VGNuts.com's Dave Walsh discusses the PlayStation Now beta, including the inherent problems with the service's pricing.
I think is very expensive.
Its not like you have a Ps4.
Right now the pricing is too high IMO. I think that giving publisher's control over pricing needs to be looked at again.
There should be standardized pricing or else the service has to become a subscription based model. Regardless of what the publishers says and wants, these are old games. If it's that big of a deal many gamers can simply keep their current console and buy the game used, and the publisher gets nothing. If you want something like this to work, and better yet take off, then it has to be a no brainer for your informed consumers and then it'll eventually take off via word of mouth and proper marketing (get the word out there Sony). Your biggest competitions in this space are Gamefly and Redbox. Redbox allows you to rent games for $2/day, and they often have some of the newer titles. Gamefly starts at $15/mo. and gives you unlimited rentals 1 game at a time. Your service has to be good enough to make consumers add you on to the ones they already have, or leave the other.
You don't need a PS4 to realize the pricing is out of whack in many areas.
Just got done looking over most of the games on there. The pricing is all over the place. Alpha Protocol and most other games pricing is as follows (which is actually decent, not that I think about it, besides the 4 hour rental): 4 hour rental: $2.99 7 days: $5.99 30 days: $7.99 90 days: $14.99 Alone in the Dark: 90 rental: $4.99 (yes that's it, which is actually good.....if the game was) The highest pricing structure I've seen so far are: 4 hour rental: 4.99 7 days: $7.99 30 days: $14.99 90 days: $29.99 I really don't see the point of the 4 hour rental at all. Games may be short, but 4 hours is pushing it, and $3 - $5 for 4 hours of gaming (while cheaper than a movie) is completely unsatisfying because more than like you can't finish it. 1 day rental should be the minimum. The pricing structure needs to be standardized and as follows for retail games: 1 day: $1.99 Weekend: $2.99 7 days: $4.99 30 days: $9.99 90 days: $14.99 Buy/Keep it: $19.99 This is fair for gamers and the publisher, because these are older games. Honestly the prices could be even lower than that. I don't see how the subscription service is going to work. My guess is that some games will be free for the month kind of like a secondary PS+, or you'll get vouchers to play a single game of your choosing each week. The SUbscription service has to be $5 - $10/mo.
I have to agree. Pricing is too high. Obviously it will fall, and the Sub plan is on the way.
I prefer all the publishers have their own "EA" deal, and I can switch my 5$ to the one who is proving the best offer for that month or none at all if I don't like what is on offer. Let them compete, gosh-barn-it!
Giving publishers control of price isn't helping. Flat monthly fee needs to be the only route forward. Nothing more than $15 with lower options available with fewer perks (fewer amount of streams per month...).
Agreed, They have to do a monthly fee and forget the ridiculous "rental" fees. I think PSNow could be an absolute hit based on the increasing content, but they are insane and the publishers are insane if they think many people will buy into those pricing options. Side note - aren't betas supposed to be free? Why is this thing in "open beta" yet they are charging? Are they trying to find out how many suckers will pay those prices? Seriously, I feel like they are dropping the ball majorly.
I think what they can do is simply have a price fee for every month and let you choose a certain amount of games that you're getting access too for that month.
It reminds me a lot of how Amazon's Kindle store works right now. Kindle books cost literally nothing to produce and Amazon takes only a small cut. Publishers get to set prices, though, almost always making books cost at least $10. The writers see only a small fraction of that cost, where as if they sell them on their own through the Kindle store and sell the book for $5 they'll see $3.50 in profit compared to about $1 from a big publisher selling a book for double the price. It's insanity.
Which is the biggest problem with giving publishers that much of a say, because they will always, ALWAYS, take a mile if you give them an inch. You HAVE to keep them in line. No if, and, or buts about it!
Pricing is alright for me. If I was to rent a game it would cost me €7 a night no matter how old the game is. The original Darksiders is still €7 a night while it is in the preowned for cheaper.
If you don't have access to a PS3 it might be okay, but if you do it's almost a no-brainer to pick one of these games up pre-owned instead.
Too expensive. Too much streaming. Not enough thought.
They will figure out the pricing. It's in their best interest to keep this system as utilized as possible. But it's much easier for PR to lower prices from a high starting point than it is to raise them from a low starting point.
too expensive, me no got money, need to be very cheap so people can survive and eat lice all day long
Just out of interest what were people expecting to pay for the service? More than likely you are paying for the bandwidth as well.
That's a very good question. I'm of the mind that anything OTHER than a subscription service for this makes little sense and somewhere in the realm of $10 a month makes the most sense. Not sure how many games you'd be able to try for that. Maybe something GameFly-ish, where you can only "check out" one game at a time and if you check out another you can't play the first game for ten days, making you stick to one game for a while.
I think you're almost spot on there. I do think there's room for alternatives though. They don't have to do away with the current system if they allow for a subscription as well. Perhaps add some sort of fee to swap a game out before the given rental date, so you're not completely locked down. I assume that if they decide to go for a subscription model, it would have low fees to attract as many as possible, but only include older titles to deter gamers who would save hundreds of dollars each month. Titles that just released could still be rented outside the subscription for a fairly high cost, which would make sense for any new title. That way, it's an instant valuable game collection, still maintaining a low fee since they don't include the currently selling games. Sort of like cashing in on a legal emulator while also being a lot more user friendly. Now, it's only a question of how viable such a model would be to Sony. I agree with most people saying the current pricing scheme is ridiculous. The 4 hour rental is pointless for the most part, and having the next tier at 7 days seems a bit disconnected from many players. I believe a lot of people would use a 1-3 day rental for weekend play. Just get rid of the 4 hour rental, and make it a free 30 minute demo instead.
Come on Sony ( or the publishers) ! This pricing for old games are just absurd :<
Put a subscription fee per month or per year that allows us to have unlimited amounts. Or make the pricing cheaper.
I'll agree with thus just as soon as too-high goes live. Until then, I can only see these articles as trying to stir things up.
Pricing should be more competitive: 4 hours= .99, 7 days = 4.99, 30 days 9.99$, 90 days 19.99$.
It's still beta, I have faith they will change things up
Um, unless you're a cheap bastard, $8 to rent a game for a month is pretty good deal. Seeing as how you'll most likely complete it in about 2 weeks anyway. How you gonna pay $400 for a new system that barely has any games, but complain about paying $8 to rent a game for a month?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.