This is SELF REFLECTION, so if you collect games (or comics or whatever) and love it - dont be upset. I'm not hurting you or your collection :)

This is my perspective whether you agree already or disagree; even then one day your circumstances may align to help you relate with me.

I think my father summed it up well once - collections are like chains you form around yourself, you lug them throughout life.

Ive felt this way for a while, but it really hit me today when i watched a particular "collecting" video on YouTube. A guy who owns a game store dropping like $1500 on collecting game stuff for his own collection. Some was cool stuff. But some was utter garbage that was just "rare". Why did he want that!?

It wasn't this video that shaped my view, but it was a "straw and camels back", situation - that it was just one more guy dropping thousands on his hobby, and people being like "oh, great collection!". Yeah, for $100's a week dropped on this hobby it had better be good collection right!?

I've seen an ever increasing amount of "collectors" on YouTube. They've always been there I guess, I've just been watching more. And at first I was really blown away by seeing a guys "complete Nintendo 64 Collection". So impressive! But now I feel like these people are only known for this collection, and define themselves by it, and its not a necessarily positive thing...

The more YouTube I watched, the more cynical i got, (about many of these collections). Great, you have money, you have room to display them. But then you dont even play these games or read these comics... And at least these guys can justify it by people clicking their videos to watch (profit/followers). But how many thousands collect and dont show it on YouTube. What is this culture? Why do we do it? is it healthy? (For us or Earth). I'm not saying hobbies are bad. And collecting stuff (records, games, art) is 100% a hobby. I do it too! But is owning a lot of stuff really impressive? Is that the coolest hobby? Who doesn't like to be surrounded by things they love, but when is enough enough? Why cant 50 games make you happy? 100? 1000? 50,000?

Id go watch older videos of these YouTuber's showing how they got these games, id watch more and more channels doing the same thing.

I start to see that for many of these guys, there is no childhood memory for a specific collection. Its not like I still have my NES collection from when i was a kid, (sadly had to sell it), and found it in the garage and put it out on display. Many of these guys/girls never even owned the system they are collecting for. So the nostalgia factor isn't there...

Then i watch other channels, and I start to see that lots of other people have these complete collections too. So yeah, i love museums, and the historical aspect, and its cool you have this hobby, and it is still rare - but you have a collection for a system you never even had, you arent even playing 45% of the games anyway, and its not even unique? Why are you doing it?

Then i see how much they spent for some of this TRASH. "Hey its a complete collection", yeah but some of the games are just flat out SHIT. And people are paying "oh i just dropped $1000 on these 2 NeoGeo games." WTF!? That's not impressive, if you are just rich enough, you can afford anything. Throw enough money and you WILL get that complete collection.

I start to get less and less impressed the more I watch. Combine this with my life experience -- I have a Dad with a superb comic collection from when he was a kid, (not ever bought for value, but for love, and we all read those comics). I have a brother who collected things we arent interested in, and he just passed away at 40. And I just moved across country, and couldn't take a lot of my "collections" with me.

This gave me new perspective. My Dad always planned on passing this comics we all LOVE onto me and my brother. But with him passing it means they go to me. And that wasn't the plan. i see how sad that makes my Dad, that my brother never got to be part of this beloved collection. I mean we read them and loved them, but whats the point really? What if i passed soon? Neither of us have kids ot pass it on to either. All that time my Dad moved the comics, and space storing them etc... It changed the meaning of a lifelong collection over night. So this put it into perspective for me - one fire, one flood, one death -- and that collection might not be what you had always planned it to be.

And speaking of my brother's passing, funerals are expensive. I'm glad the collection was there to help us with the burden, but my Dad never planned on selling these comics -- yet here he was; and its awesome that Hulk #1 and X-men #1 could pay for his funeral costs. But this wasn't what it was supposed to be for. Now the collection is missing not only my brother to appreciate it, but some key defining books.

Now if i was a rich YouTuber - who cares, I can buy Hulk and X-Men back again someday right? But i wont, i dont want to. Not only is that a huge waste of money to pay collecting prices for something you already owned, but they wouldn't be my dad's comics. i wanted HIS comics. Not Hulk #1. I wasn't alive for that, I wasn't in the store spending my allowance on it. he fought his parent to keep them from being thrown out! that would have been my collection.

And i see the burden of a collection. My brother collected stuff because he loved it (D&D manuals, etc). But we dont want that stuff. I really see - you cant take a collection with you. Can wee sell that stuff? Maybe, eventually my Dad will get around to pricing it out. But other people shouldn't be waiting for you to die to sell your stuff. Enjoy your collection while you have it....

And then i see my collection. i moved across country. i left so much behind (Thanks parents for the use of a room!).

i like the comics, and CDs, and action figures, and statues, etc Ive bought. but now I dont have room. Will i ever be able to go get them and drive them out here? Will i want them by then? Some CDs i really like that I have even though they are worthless now (I have over 3000 CDs). But many are genres Ive outgrown. I dont want them. They are worthless to sell. So you may think you want these video game collections in the future, but you may not. i have a huge Steam library, i told my niece to have my password in case something happens to me, (its 1000+ games!) She was like "i dont really want it". Ohhhh that hurts.....

So I think its time to reflect - the Earth is at a critical point of mass consumption. I guess old game collecting is recycling, but it really is this consumer life - and electronics are VERY bad for the planet (the rare metals mined to power phones and consoles etc). So even if it is your money to with what you will, mass consumerism does hurt earth with mining and garbage waste. Just the envelopes and bubble wrap that these guys get stuff mailed in would make a huge difference.

And on a more personal note -- WHY ARE YOU COLLECTING?

Just brainstorming - but what reasons are there for collecting (types of collectors)? I think these can overlap as i have a friend who 100% collects coins for value (to pass on to his kids), but he LOVES it:

A - The guy who's trying to impress people. You have the biggest record collection, Jay Leno has the most cars. Could be to brag and show wealth. Could be to draw attention (biggest collection of bottle caps or something).

B - The historian. Was really into this stuff, you want to get it all before it disappears. Would probably donate it eventually because the collection is what is important.

C - The lover. You already HAVE the collection. Its what you had as a kid. You might add to it, (I loved my Muscle Men collection, i did add a few that I always wanted but couldn't find as a kid, and ebay was new so it was fun to track them down). But I already had most of it. You dont collect for value. Will probably open the items and display them. Wont really plan on selling. Would rather share this love with others!

D - The investor. This whole collection will be worth 5 times as much. You dont open things. You might not actually care about the items, you just know they are worth money, (I have a friend who collects beer trays, i didn't even know thats a thing, he only does it for $). My beanie babies will make me rich!

E - Inheritor. It wasn't your collection but you got it from someone. Maybe you like it, maybe you want to sell it. (I have a ton of Japanese/Asian stamps from my Uncle, I dont care about them. I have read they are worth a lot these days, but I have no idea how to find out or where to sell them!).

F - Time waster. I know people who collect because its fun and give them something to do, they collect, and move on. Its fishing poles one year, football memorabilia another. Could just be your friend does it so you jumped on board, (my mom did this a few times - with pie birds ugh).

G - Caught Your Eye. I know people who never collected anything. And something caught their eye. Amiibos got some people :)

H - Impulse. The cereal box has one of 5 toys, i have 2 already , i need the other 3 now! This pack of cards says it has one rare one guaranteed! This Spiderman issue is #1 again! I have to buy it! (Probably the least healthy collecting as its just marketing and you're being manipulated).

I know I fall in the Lover or Inheritor categories mostly. i open boxes (sometimes save them but not usually).

But yeah, the more i watch YouTube. I see some people collect what they like - a girl named Kelsey for example, (found her on Metal Jesus (she owns Pink Gorilla Games), showed her collection, and she has a lot of stuff she likes - you can tell her personality just by looking through her stuff.

But most others I saw - you wouldn't be able to tell them apart or tell who's collection it was. Some sacrificed more than others for sure, (had less money so it was harder for them to buy), some had childhood collections they added to, and some collected back in the day when it was cheaper to do so-- but in MY OPINION subjectively most of these massive collections really lack personality, and I'm less and less impressed by them the more I see. They get a complete set of one system and move on to the next spending cash without abandon.

Again, they may not collect "to impress", and thats fine. But you can tell lots of these folks are trying to impress you... So ask yourself - why am i collecting? Whats the end goal? Can I afford it if I dont get my money back someday or tragedy hits? Do I have room? Do other people want to deal with it when I'm gone?

I see my friend with 2000 records, and its cool, but I think back to when i had 3000 CDs and I'm like - "that just f#&king sucks when you have to move, (its so heavy) and you cant listen to all that music". And i look back at all the punk albums I'm not ever going to touch again.

I honestly think I'm just as happy as him with my 30 records that I bought that are my literal favorite hand picked albums - and I think my collection is way more personal.

To me: A rich guy can have a collection of 100 million dollar guitars i can never afford even one of. But Ive met people with impressive collections because "this was my first guitar, my Dad died and left me his, I played with Eric Clapton once and he signed this one", etc...Much more personal than the rich guy who just buys infinite expensive Jimmy Hendrix guitars.

That's why I hated Magic the Gathering. the rich kid who can build his deck is always going to win (90% of the time). The most fun i ever had with Magic is when KB toys was going out, - they had a "starter box" on sale for nothing. So I bought like 4 boxes, went home, and 4 of my friends played with the same exact cards - it came down to who actually played best! (And luck). Much better game that way. HAVING Magic cards was great - but I didn't need to have them all.

Like getting my NES games as a kid as you do, (trades, presents, rentals you dont return ha-ha), and looking back at what I had and what i played. That's a cool collection to me. There is something neat to "complete" collections too. Museums are awesome. But especially where you have no attachment to many of the games, and wont even play many of the games, (i see collectors on YouTube say all the time "its sealed but I'm not going to play it anyway" - that hurts!), it just makes some games that maybe someone else WOULD want to buy and play more expensive. its a double edged sword sometimes.

And like I wouldn't mind having a Virtual boy or Power Glove on display for nostalgia or kitschy reasons, but to go after a whole complete Virtual Boy set when you never had one as a kid? That's where it falls apart for me. If you have enough money you'll get it. Is that impressive? My cousin has money and just gets tattoo after tattoo. he loves it, great. but Id rather have 3 tattoos with real meaning.

I dunno, guess everyone has different collections for different reasons, some people aim at games, some aim at having anything Sonic branded (why!?), some want statues, some want plush. I have a box of DC action figures ill probably never display again... To each his own. But just seeing how much $$ some people dropped makes it less "fun" for some reason? Its less "hunt and search and chance" and more immediate business gratification.

I for one want a complete nice box of FF1 for NES someday. For pure nostalgia, it meant a lot to my brother and I, by far our most played game, and as he just passed away this year it would mean a lot, (part of why I see collections as silly I think). But I dont need to go re-buy every game I had on NES, (all those collections gone to time), or go for complete NES collection, that collection is gone now.

And to me that type of collecting just makes the price skyrocket for average folks.... This one game would mean just as much to me.

So sometimes, planning, making the complete collection because it will be worth a lot as an investment - I get it. But I'm glad my Dad didn't do that with his comics -- its not why he had them. My brother and i LOVED comics because he let us read those issues, not sealed them up in plastic graded in a vault. Reading X-Men #1 in my hands shaped me as a kid/adult. I could go re-buy X-Men #1 now someday, but it will never be MY DAD's copy. So I wont.

Again, tons of reasons and ways to collect. I guess none are better than others objectively. But I know for me, I'm going not aim for less quantity, but things that really mean a lot to me, and i will enjoy them while I'm on Earth. Ill try to not obsess over not getting complete collections, or their value, or missing one or two of something. Try to buy only games I really want to play. Etc.

I did just see that giant sized Bulbasaur Funko Pop at Target though.... No no no!

Bombcast 582 - they are discussing the Randy Pitchford, (Gearbox - Borrderlands 3), meltdown on Twitter about how Game Informer "fucked him"; when in fact they were just clearing up that he misspoke. He said the game would have "no micro-transactions", when it in fact does.

He then called Game Informer "fuck wits" saying "you knew what I meant".

Now he honestly may not have thought paid cosmetics were micro-transaction, (they are), and as a CEO in the game industry that would really make him look like an idiot - but I had a president of a company I worked for walk out with me on a tour to his hourly employees that he had forced to move start times from 6am to 3am (HUGE change), and he forgot and said "I know coming in at 6am is tough..." - so the higher ups can be very out of touch - If Randy was really just taken out of context he should have just owned up to that - or what I think the real scenario is was that he was being a manipulative slime.

He wanted to redefine the word "micro-transaction" to make y'all less angry... Get that micro-transaction money, but not the hate that Mortal Kombat 11, Battlefront 2, and others had just experienced.

This topic has been a horse whipped to death - but Ben plays right into the rhetoric that Randy was using during the podcast - Ben starts defending; "well loot-boxes are micro-transactions..." And Jeff corrects him, "no the very first micro-transaction that got people mad was horse armor, which was cosmetic only". Time has started making us less mad at "cosmetics only" because these slimy game companies have pushed their micro-transactions bar further and further, (to the point that governments are now regulation them as gambling for Gods sake), we've been so beaten down by micro-transactions that we just accept them as matter-of-fact now; and thats a bad thing that guys like Randy love - you just let him redefine the word that at one time we still realized was a very shitty thing in many games we already dropped $60 on.

Its like your dog shits on your floor a lot, then she starts biting you a few months later, so the next time a friend sees the dog shit all over and says something about it, you defend it with "well at least she isn't biting me"; NO! Neither is good!

As soon as you let CEO's define the word "micro-transaction", which lets them try to fleece you but keep you calm about it - you've done a disservice to all gamers. They want to pull as much money from you as possible, and yet steer clear of politicians and parents being angry. But they still want to make you pay for as much extra content as possible. Content that could be free (and is in some games). That's literally the definition of micro-transaction - PAY - the same item can be free and suddenly its not a micro-transaction anymore. Pay for it - magically it falls under "micro-transaction" again.

Words have specific definitions. But Ive seen many people argue that "DLC and micro-transactions are the same thing". No they are factually not. You can look at these and pull them apart like compound words, look at the word anatomy. They are separate words, that do overlap often, but can be completely separate and need to be clearly defined. (And not by Randy Pitchford). And the words really are easy to take apart. One has to do with downloadable nature, one has to do with a small transaction. Simple.

Borderlands has lootboxes too though right? They are free though, the key things? You have to watch Randy's Twitter for them, and open a box and get random stuff. But Randy said Game Informer KNEW he was talking about lootboxes? But these lootboxes arent micro-transactions by definition because they are free - (you cant buy them right?), as far as i know you just wait for them.

Yet Fornite which may be the king of cosmetics is full of what any intelligent person would call micro-transactions, or "small transactions", (it had loot boxes but they are savvy enough they pulled back from that into "season passes" so they would skirt any regulation and ire).

And a game like Animal Crossing New Leaf - it had free DLC in the "camp grounds expansion" - so DLC does not have to be paid - it can totally be free. Monster Hunter had tons of free DLC too. In those cases DLC does not overlap with micro-transaction because the definition of micro-transaction requires extra money to change hands. DLC just needs to not be on the disc and requires an internet connection to download it. its right in the words :)

Many big DLC packs are free - or too expensive to be considered "micro".

And some micro-transactions arent DLC either - there are many cases (seems to be rarer these days since many times the GAME isnt even on the disc anymore, but still happens), where the content is on the disc already - the Lego superheroes in some of the Lego games I remember being controversial for being all on there and complete before the game ships - its not DLC - but you must pay a small fee to unlock the content already on your disc. You want Spider-man 2099 or Aquaman? Well thats $.99. Its not DLC because you literally didn't download anything extra. But you did pay a micro-transaction.

Animal Crossing New Leaf has this again - so it had free DLC that got you new areas and furniture for free, (so not a micro-transaction), but it had micro-transaction that you didn't download as well! Perfect game to illustrate this! AC:NL had cards you went to the store or on ebay to buy for like $1 a piece, (so micro-transaction), and you swiped that card on the data reader on the 3DS, and the character who was already in the game was now just unlocked to be able to move to the town whenever you wanted.

This 100% should have been free, and would have just been a feature i would have liked, (since I hated certain animals), and the only reason I got hooked into it was my 6 year old niece had her 2 favorite animals move away and she was in TEARS. So I had to go on ebay and find her two "friends" so she could always get the animals she wanted back into town. It almost felt manipulative. (She was actually angry at ME when one of her favorites left her town and showed up in mine - they do that as a function of the game when you visit each others towns. She was mad at me!!!).

So dont let Randy redefine words. Micro-transactions are simply any small content items that you pay for - be it unlimited ammo in RE5, or a clown hat in Fornite, a pilot in Star Link, or a paid loot box (not a free one!) - if that same clown hat is free then its just called DLC instead. Downloadable Content is just data you need to download. Telltale episodic games, you could buy the whole game at one time, no micro-transactions - but it did have DLC as the disc you bought had only one chapter - you need servers and an internet connection to download the rest. Those may be big enough content packs that they move from "DLC" to "Expansion Packs", but I think the term "downloadable" really gives you information in how you are going to need to procure this content.

Most micro-transactions are in fact DLC as well since you do have to download them most times, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms. (Something can be BOTH a MT and DLC). But with many examples like Amiibo, Animal Crossing cards, Star Link ships, paid codes, Disney Infinity coins, and items already on disc you just unlock; there are certainly times that micro-transactions are not DLC.

If my buddy just bought Monster Hunter World, and he said "how do i get that cool guy dance, and that Palico bumblebee suit?'

And I said "the dance is a micro-transaction, the bumblebee suit is just DLC you get for playing in Spring Festival", you know what I meant. So they do have different definitions. You know the dance is paid for, the bee suit was free in March.

Women want to be represented in games. Makes sense. I never really cared myself if the main character was male or female. Nathan Drake or Laura Croft - didn't matter to me as long as there was treasure to be found.

I'd played enough games where you were a gender-less yellow blob or red square with no back story back in the 80's that I never really gave it thought.

BUT for my younger niece, this was literally the first questions she would ask when i tried to introduce her to a new game when she was about five: "can I be a girl?". A thing that didn't really matter to me, it meant the world to her.

And even now at ten, it might still make the difference in whether she plays the game or not. I dont know if I could get her to play Steamworld Dig 1 as Rusty, but she just saw me playing 2, (where you are a girl, well... robot.. you have pigtails), and she stopped and was like "what's this?". That detail caught her eye.

The time I was really wowed by it all was when i bought her a dinosaur game for DS. She wanted to be a girl but you could only be a boy. I looked at her game and saw her name she chose was like Susan or something. I said "why did you name the boy Susan?". This adorable six year old looked up and said, "I thought if I gave him a girl's name, the game would realize that and make him a girl."

It opened my eyes to just how few games let you pick a character's gender or color. Now for me - Im not bothered whether I'm a doctor or plumber, black or white, male or female. But if it is important to some people, why not throw that option in?

Easy to say I know - i dont develop games - and adding "create a character" or 2 characters to pick from makes it so plot, cut scenes, dialog, etc may all need to be changed. Plus most people would want something different in how those characters play.

We do see more games adding the option - Animal Crossing lets you pick from the beginning, lots of RPGs have done it for years. The new Crash remake allowed you to play as Crash's sister. And seeing more games Horizon Zero Dawn, Darksiders 3, Hellblade, etc with main protagonists that are female is most welcome.

But what about Nintendo? The last first party games with a main character that was female i can think of are Metroid or the Princess Peach game on DS. And one of your powers in that was TO CRY.... Talk about sexist. Yes she could get angry too, but your power was that she's overly emotional.. Hmmm let that set in.... And in the first Metroid, it was hidden that Samus was a girl; when she finally came out of the suit - she's been more of a sexy pin-up character online more than respected as a tough space marine.

So what to do about that? Half your gamers are girls. Its been made clear women want representation. You can take a game and add options, or add a character (like adding Toadette to 2D Mario - which is a character that makes the game easier... ahem... Nintendo may not be "getting this").

But what about NEW IP!?

You have a remake of the old game Link's Awakening, coming to the Switch at the end of the year. And its a good game. But Ive already played it and beaten it on my 3DS, so truthfully I'm not very excited.

On top of that you have lots of people complaining about the art style, since its a "Link" game. So why just recycle an old game, and add an art style to a franchise people might not be keen on? (I like the art). When you could do something BIGGER.

Here would have been the perfect solution. Make a game called ZELDA. And get this - its really Zelda. You have a strong female character in your Nintendo Universe already. She has magic, she's been in Smash Bros. People like her. It would be a new game and new IP. Sure you could still use assets from game's where Link was the main character - but the art style could have been hers to claim, (especially if you used a Wind Waker version). Do it Nintendo!!!!! Just... Zelda...

This is too long sorry - but its a good discussion topic! No trolls, no fanboyism - but its an interesting topic we will have to wait a few years to see the result of -- is Sony in trouble with game pass going to Switch? I think NO. Just using logic, current 3rd party sales, and current streaming models. Unless MS does something crazy to change the entire idea of their service, or somehow makes you still want the Xbox 2 instead of the PS5, (that will be a nearly impossible sell except to die hard MS fans if Game Pass is so many places).. Maybe Microsoft makes some really good 1st party stuff and stops with the day 1 on Game Pass so you want to buy the console still? (But I doubt they care about the console enough to do that, they need to sell this service to be the biggest like Netflix is).

I think if Microsoft Game Pass becomes the main "Xbox Experience" that you have instead of buying an actual Xbox console - that could really end up helping Sony -- if current selection on Game Pass, or current movie streaming services are any indication - Microsoft will not have the newest 3rd party games on Game Pass. That's the deal breaker. No one's talking about WHAT GAMES WILL BE ON GAME PASS!!! Would you see the newest Witcher, Borderlands, Final Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Red Dead, GTA, Anthem, etc type games on day 1? I think no, those will still be on console. Who's the console? PS5 (or PC).

As Brad said - if i can get all of the Xbox exclusives on Game Pass and play them on stuff i already have (current Xbox, Switch, tablet) - why would I buy an Xbox? I'm going to do Sony console, Switch handheld, Xbox Stream. And they all survive that way. Perfect ecosystem.

So Microsoft is this service with its exclusive games just like Netflix does with movies and shows; leaving Sony to be the VR console with discs and physical media, (and full digital downloads too, Game Pass doesn't offer new games digitally now either unless they bundle Live with it right? But then I cant download those games to a Switch or tablet anyway can I?), and Switch as the handheld.

Go look at Game Pass right now, and you will see Crackdown 3 as a brand new game sure. But what new 3rd party games are there? Mostly indies. And that is the Netflix model to a 'T'. Yes MS may work out some deal with a specific publisher - say they drop a billion bucks and get all new THQ games day 1. (They already do that stuff now, so again, not too spooky for Sony). Well remember Netflix had the mega deal with Disney for their AAA movies, and that just ended with Wasp/Ant Man. Now Netflix brings you big indie movies like Roma, and then their own content. Still good and worth it; but you still have to go to the theater, or buy or rent or get those other AAA movies elsewhere. That's what Game Pass will be. Worth it, but not everything.

Again, they can drop a TON of money on getting exclusive 3rd party games and publisher deals (Sony can too) -- but i dont understand how Cyberpunk for example could possibly make its money back being exclusive to a streaming service unless Microsoft simply bought it outright, (like Netflix does with some movies). But then your probably talking what $300 million bucks to buy it? -- I'm not an industry guy so maybe how studios make their money is different than i realize. But if on disc/digitally they sell 5 million units at $60 a piece thats $300 mil. But on streaming if you are one of 60 games, I'm not sure how they split that revenue, (I guess half are old 360 games and Xbox owned games); but thats still a lot of money for MS to drop on exclusives. (They could do the Movie Pass thing and just drop a ton of money at a loss hoping to get enough people to sign up to make them money again, but that didn't work for Movie Pass...)

Last month the 2 best selling games were both 3rd party games RE2 and Kingdoms Hearts, on PS4. Metro was like #5 on PS4. So now you dont own an Xbox, those sales are basically guaranteed on PS4/PC if you are a pre-order person, or want to stream, or play with your buddies, or Twitch, yadda yadda. Or are in a territory with no Game pass. Those games will probably not be on Game Pass day 1. And they already are the best selling games for the month (using Sony as their main platform), why mess with that model? So the way I see it, Sony literally has to do nothing, and they will basically have all of these 3rd party exclusives which are already their bread and butter! At least as timed exclusives until a publisher lets it on streaming. And thats okay if you dont mind waiting - I guess people get excited at Saints Row 3 coming to Switch...(baffling)

So with 3rd party support, plus their VR push, plus their top notch exclusives, plus yearly online fee, plus Now. This generation logically I dont see Sony being too concerned? Unless Microsoft does something crazy to Game Pass as it stands.

Maybe MS does start paying a ton, and landing these AAA 3rd party games day 1 for Game Pass - (Madden, CoD, BioMutant, etc...). Will it be possible to stay at $10 a month? Doubtful. And we haven't even seen direct competition yet, (Google, Amazon, Sony). It could look like Epic and Steam. Those exclusives will be even harder to land once you basically have what movies have, (Hulu ,Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Disney, CBS, DC, etc).

I think Sony can then just say "hey we literally have it ALL on disc".

Not to mention people may want discs this generation because of poor internet (Game Pass games are downloadable on Xbox to circumvent this; but then its not streaming anymore, can Switch or your phone play a downloaded Xbox game!?).

Maybe MS can open some sort of digital store connected to Game Pass where they say "hey we have these 60 bundled games for the monthly fee, but if you want specific games like BioMutant you can buy that separate and unlock it digitally". Kind off like Amazon does. I can stream their Prime stuff (mostly garbage) but they always have those new movies to rent tantalizing me just below, that I click on not realizing they aren't included, (stupid Amazon)...... But I hate that with amazon and feel that deep down they dont pick up as many good movies as they could/should because they still want to sell me that shit, Netflix doesn't do that. Truthfully having new games for sale on Game Pass really completely ruins the spirit of Game Pass...

And lastly, Sony's games seem to stay up on Now (?) as a library; but Game Pass games cycle and go away like Sega Channel did. Ive got a huge CD collection I always thought I could dump when i got Spotify, but recently Ive been noticing that they have lots of missing albums by bands I love, or just entire artists not on the service. So like CDs, there are games I want to keep to know I have them whenever. Especially co-op, multiplayer, and party games. You could get an Xbox to do that, but will you?

People rag on Jeff about liking physical media, but especially if PS5 is backwards compatible, i have so many systems i have still hooked up just for this, (my PS3 plays PS1,PS2,and PS3 games - My Wii U plays Wii - Gamecube plays Gameboy Advance - Xbox plays 360...). With a disc I can go on ebay for $3 and get Fallout 3 now; on Game Pass that game might be on there, might not be.

So yeah - i think Sony is fine. I never want to see anyone fail. They make most of their sales on 3rd party games right now. At least for the PS5 generation I dont see that changing. The future? yeah they need to go streaming and digital and phones, and chips in your head... That will only continue as far as I can tell.

But for now, revenue wise - Xbox Live $$ will plummet if you just have Game Pass - Sony will have PS+ $$ and a ton of 3rd party games that already sell super well on their system. I think they will do okay for PS5.

What do you think?

I need a new computer

ITS THE BEST TIME TO BE A GAMER!