Sony pays to keep Resident Evil Village out of Game Pass

According to leaked documentation Sony allegedly wants to save gaming and keep developers from making bad business decisions by paying them to stay out of Games Pass. Thank you Sony!

Pretty fookin pathetic. I wouldn't have minded paying $5 for the game. One month should be enough to complete it on Hardcore and 100% the thing.

Thank God. Keep the snu snu out of my rental basket

Curious if there's a clause about not using a competitor's system's features, like if Sony paid Remedy/505 for early DLC and whether that bound them to not be able to use Smart Delivery when game came to Series S|X.

@ghost_of_phobos: Im on mobile and can't read that small arse writing lol, is there a link i can checkout?

Why would you pay to keep a game off a rental service?

Source? This should be locked if it's just hearsay.

Is this the hyped PlayStation answer to Game Pass?!?! Lmao!

Sooo, what did Capcom get out of this?

@SolidGame_basic: Now, now don't cry.

Now that's funny, a simple underrated rental service can scare Sony into paying top money just to keep it off on GP. Doesn't matter to me, I was gonna buy it on PC anyway.

Better call Xantufrong cause I'm gonna go play my games.

@regnaston: close enough, marketing apparently

I just figured I would buy this anyways, now I don't even want to play it.

News Article Threads;

If you are the creator of the thread, post a link to the thread you are talking about. It's important to take a stance on the article and provide some of your insight to why you're posting it.

This is slimey if true.... and as anit-consumer as it gets. Litterally no one benefits from this whether you're a Sony, Xbox, or Capcom customer.

I don't really care about this.

Someone help unsolid, he's saturating this thread with his tears lol.

Translation "This makes Sony look bad, lock mods lock. PLEASE LOCK, For the love of Sony PLEASE LOCK" 😂🤣

The context of this clause is lacking. This feels like it applies to games specifically on PS services.

... and people think MS is going to play nice with Soyny and give them TES and Starfield? Get feckin' rect.

Let's actually use some logic here.

MSFT is willing to pay X amount to have the game come to GP. Sony is willing to pay X amount to keep it off of GP.

MSFT sucks at making their own games, and are willing to shell out stupid amounts of money to third parties to launch on GP. Sony, for select titles, is willing to shell out money to stop this. We can assume this amount plus revenue from actual game sales offsets the rediculous amount MSFT is offering.

It's long vs. short term strategies.

That's all this is. The winner remains to be seen. Vote with your wallets, you apes.

That's pony for you..

You claim MS sucks at making their own games and is willing to shell out money to have games on GP but find no issue with Sony blocking games they did not develop from all competing platforms. Very interesting stance.

@wandering_halls: "Why would you pay to keep a game off a rental service?"

Sony is tremendously threatened by Game Pass. Enough so that they are bleeding money trying to prevent any game from being added to it. They have absolutely no answer to counter it.

sony did pay for marketing rights so I am not sure what is the problem here.

This is a total non issue and specific games on subscription service is not given either.

To force more people to spend the inflated $70 for it. Sony cannot compete wth GP so this is their best chance to get their cut. Very anti-consumer.

lol. Solid made the thread funny.

But yeah, Sony sucks. What else is new. I just realized I'd probably play it on Game Pass too if I could. **** you, Sony.

Oh crap, so Xbox gamers have to buy games after all?

gamepass has got sony terrified and cows up at night

HaH

Good to see the extra money Sony is making from there $70 games is going to good use.

Shady Sony, very shady.

I'd love to say I'm shocked but this is about par for the course for the games industry.

If you wanted to play it on Game Pass before Sony did this, then boycott playing it anywhere else. See how long Capcom sides with Sony on the matter.

So cows used to say this GP is unsustainable for MS because 10 bucks a month can't cover a cost but are totally okay with Sony to spend the same amount of money but actually to keep games off GP. At least MS 10 bucks a month for their effort and their fans the games. All cows get is the satisfaction that their competitors can't get to play the game cheaper than them.

I found this fake outrage funny. We don't even know if game will be on Gamepass day one had Capcom never took Sony money and as per article, it covers a term which meant it may be 1-2 year before it actually came to gamepass like many other game does when it reach saturation on the market.

Ohhhhh, you mean something like this? Link: Sony Deal is Apparently Keeping Resident Evil Village from Being on Xbox Game Pass

Excuse me Mr. @ghost_of_phobos would you be so kind to add this link to the OP so we can make SolidGame happy would ya lad? Thank you😊👌

@davillain-: Done.

Sorry for all the stress caused to SolidGame. I quickly opened the thread just before going to bed yesterday.

lol :P

Buy the game. Problem solved.

Bu bu bu I want to rent it for $1 a month then complain when I dont get a sequel.

if true, the developer was going to get paid regardless with either a monetary incentive to put the game on Game Pass or apparently a monetary incentive to keep the game off Game Pass..

one strategy makes the game easier and cheaper to access.. the other doesn't..

It would have been alot better for gamers if Sony paid money to get the game to launch into their own service like PS Now or PS+ instead of just blocking it from Game Pass.. literally noone wins in that scenario.. not even Sony due to the potential bad PR..

thanks Boss

Sony pays for the marketing so why would they pay to market their competitor's services? That's like MS marketing Call of Duty but letting Activision promote PS+ content. You guys are really reaching here.

i can't speak for anybody else, but i totally get the business side of the equation.. doesn't make it suck any less for the consumers though..

at the end of the day, Sony paid for the marketing; commercials, advertisements, etc.. implying that keeping the game off of Game Pass is also just "marketing" is also reaching.. Game Pass is essentially another way to access the Xbox storefront.. blocking that isnt the same thing as paying for commercials..

And i'm not saying Sony is the only culprit and this isn't the first time companies have really stretched their marketing deals in anti-consumer ways.. look no further than keeping tons of Destiny in-game content locked to PlayStation for over a year as a part of a "marketing" deal.. i just personally think it sucks, regardless of the "it's just business" view..

If they're paying to advertise the game, they're also actively promoting the use of subscription services. By Sony brining attention to the game, MS can just say "and it's on gamepass too!" and now MS is using Sony's ad campaign to promote its services. More people go to gamepass. That's the way I see it at least. But I agree that while their reasoning might makes sense, it only benefits them and does nothing good for consumers.

@Zero_epyon: You do love to defend Sony don’t you

"Oh noeees, we payin too much moneh for cheapz gaems, thats a bad sony... wuaehwuaehwuaeh"

Kids these days.

@Zero_epyon: if Sony pays for marketing they don’t even have to reference other platforms in their commercials. Microsoft does the same thing when they get the marketing rights. Including a clause to ban the game from going on game pass is nothing more than scummy and has nothing to do with marketing.

I'll say it again, I agree that it's a scummy move but I do believe it's a marketing decision. Just like keeping Zombies off of COD Blackops for Xbox was a scummy marketing decision. It makes people want to buy the PS5 version. If they can get it somewhere else and not pay full price, that affects their sales, and are essentially promoting a game and not getting a return on their investment.

@eoten: It's 60 bucks. Anyway, if an extra 10 bucks is too rich for your blood, it may be time to get a new hobby. MS doesn't care about you btw. They're trying to use their money to monopolize the industry. It's not even about profit for them at this rate if they're willing to pay every 3rd party to put games on their service. They add nothing to the industry and their business model cheapens gaming.

@pc_rocks: this business model will affect the sales of games. Paying 3rd party devs up front for possible lost sales? MS doesn't care about profit at this point and is just throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Sony. Their whole business model is "play it here for cheaper and don't pay full price for it." It's quite pathetic honestly. If MS doesn't beat Sony this gen with this business model, it'll be an embarrassment.

So lems are crying 😢 because Sony out bid MS this times? Lems are a bunch of hypocrites, they are okay with MS paying game companies to put games on Game Pass, but not okay if another company out bids MS? Talk about a bunch of 😢👶