PlayStation Now Is Ushering in a New Era

Forget the console wars — the real battle for gaming supremacy is just heating up and Sony took a big step in the right direction today.

The story is too old to be commented.
nicksetzer11454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

For me 3-5$ an couple hours (real time, not game time as it should be) for last gen games, many of which are actually hardly over 5$ to purchase, is insane. If the pricing ever gets more realistic it could be a really cool service.

Even most of the bigger games available are 8-15$ a week, the 30 day and 90 day are the most inflated prices of all though.

They just need a monthly service, I would probably pay 20-30$ a month if they made the game catalog inspiring enough. 15/month would be optimal though.

GribbleGrunger1454d ago

I don't think the pricing structure will improve in the short term and I also believe that's deliberate, for the same reason HD movies are still overpriced on the PSN Movie channel. They want to transition slowly from one to the other but they certainly don't want to risk it effecting the sales of their disc based games or their consoles, even if it is just a small percentage.

You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Eonjay1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

Actually the prices have gone down. Most games start at $1.99 now. I would love to see a subscription model as well but the prices are substantially better than they were.

dcbronco1454d ago

Since PlayStation Now is exclusive to 4 it helps move people more quickly to the new console. Making a subscription service would provide more incentive to move on. As far as disc sales go, there is more money in it for Sony if they push digital. They share blu-ray royalties, not as much with digital and many other cost are eliminated. Plus DVD and streaming have eroded blu-ray premium margins. You can get movies for five bucks. No real need to remain locked to disc. And publishers can pay a small fee to ISPs to offset caps like Netflix.

SoapShoes1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

The pricing has improved most games are $1.99 but it's only bad if you look at the 4 hour option. 5-8 dollars to rent a game for a week is not bad at all. I swear people saying it's so terrible are people who haven't even tried it...

Gaming247allday1454d ago

A NEW ERA OF CRAP why do these Gaming companies do this?? espiecially Sony of all of them who were suppoe to be the protector of Gaming!, now they are pushing this DRM demo based crap that i cant stand

#4TheGamers tho lol

PoSTedUP1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

man i hate that 10yr olds are allowed to be on the internet. this has nothing to do with DMR, fool. its a streaming service and it just came naturally (and optionally) with the progression of technology.


the prices are ridiculous if you are streaming to a console, but im more than happy to pay for the luxury of having these games on my vita. its still in beta, this service will evolve and go down in price like everything else. im sure its not cheap running the servers and after youve bought out a company to do so; sony are prob charging publishers (or individual dev teams? i see indies and also not a mention of publishers on the store) a lot of money maybe. because it seems that the games with smaller devs (lower budgets) are the more pricey games.

Imalwaysright1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

@ Postedup

Yes it is drm. Playstation Now is just another way to give total control to publishers. In fact it's even worse than what MS had planned which was just one login a day. For PS now you have to be connected 24/7.

Not only that but the only thing that streaming does for "progressing technology" is increasing input lag and that's without taking account all the crap involved in a service that relies on an internet connection. Just to give an example of some of that crap, the 2 top stories on N4g right now are: "PSN down on 12/24, Sony is investigating" and "Xbox Live Down In The UK Thanks To The Lizard Squad".

PoSTedUP1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

no, youre right, technically its drm. no where near as bad as MS's tho. MS was Forcing it on ppl and on every game, and not just the online-only thing, locking down every physical game too. --this is optional--. i thought he was talking about drm in the sense of the BS microsoft was attempting to do.. he made it sound that way, anyway. this is an optional streaming service, and like i said i think it's stupid to stream games at these prices to consoles anyway; it's genius for my vita tho.

and i guess it will increase the input lag for some people, but ive had TV's and PS3/Vita games with worse input lag than when im playing on PSnow. the good outweighs the bad by far and it's bound to improve over time anyways.

joeorc1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

oh yeah of all companies...

For its part, Sony is also planning improvements to its own smart TVs. The company plans to ship screens running Android TV, a large-screen variation of the ubiquitous mobile operating system, beginning in February 2015. Android TV will allow Sony TVs to seamlessly integrate live television with Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming-video apps, and the TVs will also allow PS4 owners to stream their games over Wi-Fi. Sony’s new TVs will probably also include the PlayStation Now service, although the company hasn’t officially confirmed that yet.

well there it is Remote Play for Android OS smart TVs getting ready for release!
this is going to be pretty effective. Sony is going real aggresive for living room gameing exposure of playstation games.

now stream ps4 games to other android Smart TV's without the need of buying another PS4 for more TVs in your house ; how dare Sony try to save the consumer more Money upfront...LMAO

and you do not have to have internet to stream ps4 games to other tv's in your house with local networking, but yeah Sony is sure not looking out for the consumer...

headblackman1453d ago (Edited 1453d ago )

no matter how it's sliced damage controlled, this is everything that microsoft caught pure hell for doing. people wanted full control and rights over the items that they've purchased. sony even did a video during the e3 passing a game from one hand to another person's hand while saying (this is how you trade games on the ps4) with this in place, how will you do any of those things that they said? is sony really for the gamer or are they just trying to cover their own butts?

always online/drm. if you bashed microsoft for doing this you should do the same to sony. don't be a hypocrite. force them to do away with this the same exact way that was done with microsoft.

PoSTedUP1453d ago (Edited 1453d ago )

@head- you can trade physical games on ps3 & 4, MS wasnt going to allow that (there's a difference, huh?). you can trade/share digital games on ps3 & 4 (use to be up to 5 people, now its with two, im suprised you can do it at all in the first place) so yeah sony are for the players. no bodys complaining about not being able to unlimitedly share their digital versions of their games that they pay for and own.. why? because you are not forced to buy digital games, duuuhh. that is your choice, and same goes for when you Choose to use this subscription (of older freaking games btw, like who the hell would even make a big deal out of any of this?). damage controlled, sliced,... no its called logic and reasonning and this is absolutely not what MS caught hell for. this is barley any different than DD just more sh*ttier priced, a rental service.

rainslacker1453d ago

5 years or so ago I may have agreed with you, but it seems people are more than willing to overpay to stream a 2 hour movie with sub-HD quality, so I don't see why people wouldn't be willing to do so for a game for 4-5 hours for a few bucks.

It's untested territory on the large scale at the moment, so there is no way to say where it will go.

I don't think PSNow is there for the hardcore gamer. I never really thought that, although I thought it may have some purpose to them. Overall though, when Sony said they were going to integrate it into non-Sony devices, I knew this was to bring in new customers that would likely never buy any gaming console.

There are good things about it for some people I'm sure, but it's not really that appealing to me as a hardcore gamer.

I don't see it as them changing any of their other gaming business models because of this though. Even if it's successful, it doesn't mean that it will be successful in every gaming venue. I also don't see this as the same kind of DRM that we typically think of, just a different form of this case a rental.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1453d ago
JudgmentJay1454d ago

"Ushering in a new era" I think not.

Making me pay to borrow games I already own is no new era of mine!

SoapShoes1454d ago

Did Blockbuster make you rent games you already owned? The logic fail of people!

testerg351454d ago

dcbronco, I thought it will also be on Samsung TVs.

Gamer19821454d ago

Indeed once the PS3 sales finally die they will finally give us that subscription model we have been lusting for no doubt and playstation now will bust through the roof. Many will pay upto $20 a month for hundreds of ps3, ps2 and ps1 titles on demand especially through your tv without a console.. With no rival really also Sony can charge a nice high sum and people will lap it up.

rainslacker1453d ago

I honestly dunno if that will happen. It works for netflix because they pay movie studios a lump sum for a bulk of content, but game publishers would want to much to make it profitable with that business model. I can see publishers more than willing to offer their games for a price per game model though, where they get a cut of the charges.

But who knows what the future holds. Dunno if the PS3 has to be gone for good for it to happen though. You'd think Sony would want that kind of business model sooner rather than later.

averagejoe261453d ago

For you, yes. You are not who this is intended for.

spacedelete1453d ago

HD remasters make PS Now completely pointless. why rent for a few hours when you can own the disc forever ? PS Now is only for hardcore fanboys who want to give free money to Sony to play downgraded last gen games which were already bad last gen with the terrible PS3 ports.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1453d ago
JMaine5181454d ago

Needs a subscription option. I'll be all over it then.

Jason_Plays_PC1454d ago

A subscription offer seems a no brainer tbh.

Outthink_The_Room1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

A subscription to hundreds of games, by dozens of different publishers? It's not easy to just get that working at a reasonable price. Not all games are created in a similar fashion, like film is.

A Netflix subscription is different. Movies for the most part are 100-120 minutes and TV Shows are 30 minutes or 60 minutes. And they are controlled almost entirely by only a handful of major studios.

Netflix has to negotiate with only a handful of companies for an entire catalog. Difference is, the entire catalog isn't available for streaming, only a portion of it.

Imagine if Square only put up a couple games, instead of every title they have ever released. You may not think the subscription is worth it at that point. Or Ubisoft, or EA, or Take-Two.

Games don't have the same length or similar length that film has. Games can last 4 hours (Journey) all the way up to 100+ hours (Skyrim). How does a company get their worth, since it's not just the game, it's the playtime behind the game.

When Netflix started, Hollywood never thought it would take off, so Netflix got an absolutely SWEETHEART DEAL. Once the service boomed, Hollywood contracts were up and they renegotiated and demanded 5x what they originally paid.

That's why Netflix has to give in to the demand of Hollywood, because they can lose a major studios library if they don't. Those majors are the gatekeepers, just like publishers in the gaming world are the gatekeepers.

And the more successful Netflix is, the more they have to keep paying majors, every time a contract renewal comes to the table. Game Publishers know this story about Netflix's early success and don't want to have to wait for the second round of contracts, to get paid what they should for games.

Netflix made off like a bandit when it launched. Publishers don't want Sony to make the money without them getting a large chunk of the profit. Netflix now pays BILLIONS a year to major studios.

I don't see PSNow making that much, especially since old games don't hold up the way film does. Film is timeless. Games have a shelf life. PS2 games being playable are only worthwhile in short bursts. It's more nostalgia than anything. Realistically wanting to play Tekken 1 or Gran Turismo 2 because it holds the same value as of today is ridiculous, especially with all the sequels that not only look better, but play better.

Honestly, I think a subscription fee would be like $40 a month. There's no way we'd get it for like $10 for $15. A year sub, would be like $400 in a one shot purchase, like PS+ or XBL.

A sub is obviously what everyone wants, but realistically, Netflix has spoiled us into thinking it's available for everything we want. I don't think we'll be seeing a sub anytime soon.

dcbronco1454d ago

I think they could go with a tiered subscription service. Instead of unlimited play, it would be unlimited on some games. There would then be premium games that have a points system or time system. Premium would also be separated by genre.

Say it cost twenty dollars(and Europeans,yes you will probably get screwed on pricing), ten gives you access to back catalog games and Indies. The other ten goes to premium content. Publishers choose what they consider premium. A twelve hour action-adventure games will eat time or points at a faster rate than a 150 hour RPG. An online game would eat points like an RPG.

This would make things better for all involved. Gamers get to try before they buy. Devs get paid for demos. Really like a game and you can buy it minus what you spent in premium cost or get those points back. You could rollover premium points/time. They could also add their movies to make it a more enticing offer. You could also buy either premium or basic separately or higher tiers with more premium at a better rate.

dcbronco1454d ago

Out-think Netflix was pushed around in the beginning, but that has changed and by the time current contracts run out,(like John Doe) they will have the upper hand. More and more people are dropping cable. More are moving to Netflix.

Netflix management has made brilliant moves. None better than their original content. Its put them in the drivers seat once held by cable. Now that HBO has started it's own streaming option cable will have to seriously adjust their model. And Netflix will reap the rewards. Netflix could quickly swoop in and provide a place for smaller networks like AMC and TNT to offer their channels for streaming. They already have deals in place with ISPs they could offer customized packages with just the channels you want. It would be sweet revenge for those that tried to kill them off.

Outthink_The_Room1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )


Netflix is not in the drivers seat. By any stretch of the imagination. They have to bend to the will of their content creators, who are the major studios.

Look at all these stupid cable disputes where Fox or Time Warner don't work with the cable providers like DirectTV and cut their channels until the deal is settled. The providers have very little wiggle room in that regard, they almost always have to bend to their demands.

The thing I was trying to convey, is that this has already happened and game publishers have witnessed it. So they saw Netflix get a great deal, they've seen DirectTV get a great deal and they too will want a fantastic deal.

The idea about tiers "kind of" works, but again, with gaming it's different. As I said, film is timeless. Movies from the 60s, 70s still look good and hold up for the most part.

Games from PS1 and PS2 are...ehhhh, kind of OK at times....SORT OF.

There are literally 10's of thousands of films that don't get sequels. If a game is successful, it's almost guaranteed to get a sequel. And those sequels are significantly better from a production standpoint.

Playing GT2 or even A-Spec is kind of irrelevant when you have GT5 and GT6 who not only have better models, but more content and better gameplay, for the most part.

PSNow is great for nostalgia and playing older games everyone loved. But I don't see the pricing model of rentals or even subs the correct approach.

Personally, I think MS is going to announce a Cloud Streaming Service next month and not do a sub. They announced at the Win10 event, like a "one store to rule them all", type of approach.

I'm not sure if you have Windows 8 on your PC or Tablet or what not, but if you look at the Xbox Store, it has GTA: SA, for $6.99.

$7 is what? A week rental on PSNow? Imagine being able to own it for $7 and stream it to all your devices.

That, to me, is the correct approach. Publishers price the product what they want, and are given a percentage of each game sale, no different than digital type stuff.

MS takes the loss here, having to spend on bandwidth and stuff, but they get you in the ecosystem. And can keep you in the ecosystem.

This idea of renting/subs work for film. Gaming is a different beast with infinitely more problems, one of them being, alot more gate-keepers to deal with from a platform standpoint.

TheDivine1452d ago

Onlive was able to offer a thousand games on a subscription. A small no name company did it, what makes you think Sony couldn't? Old games don't sell anyways and if they do its used disks at gamestop so publishers may as well offer up a few dozen last gen games for a small percentage or lump sum. Couple that with every first party Sony title and there's your library.

As it grows Sony can reinvest the profits for more games and the occasional newer titles/indies and its a viable option for the vast majority of folks who just want to log in, browse, and play a game. It will be a billion dollar industry just like movie streaming EVENTUALLY. This is the first baby step and sets up Sony to have name recognition and the networks laid out. Onlive was the shit but five years too early. They really did have an excellent library.

For me I buy games physically to collect them but I would gladly pay 10 bucks for a large library at my fingertips. There's something great about having a huge library always available, even if 90% is old crap you wouldn't watch or play. There's so much there's always something to find and enjoy.

The pay for hours is DOA though. Maybe a three day rental for 5-7 bucks would do well but the pricing is terrible for the moment.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1452d ago
Gamer19821454d ago

Subscription wont happen until the ps3 sales die off and they stop producing it, thus game sales will finally die. As people still buy games so why would devs go with the sub model when they can still make money from sales?? However once the consoles sales are gone and people can only rely on pre-owned the devs will be begging for Sony to give them money for allowing access to their back catalogues.

Qrphe1454d ago

Prices are ridiculous, I'm sure they're will aware of this but are probably just testing the model itself.

Gamer19821454d ago

Indeed it's a brand new model but with PS3 still selling a few million consoles each year they cannot do a subscription model or give them for cheap.

Rimeskeem1454d ago

Make a well priced subscription and you got something amazing

Special-Agent-Milo1454d ago (Edited 1454d ago )

I don't mind the price, what bothers me is the incredible lag I got when I tried to play RE5. I'm connected via Ethernet cable and the best my internet does is 14.9mbps download and 1.2mbps upload.

SouljAx3601454d ago

RE5 is the game I was curious to test out on there as well. Mercenaries was unplayable with my 30Mbps down 5Mbps up connection. Even though it looked okay that game requires near perfect input, and the delay on the input was about a full second.

Show all comments (47)
The story is too old to be commented.