Top
220°

PlayStation Now Is Still Way Too Expensive

Last month, when Sony first launched pricing in the PlayStation Now closed beta, I called the costs insane. Things haven't changed very much. The service—which now offers 100-something PS3 games for streaming on your PS4—is still à la carte, and will still cost you way more than buying used PS3 games at GameStop or Best Buy ever would.

The story is too old to be commented.
Kingthrash3601112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

Calm down ...its a beta.
I agree the prices are too high but betas sole purpose is feedback...our complaints will be heard and this new ea subcription, im sure sony will fox this glaring problem with pricing.
That said we shouldn't be too worried until it's out of beta and we see its true pricing.

DonDon1112d ago

No YOU calm down: They can call it a beta all they want but it costs money to use the beta--a beta that doesn't seem to have any technical issues. So the thing we are "testing" is not the bugs, but is the pricing that they think they can guage out of us. Why pay those prices when the games are cheaper at gamestop--even if we buy them new.

That is why people are disappointed. We wanted backwards compatibility. Not price gouging.

4Sh0w1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

"Sony's new service isn't even out of beta yet, and it already feels obsolete. We live in a world dominated by streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, which offer monthly subscriptions for unlimited access to their content. That's the type of model that people want. Even EA knows that—though Sony doesn't think their service has much value." -Kotaku

Beta or not sony had to know that these prices were unreasonable given how other subscription models work. I don't own a ps4 but I really do hope more ps4 owners give sony the proper feedback so they can fix it because I dont want micro to even dare offering X1 gamers a $5 rental for 4 hours in the future. Now with that said I'm all about choice, options and personal preference so if I'm wrong and ps owners think ps now as it is now is worth it, I apologize and hope you enjoy it.

SpiralTear1112d ago

Yeah, it doesn't really matter if it's a beta or not if Sony is asking for money during the beta participation.

princejb1341112d ago

I agree. I had high hopes for ps now when it was first announced
But seen it now I'm dissapointed with the price structure. But I guess I understand sonys point of view for the price structure since they have spend millions to get this service. To bad I won't be supporting them this time with prices like those.

Mr_Writer851112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

"They can call it a beta all they want but it costs money to use the beta--a beta that doesn't seem to have any technical issues. So the thing we are "testing" is not the bugs, but is the pricing "

Then don't buy anything. Vote with your wallets.

I had a slight interest when this was announce, that died as soon as the prices where announced.

If you are in the Beta and paying then Sony will think thats what people want.

Everyone who disagrees with the price should of refused to buy a single game until the prices where fixed.

Darkstares1112d ago

The only way this is going to take off is to offer a subscription model. My suggestion is $99 a year or $14.99 a month which gives you full access.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1112d ago
Christopher1112d ago

Beta or not, I would consider the pricing to be expensive.

I understand this is a service that isn't tied to a single piece of hardware, but most of the games I can get on disc or PC for a lot less than what they are offering.

The problem is that I don't think they can get much cheaper since the service itself costs a lot to get going.

I don't know what solution there is for this, but it's likely a service that very few people will utilize because of the cost associated with it. Maybe it will be more affordable when they get it working with tablets and phones, but until then I'm not sure.

donthate1112d ago

I don't think the cost is that high to operate, once the initial investment is done to the infrastructure.

However, Sony face many problems:

a) The experience is likely subpar by a wide margin to just getting the disc in-store

b) Who is their target audience? If you look at te casuals, they would just use their android device to access cheap games. Hardcore gamers likely have the hardware and know they can get it cheaper in-store.

c) They should have gotten enough publishers on board at a price point that is of good value to consumers. Sony should lead the charge with their first party games being significantly cheaper.

Instead they passed on EA Access saying it provides little value, and somehow Sony saw value in PS Now?

Why is EA on-board with EA Access, but not a lower price point for rentals?

d) Even if Sony succeeds with PS Now (highly unlikely), there will just be copycats that make similar games as indies and sell it to you for less than the cost of the rental with much better experience and no lag and strict internet requirements!

I think Sony backed the wrong horse here and there will be a write off.

Christopher1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

***I don't think the cost is that high to operate, once the initial investment is done to the infrastructure. ***

I think you are ignoring the fact that they have to pay off that initial investment before they start to cut prices based on operation costs. And, operation costs are much higher here than standard multiplayer servers. Add onto that the need to make a profit, it's actually higher than you would think.

***Why is EA on-board with EA Access, but not a lower price point for rentals? ***

Easy. EA makes money off of the subs whereas they would only make money off of the games specifically rented by users on PSNow. Furthermore, EA Access is their attempt to get people to buy games digitally only on consoles, which means less used games and more people paying money directly to them and not retailers.

donthate1112d ago

Netflix does all you can HD stream for multiple people for $9 a month. So the main cost is obviously the infrastructure, but that is a shared cost over time. One console can be played by gazillion people over a time frame, so no it isn't as expensive as it sound. However, it obviously isn't as cheap as multiplayer servers.

That said, we knew from OnLive that their model was buy the game, and play as much as you want. Onlive infrastructure is more costly than older generation PS3 for comparison....

For your second point, I would argue EA is combating used games sales, but if they are willing to harvest $2.5 a month before sharing it with MS and let you have unlimited access, that they would be willing to let users rent a game for a day for far less. In fact, a streamed system is far better for EA, because not only are you going digital, it is virtually impossible to pirate.

marloc_x1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

BETA is for refining software.

Not gouging wallets..

TimeSkipLuffy1112d ago

It is a beta to try if we are going to pay those ridiculous prices.
If they want us to do the testing on their stuff, it should be free!

SpinalRemains1381111d ago

That's exactly why we need to address it and Not calm down.

If we calm down, nothing changes.

Beta periods are for corrections. These prices need correcting. SONY is taking our temperature with this beta, and we don't want these prices.

TheFanboySlayer1111d ago

I agree with you man

The prices are insane but they said they are likely to change

They just announced that there will be a Subscription model so I'm waiting to hear what that is before I decide whether it is a good deal.

I think they game pricing should be this
0.99$ for 4 hours for 3+ years old game
1.99$ for 4 hours for 2 years old game
2.99$ for 4 hours for 1 year old game
and get more expensive the more recently released the game is but nothing over $6.00 for 4 hours

That's just my opinion but idk..I'll probably get disagrees for this

All in all I suggest everybody criticize Sony for the prices but hold of judgement on the service until release

Testfire1111d ago

Calm down? Stop defending Sony on this, the prices are terrible. People shouldn't be quiet, there needs to be a uproar. I hope we see articles everyday from every website, blogger and Youtuber until Sony responds and lowers these prices. Its a serious slap in the face to consumers. Shit like this CANNOT become the norm and CANNOT be tolerated.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1111d ago
mrpsychoticstalker1112d ago

I rather pay $3 for 4 hours of gameplay time, than $3 for 4 hours of Real time.

TThis option makes no sense. The others are ok but still a bit expensive. Especially now that EA access was announced as $30 per year.

I'm sure Sony will listen to their fans and come out with better choices.

Christopher1112d ago

I agree that you should be paying for gameplay time and not real time. That would make the whole service a lot better. But, I'm betting if you paid for gameplay time, the costs would be higher on certain ones since you could beat it in 4 hours or play the whole game 3x in 24 hours.

Infamous2981112d ago Show
Insomnia_841112d ago

Everyone keeps complaining about the 4hr rental option and with reason but all the others are good reasonable ptices. Just take a minute and search how much it cost to rent a game at Blockbuster. PS Now prices are very reasonable apart from the 4 hr one.

dcj05241112d ago

Blockbuster is dead lol. Take a look at gamefly or redbox for pricing.

DonDon1112d ago

The other prices are "cheap" but when compared to retail or even ownership price of digital games, ps now is actually a rip off.

For example, I can buy Catherine for $20 and keep it forever. But to rent it for one week for $8 may not seem so bad, but that forces you to rush. In fact it was the only beta game I put money toward, and I beat it just before my month time was over. I had to rush through it and didnt get the other endings. For the amount I paid for the month pricing, I could have owned the game on the ps store.

Finally, there is a bit of lag which is dismal when playing games like that. I have a 100 mb/s connection with a grade "A" ping and since I was invited to private beta I know Sony has a server near to me. Yet lag was still noticeable (I compared the 1 hour free ps plus trial of catherine (downloaded; not streaming) to the PS Now version and it has a slight split second of lag that is noticeable for such a fast paced and precision based movement game like that.

So why pay MORE for less time, non-ownership, lag (which isn't so bad, but for FPS and Fighters that isn't cool), and other issues.

If anything, 3rd party companies need to wake up and realize we're doing THEM the favor of renting their OLD games (which now look washed out and laggy due to streaming). Give us reasonable prices before you try to get us to agree to paying for a lemon. NO way renting should cost more than buying. It's like those morons who pay 3 times more to live in a crowded co-dependent co-op condo, when they can live in a private home that is more spacious and quiet for a lot less. I'm no fool. I don't see value in this pricing. So what if it'll let us play on phones one day (man...imagine the latency!). Doesn't justify the price of paying MORE for rental when I could just own.

memots1112d ago

First time i actually agreed with mrpsychoticstalker.

People are in panic and the service is not even out.
I am sure they are seeing the comments everywhere. The price is not right.

Death1112d ago

The service is out. Sony releases PSNow to the public along with pricing and payment plans. The only thing in beta is the prices. If enough people pay, the prices will not change. If they don't hit their target revenue, they will adjust accordingly. It's almost deceptive to call this a beta since the product itself is finished.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1112d ago
DanielGearSolid1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

Isn't pricing up to the publishers?

The only issue I have is the 4hr, just make it one day

To me the pricing is great because in an interview one of the PsNow execs said the games include all dlc packages. So when ppl say "I could go buy game x right now for 10 bucks" that copy isn't coming with all the dlc

Edit:The all dlc included comment can be found here: http://blog.us.playstation....

Christopher1112d ago

It is and it isn't. It seems Sony offers certain pricing plans and the publishers chose between them. It's not like Sony is going to offer a price plan that won't make them a profit in comparison to the resources you may end up using for the specified amount of time.

So, doubt you'll see $0.99 4 hour gameplays or the like anytime soon. Not until the price of the service is greatly reduced.

caseh1112d ago

On it's current pricing structure, when that comes to the UK it will undoubtedly fail.

With it's current pricing and time allowance, the big fail here is the fact that:

- Physical copy can be bought for less or a little more than a 4 hour rental
- You're paying premium prices for last gen rentals

Take into account here that EAs offering (although limited to their own titles) basically says "Pay £100/$150 and get unlimited access to everything we release over the next 5 years" has made we wonder if Sony have over valued what their service provides.

DanielGearSolid1112d ago

Like I said physical copy doesn't come with all DLC included

Death1112d ago

Sony is also a publisher. Are the Sony published games at a noticeable reduction or do they choose to be high also? Sony bought this service and created the pricing. Unless there is a price disparity you can't blame third parties.

authentic1112d ago

They need to make it a subscription, kind of like Netflix. Have a library of games to choose from and play them whenever you want.

dcj05241112d ago

this right here.

$15-$20 a month gives you access to 4+ year old games.

shivvy241112d ago

This ! Just one monthy payment and acces to them games, more attractive option than paying to play for a certain amount of hrs.

Rimeskeem1112d ago

a monthly subscription would make anyones day

Death1112d ago

A subscription plan wouldn't make money. 122 games a month for how much money? If they charged as little as $1 per game it would cost up to $122 for the month. Once gamers played all the games, what happens to the service? $15 for 5 games a month might work. It will be hard to find the line between profit and customer appreciation. Obviously the existing pricing is what Sony originally thought was the line.