Top
560°

Playstation Now beta prices are not as dreadful as they appear

PSGamer: It was a bit of a shock when the Playstation Now prices were leaked online. Sony, a company with a growing reputation for providing exceptional value for money, seemed to have made a huge misstep with the pricing structure of the rentable games available on the service – but is it really as awful as it appears? We do the math.

Read Full Story >>
psgamer.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
StifflerK1244d ago

But unfortunately - when it comes to games - the conversion from dollars to pounds (mentioned in the article) is never exact.

Having a service like PS Now is a great thing but it needs to be priced effectively.

The rental price of the options should never exceed the actual current cost of the retail game .
They should also get rid of the 90 day option and replace it with 'buy game' - priced at the same value as retail - so you can access the content as many times as you like.

Personally I'd go off a percentage scale :

example 1 day rental = 7.5% of retail value
2 day = 12.5%
1 week = 25% etc

That way renting a $60 game for 1 day = $4.5
, renting a $10 game for 1 day = $0.75

The prices should reflect the retail value.

sonypsnow1244d ago ShowReplies(4)
abradley1244d ago

I agree, it doesn't make any sense paying higher than the retail price of the game. This is more important when it comes to older games that can be had for a fraction of the cost in retail stores.

This could be a great service, just the pricing needs sorting out or a way of verifying your physical games onto the service needs to be put in.

NewMonday1244d ago

A better system would be to sell hours set by a timer, when you stop playing the timer stops.

hkgamer1244d ago

ok, retail and digital prices should not really be compared at all. not for psn andd live anyway.

If you start comparing prices then PSN or live prices are just ridiclously high and they should just take it all off.

abradley1244d ago

@NewMonday Yeah that could be interesting as I think a lot of rentals should be based on actual play time than just days rented. You can't use a game while your asleep so why be charged for it.

Trouble is you have to get the balance right.

ginsunuva1244d ago

People who use this service are ps4 players without ps3s.

So the retail price is irrelevant to them, technically, since they can't even buy hard copies of ps3 games anyway.

Clown_Syndr0me1244d ago

@Ginsenuva You can pick up a second hand PS3 for £50 now easily, and for alot of people that would be better value as they can pick up most of these games for next to nothing now.
It all depends on how much they want to play, if its just one or two PS Now iz probably a better choice.

sonypsnow1243d ago

Playstation Now can be Played without a $399 gaming Console.

Greatness is Here!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1243d ago
user56695101244d ago

how much it cost to rent a game from redbox?

Transporter471244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

2 dollars a day is pricey IMO. 7 days = $14 what you can pay gamefly for an entire month and rent PS4 and X1 games, I never like the prices for red box on games.

DragonKnight1244d ago

Does anyone remember arcades? Have you ever spent more than 2 hours in an arcade pumping quarters into games?

7thLevel brought this up on Youtube and he makes a damn good point.

You younger gamers may not know what an arcade is, but for us older gamers, we've already spent WAY more than what PS Now is asking for games, and for inferior games as well.

I remember when Cruisin' U.S.A. came out in the Arcades and spending hours with my friends trying to beat each other, or losing so much at Street Fighter 3 because I was never able to do a Hadoken or Shoryuken with the arcade stick, but still pumping quarters in the machine because I was having fun.

Do you know how much money you could end up spending doing that? It's incomparable. Yet all of a sudden PS Now's prices are too high? None of you would be saying that if these games were on arcade machines.

I'm not defending anything about this, I'm simply pointing out that we gamers have actually paid way more than this before and didn't complain.

liquidhalos1244d ago

There is a massive difference between the two, an arcade pays for electricity, not only for the game machines but for lighting. Water rates, building rental, game rental, staff, maintenance and so on so forth. They need to get the money back off of a small group of local patrons which inflates prices. A large server farm like this may have bigger overheads however the target consumer is the world. They have a much, much bigger customer base so the costs are shared through a bigger consumer group.

DragonKnight1244d ago

That's actually not much of a difference liquid considering that Sony has to pay for servers, utilities, and building rental fees for the center that houses them. Plus you're missing the point. Arcades charged per session, PS Now is charging LESS per session with more costs to work with and different price models from 3rd party publishers to deal with. And you're actually wrong about the consumer base being the world considering that PS Now isn't going to have a global launch, or likely even be available at all globally. At best, for the first few years, it'll be only available in N.A. then roll out in the U.K. some time down the road, followed by Japan and that will probably be it for the PS4's lifetime.

Fireseed1244d ago

Steam has to pay for the exact same utilities and yet buying Saints Row 3 right now is 2$ more expensive than a pathetic 4 hour rental.

Sure Sony may have to pay for those things too, but if the burden being pushed upon the consumer is that great... why even offer it?

UnHoly_One1244d ago

The real difference is that 20 years ago in an arcade, we were (mostly) playing games that you couldn't play any other way.

You couldn't play Killer Instinct or Mortal Kombat at home. And when they did release home versions of those games, they were never as good because of the hardware limitations of the consoles.

So, back in those days you could buy a two hundred dollar console and a fifty dollar game and have the inferior experience. Or spend a thousand dollars for an arcade machine and have the real deal in your home.

The thing about PS Now charging crazy prices is that IT is the "inferior experience" when compared to just playing the games on your actual console. But they want to charge rental prices that cost more than buying the game?

That doesn't seem backwards to you?

papashango1244d ago

"we've already spent WAY more than what PS Now is asking for games, and for inferior games as well."

No you haven't. In arcades if you were a regular often times you'd make friends. Real life friends. That was social gaming back in the day. It was worth the money spent.

mydyingparadiselost1244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

Yea and arcades are dead now, mostly because of the price of playing one versus the price of simply buying a game.

Darkstares1244d ago

You're comparing a stand alone arcade machine back in the 80's that cost between $800-$1,200 each to a game you can buy off of Steam for $20 that Playstation Now charges more for a 90 day rental?

The pricing model must reflect current models in place to today's market and today's market is not favoring the price model set by Playstation Now. In fact another service called Onlive did not have this many issues with prices.

DragonKnight1244d ago

All of you trying to come up with various costs associated with Arcade machines as a way to bash PS Now are immensely dense.

Any cost you can come up with is either matched, or exceeded, by the costs associated with PS Now.

Hydro bills and building fees for an arcade? Equaled or exceeded by the same fees for various server farms needed to power and run PS Now, the difference being that one company, Sony, has to pay for it while arcades were privately owned.

Cost of the machines themselves? Exceeded by the cost of maintaining the servers. Arcade machines paid for themselves in days, servers are a consistent cost.

Cost of specialty equipment (i.e. arcade machines that had guns or steering wheels)? Included in the cost of the overall machine and still eclipsed by the cost of server farms, not to mention licensing fees for 3rd party titles.

Next we move into the "couldn't play these games any other way" excuse. Yeah no, that doesn't work when in the next sentence you say they came to home consoles. The reason there aren't arcades anymore was because more and more of the games came to consoles, with more and more accessories being made to suit specific titles.

Lag is irrelevant. Why? Because lag isn't something you're gonna be able to control. Just like you played an arcade game knowing that you were not getting the same kind of experience, in terms of a full experience that a console game could offer, anyone who uses PS Now does so knowing that it's cloud streaming and will be susceptible to the inherent issues of using the cloud.

Arcade games were made to be short experiences, with ramped up difficulty, designed to make you keep pumping in the quarters. PS Now includes games like RPGs that you'd never be able to experience at arcades. Imagine playing a 20 hour game at an arcade? Yeah, not possible.

The final point that I'm going to make is that you're all missing the point. At 25 cents a gaming session, a 4 hour day at an arcade would cost you WAY more, pre-inflation, for games that offer less of an experience than what PS Now is offering for WAY cheaper.

The problem is the attitude of entitlement makes you refuse to see that you've paid way more for way less and didn't complain about it then, but you're complaining about it now because of the environment of whiny gamers that the community has become. Also because many of you now have to pay your own bills instead of getting an allowance from the parentals.

Either way, bunching up your panties over a pricing model that hasn't been finalized just makes you look like babies who will complain about the most unimportant shite when there are far more important things to complain about.

And the most hilarious, and equally ironic, thing is that half of you can't access PS Now right now, and won't be able to when it launches, and the other half won't use it when it does launch. That equals 100% hypocrisy and entitled whining.

When the pricing is finalized, then you can b*tch if it's too much. Until then, you all look stupid.

Onenyte1244d ago

VERY hard to disagree with this point .

Darkstares1243d ago

@DragonKnight,
"All of you trying to come up with various costs associated with Arcade machines as a way to bash PS Now are immensely dense."

Here we go again with your condescending attitude. It's not about bashing, it's about reality. Something you don't seem to acknowledge because of you immense bias.

"Lag is irrelevant. Why? Because lag isn't something you're gonna be able to control. Just like you played an arcade game knowing that you were not getting the same kind of experience, in terms of a full experience that a console game could offer, anyone who uses PS Now does so knowing that it's cloud streaming and will be susceptible to the inherent issues of using the cloud."

Did you ever participate in Onlive? If not then just shut your mouth.

"The final point that I'm going to make is that you're all missing the point. At 25 cents a gaming session, a 4 hour day at an arcade would cost you WAY more, pre-inflation, for games that offer less of an experience than what PS Now is offering for WAY cheaper."

There is really no relevance to using an arcade as an analogy. It's just as stupid as fanboys claiming they act like their system is like a sports team they need to support. This train of thought is not even a stretch, it's ridiculous. What's next, your going to compare how much it cost to see a movie in i-Max to that of renting a movie on your PS3?

"The problem is the attitude of entitlement makes you refuse to see that you've paid way more for way less and didn't complain about it then, but you're complaining about it now because of the environment of whiny gamers that the community has become."

You're right. Please forgive us to real market prices set to todays market like renting games at Redbox or what Blockbuster used to charge or how Onlive handled prices or other digital storefronts like Steam where we can buy the game for less than it cost to rent the game for 90 days. Then lets add in how much it used to cost to play at the arcade 20 years ago. Brilliant debating skills you have there.

"Either way, bunching up your panties over a pricing model that hasn't been finalized just makes you look like babies who will complain about the most unimportant shite when there are far more important things to complain about."

Please carry on with your condescending attitude and childish behavior because Sony somehow controls your life and all that's left is damage control.

"When the pricing is finalized, then you can b*tch if it's too much. Until then, you all look stupid."

Nice. You sure take all of this very personal and I love the respect you put out there. Makes you look very mature. One has to wonder how your conduct is outside of these forums.

UnHoly_One1243d ago

I'm not denying that Sony has a lot of costs to cover for this service.

I'm sure it's very expensive to maintain.

But that doesn't make the pricing acceptable, especially for a laggy subpar experience.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if it NEEDS to cost this much for them to support it, then there is no point, and it will fail quickly.

They can charge whatever they want, but not many people are going to pay these prices.

Will they lower them and find a happy medium that gets people to use the service and still makes them a profit? That remains to be seen. I kind of doubt it. I think this service will fail within a year or two. I just hope it doesn't take the whole company down with it.

DragonKnight1243d ago

@Darkstares: This is going to be the one and only comment I make in reply to you because I know how much you need attention and I don't feel any need to constantly supply you with it.

"Here we go again with your condescending attitude. It's not about bashing, it's about reality. Something you don't seem to acknowledge because of you immense bias."

If it was about reality, then people wouldn't be saying anything about prices that aren't finalized. We'd hear "I hope that Sony will realize that these prices are too high and fix them before PS Now officially launches." Instead it's "OMG Sony is doomed, these prices are a$$, what the hell is wrong with Sony, I knew they were like Microsoft, blah blah blah." So yeah, bashing. Try to blame it on me being biased all you want to, you just show further ignorance because I've no interest in using PS Now.

"Did you ever participate in Onlive? If not then just shut your mouth."

Do you know how to make a relevant point? Nope. Doesn't prevent you from spewing off now does it?

"There is really no relevance to using an arcade as an analogy. It's just as stupid as fanboys claiming they act like their system is like a sports team they need to support. This train of thought is not even a stretch, it's ridiculous. What's next, your going to compare how much it cost to see a movie in i-Max to that of renting a movie on your PS3?"

Deflection.

"You're right. Please forgive us to real market prices set to todays market like renting games at Redbox or what Blockbuster used to charge or how Onlive handled prices or other digital storefronts like Steam where we can buy the game for less than it cost to rent the game for 90 days. Then lets add in how much it used to cost to play at the arcade 20 years ago. Brilliant debating skills you have there."

Another irrelevant point considering the prices aren't final and you're b*tching like they are. My point, which wasn't originally mine as I already stated, was gamers who aren't as young as you are have paid more for less many many times before and that b*tching now is worse than a childish reaction. But go ahead and continue making irrelevant points.

"Please carry on with your condescending attitude and childish behavior because Sony somehow controls your life and all that's left is damage control."

Ad hominem. You're such a brilliant debater yourself.

"Nice. You sure take all of this very personal and I love the respect you put out there. Makes you look very mature. One has to wonder how your conduct is outside of these forums."

Nah, you're the only one that wonders about things like that. And I really don't care what you think I act like outside of here. I don't know you, you don't know me, so it's a wasted effort. And I don't take any of this personally, I'm just dealing with what's being given. Unless you can give me a reason why attitudes of childish entitlement about a service that hasn't officially launched should be approached with respect.

Darkstares1243d ago (Edited 1243d ago )

DragonKnight,
"This is going to be the one and only comment I make in reply to you because I know how much you need attention and I don't feel any need to constantly supply you with it."

Sure bub. Am I the one who writes blog after blog, goes into XBox articles to try and irritate its fans only then be totally hypocritical by blasting XBox fans who go into Sony articles and telling them they are only in there because MS bots continue to show how they can't stop thinking, or talking, about the PS4 because they're so salty they don't have one. If anyone craves attention here it's you. This place has somehow become your daily diary which you seem to not be able to get enough of. So stop being coy about giving anyone special treatment by replying to them. You love to dish it out and prove time and time again you can't take it in return.

"If it was about reality, then people wouldn't be saying anything about prices that aren't finalized. We'd hear "I hope that Sony will realize that these prices are too high and fix them before PS Now officially launches." Instead it's "OMG Sony is doomed, these prices are a$$, what the hell is wrong with Sony, I knew they were like Microsoft, blah blah blah." So yeah, bashing. Try to blame it on me being biased all you want to, you just show further ignorance because I've no interest in using PS Now."

Welcome to the gaming industry, where have you been? The Wii U is doomed, the Vita is doomed, the XB1 is doomed, PC gaming is doomed. It's up to you to filter all of that out. You're the one who goes from people complaining about the service to everyone who does wants it to fail. That's why your taking it all very personal.

"Do you know how to make a relevant point? Nope. Doesn't prevent you from spewing off now does it?"

Dodge and deflect, seems to be your common theme.

"And I don't take any of this personally, I'm just dealing with what's being given."

Trust me, you do. You're just in denial. It explains why you attack people for no reason, it explains why you respond to others in a condescending manner and it also explains why you seem to act like you have nightmares about Xbox fans and think everyone that says something negative about Sony is an Xbot or wants them to fail.

Maybe it is best you don't reply because you don't seem to answer anything unless you feel like it and only if it serves your own needs.

"Unless you can give me a reason why attitudes of childish entitlement about a service that hasn't officially launched should be approached with respect."

First you need to know the meaning of the word respect before you can command it and from your responses here you haven't the slightest idea of how that works.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1243d ago
harrisk9541244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

Sorry about the length of this post, but please read as I think I make some valid points. If you don't agree, please let me know why...

Here is a thought. If it is too expensive for you, don't rent the game. I am in the beta and I think that the one-month rental prices are not bad at all. The problem that I have is with the 4-hour rental. It should be 24 or 48 hours. However, if you compare the one-week rental price ($6 to $8) to what it would cost for you to rent a game from Redbox (at $2 per day) which equates to $14 per week!

Also, this is about convenience. The same holds true for renting a movie via a streaming service, be it your cable company, Blockbuster Online, Redbox Online, MGo, Vudu, etc. where you pay $5.99 for a movie (HD version) for 24 hours. That is almost as much as seeing the movie in the theater and you don't have to drive to Redbox to pick up and return the movie (but save a few bucks). But, you are paying for convenience. When Blockbuster rented games, the prices were exorbitant -- not to mention late fees! Look at Gamefly. You pay $15 per month for one game!! Maybe not the most direct analogy because you get to keep the Gamefly rental indefinitely, but if Sony's PS Now library is expansive, you are saving money if you rent by the month over what people currently pay for Gamefly, or at least pay the same if you rent 2 games per month and keep each for a week.

As I said above, I don't agree with the 4 hour rental prices, or even, really, the 90-day prices. But that one-week rental seems to be a pretty good value, compared to other methods of video game rental. You can certainly play through most single player games within a week's time and many games don't have replay value!

Personally, I am looking forward to the all-you-can-eat plan from PS Now -- to make it more like Netflix. That should make it pretty interesting!

But, seriously, people are looking at the pricing all wrong -- PLUS, the prices are not even final yet! Sony sent an email to beta participants asking for feedback and specifically saying that the prices are no finalized. THIS IS A BETA, for goodness sake! It is not the final product! I, for one, have been impressed by the beta and technology behind it. I was amazed that it worked! I have been in the beta on PS3 for a few months and on the PS4 since that service launched.

These gloom and doom articles are ridiculous when you take a look at the bigger picture.

Rebo001244d ago

People who rent films for $5.99 are as stupid as the people who would pay to rent a game from Playstation Now...
No matter how they price it the only way you can compare buying a game and renting a game is using a Cost Per Month base.
And who thinks "OMG I really want to play that old game right now and can't wait to 2 days for delivery" no one, maybe stupid people but that's it.

SoapShoes1244d ago

Well isn't it confirmed you will be able to purchase games on Now instead of just renting?

yellowgerbil1244d ago

Back when my town had a blockbuster video I was paying 35$ a month for UNLIMITED GAME ANS MOVIE rentals. could even have 2 at any given time. For that I watched every new release, as well as played every new game for only 35$
Playstation Now is a TERRIBLE deal anyway you look at it.

dragon821244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

Yes but what was it to rent individual titles not on the monthly plan? I bet these prices aren't too far off. Blockbuster also went out of business so there is that.

My local rental store charges $8 for 5 days on games. Might even be more than that by now. Haven't been since PS4 and XB1 came out.

Clown_Syndr0me1244d ago

I pay £15 for unlimited rentals, PS NOW will never be worth it for me, unless I want to rent one game quickly as a one off. Maybe for one day to see if I want to buy it?
But then again, back in the day there was no need for that as we actually got playable demos and games were so much better back then.

wsoutlaw871244d ago

Think about it this way, owning a game on now should cost more than retail. It is using another service to do it. Yould would do it because you dont have a ps3/2/1 or, you just want to rent the game. If they made it cheap to rent a game for a whole week they would be killing their own sales of the game. It would also cause games to focus on multiplayer only and dlc.

Export1244d ago

It should be 20 buck a month unlimited game time period. For games that are like 8months or older or something .

FamilyGuy1244d ago

If you don't own a PS3 there's nothing wrong with the prices. You get to play the games with paying for a console. This is the future of the service, the ability to play on multiple devices. They should have a full purchase/stream forever price on top of all the rental price choices.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1242d ago
IrishSt0ner1244d ago

You can't factor in travel money, wtf?... ever hear of online shopping w/ free postage?

Pricing is a bit high, however it's a beta so I'm sure things will be ironed out to provide great value for money. Shaping up to be an awesome service.

Dolf0451244d ago

For the states anyway! Could be waiting a while for it over here man.

Neonridr1244d ago

I love how the author states that Saint's Row 3 would net you 2 pounds trade in value at GAME yet that somehow ADDS to the price of the game.. ??

And who's to say you don't work downtown and can't walk to a nearby video game shop on your lunch break?

I have a future shop literally around the corner from my job..

PaperMan1244d ago

I was thinking the same when I saw the inclusion of travel prices...

If that's the case why not factor in electricity, internet costs, etc...

Omac_brother1244d ago

@PaperMan - Wouldn't electricity, internet etc have to be bundled into both?

PaperMan1244d ago

@Omac_brother

I would say electricity, but internet not necessarily.

wsoutlaw871244d ago

when did sony ever say this service was supposed to replace buying games. They arent trying to make it cheaper so that you will use now instead of buying the game.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1244d ago
trickman8881244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

If the prices are going to be around this range, i'll stick to playing PS3 games on my PS3, and PS1/PS2 games on my PC via PCSX2 /PS1 emulator

NewMonday1244d ago

It was never for those who have the console.

RustEGearz1244d ago

The prices are still too much. Luckily, this is only the beta. If Sony cares about keeping people interested, it will introduce cheaper prices.

BillmadeAGate1244d ago

PlayStation Now should just be a subscription based streaming services with different value packs..

Stream 2 games a month 7.99
Stream 4 games a month 12.99
Stream Unlimited games 24.99/month

Brim1244d ago

This is exactly what they should do because this is brilliant... idk why they do not implement this but we'll know exactly what they plan on doing when it's available to the public.

LOOK_AT_THIS_I1244d ago

This would be the ideal model that I thought something similar would drop for us. The decision to charge the prices they are during the beta is insane. The backlash and bad publicity is as bad as could be.

If they can't set prices reasonable because of other "publishers" demands then perhaps sony owned ip's be offered at a dramatically reduced cost to at least make up for the others greed. If this pricing scheme isn't chin checked early they may as well accept their losses. Nobody in their right mind will pay 2-3 times as much to stream a game when they could buy it for the same price. I mean some of the damn games are cheaper to buy on psn.

gamer11381244d ago

I agree. Problem is it is expensive to host all these games and have them ready to go at the drop of a hat. Charging individually like this lets Sony and the Publisher see whats popular and whats not. There is not point hosting a game and having it take up space on Playstation Now if barely anyone is playing it when it could be replaced with another title.

PS Now was always going to face this is Beta and in it's first few year. OnLive couldn't get it right, they bankrupted themselves on their first attempt. They have to find the right balance for customers and as a business.

Deltaohio1244d ago

Your "problem" is not a problem at all. These days servers are used on a "needs" basis. The servers are not used ONLY for that game. Servers are opened up for the needs of the user. If no one ever plays Twisted Metal on PS Now then there will be 0 servers that are running TM. As soon as one person requests to play TM a server will THEN be reserved for that instance.

I'm not saying PS Now IS currently doing this but seeing how MS and Amazon are doing service scaling I would assume Sony would follow this trend. If not then they would be wasting money and resources.