problem with only have the standard one tho and I have game pass ultimate as I got a deal for £20.99 a month but that includes the pass and a series s so for me they offer excellent value I only buy switch games physical never had any intention of buying Xbox games physical as they don’t hold much value where as Nintendo games keep their value so it suits me
Gamepass ultimate is on top whilst playstation plus tiers 1-3 are not directly competing with gamepass and offering a different approach but are in second, and nintendo switch online is in last place which offers bare bones content and useless unless you like classic games.
Though if playstation added day one exclusives then it would of been better value over gamepass and offered more than gamepass.
In actuality, there are no console wars or subscription wars, but sure, let's make a game of it.
NSO is the cheapest and arguably offers the least amount of content compared to the other three. Emulated titles only go back as far as N64.
PS Plus is the middle-tier as far as pricing goes but offers way more games compared to the other two, even if most of them are older. Emulated titles range across all past PS consoles.
Gamepass is the most expensive of the three, but has the greatest variety of content to keep you coming back each month. Emulated titles range across all past XB consoles.
All three are great prices for what you get in return.
Gamepass is far and away the best option if these. Tons of great indie games that I probably would’ve bought on Switch otherwise come to gamepass day 1 constantly.
Let's not also remember it's from their site you own nothing and have no recourse as their policies say they can change modify and remove content as they see so.
This is a lifetime rental nothing is free for ownership.
I subscribe to all three services and the best imo is GamePass. I have saved so much money when it comes to games on my Xbox as I just play them on Gamepass. Like for example MLB The Show.
As far as NSO goes I only sub to the NSO only, I don't have interest in N64 games. I like their service just wish the had a better retro catalog.
PS+ I only have for the free games and online capabilities. I am waiting to see how their different teirs will look. The tier that offers PS1, and PS2 games intrigue me but many of my favorite PS games are Crash and Spyro and I am waiting to see how MS buyout of Activision-Blizzard will effect this. I don't want to pay all that money only to find out many of my favorite PS games are missing due to licesening issues.
I really hope this makes Nintendo step up. NSO could be amazing but it's just missing so much. I also hate the addition of dlc, feels like a weird way of adding value. Just do more games, more classic consoles. Game boy, GBA and ds would be amazing
NSO+EP here. Don't own other systems.
NSO+EP could be better. I don't do online as much as others do. That said, I'm in it for the retro games and game trials to try stuff I personally wouldn't want to buy at a risk. The Game Vouchers offer is a pretty nice deal too (wasn't that for a limited time on US eShop or did I imagine it?). The additional DLC thing is nice but I'm yet to take advantage of it (Don't own ACNH and bought BCP for keeps)
All in all, it could be better but I'm not demanding 'Super Mario Tonsil Hockey' to be made and made free to NSO users.
Why are people forced into subscriptions if they want to keep the software?! Can we have both?! Some might prefer having access to a library for a small annual fee, some prefer to pay more for individual games and keep them!
@martynstuff and for anyone asking, Waluigi has an oily tongue and has wandering hands, the weirdo.
I pay for PS+ for online only. The monthly games are weak and if I want a new game, I'd rather go out and buy physical. Games are only £40-£60 anyway so it's not even that expensive.
@SwitchForce If you can't appreciate a flower because you're too worried it will wilt in the future, then you can't appreciate a flower.
Play a game for a few months, enjoy your time with it, and move on. You don't need to own a game forever in order to enjoy it.
Game pass is still the best value but I wonder if over time MS’s quality will drop. It’s that reason I still prefer Sonys approach and output compared to MS. I’ll always get Nintendo games anyway so don’t even compare them in their own little bubble!
I don't care about a games subscription. I just want to pay money per game, preferably physical, digital if nessesary. I would of bought the subscription without the Limited Timed games.
I don't buy into Sony America, as they seem to want their own independent rating system, and don't care for Xbox either.
I play Nintendo, Steam on my Labtop, and Kingdom Hearts on the Epic Games Store. I would of bought that on the Nintendo Switch, but its a cloud game.
@Magician Same. I guess I’ll finally bite the bullet and download Actraiser Renaissance since it seems unlikely of ever getting a physical release…
Not impressed with any of them?
Mentioned it in the other one but felt like game pass is my favourite due to the options it offers and the amount of games, wouldn't mind nso so much if you had the option to actually buy the nes/snes/n64 games.
hoping the new ps+ is closer to how xbox handled its legacy content rather than how nso did.
this is exactly how i feel, im not against the service being an option but i dont want it to be the only way i can access certain games.
@CharlieGirl I think you mean behind
@Guitario But you can still use the car. Providing you purchased the key that originally came with the car and don't try and use a modern key that was never designed to fit that car.
@moodycat You're welcome
@CharlieGirl Hhahahahaha. The words of a typical fan boy. Its cheaper, not better. You think old Genesis, SNES games and broken N64 games are somehow better than a library of hundreds and hundreds of modern hits?? No..NSO is not better lol
At least half the games are ones people have never even heard or and are pretty bad.
NSO really sucks - it’s terrible. Nintendo have really overvalued their digital NES, SNES and N64 games.
There's no option for none of them? I used to have NSO and Xbox Gold, but the law of diminishing returns means I can live without both. The money I have saved is going toward my steam library and upcoming Steam deck. subs, while a necessary evil for consoles, should never eek into being mandatory, so I am glad that they aren't quite yet.
Microsoft making chat and free to plays actually free is the best decision they made recently.
Simple answer, they don't.
@Lem1697 @Deepdoop ACK! You're right! Thank you for spotting the error.
NSO is indeed far behind other gaming subscriptions.
@Astral-Grain “If you can't appreciate a flower because you're too worried it will wilt in the future, then you can't appreciate a flower.
Play a game for a few months, enjoy your time with it, and move on. You don't need to own a game forever in order to enjoy it.”
Massively wise words there, dude!! I still don’t get the point of having many unplayed games piled up on layers upon layers of dust just because of “muh physical copies” reasons.
@Preposterous I bet you got Netflix, Disney+, and the like to watch movies and series instead to buying them at blockbuster. Your comment is just like your username…
NOS is terrible and the expansion pack does not justify the price compared to Game Pass and Playstation Plus
While PlayStation Premium is much more than Nintendo's expansion pack, their Extra tier is only a bit extra and offers so much more.
You mean like most of the world? Lol
No matter who wins, we all lose.
Some sort of PS3 architecture incompatibly, I guess?
Been a very informative thread for me
@iLikeUrAttitude That’s the thing 😂 Video games are just like any other digital media. Yet, people treat games as a special breed and reject any other way of acquiring and enjoying them like the rest of the world does with movies and music
Game Pass Ultimate is by far and away the best value of the three. Having Game Pass across both Xbox and PC, as well as mobile via xCloud, on top of Live Gold and other perks is excellent value. You get access to hundreds of games, including all of Microsoft's 1st party offerings and several 3rd party titles on day 1.
As far as the new PS+ tiers go, I think the Extra tier could be worth it depending on what games are in that catalog. Not having day 1 titles is a pretty big blow to it's value, but it's understandable considering their output is almost exclusively big budget single player titles. I might sub for a month or two to try out Returnal though!
The Premium tier is dumb though. I'm not paying even more just to have access to legacy content. They went the NSO route here, and if Nintendo is gonna be vilified for it, so should Sony. Why is Microsoft the only one that can handle their legacy content correctly??
NSO is laughable, and the Expansion Pack is a ripoff.
NSO expansion pack is a good value since it is still much cheaper than rivals, but I have animal crossing and mario kart. NSO without expansion pass is a very good value compared to how cheap it is from the other services. I think I would opt for game pass over playstation's sub if I had to choose between sony and microsoft, as I would never have to buy a xbox game again whereas sony kinda shrugged their shoulders on when games get entered in.
I don't use any of them. Haven't turned my PS4 on in months, and just use my Series S for cheap digital games
As someone who been a Nintendo loyalist since I was a child, is it bad that I really want a Playstation thanks to the new PS Plus tiers? Those PS2 games man....
Asides from my Playstation pining, NSO's done me well for the last few years. I like how they've been slowly but surely expanding it over the last while, especially with adding DLC's to it (you may not own it, but it's basically like getting it for free until you choose whether or not to buy it in my eyes). The retro stuff is what keeps me coming back though. Some of my new favourite games/series have been brought to me thanks to NSO (WinBack, Paper Mario, Streets of Rage, Banjo Kazooie, the list goes on). Overall, happy with NSO but it could definitely be better.
Xbox wins imo because they have functional online (unlike Nintendo) and actually care about their legacy content(unlike Nintendo or Sony)
The real comparison is Xbox live gold Vs ps plus Vs Nintendo switch online you can compare game pass with ps plus's new higher tiers but the base subscription is just Sony's version of Xbox live gold
I bought like 40ish ps1 games on my PSP and PS3, now I need to buy a subscription to play these same games on the PS4 or PS5 is the real crapshoot in this whole thing.
Gamepass is nice but the garbage legacy content support sony provides is the bigger issue for me.
NSO might be years behind but it's also like $20, which is far cheaper than the competition. When you bundle in the fact that you get games like Tetris 99/Pac-man 99 for free with NES/SNES games, that's a pretty good deal. **I'm not factoring in NSO Expansion here, jury is still out on that one but for $30 more you ONLY get N64 and Sega Genesis games. For such a substantial increase, that is hardly any value at all.
Good god can no one remember that for over a year playing Nintendo Switch online games was a free basic function of your own purchased console? And that before that it was always free. Even other consoles where at one point. Being locked out of using a basic function of a console and forced to subscribe to have access to it again? And people are debating the so called value of the diff subs without this consideration. Value is the quality over quantity, xbox is valueless its losses funded by Microsoft money, PS is or was amazing back in the day but sub or wait for crazy discounts? I borrowed a ps5 from a friend and platinum-ed the only 5 five games I was interested in to buy the console in 3 months, Nintendo doesn’t need to give away stuff for free. Debating weither getting legal access to play some of the best games ever made (n64) is value? What a bizarre concept. This is all like debating the value of oranges and apples and bananas vs each other. Bananas (Nintendo) are king.
Actually logging back in for once because I just have to say, I don't like this industry trend at all. Subscription services are like renting games in the modern day. You own nothing and are at the mercy of the service.
Further, it's been so long since any major AAA game from Sony or Playstation has excited me, it's just sad. I have had more fun with my GameCube than my PS4 in the same time frame.
As a result while I might admit that PS5 and Xbox Stupid Naming System are more powerful machines with more lucrative Subscription services - that matters very little when so little I care about isn't also on Switch or PC.
I've not looked into it too much can someone explain what the new Premium PS+ tier gives me? I know it gives access to 700+ games, but is that through PSNow streaming? I've never had a good experience with PSNow so I'm curious about what is actually being offered for that ludicrous pricepoint. :/
I’ve grown to be rather fond of Playstation Now. Yes, the stream quality is often garbage, but I think the amount of games that interests me outnumbers GamePass. GamePass meanwhile loses games on a monthly basis. I’m often wary of playing a game on GamePass and having it lost, like what happened when i played My Friend Pedro. My hope is that PS Plus Premium eventually offers decent mobile stream support, like what was promised many years ago.
I use the PC Xbox game pass. Great value for 99 SEK.
@Rambler Exactly that. The PS3 is very, very hard to emulate.
@whaitmoveover Oh, so much this. Online used to be free. Why on Earth are folk not angry about this.
No problems at all, we all can't see exactly the same value in different things, it all a matter of one's own opinion.
Game Pass seems to be an awesome service! Most new games that come out, I play the once and then I'm more or less done with them. I used to replay games a lot but that is just less feasible these days as time is a precious commodity when game after game keeps coming out hot on the heels of the last one. I'd definitely save a lot of money with a Game Pass subscription, especially with its day one exclusives.
I only have a Switch, however, and honestly I'm pretty content just thinking about how interesting Game Pass and/or PlayStation's service are rather than going through the rigmarole of saving up for a new console, trying to somehow purchase it, and then setting aside TV time to play it. I only have time for one console, man, and Nintendo have had their hooks in me since forever.
I've tried out all three services. I had PS Plus only for a few months to try out Star Wars online and got a brief Game Pass Ultimate trial for a discount on Flight Sim last year. The only service I have now is Switch Online, because I mostly just play on Switch, never play online and play a ton of retro games.
Game Pass is fantastic value. If I played more games (and if there were more new games I'm interested in) I'd definitely subscribe. Microsoft and the Xbox team are also very cool to their fans and the community, from my own personal perspective.
Nintendo's service is absolute garbage, but at least it's (relatively) cheap garbage held up by Nintendo's golden retro library. I HATE how Nintendo handles pretty much everything online- related nowadays, but I still give them money for their service because I still LOVE the old classics more than anything coming out right now.
Meanwhile, I feel Sony's public relations have started to take a massive nosedive recently ...I'm also not a fan of them locking backwards compatibility behind a subscription model instead of going the Xbox route of allowing at least some older physical copies to download an emulated version of a game you already own ...if that is what they're doing.
I don't even like renting or streaming games from ALL gaming services (PS NOW, NSO, Game Pass).
I keep playing the games with actual machines and disc or cartridge.
Because you can't emulate brand new games day-and-date? Not to mention the host of problems you get with emulation.
For me it’s Game Pass>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the other two.
Though without knowing what games are on it the new PS services can’t be judged properly
My Vote goes to NSO because of affordability. IMO, most of the other prices are too expensive for a gaming subscription service.
Obviously, this all comes down to your perceived value of the service. I just don't see myself investing enough time to justify paying for the higher tiers.
You RENT DLC. How is this close?
I would like to see a comparison of file size. How much data do you get on the service? My PS4 is full of psplus games but I get the feeling that the whole of NSO would fit on one or two floppy disks, maybe half a CD.
Isn't PS+ normally 60 dollars a year?
I have NSO for multiplayer options only , and i dont like the games they give for free , no comparison at all with the other 2 services.
You can buy the games on gamepass (theres a "buy and keep" option) its one of the reasons that while i dont really have much interest in the new xbox due to the exclusives not really appealing to me, i absolutely feel like they handled their services best since it gives you the most options on how you do things, alongside this while the BC isn't perfect it does let you carry over a large amount of your library from back on 360 and supports physical discs iirc, some games even have benefits (sonic unleashed now running at a far better framerate for example)
The issue i have with NSO is that there is often no alternatives to its features, for example from what i gather you cant back up saves on an external device, the only option is cloud saves, you cant buy the games offered with NSO, access is entirely based on a sub, also iirc on playstation and xbox online features which arent multiplayer (such as games with level creation/sharing) often dont need the sub.
To me nintendo has my favorite library of current games and legacy content (though the psone content on vita is pretty great) which is why im really not a fan of how NSO handles things. While nintendo has no obligation to offer these games i would definitely buy them if i could.
To me the virtual console was one of my favourite features of the wii and wiiu era which is why im sad to see it go.
The Playstation sub seems really poor value compared to Game Pass Ultimate, even if you pay RRP for GPU. However, it's so easy to buy a year of Xbox Gold for £35 and convert that to a year of GPU. Less than £3 a month for all that content, including day 1 first party games.
I do not like buying games in digital or from rent service.
I prefer purchasing physical games than purchasing games from Game Pass or any rent service.
I have a lot of different video games machines at home so I can play a lot of different games in physical media.
@Savage_Joe Sorry to disappoint, but I do not have subscriptions to these services.
I dont think i tried ps+ outside of a quick trial but then thats mainly because the only game i really play online on ps4 is FFXIV which has its own sub and doesnt need PS+
For me i felt like the psp/ps3 and vita handled things like digital purchases and legacy content the best, i remember when i got a vita (no regrets) it was nice to be able to log into my account and having the psone/psp games i had bought available to download, for no extra cost or need to do a system transfer. (though they did drop the ball with those memory cards)
its nice to see how microsoft are handling things in regards to both preserving and future proofing players libraries.
Im hoping at least that the whatever comes out after the switch will have physical and Digital BC
its not even a console war thing, i dont really have any interestin in buying a series X but definitely feel like MS is nailing it in regards to their services.
This is like comparing rich and poor kid athletes with the emo kid out by the bins.
Xbox (rich kid) has parents with money to throw around and buy them the best coaches and assistants ever to give them the leg up.
PS (poor kid) is trying admirably and arguably out performing in some areas but just can't quite compare to the competition overall due to the additional assistance the competition can afford.
Nintendo (emo kid by the bins) you shouldn't even ask because they just don't give AF and will continue to do their own thing regardless.
Been nintendo fan for decades, but There is no comparison here. XBOX is the best service by far. not just game pass but the entire online infrastructure. online play, xbox app, free cloud game saves for every xbox user. automatic upload of screenshots and videos, fastest online store, best backwards compatibility with many old games resolution or frame rate improvements, best game preservation , Smart delivery.
Where’s the option for I don’t subscribe because they all suck? Just don’t don’t subscribe and play the single player content and couch co-op modes and call it a day. I never understood the point if you are paying for internet service having to pay to use said service for gaming.
There is no option for 'none'. I don't think renting stuff is a sound investment.
If I had to choose one of the three, it'd have to be Game Pass. Not only does it offer a lot of variety, but it's also the most accessible.
Nintendo Online is such a joke. It really should not even be compared to the other two. It’s not terrible, as at least it’s priced generously, especially if u can split with a family plan. But it’s just not in the same league as the other two.
NSO is by far the worst. Discounting the neutered game offerings, the social features are two decades behind.
@GrailUK I don't see how the idea is awful by any means. Taking the highest tier of PS Plus would allow access to more than 120 dollars worth of games. For 120 I can only buy 2 triple A titles, or I can play a whole bunch of different and unique games for one year and then cancel it.
Now if someone is more inclined to have things physical and to return to games, I can see how these sorts of offers could be meaningless to them. But I think overall more people are interested in getting the experience and entertainment from a game.
NSO is my favorite of them…cheapest option, and I love the retro games. It’s nice getting the day one releases on Xbox…though my experience most of the games don’t really capture me the way that a classic can.
I understand that I may be in a minority here. And I am hoping to get some more of the big SNES games too.
My switch online, ps plus both lapse in April and im not planning to renew. To be honest im getting a bit sick of subscription services. Think im going to stick with the one off price hit of a game over the slow drain of a subscription service.
I used the Nes and snes apps a couple of times and deleted them and added a mountain of ps plus games i never downloaded and im not much of an online gamer so for me personally makes no sense to keep. I own the original xbox but after that microsoft consoles have never appealed to me.
@Kiz3000 if only Nintendo followed Steam and Microsoft where games are tied to your account and not the console.
Then I would have all my classic games purchased only once.
Nintendo loves to milk us for every cent...
When I upgraded my 3ds to n3ds all my games etc migrated to the n3ds. Why can't I have my purchases on both?
I had the basic NSO for 18 months and then got the Expansion the day before the MK DLC arrived, and mostly used it to play F-Zero X since. I plan to cancel the annual renewal and see what happens with the DLC (I expect to lose access) and then live without it. I actually don't use the basic features much these days, namely online play, and can easily pause playing Tetris 99 for a while. The cloud backups don't fuss me that much.
In a year or so, once a cheaper "slim" model is out, I'll probably get an Xbox with Game Pass. It looks great value. Of course, I foresee with these subscriptions, once everyone is locked in and individual game sales become negligible, it becomes a monopoly situation and the subscription price no doubt escalates.
I stoped paying PS Plus since I am completely satisfied with Xbox Game Pass, it have so much value for me. I usually play a game, finish it and never come back even if I bought the disc. I am also paying for NSO because is cheap and I like Tetris 99 and some classic games
"Let's not also remember it's from their site you own nothing and have no recourse as their policies say they can change modify and remove content as they see so.
This is a lifetime rental nothing is free for ownership."
I mean.. so what? as long as I can play it. why would it matter if I'm just gonna throw the games away after or just forget about it and let it rot in some case.
Hate them all. Paying for online was always a scam and still is. You can thank Microsoft for pioneering that extortion scheme. And locking games behind a subscription service without the option to purchase outright is paying for a product you don’t get to keep. When those services shut down in 5 to 10 years, all those games will be inaccessible. Like when the Wii u eshop will close only you don’t even get to play the games you’ve downloaded.
I really do not have a clue why we are even discussing this because they are not really similar, well the Nintendo one is not, maybe the other two.
But as this is a nintendo website then I will say that I am happy that Nintendo are only really using this to re sell their old content, when that changes I will not be happy. As I do not like the direction the industry is going, I do not see the benefits personally.
considering that the other two dont have nintendo games, NSO is the best 😊
but i still wont pay for the expansion pack.
I'd say the NSO Expansion Pak (Yes that's what I call and and it's what it SHOULD have been called) is mainly worth it for BIG Nintendo Fans, such as myself.
But being a Nintendo Fan doesn't mean I can recognize a better deal. Xbox's and PlayStation's subscription services are like eating from The Cheesecake Factory, and Nintendo's service is like eating from IHop. A worse menu imo, but I'll take what I can afford.
Tap here to load 108 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...