Sony still working to bring subscription option to PS Now

The PlayStation Now open beta begins tomorrow for North American PS4 owners, but there's still a ton of questions surrounding the rental streaming service. For starters, whatever happened to the Netflix-like subscription plan?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
The_Infected1180d ago

Which is why they turned down EA access. My guess anyways.

Neonridr1180d ago

watch how many EA games won't appear on PS Now as a result.. :P

kingtroy1180d ago

PSnow only allowed you to play Sony 1st party IPs

XiNarutoUzumaki1180d ago

And I won't give a damn shadow clone if it happens. Though, it's kinda expected. EA pulled out all their games from Steam remember?

iamnsuperman1180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

You do realise EA gets paid for being on PS Now. PS Now is being pushed to a lot of devices. For a money hungry company like EA, do you really expect them to make such a bold move (considering their service is only exclusive to the One). Be realistic

WeAreLegion1180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

Wouldn't care.

XiSasukeUchiha1180d ago

I wouldn't give a damn Rinnegan about that my man, EA+MS together are like Danzo and the Second Hokage wearing suits bro, some shady stuff.

pwnsause_returns1180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

then screw EA...theres nothing in there thats says, yea gimme, except for Mirrors edge. anyways im sure they're on that List for PS NOW

Utalkin2me1180d ago


Where did you get that information at?

OrangePowerz1180d ago

PS now is previous gen while EAs thing is only next gen, there is no reason why EA wouldn't allow games on PS now because none of the games they would have on PS now are games that they would have on their thing.

thorstein1180d ago

To be honest, there was a large contingent in the closed Beta that brought this idea up in the forums. We said that we wanted a subscription based service and it appears that Sony was listening.

It is interesting that they announce this so close on the heels of the EA announcement, but I am pretty sure it has been bandied about long before this.

DanteVFenris6661180d ago

It's easy to say I won't miss them. Activision and EA are the worst publishers with the worst games. Activision has one star: blizzard, same with EA: bioware, besides that they are completely crap

TheGrimReaper00111180d ago


Yeah, sure.
That's why we saw Final Fantasy 13-2 and Saints Row 2 in the beta. Clearly, First Party only


Your comment made me snicker :p But EA loves money and they will allow their games on PS Now :p

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1180d ago
truefan11180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

If what you say is true in terms of psnow (which I agree with), why did sony site ps+ as the excuse in their statement?

ziggurcat1180d ago

1. Because EA Access isn't a streaming service, so you can't compare it it PSNow. It's more akin to PS+.

2. The article has nothing to do with EA Access. PSNow is in its beta stage, and they haven't nailed down the payment options.

3. Just because there's an article about the possibility of a subscription-based option doesn't mean that it's a reason for turning down EA. They've stated precisely why they turned down EA's service - it doesn't offer very much value to Playstation gamers.

Utalkin2me1180d ago

Cause PS+ is in more line with EA access. PS now is streaming service for a entire backlog of games, unlike EA access.

PeaSFor1180d ago

truefan1, kinda ironic how you blatantly hate Sony but always end up wasting your bubble in sony related articles, its almost are in defensive mode....

system221180d ago

to the best of my knowledge, EA Access is not a streaming service. It works more like something like Adobe Creative Cloud. You pay a subscription fee and in return you can download all the software to be run locally. When the app is launching it checks the server for your account status before letting the app actually execute.

Xb1ps41180d ago

Thanks that was a good read! I agree with the writer and Sony did seem bitter about it but I would understand Sony turning them down, with starting another subscription that cost them hundreds of millions I wouldn't want to introduce a 3rd sub. Before I got mine started.. So I don't think it had to do with "value"

Xb1ps41180d ago

How you know Sony turned Dow ea? What if ea turned them down?

system221180d ago

its in the media that sony turned down EA because they thought it wasn't a good value for the platform.

Xb1ps41180d ago

Oh.. I must of missed that, have a link?

G20WLY1180d ago

^Actually they said it doesn't bring value to customers, not the platform.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1180d ago
gamer78041180d ago

Yup. I hope Sony continues with that plan to have a subscription service

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1180d ago
XiNarutoUzumaki1180d ago

This should have been the main option from the start.

Darkstares1180d ago

Agreed. They should have a monthly plan for full access but Sony doesn't want to confuse people with PS+ subscription models. Instead they should be offering some form of a Platinum Plus model where you get everything PS+ gives you as well as PS Now for something like $99 a year or $14.99 a month.

My guess is this will be a trial period first with the rentals to see how well it does and go from there.

Hellsvacancy1180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

Working? it's easy "hay you, with the glasses, add a subscription offer to PS Now NOW"

How hard could it honestly be?

This EA thing, do you stream the games or do you download them?

Thatguy-3101180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

They need to make profit. Plus take into account that deals between third-parties that have to take place too. So it's not as easy as you expect.

ThatOneGuyThere1180d ago

you've clearly never worked for a major game studio. its not that easy to do anything. also, dude, sony is a console maker, not just a small game studio. theyve got a LOT of compliance testing, etc to go through to make any small move.

gamer11381180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

I think the reason for individual rentals is it is expensive to host all these different games if no one is playing them.

Say you have Game A which is hugely popular and has thousands of people playing it. That covers the cost of hosting and makes a profit. Now Game B isn't popular, it gets a handful of users playing it now and then. Those users can't cover the cost of hosting and so Game B starts to lose the service money. As the provider you can decide Game B isn't worth the cost of hosting and remove it, replacing it with Game C which proves popular and covers the cost of hosting and makes a profit. A subscription service would provide a blanket and not really give a real indication of how popular one game is over another as users can log on to any Game (A,B or C) without any incurred cost and just give them a go.

Razjin1180d ago

Nice example sir or mam.

iamnsuperman1180d ago

They could still see how popular titles are via how many plays the titles get (player counts and also how often people come back to them) and remove them where need be. The issue with subscription services is getting people to pay and keep on paying monthly. Requires far more planning than individual prices

iamnsuperman1180d ago

It is a lot more complicated than that. First how much to charge that still remains profitable while attracting people to use the service is a balancing act that you can't get wrong. Then you have the resource allocation to manage the subscription service (from paying methods to dedicated team to make sure things don't go hay wire). Then you have to market the subscription service. Considering the service does the per title option as well it would take a lot of careful planning to make sure the end user isn't confused. Lots of things to do

Hellsvacancy1179d ago

I would of thought Sony would of all ready realized this, I assumed it was one of the first things they would of worked on "how much money can we make, is it worth investing in"

It must be my black/white way of looking at things, I think everything's easy

ShowanW1180d ago


You actually download the games, and run them locally ...

no_more_heroes1180d ago

You download the games with EA Access, not stream them.

SilentNegotiator1179d ago (Edited 1179d ago )

Figuring out royalty distribution with an unlimited subscription and getting publishers to agree to something takes a lot of time and negotiation, I would think.

It's simple when it's just "so and so pays to access said game. Said game's publisher gets a cut."

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1179d ago
Ashlen1180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

Well I'll say the same thing I say when MS talks about cloud... Put-up or shut-up, I'll believe it when I see it.

Anyways it's unlikely I'll get any service based on streaming. I find the lag to make the experience unplayable, especially anything that involves fine touch ex. aiming a cursor.

aconnellan1180d ago

With EA Access, you download the game, not stream it. I agree though, my internet doesn't like streaming. Would that change your mind?

Ashlen1180d ago (Edited 1180d ago )

Well, not from EA no.

But if Sony offered a pay one fee and I could play a selection of downloadable games I might bite. But that's pretty much what PS+ is.

I would have preferred if MS had just gotten these games for there games with gold program instead of letting EA basically exclude there games from that service while letting EA charge there own fee.

EA Access doesn't benefit the gamers as much as MS loyalists want to say it does, but they're not going to say anything bad about MS so... whatever.

SilentNegotiator1179d ago

Yeah, I'd play something like Doki Doki Universe if it meant getting to play it cheaper, but I wouldn't use a streaming service for shooters, action games, etc.

JMaine5181180d ago

I'm lookin foward to the subscription prices. Please don't screw this up Sony!