For Weekly Rentals, Playstation Now's Pricing is Reasonable

IGN: "PlayStation Now -- Sony's long-discussed streaming solution -- has officially entered open beta on PlayStation 4 starting today, and I was surprised, as I scrolled through the 122 games currently available, how reasonably priced many of these games are, specifically in the weekly rental category. (If you want to find PlayStation Now on your PS4, go to the PlayStation Store and scroll down to "PlayStation Now," the third option down from the bottom in the list on the left.)"

The story is too old to be commented.
Ghost_of_Tsushima1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

No it's not IGN it's far from it. The 4 hour rentals should be replaced by free full game trials, a subscription service needs to exist, and the prices need to drop period.

XiNarutoUzumaki1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

It's kinda reasonable imo. I mean, $5 bucks for a week is fine since most games take less than that to beat. $7.99 for a month is also good.

What I think Sony should do is make a subscription option and let the rental for those who like to rent. Having both optiona should do the work. If not, then lower the price of the 3 months and get rid of the 4hrs option.

So far, the only issue is the prices, but this is a beta. We should submit feedback; make our voices heard. This service has so much potential. I mean, I didn't have any lag whatsoever playing Twisted Metal online. I actually though the stream lag would be the problem, but it isn't.

I hope Sony can fix this soon. I'm loving the service so far.

chaosx1265d ago

They already do a subscription service built into PS+ .
They would have to cut games or include PSNow in Plus and they would never do that….

Vitalogy1265d ago

I wonder how much sony paid IGN for this. They know very well IGN has a lot of followers that buy into everything they say.

We all can think for ourselves and make price comparisons and it's been pointed that people don't think the pricing is reasonable.

spacedelete1265d ago

how would you know whats reasonable to pay for a game as your on this site 24/7 with your two accounts. you don't even play games so how would you know whats a reasonable cost ?

NewMonday1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

"the average cost of renting each of these games individually is $5.65, or about $0.81 a under a dollar a day, renting these games isn't going to break the bank. Indeed, it seems in line with pricing of rental games from back in the day, and when you take into account all important inflation, that means that renting from Now for a week is actually cheaper than it was at your local video store"

PS Now' currently has good pricing options, it's just down to the decision making of the consumer in picking the smart option, the weekly price looks perfect and just sty away from the hourly/90day price.

the reason some games have a different set of pricing options than others is to test the buying tendency of the consumers, so hopefully people flock to the weekly option and set the standards.

Prime1571265d ago

@chaosx, never do a sub-based system? It wouldn't have to compete with PlayStation plus... how could they not consider the benefits to a subscription service.

@vitalogy, "I wonder how much sony paid IGN for this."

In the article I just read I saw these few points:

-"Now, let's be totally clear: the other rental options on Now -- four hours, 30 days, and 90 days -- seem to make very little sense, especially (but not limited to) the former. " - which is in line with what all off us say.

-He continues about the above snippet with, "In other words, don't bother renting for four hours -- because paying for what is, in essence, a glorified demo makes no sense -- and if you're inclined to rent a game on PlayStation Now for longer than a week, you might as well just go ahead and look into buying it outright"

-And continues even more with, "what I will call "demo rentals" -- which seem to start at around $2.99, and are disingenuously displayed on PlayStation Now's interface with a "from $2.99" moniker. ***Don't rent a game at that price for that amount of time***"

-And even says, "Avoid four hour rentals like the plague,"

What we, as consumers, should take from this article that the average weekly rental is 5.65, and that's a great price to rent a game for a week.

In fact, most rental services I remember (like block buster and Hollywood before dying) were even more than 5.65.

The only point of the article is: the seven day price is very much in line with other rental services while the rest is crap.

marlinfan101265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

@newmonday and prime

$5.65 might be reasonable if we were talking about newer games since those are the kinds of games you could rent at blockbuster, but were talking about games that can be fully purhcased for nearly the same price. we need to remember these are older games, and a lot are games ive personally never even heard of. $5.65 is still overpriced for the type of games available

dead or alive 5
$6 to rent for a week, the full game can be bought for $9

dirt 3
$15 to rent for a week, full game price is 25$

mgs 4
$8 to rent for a week, full game is cheaper, $6.30 at gamestop

saints row 2
$6 for a week, $13 at gamestop.

kz 3
$6 a week, $4.50 at gamestop

crazy taxi
$4 for a week. $10 for the full game on playstations own website for the digital download.

these prices are not good IMO and these are some of the bigger games. the smaller games are even worse deals

NewMonday1265d ago


if you have a PS3 and can buy and play those games then why would you use PSNow in the first place, PSNow is supposed to be service you can play on multiple stream supported devices.

and an average of under a dollar a day seems reasonable.

Darkstares1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

The pricing would be good if we were talking about new games. They aren't, therefore they should be offered in a bundle like Netflix.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1265d ago
KendrickLamar1265d ago

+1 Bubble

There's a lot of things bugging me recently with PS4, starting with this one:

I was totally excited for this, up until the prices came up, sure it's beta but it's still ridiculous.

---------------off topic after this line-------------

Also features, MP3 support and dlna have no reason to take forever to be added. "Early 2015" are you serious?

Finally, Sony's decision to decline the new EA subscription plan is downright infuriating. It's the consumer's right to choose what they feel is best for them, not Sony's...

In my opinion I feel like they only did this because they were afraid of it surpassing PS Now in terms of better service offering, which seems to be the case (again, IMO)

Prime1571265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

Funny that psnow bothers you about your ps4 when psnow is its own concept.

Psnow will cross save and play your games amongst your ps3, ps4, psv, pstv, bravia tvs, and plans to come to other devices like tablets and I'd speculate PC later.

How is that a ps4 problem? I see it as a psnow problem as a separate entity entirely.

I would say, IF.. IF it's a ps4 problem then it's actually a blessing as ps4 effectively (more than) DOUBLED it's playable library. Which, if I compared that to its direct competitor then it has 150 more games to play, now, than xb1. But that's by your logic.

Also, in dealing with your off topic point... there are only 8 EA games for ea access right now. 8 (xb1 only), and less for PlayStation (no pvz or titanfall as of now).

Subscription services dealing with one publisher well be more hassle than good long term. At first I liked the idea. Now, I can't stop thinking about how there could problems with it.

Utalkin2me1265d ago


Why are you comparing PS Now and EA access? They're completely different. If you wanna compare PS+ and EA access then fine, cause they are pretty much the same. Both give you games to download and play and both give you discounts on games.

nicksetzer11265d ago

Yea, no way are the prices even in the realm of reasonable. At no point should rental prices for a week or 30 days (really even 90 days) be more than the full game. (Which is the case in quite a few games, if not all)

XtraTrstrL1265d ago

I completely agree that there should be NO 4 hour option. That is gonna come off as a rip-off at any price. I also completely agree about a subscription service to lower yearly prices, even though they're overdoing it with those atm. I mean, I don't plan on ever really using the service, cuz I'm kind of annoyed with how many subs they've started up all at once now. Especially the forced ones, like PS+ being mandatory now for retail games online mp. Finally, Music/Vid Unlimited subs being the only way to stream such content and no local hdd support for it either(now until 2015 they're saying) - is just beyond ridiculous and an obvious purposely planned paywall.

its_JEFF1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

the 4 hr option is there to make the similarly priced 7 day rental look much much better! Who the hell is doing the 4 hr rental? If you take the 4 hr rental over the 7 day rental at the same price... you deserve to lose that money, wouldn't you agree?

lelo1265d ago


I guess from now on we will see a lot of these BS articles trying to defend PS Now's pricing.

Prime1571265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

How was this article defending the pricing? It was defending 1 out of 4 pricing options, yes, but it slammed the rest ("avoid the 4 day option like the plague").

Objectively, the article only defended around 20-25% of the prices.

25% because it was only defending the weekly price @ an average of 5.65, and ~20% when you realize he mentioned games like saint's row.

Again, 5.65/week is very much in line with other rental services, especially in conjunction with not leaving your house.

The article did not defend 4 days, or the other two options of 30 and 90.

4 games to choose from at my nearest red box for $2/day, or 123 games to choose from on psnow @ an average of $0.81/day....

Utalkin2me1265d ago


Maybe you should read the article and not just the title. Lol indeed.....

kenshiro1001265d ago

It's called an objective article. Read it first.

lelo1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

I don't agree with none of PS Now's options... and yes I did read the article. It's defending one of the options, so they are defending one option too many.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1265d ago
Alabamarolltide19901265d ago

Did you read the article? The prices are okay, just the time table is retarded

spacedelete1265d ago

most of the best games from last gen are getting remastered so no need for a PS3 or PlayStation Now and from the rumours they are just going to bring PS1 and PS2 games on a native emulator.

Sony really should have just created an emulator for classic games as running a server is going to bleed them money. its going to be as bif of a loss to them than their TV business.

Palitera1265d ago

Of all the cowards in the industry, of all the most untrustable companies, of all the forced editorials with a clear agenda instead of proper logic, IGN takes the pole position.
OBVIOUSLY they wouldn't take consumers/gamers side. They opt for the corporative point of view, even on the most absurd topics (online passes, prerelease DLC, exclusive preorder incentives, always on, only digital etc etc etc).

ShaunCameron1265d ago

In all fairness, producers/businesses have rights too. The don't run a charity and they're certainly not gonna underprice their merchandise so they can end up losing money on each unit sold.

Palitera1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

I completely agree with you. They're enterprises, with risks, pursuit of profit etc. I don't even argue about this.

The problem is that the gaming industry is probably the one with the most anticonsumer practices. From fake advertisement to problematic products as services, not to mention all the limitations imposed to buyers to maximize profit, the lack of respect for the consumers seems to be the rule. And since the products and services mostly are not switchable for similar in case of disrespect (like restaurants, cars or tv cable companies), we keep buying the unique products/services and voting towards bad practices on the most important way.

The point of my initial post was: I used to have IGN as my primary source of gaming info (until I knew N4G, which, despite all its immense problems, is much more complete) and in all important matters related to this subject, they always took the corporative side, actually usually offending gamers that think otherwise. Colin is the worst. It pissed me off so much that I had to look for other sites.

its_JEFF1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

I don't get why people focus on the 4 hr price, when it's the same price as the 7 day rental. It's a very common marketing trick, very very common.... the people focusing on that are just looking to complain and get angry at something, it's that simple. How much is a rental at RedBox, for a game? over a $1 a day, for 7 days... that's more than you'd pay on PS Now. I'm not saying that the pricing is perfect, but it's not outrageous like some are making out to be. Who the hell is renting a game for 4 hrs when the 7 day option is the same price? Like I said, it's a common neuromarketing practice.

Oh, when you disagree... please tell me why.

Prime1571265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

Considering red box's lack of selection too... $1-$2/day @ rb or $0.81/day @ psnow...

No hardware limitations, no leaving the house. Yeah, the other pricing need work, but the week is starting to make sense to me.

04soldier1265d ago

No complaints here.. just do specificly what the author wrote:

1. Avoid the 4hr & 30/90 day rentals.
2. Stick to $5.85/ week rentals.
3. ????
4. Profit.

HumanatPlay1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

I really think IGN has lost its credibility as a news source. Its become way too opinionated and thats because they have forgotten their journalistic duties. Rather than reporting that a significant number of PS4 owners don't see or recognize the "value" that SONY is trying to communicate to players IGN tends to flip the story in favor of these companies. There is no value in PSNNOW for PS3/PSVITA/PS4 owners. Another monetized service wasn't necessary to begin with, we wanted backwards compatibility and SONY only heard the sound of our mouths printing money. Wake up people, not everything needs to be for sale and you don't have to pay for things that used to be a part of the full package! Things like this must be considered early in the DEV of the console and don't gimme that different architecture BS because People are playing The Last Of US as we speak.

jcnba281265d ago

What do you expect when it was Colin Moriarty who wrote the article? lol

Eddie201011265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

With the exception of the 4 hour price I think the other pricing is fair. They should make the 4 hour option about half of what it is now or eliminate it all together. the other options seem pretty fair.

A subscription plan based on how many hours you want to play, say 15 or 30, or even 60 hours a month that would allow you to play any game on the service within the number of hours your subscription is for seems to me to be a good way to do subs.

ForgivenZombie1265d ago

I could buy the game for the price of some of the rentals. I think sony missed it on this one.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1265d ago
DanielGearSolid1265d ago

I think they are

Idk about yall but I don't know anybody that plays a game longer than 90 days, especially an older title

Ripsta7th1265d ago

Been playing bf4 since launch

moodymofo1265d ago

I would imagine youve been playin bf4 online since launch ? Nobody is gonna want to stream an online game . And while i agree that some of the prices are a little rediculious , some are not and people also need to remember that now goes across alot of other devices where a guy can stream a game from his tv or tablet and not even own a console so the rental fees make more sence to those people rather than someone lokking for a backwards compatipilit solution

ltachiUchiha1265d ago

I think ppl are jumping to conclusions too quick, if we let our voices be heard prices will change when ps now releases. Its not even out yet so yall need to chill, plus what alot ppl dont understand is if EA's service succeeds, whats going to stop every other 3rd party dev from wanting to launch their own service? Then we as gamers wont be getting any free games period from Sony or MS & have to pay for all these different services just to play all these games.

Remember how PSN use to be free & XBL was a payed service? Because gamers didn't complain about paying for XBL Sony went on to do a similar thing & ps plus was born, I guarantee u nintendo's next system will have a paid service for online play. These things happen because gamers let it happen. My proof is all the 180's MS has made because of gamers standing der ground.

hiawa231265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

Sony started charging cause it cost money to bring these services to you. I seriously doubt your assertion that they only did that cause Xbox gamers did not fuss about paying for Live is, well, I just don't agree with. Simple, this shiz cost money. The only reason MS made a 180 on the One was because of $$$$$. That is what motivates these companies. MS is no different than Sony or Nintendo in that regard.

spacedelete1265d ago

most games last gen weren't anything special except a very few. most last gen games were disposal garbage you would struggle playing once never mind twice or more.

also the best of last gen are getting remastered so why would anyone want to stream an obsolete game like FIFA 09 and rent it for 30 days ? Sony should never have bought Gakia because they are going to lose alot of money. its not even worth it even if they have a subscription.

G20WLY1265d ago


Look out everyone, this guy clearly knows his stuff...we should listen to him! /S

SpiralTear1265d ago

No apologism here. These prices are not reasonable and something needs to done to fix them before the full launch.

Cueil1265d ago

one would hope the market would correct it through capitalism

98xpresent1265d ago (Edited 1265d ago )

Onlive sucks but this could be an abomination .

isarai1265d ago

Even a huge PS fan like myself can't agree to that, though the pricing is not final, it's pretty damn ridiculous when it's more than the cost of buying it yourself. I think they should price it as a sub fee, not as individual sales

Show all comments (69)
The story is too old to be commented.