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.

[Kingthrash360]

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.

[DonDon]

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.

[4Sh0w]

"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.

[SpiralTear]

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

[princejb134]

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_Writer85]

"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.

[Darkstares]

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.

[Christopher]

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.

[donthate]

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.

[Christopher]

***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.

[donthate]

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_x]

BETA is for refining software.

Not gouging wallets..

[TimeSkipLuffy]

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!

[SpinalRemains138]

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.

[TheFanboySlayer]

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

[Testfire]

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.

[mrpsychoticstalker]

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.

[Christopher]

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.

[Insomnia_84]

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.

[dcj0524]

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

[DonDon]

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.

[memots]

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.

[Death]

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.

[DanielGearSolid]

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....

[Christopher]

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.

[caseh]

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.

[DanielGearSolid]

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

[Death]

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.

[authentic]

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.

[dcj0524]

this right here.

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

[shivvy24]

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

[Rimeskeem]

a monthly subscription would make anyones day

[Death]

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.

[MonstaTruk]

Okay. Let's call out some people/notions real quick about PS Now. Do you guys know what service it is in competition with, at the moment? Gamefly. Gamefly charges $22.95/month for the rental of 2 *somewhat* dated games, kinda like PS Now. And that's been THRIVING for Gamefly. But PS Now, with the ultimate idea of 3 generations of Playstation game libraries realized in the future and a (hopefully) unlimited access subscription model coming, how is this so much a *BAD* deal? If you can't afford it, then say that. But...please. Just stop and THINK: how much does any one else charge to rent a game (not a MOVIE, a GAME) for a week? SONY doesn't need this vitriol from it's own fanbase because they're trying to pave the way for gaming with new technologies/opportunities, as SONY does best. And if you're just that hard-up about "SONY's screwing me!", then take your sorry @$$ across the street then (Microsoft), and get the EA Access. Those two lovebirds could use the help right about now, from what I've been told (VGChartz)... :-/

[DonDon]

Just because other companies overcharge for the RENTAL of games doesn't justify it nor does it entice potential future customers any more than buying-to-own a game would. Two wrongs don't make it right...why should one be considered "unable to afford" the service simply because they see no value in paying for the rental of a game that they could indefinately OWN forever if they just purchased it on ps store or went to gamestop? Even Donald Trump with all his money wouldn't even see value in such a proposition of rental when he could own it. That's why he stays having money in his pocket. So if you want to equate one's non-complience to price gouging as somehow being frugal or financially poor, than by all means be a clown who pays more to rent rather than own. A fool and his money are soon parted; and if a company can get rich off of a dumb-dumb who can justify paying more to rent when he could pay less to own, than all power to that company. It weeds out the stupid in a world full of enabling clowns, leaving the rest of us to sort things out for the better again. The thinker will vote with his wallet, and the corporation will need to re-adjust if they want their own wallets to stay full too. But you can enjoy having a hole in your pocket. I'll opt for ownership instead.

Finally, keep in mind that rental store prices are for newer games too. Paying those prices for 4 year old ps3 games is just dumb when I could take out a ps4 blu ray for the same cost.

[andibandit]

Gamefly is too expensive as well...Defending a product "X" by highlighting that all other products are equally bad or worse, does not make "X" good........

[MonstaTruk]

@andibandit

But who DO you compare the service to, if not to Gamefly? What other game rental service would like to compare the PS Now to, that reveals how SH*TTY the PS Now service is? Anyone? NO ONE. And, as I said earlier, the PS Now is only going to get better (restoring servers to some games would be a GODSEND). There's so much more potential with PS Now over EA Access, Gamefly, Blockbuster Online, whatever.

And the prices? The MARKET establishes prices. If my competition is giving product X for $10, unless I convince the public that my product is SUPERIOR, I have to undercut the price of $10. If everyone is selling your make/model/year/condition car for $5000, you'd sell yours for $1000 because...it's fair? You wouldn't price your car based off of market value? :-/

And finally...it's a CHOICE (unlike how Microsoft had intended the Xbox One). If you REALLY don't like anything that SONY has done with the PS Now, then...*sighs!*...keep buying new/preowned games! No big deal...

You don't agree?

[Nicominoru]

To be honest I used to feel like it was expensive too, but I realized something while staring at the prices today and it's that the only one that doesn't make since is the 4 hour one...they should just get rid of it it's pretty much useless, but 5.99 for a 7 day rental and so on is just fine.

There is a Family Video down my street where it's 4.99 to rent games for 5 days. By comparison if it was a normal rental store the prices would be just fine. I don't know maybe people these days feel like they are entitled to have everything for dirt cheap.

I'm sure someone will say I'm damage controlling Sony or a fanboy or fangirl, but whatever the truth is I probably will never use PS Now because I don't have a reason to, but 5.99 to keep a game rented out for 7 days isn't overpriced.

If they discounted the prices for PS+ users that would make it better, but I'm done on this topic.

[EData]

And why do those brick and mortar stores go out of business? The value of Netflix is so much better than going to a video rental store and paying 4 dollars for a movie rental, same thing will apply for game streaming. Sony wants to compete with game rental stores by charging as much or worse? That is not a good look for them.

[ZombieGamerMan]

Pricing is not the issue, those stores could very well charge a $1 for a whole week of rental and it would still go out of business because people want convenience.

PS Now is in a good spot regardless of pricing because there is no hassle in getting the game to the players hands also. I want to state that @Nicominoru is one of the few people here who seems to actually have some common sense.

The 4 hour one is terrible but everything else is fine like seriously how are you going to argue that $15 for 3 months is too much. I seriously dare you to find a better deal in terms of rental.

[Death]

Most gamers can beat a game in less than 3 months. Most of these games can also be found for less than $15 used and in some cases new. $15 to own the game vs $15 to rent the game with less resolution/clearity and lag doesn't sound as exciting.

[TheOneWhoIsTornApart]

Why not just a monthly subscription of say $11.00-$15.00 and make it like Netflix where we can choose from a huge library of video games?. The way they have it now is ridiculous.

[USMC_POLICE]

Agree. 100% that or yearly

[EData]

$14.99 monthly or $59.99 yearly seems fair to me, and they would be making enough on the service to provide good content.

[Death]

They wouldn't make enough. There are two sides to this service. $15 a month for unlimited access to 122 games is ridiculous. Sony nor their publishing partners would recoup their money lost to physical sales. Too many of you look at PSNow as purely suppimental. Many gamers will choose to wait and play on PSNow instead of buying the newest games. This service will compete with gamers dollars that would be used to buy new products.

[Manubiggs]

how about $5 subscription fee for a month or $30 for a year ... or is that not good value

[extermin8or]

Depends if what you get for that is yearly titles a year out of date and a slight discount off of new titles digitally which are overpriced by said publisher and more money can be saved by buying them at retail. Then no not good value.

[Whirlwind_Fanfare_08]

Subscription please! i don't wanna pay for any of those deals.

[OUROSMAG]

It's also still in beta, prices are subject to change.. people really need to quit making a snap judgement based on shit that is a work in progress.

[chaosx]

will you get a refund for the difference of a price drop on any purchases you make in the " BETA"?

NO !!!!

So the term Beta is used as a form of protection for limited liability , if this was a real stress test for the network , they would have made a few titles free to try.

This is a way for Sony to test the water with the PS4 owner without having the balls to stand up and say this the price ! either like it it or lump it. But they are so scared of negative backlash they have to spin it with the term " beta ".

[plmkoh]

" they would have made a few titles free to try."

They did during closed beta.

"This is a way for Sony to test the water with the PS4 owner without having the balls to stand up and say this the price ! either like it it or lump it."

Isn't that the definition of a beta?

Looks like gamers these days put too much emphasis on beta builds being 'complete' products, it's no wonder they go bat crap over preorders.

[OUROSMAG]

There are free titles, I was playing one earlier today.

[mwjw696]

The problem is Home is still in BETA! If you want to call this a beta then stop over charging people.

[chaosx]

It will be hard for them to match the prices of an EA system. EA is piggy backing on an existing service for download. Sony forked out something like 300 million for the PS Now service. They need to recoup costs and are hoping the Momentum the PS4 has would have people happy to pay the prices listed. And they would have !, if EA had not piped up and become a fly in the ointment.
Even the most diehard Sony fans are seeing the pricing as a stopping point. They can't drop the prices much lower as it would eat into the profits they are currently enjoying from PS +.
PSNow will only survive as it stands if the price drops, and Sony can not afford that .
IF this EA subscription jumped on the 360 , and showed a good profit, others will jump on the bandwagon and that will be the end of PS Now.

[Kingoftherodeo]

i agree with you i can see xbox making other deals to get more subscription services to their console. they don't really have to make big profit from the subscripion but making some profit and having it exclusive on your console would deff get gamers to come on over to xbox. thats where they would get their profit

[jujubee88]

*finger tent*

Yes. YES. Keep complaining.

For when I get to play these games for the first time ever on my $99 PS TV it will all the more sweeter at half the price. Muhahaha!

[ruefrak]

Exactly. This service is designed to allow you to play games that aren't native to your system so the complaints about "I could buy it for less" really don't make sense. Sure you could buy a used copy of the game for less but then what do you play it on?

I just wish they would remove the 90 day option because it's that price which everyone seems to latch onto. You're not going to rent a six hour game and keep it for 90 days. You don't rent a movie for 90 days. A lot of the games being offered are perfect for renting for a week, completing, and then never playing them again. And you get them at a fraction of the price.

[Pinkdolphinyfg]

Nows Sony's chance to really stick it to EA and counter their service with a better one, hopefully their arrogance doesn't come back to haunt them.

[Bennibop]

The two services do not even compare. EA's will only ever feature there own games.

[Spotie]

What arrogance?

[ZombieGamerMan]

God people stop complaining about the pricing, it is not too expensive unless you expected to be charged a dollar for 6 months and if that's the case you are the unreasonable one.

$6 for 7 days is good, better than any rental offer, even gamefly charges over $20 for 2 games a month, with PS Now 2 games a month is $16. The only badly priced rental is the 4 hour one.

[Dudebro90]

Gamefly offers disc games that are also new games, as well as old.

No lag or crappy latency due to network problems.

[Bennibop]

Instead of moaning on N4G try be more constructive and do it on the official NOW forums

http://community.us.playsta...

[Aceman18]

Amazing isn't it? They said at E3 that customer feedback is important to them on this service, and instead of voicing concern there where it would actually help there here complaining about it.

If this isn't backwards I don't know what is lol.

I just voiced my concerns about the pricing on the official forum now here's hoping they'll read it along it with others, and make the changes we want.

[TimeSkipLuffy]

PSNow is obviously not targeting gamers that have been gaming since PS1, PS2 or PS3. They are targeting those who started with PS4 or only plan to play on Vita or PSTV.

Especially PS TV owners will benefit because they don't need to buy the console to play many many PS3 games now.

[Father__Merrin]

it's too expensive, I would rather just buy a pre owned physical copy thanks. ps now is an excellent idea but will fall flat due to pricing

[SynestheticRoar]

W@W. Saw the cost of some of those games and I was scared. I really don't know what they were thinking. I wish them luck. Let's hope for the best.

[bez87]

Playstation Now is highly priced, but it is in Beta so prices don't reflect the final product, this said, I honestly believe the only way it will actually grab anyones attention is by offering a full Subscription fee of £5 a month and that's it, anymore and no one will be bothered, end of the day half the games you can get for that price anyway, so it needs to be a subscription or no one will buy into renting just 1 game, otherwise if they don't match pricing from renting companies then it's dead before it even comes out. just my opinion anyway

[Mithan]

The only prices I find kinda-somewhat-reasonable are the 7 day prices, provided you have the time to finish a game in that 7 days, but then I would only pay that for a NEW game, instead of renting it. The rest are stupid. $4 for 4 hours? Ya..um no.

These are old games. Give us a flat rate like Netflix or whatever. If anything, Sony will also benefit from it, because most people will see greater value. I have a Netflix subscription and I don't even watch the damn thing, but because it costs so little, I never cancel it. I did the same thing with World of Warcraft for years too.

[mhunterjr]

The ps4 is capable of playing blu-Ray and DVDs. Why can't Sony just charge, a yearly fee for the ability to play stream old games, Provided you put the old disk in the disk drive.

Say, I want to play Uncharted 1. I put it in my Ps4, the ps4 recognizes what it is, and streams the game to me from PSNow. It's a perfectly feesible solution. And it doesn't see people renting games at ridiculous prices.

[RosweeSon]

Yet it's also still a loooong way from release clues in the name, Beta! Not that this is the final product or these prices are set in stone, seriously nothing better to do than argue about prices that aren't even confirmed? Crazy.